Talk:Iraq War

Baghdad

US Forces are still in Baghdad. I know because I have been there.205.110.156.226 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 8 July 2009.

Jewish Neocon Cabinet members pushing for war

I would like to add some of this. Does anyone have a problem with this. Speak up then. There is some mention that David Perle wanted war with Iraq. My question is if the Neocons pushed Bush for this war? There is no mention in the article.

A list of Jews that wanted war with Iraq. Source http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bushlist.htm

--Ericg33 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the long list copied from the above site, per talk page guidelines. The site in question does not meet the reliable sources requirements, and the page title ("The JEWS who Run Bush and the USA: AMERICA'S RULERS - Are They All Jews? Is this like the Jewish Administration of Hitler's Germany?") clearly demonstrates the POV at work here. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia does not permit the use of the site for pushing personal opinions or agendas. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it's pretty obvious that "biblebelievers" isn't a reliable source. Besides, if you want to talk about religious motivations for the war, Bush was read quotes from the Christian bible beforehand, and that is documented in reliable sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Even more to the point, the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of individuals involved in unnecessary invading and destroying Iraq are totally irrelevant. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Selective use of source materials

No time to talk about the bias in this article in general, but an extremely obvious example can be shown in just one entry in the Public Opion on the War | Iraqi Opinion. Many examples are given of Iraqi discontent with the occupation forces and the invasion, but an obvious example of internally conflicting attitudes from the same opinion poll are not given. For example:

Referenced opinion: "78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces is making things worse"

Unreferenced opinion from the same poll: "How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"

Leave now: 35%

Remain: 66% (includes "until: security is restored; the Iraqi government is stronger; until Iraqi security forces can operate dependently; longer but leave eventually; and never leave)

So while the referenced sections of the poll give the obviously intended impression that Iraqis want the coalition forces out of Iraq the actual question regarding this opinion in the poll shows overwhelming attitude that the coalition forces should remain - but isn't mentioned.

This poll isn't at all "flattering" (for lack of a better term) to Iraqi opinion of the coalition forces but, unless a balanced representation of the findings of the poll is going to be presented, the poll and information derived from it should be removed.

I'd also add, and this has nothing to do with this page, that although I think the poll itself looks fairly reasonable (there are certainly polls that aren't) there are some glaringly bad questions in the cited poll. For instance, Question 31 asks: "How safe do you feel in your neighborhood? Do you feel very safe, not very safe, or not safe at all?" What an appalingly bad selection of answers! I have certainly lived, for most of my life, in areas that I felt safe in. Since I've been an adult, however, I can't honestly say that I considered most of the places I have lived to be "very safe." Despite that, 26% of Iraqi's said "very safe" and 41% said "not very safe." Given those choices I'd be forced to pick "not very safe" for many of the places I've lived as an adult. Yet I hardly expect that there are many places in Iraq as safe as most of the places I've lived. If they'd instead, like most of the rest of the questions, set up four selections: "very safe, safe, unsafe, very unsafe" I wonder how many of the 41% that chose "not very safe" would have chosen "safe."
--65.202.227.65 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)mjd

I've added the first bit of info you suggested. Though I don't know what we should do about the other poll. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm....delete it? Or at least put in a citation needed tag.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First time commenting so apologies if I do this incorrectly... But, along the same lines, the first section of the article "2001–2003: Iraq disarmament crisis and pre-war intelligence" references "a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration." This also seems be implied allegation by omission, since the documents there referenced (http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml) include general national maps of Iraq, Saudi Arabian and UAE petroleum development allotments and simply a list of contemporary 2001 lessees for exploration and development... Not exactly the waiting-in-the-wings Cheney clique exploitation that the comment and its prominent mention implies.Yossarianpvp (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of implications...what? I totally don't get what the complaint is. Be a bit more explicit, please. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

iraqi on a leash

now before someone accuses me of being a right-wing nazi bush lover klansman, I would like to point out my concern here is for the poor fellow without any clothes, for his sake, I suggest we remove the picture. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a compelling case to remove the photo on BLP grounds. It's a tragic and integral chapter of the handling of the war and I don't seek to censor that fact in the article. However, gratuitous use of such a photo, particularly with identifying characteristics (though even if blurred) would seem to have a continuing offensive effect. It's one thing to make Lyndie England the poster girl for the bizarre disconnect with responsibility that was apparently endemic within a certain contingency there, and I have no quarrel with that. But it's another thing entirely to make the naked man the poster boy for the way Americans are desensitized to human dignity as well as serve to exploit him in perpetuity and use Wikipedia as a vehicle for said exploitation. Any thoughts before such removal? Abrazame (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, remove it. V7-sport (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

 Done Abrazame (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Resolved

 – Swarm^Talk 22:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Under "Preparations for War" it mentions the amount of ordnance, but it spells it "ordinance" ... this is a common spelling mistake. 174.3.202.175 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Naming disparities between first, second, third gulf war

