Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Booked
Sharpnova (talk | contribs)
13 edits
←Replaced content with 'Saddam Hussein was a dickhead. Discuss.'
Line 1: Line 1:
Saddam Hussein was a dickhead.
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{notaforum|personal opinions on the [[Iraq War]], or personal political viewpoints or statements of any kind}}
{{calm talk}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WPMILHIST|class=B||B-1=y|B-2=n|B-3=y|B-4=y|B-5=y|US=y|Middle-Eastern=y}}
{{WP Iraq|class = B|importance =Top}}
{{WPKU|class = B|importance = High}}
{{Global perspective task force}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Socsci}}
{{WPARAB|class = B|importance =}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=September 1, 2006
|action1result=failed
|action1link=/Archive 4#GAC
|action1oldid=73281431
|action2=GAN
|action2date=February 14, 2007
|action2result=failed
|action2oldid=107945964
|action2link=/Archive 10#GA nomination on hold
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{todo|collapsed=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 21
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Mergefrom | 2003 in Iraq| 2003 Iraq war timeline| discuss=Talk:2003_Iraq_war_timeline#Proposed_Page_Merge| date=October 2009}}
{{mbox|text=Please [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War&action=edit&section=new start new sections] at the bottom of the page.}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=30|target=Talk:Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d|dounreplied=yes|bot=MiszaBot I}}
{{ITNtalk|1 September|2010}}


Discuss.
== Baghdad ==

US Forces are still in Baghdad. I know because I have been there.[[Special:Contributions/205.110.156.226|205.110.156.226]] ([[User talk:205.110.156.226|talk]])<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 11:23, 8 July 2009.</span><!--Template:Undated-->

== 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

--[[User:Ericg33|Ericg33]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:RS|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. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 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. [[User:AzureFury|'''<span style="color:blue">Azure</span><span style="color:red">Fury</span>''']] ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|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. [[User:DOR (HK)|DOR (HK)]] ([[User talk: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:<br />

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"<br />

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

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.<br />

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.<br />

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." <br />--[[Special:Contributions/65.202.227.65|65.202.227.65]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:AzureFury|'''<span style="color:blue">Azure</span><span style="color:red">Fury</span>''']] ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|contribs]]) 17:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
::Umm....delete it? Or at least put in a citation needed tag.--[[user:White Shadows|<font style="color:#191970">'''White Shadows'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:White Shadows|<font style="color:#DC143C">'''you're breaking up'''</font>]]</sup> 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.[[User:Yossarianpvp|Yossarianpvp]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:AzureFury|'''<span style="color:blue">Azure</span><span style="color:red">Fury</span>''']] ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|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. [[Special:Contributions/67.176.160.47|67.176.160.47]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 03:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
::I agree, remove it. [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 01:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
:::{{done}} [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 01:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

== Spelling mistake ==

{{resolved| [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><b>Swarm</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 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. [[Special:Contributions/174.3.202.175|174.3.202.175]] ([[User talk: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?
--[[User:Tunafizzle|Tunafizzle]] ([[User talk: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'' "[[Persian Gulf War|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-[[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] as it is, so I would venture to say including "Third Gulf War" in the article would totally be undue weight. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><b>Swarm</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 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"?
--[[User:Tunafizzle|Tunafizzle]] ([[User talk: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 <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BB18Q20091212</ref>

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.

<ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_troops_have_served_in_Iraq_from_March_2003_to_March_2008 </ref>
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 (<b>the price of oil has quadrupled since 2002</b>)[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.
[[Special:Contributions/89.136.45.121|89.136.45.121]] ([[User talk: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? [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikileaks#Baghdad_airstrike_video] [[User:Pexise|Pexise]] ([[User talk:Pexise|talk]]) 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

More detail on the incident, [[July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike]]. [[User:Pexise|Pexise]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/85.165.197.102|85.165.197.102]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/109.155.186.36|109.155.186.36]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Jbower47|Jbower47]] ([[User talk: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". - [[User:Jørgen88|Jørgen88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Yonaka|Yonaka]] ([[User talk:Yonaka|talk]]) 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Iraq didn't invade Iraq. [[User:Jørgen88|Jørgen88]] ([[User talk:Jørgen88|talk]]) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::The invasion enden in May 2001, so that's hardly relevant. [[User:Yonaka|Yonaka]] ([[User talk:Yonaka|talk]]) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::But the violence that exists is Iraqi on Iraqi violence, which certainty existed before the invasion. To say that the war is over only when all violence ceases is ridiculous. It is like saying World War 2 is ongoing because someone got mugged in Tokyo.[[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

== 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.95.189.120|70.95.189.120]] ([[User talk:70.95.189.120|talk]]) 22:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== War Not Over ==

This is a scam. The US is not the sole participant--[[User:De Administrando Imperio|<font color="#003399">D'''A'''</font><font color="red">I</font>]] ([[User talk:De Administrando Imperio|'''Δ''']]) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:violence continues--[[User:De Administrando Imperio|<font color="#003399">D'''A'''</font><font color="red">I</font>]] ([[User talk:De Administrando Imperio|'''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!
::[[User:Aua|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;</font><font color="red">u</font><font color="gray">α</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]])</small></sup> 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
::Agreed, the war is not over just because Obama redefined 50K troops as "transitional," who just happen to be carrying out combat. Not to mention the ~50K army planned by the State Dept. This is propaganda. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.194.19.90|68.194.19.90]] ([[User talk:68.194.19.90|talk]]) 23:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::It ended on August 19, 2010 ==> What the Pentagon calls "combat operations" ended on August 19, 2010 [[User:Geo8rge|Geo8rge]] ([[User talk:Geo8rge|talk]]) 09:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
::::No. There has been another act of violence http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE67J0YF.htm BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed two people and wounded six in Baghdad's southern district of Doura, police said. --[[User:De Administrando Imperio|<font color="#003399">D'''A'''</font><font color="red">I</font>]] ([[User talk:De Administrando Imperio|'''Δ''']]) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
::I agree. It's POV to say the war is over simply because the Pentagon/White House says it's over. There are 50,000 troops left in Iraq, plus military contractors/mercenaries. By declaring the war to be over, Wikipedia is effectively acting as a mouthpiece for one side in a propaganda war. I move that this sentence be changed to the following: "As of August 19, 2010, approximately 50,000 U.S. troops remain. They are required to leave by 31 December, 2011." [[User:Fumoses|Fumoses]] ([[User talk:Fumoses|talk]]) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTCto state that the war is officially over.

What is the evidence that the war is over? That citation alone from the Washington Post is not enough as it relies too heavily human interest story style quotes from soldiers and very little analysis or officials from experts, government officials, and others. Angela Keaton 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Angela Keaton

The war is over? Might want to tell Petraeus that, because apparently it's [http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/19/petraeus-were-not-leaving-iraq/ news to him]. [[User:MinnesotanConfederacy|Josh]] ([[User talk:MinnesotanConfederacy|talk]]) 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The remaining troops in Iraq are there to train Iraqi soldiers and police. America is no longer conducting ''combat'' operations, and thus is no longer fighting the war. [[Civil War in Iraq]], however, is still continuing, albeit with the government side aided and funded by the United States. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.4.196.248|85.4.196.248]] ([[User talk:85.4.196.248|talk]]) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::This is incorrect. US troops will indeed be conducting combat operations which will simply be termed training or transitional or whatever meaningless or half-true label the administration cares to give it. In fact, one soldier died today already. We will see, as the days wear on from when the "withdrawal" was announced, that the government's stenographers at the newspapers will begin using these terms to describe what is clearly ongoing combat. [[Special:Contributions/68.194.19.90|68.194.19.90]] ([[User talk:68.194.19.90|talk]]) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::The ''Army Times'' notes that combat troops are indeed still in Iraq, although now they are attached to non-combat arms divisions as "Advise and Assist Brigades." See Brannen, Kate. "Combat brigades in Iraq under different name." ''Army Times''. 21 August 2010. [http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/dn-brigades-stay-under-different-name-081910/] [[User:DickClarkMises|DickClarkMises]] ([[User talk:DickClarkMises|talk]]) 00:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Iraq war ended on May 1, 2003. Several other language versions of this article have this date also, see German, French, Dutch. There are separate articles on the "ongoing occupation of Iraq". [[User:JPprivate|JPprivate]] ([[User talk:JPprivate|talk]]) 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)JPprivate
::Major combat has been over for ages, including counterinsurgency operations. It progressed into an occupation which is itself winding down. Bu comparison World War 2 in the Pacific theater ended on August 14, 1945, but the USA had a military occupation of Japan until 1952 and still maintains American troops on Japanese soil. West Germany was occupied until 1955 and it too still has US troops on it's soil. The Russians stayed until 1991. Considering that coalition objectives were met, that there are less occupation troops as there were at the end of the occupations of axis powers in WW2 and that the forces that are there are under the [[SOFA]] agreement calling it over and a "coalition victory" is overdue. [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 06:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