I've brought this up in wiki's IRC chans and such, but as far as I know, most college IR textbooks and publications present this as the Third Gulf War. Calling it the "second" gulf war is not a neutral POV, it's a very Americanized view to disregard the first gulf war (the Iran-Iraq war). All three are connected fairly well from a foreign policy perspective and are presented as such. I have sources from textbooks and publications like Foreign Affairs. I really don't want to make all these revisions without agreement and consensuses without the community since these are all protected articles. But as time has past and history is being written on this I think it would be apropos to come to an agreement on wikipedia since as time passes the first/second/third view has taken favor among scholars not just because of its neutral/natural POV, but it is also frequently presented this way in IR circles since they are all connected. Thoughts? --Tunafizzle (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't represent an Americanized view, it represents a general world view. The Iran-Iraq war was known as the Gulf War or the Persian Gulf War by most of the world until "Desert Storm" in 1990. This became known as the "Gulf War", while the old Gulf War generally became known as the "Iran-Iraq War" by the rest of the world. Around the time of the 2003 invasion, "Second Gulf War" saw some moderate usage in the media, but that pretty much died out. I've never seen it referred to as the "Third Gulf War" in any books, in the media, and certainly not in any common usage. Including "Second Gulf War" in the intro seems borderline-undue weight as it is, so I would venture to say including "Third Gulf War" in the article would totally be undue weight. Swarm^Talk 04:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt input on the matter; with that I think I should reframe my question. While it is clear the media and general public (still moreso in the U.S. and less and Arabic/Persian circles) regard this as "gulf war 2", scholars and IR circles tend to lean toward a "third gulf war" approach. I guess my question would really be are we, here an wikipedia, here to adhere to scholarly guidelines or guidelines that would serve the general public? My thought is if its a scholarly approach then it should, with little doubt, be "gulf 3"(which I would attest plentiful sources to support). If it's in the best interest of the general public (for the time being) to go with "gulf 2"? --Tunafizzle (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oil contracts

I believe it is worth mentioning that the US received only a very small share of the oil contracts. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BB18Q20091212

A few more things: Under the 'Criticisms and costs' section, the statement 'Many soldiers came to oppose the invasion, especially after the administration's claims that Iraq held WMD turned out to be entirely false.' is unsourced and vague. How many are many soldiers? I doubt they are that many.

A few thousand out of 1.5 Million doesn't qualify as many.

And further down ' Criticisms include: [...] Disruption of Iraqi oil production and related energy security concerns (the price of oil has quadrupled since 2002)[290][291]" This statement might be somewhat misleading. As of 2009 oil prices were back to normal. Current increase in oil prices (2010) can not be solely attributed to the the war in Iraq. 89.136.45.121 (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks video in coalition forces human rights abuses section

Is there a reason why this is not mentioned? [1] Pexise (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

More detail on the incident, July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike. Pexise (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When Iraq war will be finished

What shall the article say about the war time (2003 - present) when is the war done? "September 1, 2010 U.S. forces cease all combat operations, i.e. patrolling, serving arrest warrants, route clearance, etc, and transition to a pure advise, train and assist role. Operation Iraqi Freedom is officially concluded, and the advise and assist mission continues under Operation New Dawn. Approximately 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Should we say the war is done 1. September, or when ALL US troops are out of Iraq? 85.165.197.102 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are going with the latter, we need to detach the term 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' from the War as a whole, since that operation will conclude on August 31. 109.155.186.36 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the conclusion of an Operation is not synonymous with the conclusion of a war. War being the more general term in which multiple operations may occur. However, I think it's somewhat debatable as to whether the cessation of combat operations should be considered the end of the War. We still maintained presence in Korea long after the war officially ended. IN this case, there is probably not going to be an armistice, or surrender, etc, as there is not an organized enemy state. SO the question is, how do you define the end of a counter-insurgency type war? For internal consistency, I think the way the Vietnam War is dated may be a good way to address this issue. Otherwise, i think you could probably make subjective arguments either way; i.e., that either the continued large presence during a time of conflict means continued participation in a war, or that discontinuing combat is the same thing as withdrawal. I would lean to the former, because lack of aggressive action does not guarantee there will be a lack of defensive combat operations/security operations. Just my 2 cents.Jbower47 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The operation Iraqi Freedom, was a part of the Iraq war. Is not the ongoing "new" operation, Operation New Dawn, also a part of this war? I think when the US stop all its operations, including New Dawn, is a more correct approach of when this war is absolutely ended. That would be in December 2011. In an earlier cas, September 1st would be a good choice; "September 1, 2010 U.S. forces cease all combat operations, i.e. patrolling, serving arrest warrants, route clearance, etc, and transition to a pure advise, train and assist role. Operation Iraqi Freedom is officially concluded, and the advise and assist mission continues under Operation New Dawn". - Jørgen88 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Logically, the Iraq War comes to an end when the violence/insurgency ends, whenever the US is involved or not. The war is more about Iraq than it is about the USA. Yonaka (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Iraq didn't invade Iraq. Jørgen88 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The invasion enden in May 2001, so that's hardly relevant. Yonaka (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When Iraq war will be finished

The graph of troop casualties since the surge needs to be updated. It ends two years ago and the effects of the surge can be better evaluated with readily available data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.189.120 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

War Not Over

This is a scam. The US is not the sole participant--DAI (Δ) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

violence continues--DAI (Δ) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should say that it is over according to one side, but (according to my knowledge) not the other.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Operation New Dawn (the one in Afghanistan)

It should probably be noted that there was another "Operation New Dawn" launched in Afghanistan in June 2010, see [2]. There is barely any coverage of it though compared to the Iraq training mission, so currently Operation New Dawn still redirects here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Casualty update?

When can we expect a proper and final-ish estimate? Bahahs (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)