:::Why would it be a coalition victory? The bare fact that they are withdrawing doesn't mean they are victorious. The Nazis also withdrew from the territories they had occupied <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.216.156.67|89.216.156.67]] ([[User talk:89.216.156.67|talk]]) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Because the objectives of the coalition have been met. Comparison to the NAZIs is repugnant. [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

== Operation New Dawn (the one in Afghanistan) ==

It should probably be noted that there was another "[[Operation New Dawn (War in Afghanistan)|Operation New Dawn]]" launched in Afghanistan in June 2010, see [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Military_operations_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29&action=historysubmit&diff=379811516&oldid=377969766]. There is barely any coverage of it though compared to the Iraq training mission, so currently [[Operation New Dawn]] still redirects here. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

== Casualty update? ==

When can we expect a proper and final-ish estimate? [[User:Bahahs|Bahahs]] ([[User talk:Bahahs|talk]]) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:US troops killed in Iraq: 4 419 [http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/19/iraq.u.s..troops/index.html?hpt=T2#fbid=DA0yttZ-yPG&wom=false]. [[User:Jørgen88|Jørgen88]] ([[User talk:Jørgen88|talk]]) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

== Iraq War end date debate ==
According to wiktionary war is a large scale organized use of physical force. The Iraq war ended in 2003 about 40 days after it began. War has a real meaning, and its disengenuous to call any and all armed conflict "war." Further, the conclusion of war does not necessarily mean all conflict has ended. Post-war periods are often violent and bloody, just not with the scale or organization of actual warfare. For perspective, consider examples further removed from the present to reduce clouding the issue with emotion. the post-American-Civil-War period known as reconstruction was fractious and frequently violent. Nonetheless it has never been considered war. The French Revolution was famously violent, but history does not consider it to be a war until the forces of the French Revolutionary Government began fighting with armed forces of other nations. You can argue when the Iraq war ended exactly, as in which day was it, but it's completely incorrect to claim it extended to 2004. The current article discusses the Iraq War and a period of Iraq's history following the war. That's a fine topic, for an article, but it's not what the title claims its about. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.231.96.94|71.231.96.94]] ([[User talk:71.231.96.94|talk]]) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Yes we are having a lot of trouble defining the official end date of the Iraq War.<br>
U.S. announced and did the final withdrawal of the combat troops in August 19, 2010. However, will this make the official end date for the Iraq War? Or anyone has a source that shows U.S. official concluded the war as of August 19th? It is told that the Operation Iraqi Freedom will be changed or transfered to the Operation New Dawn in September 1, 2010, which means that Operation Iraqi Freedom is valid until the August 31, 2010. If the OIF is equal to the Iraq War, then the war's end date will be August 31st. However, if we say OIF as part of the entire war and include OND as part of the war as well, then Iraq War is not over. Anyone has any idea or source (official from the United States government) that shows the official end date of the war? [[User:Kadrun|Kadrun]] ([[User talk:Kadrun|talk]]) 09:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:: I can't imagine why official anything would matter. This is not the article on any particular United States operation. This is an article about the war happening in a country called Iraq. If hostilities even involving the US were over, then we could term the war over at least for the US. But this is not the case so it doesn't matter what the Pentagon says. Remove the "end war" date or this article is incorrect. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.194.19.90|68.194.19.90]] ([[User talk:68.194.19.90|talk]]) 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::The war is not over just because of US domestic politics requires a lower amount of US troops present. The war is simply entering a different phase--similar to the May 1 Bush declaration of end of major combat operations. That declaration was followed by many years of conflict. This is the same issue. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Operation New Dawn" will still be a part of the "Iraq War", just less troops, the war will not be over until ALL US Troops leave Iraq <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.98.40.217|76.98.40.217]] ([[User talk:76.98.40.217|talk]]) 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I think the Iraq War is over, but insurgency in Iraq continues and that should be a separate article similar to [[Mexican Drug Wars]] and [[War in North-West Pakistan]]. -- Love, [[User:Smurfy|Smurfy]] 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazing how many people here think the war is not over until 1. All US troops have left Iraq and 2. There are no more 'acts of violence' in the country. Emotions seem to run high over this issue, but saying that the war ended when Bush declared 'mission accomplished', and what has been happening since is an 'insurgency' is not spreading American propaganda. Nobody is claiming that there's anything better about an insurgency than there is about a war. It is a simple matter of definitions: when you are fighting government-to-government, you have a war. When you are fighting government-to-non-state actors, you have a rebellion/insurgency/guerrilla war/'police action'/etc. To say that the war ended in 2003 is not controversial in any circles except (apparently) Wikipedia. There are many people who are incensed about the invasion of Iraq who would simply tell you that it's irrelevant whether it's considered a war or not after March 2003.

Let's tackle points 1 and 2. 1. As pointed out by another user, US troops will likely ALWAYS be in Iraq. If the country experienced a run of decades in which not a single weapon was used within its borders, but US troops were still there in an advisory/support role, would this still constitute a state of war? 2. 'Acts of violence' is an unbelievably non-specific phrase. Is the UK in a state of civil war because of the 7/7 bombings? Or because somebody in Cumbria ran amok with a shotgun? This is a useless yardstick by which to measure whether a war is still taking place or not.
[[Special:Contributions/86.133.196.96|86.133.196.96]] ([[User talk:86.133.196.96|talk]]) 11:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Iraq war ended back in May 2003? That the Iraq war ended when Saddam's govmt fell? So only when a government is fighting another government is there a war? That has not been the case for many, many conflicts. For example, the War in Afghanistan is certainly not government to government, as Afghanistan has (kindof) a government of their own--and yet that conflict has been going for 9 years. In fact, the previous war in Afghanistan (Soviets) was very similar with the Soviet-puppet government plus the Soviets fighting the Muj. The Iraq war has been no different. Just because a US politician makes a statement, does not make it the truth. I would suggest reviewing the history of this conflict and reading just how many times various leaders "declared" an end to this war based on certain statistics. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

:This is a good question. I just came here to post this question. This will likely be a bit of a historical questions, since if tensions escalate a new "war" could emerge. Would this still be part of the original "Iraq War"? [[User:BoingoOingo|BoingoOingo]] ([[User talk:BoingoOingo|talk]]) 06:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
::If tensions escalate it could very well be considered a part of the Iraq war, depending on who the combatants are. For instance, if Iraqi kurdistan picks a fight with the Iraqi govmt in Baghdad (or whatever they currently have right now) what side would the coalition/US forces fight on? Would this internal fight be considered a part of the Iraq war, or would this example be called something like '''Kurdish revolt in Iraq'''. I don't know the answer myself--the point I want to illustrate is that is it too early to arbitrarily pick an end date for this conflict, based solely on; reduced troop numbers, political statements from the US administration, and a new name for the military operation. If this conflict was to heat up again (like it has several times, see 2004)--an end date of August 2010 would look about as realistic as an end date of May 2003 (which was before numerous pitched battles and thousands of casualties on both sides). <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

== A question for Aug. 19 supporters ==
A [http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=US US soldier was killed in a hostile incident] on Aug 22. The question: since the "war ended on August 19", part of which war his death is??--[[User:De Administrando Imperio|<font color="#003399">D'''A'''</font><font color="red">I</font>]] ([[User talk:De Administrando Imperio|'''Δ''']]) 10:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
: That's a really good question. I would probably look at how the deaths of US servicemembers in WWII were tallied after the surrender of Nazi Germany. In occupied Germany, the allies battled the [[Werwolf]], a loose network of terrorist cells, made up of terrified, starving teenagers and fanatical Nazis - both of which were delusional enough to believe in a myth of a waiting Nazi counter-revolution or malicious enough to carry out a scorched earth campaign to hinder the spread of democracy. These post-war insurgents bombed police stations, claimed the lives of American soldiers and civilians, planted mines, sniped at American occupation forces and assassinated mayors and officials collaborating with the occupying allied forces struggling to rebuild the country. Sounds just like post-invasion Iraq doesn't it? So I say however those deaths were tallied, the same should be used for all civilian, military, and insurgeant personnel from here on. --[[User:Pennsylvania Penguin|Pennsylvania Penguin]] ([[User talk:Pennsylvania Penguin|talk]]) 13:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
::Sounds like post-invasion Iraq from 2003-on, except of course the insurgency in Germany was a whisper of a fraction as large and long as that of Iraq, and the US never felt the need to escalate operations with more troops, as they did in Iraq. But I digress -- why not declare the war over when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"? [[Special:Contributions/68.194.19.90|68.194.19.90]] ([[User talk:68.194.19.90|talk]]) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
:Well the insurgency really came after the Iraqi Army formally surrendered and techically that the war ended on that day in 2003. Almost every modern war (American Civil War, WWI, WWII, 1st Gulf War, etc...) had insurgency periods that followed and those periods that are never counted as being a part of the actual war, since an insurgency is techically viewed as an unorganized armed rebellion. For example, WWII ended in 1945, not 1947. Pro-US insurgents even existed for years after the Vietnam War -after the Fall of Saigon- in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos even after that war was techically "over".

:However since our media mistakenly combined the actual war and the insurgency into one -since the insurgency was far worse than the war itself- so we count the war as ongoing from March 2003. From a technical point of view, the Iraq War ended on May 1, 2003. Meanwhile the [[Iraqi Insurgency]] is really itself a separate conflict, with different enemy belligerents and should be billed as lasting from May 1, 2003 to present day since, while the US and it's allies have reduced their forces, the attacks from the insurgency are still occuring, plus the US force as just be substituted for an Iraqi force thats will be doing most of the future fighting.--[[User:Pennsylvania Penguin|Pennsylvania Penguin]] ([[User talk:Pennsylvania Penguin|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
::maybe there are some better examples here on Wikipedia: the [[Algerian Civil War]] never officially ended - it became low-level and is now part of the broader [[Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present)]]. Similar stuff in the [[Second Chechen War]] and the [[insurgency in the North Caucasus]]. Or even [[War in Somalia (2006-2009)]] and the [[War in Somalia (2009-)]]. I hope I helped a bit--[[User:De Administrando Imperio|<font color="#003399">D'''A'''</font><font color="red">I</font>]] ([[User talk:De Administrando Imperio|'''Δ''']]) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::This whole discussion on an August 19 end date for this is just premature. Just because the US has withdrawn most of its troops out of the country, to satisfy a US domestic political decision, does not mean the overall conflict has ended. Several times during this conflict, political leaders have made arbitrary statements as to the "end" of the war--only to have actual events make these statements look silly (Mission Accomplished only being the most obvious example). For now, the status should remain the same as prior to the most recent US pullout and wait for actual events to unfold. The Iraqis don't even have a government right now (and haven't for several months) so the situation is highly unstable. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

2 More US Soldiers were Killed today (September 7, a full week after the end of combat operations) in a Hostile Fire and they are still listed as Causalities of the War, so there is no question now that the War is still ongoing. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.98.40.217|76.98.40.217]] ([[User talk:76.98.40.217|talk]]) 02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Edit request from 8.20.108.136, 24 August 2010 ==

{editsemiprotected}
<!-- Begin request -->
This sentence appears in the section labled: "2010: US Drawdown", "These troops are required to leave Iraq by 31 December 2011 under an agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, although the Iraqis have stated they may not be ready until at least 2020,[276]"

The second half of this sentence is factually inaccurate. It is not supported by the source document. A source document that contains the fact that this sentence is trying to articulate can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops . The sentence must be changed in order to be factually accurate. "The Iraqis" have not stated anything; the source document states that the Iraqi military and the US military have endorsed the point of view that they may not be able to provide adequate security until 2020. However, they have not stated a position regarding the presence of United States troops on Iraqi soil during the interim period from 2011 until 2020. It should be noted that keeping military forces in Iraq past 2011 would violate the Status of Forces Agreement, which is the current governing treaty (and, thus, the law) in this matter.

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/8.20.108.136|8.20.108.136]] ([[User talk:8.20.108.136|talk]]) 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:I have removed the second half of that sentence. Use {{tl|editsemiprotected}} again if you provide exact wording with a source to add some info.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] ([[User talk:Commander Keane|talk]]) 04:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

== Status ==

With the Iraq war now completed, I believe it is time to update the "status" in the infobox at the top of the page.

While I believe that there is ample evidence to declare the war an American victory, I realize this is probably not practical on wikipedia.

Here is my proposal:

'''status:''' Defeat of Baathist government by Coalition Forces. Suppression of Hussein loyalists and insurgent forces by Coalition and New Iraqi armies. Establishment of a Democratic government. (more...)

Then we can list more minor, and potentially future, details. [[User:Mburn16|Mburn16]] ([[User talk:Mburn16|talk]]) 21:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Iraq war is not complete simply because a US politician has stated this is so. Perhaps you should review the past seven years of this conflict and see just how many times various politicians have stated "with certainty" certain facts to fit a particular agenda. That list would start with the "presence of WMD" in Iraq... <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what's the hurry to put an end date on the Iraq war? Several issues remain outstanding, any single one of which can cause this conflict to heat right back up again.
*The Sunni vs Shia conflict continues, which is especially important since Iraq still does not have a government.
*The Kurdish question remains a hot topic both internally (Kurds have signed oil contracts that Baghdad does not recognize) and externally--both Turkey and Iran have actually invaded and/or bombed Kurdish areas in the past few years. This could be a real problem since there's several hundred thousand well-armed Peshmerga.
*Iran continues to try and influence Iraqi politics--could be another issue that heats up the conflict. The last time Iraq fought a country before the US it was Iran. The last time Iran fought a country it was Iraq.
Not trying to a downer, just trying to illustrate that Wikipedia editors need to review the facts not political statements and that the only thing that matters is facts on the ground. I would have thought editors would have realized that after the whole nonsense during the run-up to the Iraq war--aluminum tubes and Iraqi UAVs anyone? <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Kurdish issue is not a part of the Iraq war, it is a regional conflict over a homeland for a particular group. The Kurdish question existed before, during, and after the United States invaded, and will continue after we leave. Iran, like other countries, tries to influence its neighbors - we may not like this fact, but since they neither run the Iraqi government,nor are engaging in direct combat on the ground, it is not immediately related to this page. As for the insurgency...it has been, as I mentioned, surpressed. It may fire back up again, and it could even bring down the Iraqi government (theoretically), but that is like saying that we didn't win WWII because the USSR took over half of what the Nazis left behind.

The "Iraq War" was about getting rid of Saddam, and putting a new government in his place, and establishing a generally secure country. All have been accomplished. You cannot look at what I suggested, and say that any of them are not true. [[User:Mburn16|Mburn16]] ([[User talk:Mburn16|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.217.229.199|141.217.229.199]] ([[User talk:141.217.229.199|talk]]) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Actually, the Iraq war (per Bush and supporters) was not about getting rid of Saddam. It was very clearly stated that the purpose of the war was to pre-emptively remove a threat against the US, that threat being the perceived belief that Saddam had WMD and might use them (see authorization for the use of force). The Kurdish issue is very much a part of the Iraq war and has been from the start. Kurds were used as examples of what Saddam might do against the US (see use of poison gas against Kurds in the 90s). Iran has actually been engaging in direct combat on the ground, both against the Jundallah forces in northern Iraq, the Kurdish groups (also northern Iraq)--and thru the use of the Shia militia forces who were in-country training Shia militias such as the Mahdi Army in the use of EFPs (see Karballa raid). Turkey has also sent ground forces into Iraqi Kurdistan and send artillery there every so often.
The point of all these references is that just like other wars (e.g. Vietnam) a war that appeared to be contained within the neat and tidy borders of one country can and does very easily spread to neighboring countries. And just like Vietnam, the Iraq war has the significant potential to re-ignite in a way that would drag the US into another version of the Iraq war (US + Iraqi government vs Iraqi Kurdistan, OR US + Shia Iraqi government vs Sunni Iraqi political parties, and so on). And the proclamation of a particular government involved in the conflict, really has very little to do with the facts and events on the ground. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It was very obvious from day 1 that getting rid of WMDs meant getting rid of Saddam, and establishing a stable, democratic government. You think we were going to invade, haul away the weapons, and leave Saddam in power? No. The issues are one in the same. That cannot be said, however, for the Kurdish issue. You are free to create a page on Kurdish sepratism, or to include or edit a section on the Kurdish people. But a conflict that existed well outside of and beyond the American invasion cannot be counted as a part of the war, simply because they took place at the same time, and in the same general area. The Iran issue is similiarly separate...

America went into Iraq to remove the WMDs, remove Saddam, and install a stable, democratic government. The insurgent forces prohibited, for a time, establishing a stable government - so defeating them was a part of the mission. All the primary goals have been accomplished, and American involvement is now complete. the Iraq War is OVER, and what happens now is no more a part of the Iraq War than the Cold war was a part of World War II.

I can see including "ongoing counter-insurgency opterations by Iraq" and "Alleged Iranian interference in Irqi politics" as part of the "(more...)" on the 'status' - but it now needs to reflect an actual outcome, right now, it reads like a timeline. [[User:Mburn16|Mburn16]] ([[User talk:Mburn16|talk]]) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So how about this:

'''Result:''' Defeat of Baathist government by Coalition Forces. Suppression of Hussein loyalists and insurgent forces by Coalition and New Iraqi armies. Establishment of a Democratic government.
> Continued Anti-insurgent operations by Iraqi forces
> Alleged Iranian interference in Iraqi politics
> Continued presence of American advisors until ?December 31, 2011? [[User:Mburn16|Mburn16]] ([[User talk:Mburn16|talk]]) 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mburn16, it appears that you have some very strong political opinions, but please do not allow those beliefs to detract from your objectivity. Comparing any aspect of the conflict in Iraq to World War Two is very ill-advised. In fact, that's where the entire problem in this article finds its roots. A "war" in the classic Clausewitz-ian sense of the word denotes a conflict between two or more nation-states. It begins with a formal declaration of war and ends with an armistice or negotiated surrender or treaty. Applying that definition to the conflict in Iraq, the war proper began in March of 2003 and ended no later than May of that same year. However, the bulk of the conflict involved not the short, decisive war but the long, drawn-out and inconclusive insurgency that followed and which, despite your protestations to the contrary, still continues (there were city-wide terrorist bombings in Iraq that killed dozens of people only days ago), albeit not to the severity witnessed in the years 2004-2007. This article should never have conflated the "war" with the "insurgency" that followed, however, it was in the interest of anti-conservative liberals to call the insurgency a war and to conflate it with the invasion and removal of the Hussein regime which preceded it, when in fact they were separate issues. The "war" is long over. The insurgency has been going on for years and will probably continue for the foreseeable future. The only thing that is truly coming to an end are major U.S. combat operations. I qualify that with the "major" only because if even a single U.S. soldier engages in combat in Iraq after today, that will still constitute a combat operation, albeit only a marginal and politically insignificant one. It will not suffice to come up with a compromise result in this article. The only truly meaningful alteration would be a separation of the conflict between the "war" and "insurgency" stages, but such a drastic reform cannot be made due to the widespread conflation of the two in the public mind. That being the case, the article should not declare the war over at all. The results to date should be listed, but no end date should be listed for a few months at least. Let's take a while to see what immediate results come from this massive draw down of U.S. troops. If the Iraqi government remains stable and violence declines dramatically, we can always go back and put August 31, 2010 as the end date after the fact.[[User:Krg8501|Krg8501]] ([[User talk:Krg8501|talk]]) 03:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

:Exactly, there's no need to rush to put an end date on this conflict. I've mentioned some possible negative options, but things could also go perfectly--US removes all troops, Iraqis figure out how to govern without creating a civil war, Iran's influence is negated, and the Kurdish question is solved. THEN we could go back and put an end date on this for whatever date people agree on. But it is simply too early to put an end date on right now. I think it is just the nature of war in more recent times for end dates and sometimes even start dates to be difficult to determine. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

== Woah, woah, woah...woah. ==

I'm generally a very calm person, so you'll have to excuse me, but ''what the fuck did you people do to this article''? "August 31, 2010 (disputed)"? "...with approximately 50,000 U.S. troops still remaining in an "advise and assist" capacity. They are scheduled to leave by August 31, 2011, ahead of their required departure of December 31, 2011."? Listen up, the last combat brigade left on the 19th, Obama officially declared the end of combat operations on the 31st. There are still 50,000 troops in Iraq. 50,000 troops did not maintain the mission for a further ''12 days'' after the combat troops left. Please do some ''research'' before you screw with the information in the article. Also changing a sentence from "is an ongoing[cite] military campaign" to "is a[cite] military campaign doesn't help at all. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><b>Swarm</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

== Status ==
I disagree with several points in this article, but the "Establishment of a Democratic government" part in the status is particularly galling. Iraq does not currently have a functional government, and the governments previous established can hardly be called democratic. Additionally, there are 50,000 soldiers remaining, so I am not sure if anyone can say that the war is over as of 1/9/2010. I also note that the major reason behind the Iraq war, the WMDs, are missing from the status. [[User:Unflavoured|Unflavoured]] ([[User talk:Unflavoured|talk]]) 09:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:Actually, Iraq has a democratic leader for the first time. LOL, I'd call that ''quite'' a government, wouldn't you. Think about the facts before you engage in logical discussion. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cymbelmineer|Cymbelmineer]] ([[User talk:Cymbelmineer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cymbelmineer|contribs]]) 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==The Iraq war is not over==
I'll say it again, since some of these new editors seem to have trouble reading and responding in the talk section. The Iraq war is not over just because the current US administration has changed the current mission of the 50,000 US troops in Iraq. Obama clearly stated in his speech the other day that the combat mission has ended (with the caveat that if the Iraqis request help the troops would provide it so combat could take off again)--he did not say "the Iraq war is over." So, I really have no idea what editors are doing changing the end-date. Nothing has changed other than a new policy statement. There is no rush to change the end date to something that exactly matches a politician's speech--in fact, it could be easily argued that anyone who does so is making a POV edit. Again, time will tell what the end date of the Iraq war will be--Wikipedia is not the place to make such declarations, it is an encyclopedia. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:And don't take my words for it, how about the Pentagon spokesman--"I don't think anybody has declared the end of the war as far as I know," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told MSNBC.[http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iraqunrestusmilitary] <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
::It's clear the US mission is not over. That is obvious. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is over, but does "Iraq War" only refer to that (and the other coalition countries') combat mission, or does Operation New Dawn, which will end in 2011, constitute part of the Iraq War? The current mission is an "advise and assist" mission, but I think, historically, it still falls under the events of the Iraq War. Based on what I have seen, no one is considering the Iraq War "over", and the war will only be considered "over" when the US military operation end, not when the ''combat'' operations end. Then again, does it even make sense to say, "2003-present <small>combat operations concluded August 31, 2010</small>"? [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><b>Swarm</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 22:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::The Iraq war refers to the overall conflict. The US operation name only refers to US military operations, the UK and other coalition members have different names for their military operations during the Iraq war. It's kind of POV to say that combat operations are over--when those "combat operations" only refer to the US military. The Iraqi security forces are still conducting combat operations all over the country with US forces in an advise and assist role--and US airpower is certainly conducting "combat operations" since the Iraqis don't have much of an airforce. The insurgent groups are still fighting against; Iraqi security forces, each other, and US forces (even tho the US forces are harder targets since their removal from urban areas). So obviously the war is continuing--it is just moving into a different phase of conflict--a view which the Pentagon would share as well as the Iraqi MOD. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
::::U.S. combat operations were the cornerstone of the whole war. Iraq is not involved in "combat operations" in the same sense the US was. Public security in one's own country is not the same as war. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><b>Swarm</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 02:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Meaning there was no [[Algerian War|war in Algeria]]? Even if the US withdraws, there will still be a war. [[User:Yonaka|Yonaka]] ([[User talk:Yonaka|talk]]) 17:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::That's certainly debatable, considering those who say the war is over now. However, Wikipedia is certainly not the place for such a debate. [[Special:Contributions/216.174.21.45|216.174.21.45]] ([[User talk:216.174.21.45|talk]]) 18:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with most of the other editors, the war is still on. Resistence in the form of insurgents still goes on, they still target western troops and western interests and allies. And the country is still occupied. [[User:ValenShephard|ValenShephard]] ([[User talk:ValenShephard|talk]]) 18:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::By the criteria being set up here someone should go back and switch WW1 and WW2 indeed all wars to "Combat operations concluded" because there are still acts of violence committed in the territories involved. Meanwhile it is safer to live in Baghdad then it is to live in Chicago or St. Louis... [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 20:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
:::::::::Is that violence connected to the reasons of those two wars? Very rarely, so your argument is weak. People in Iraq are still staging attacks and violence for the same reasons as before this partial withdrawal. Even so, a war can go on without violence or any battles, just look at the Korean War, which is still officially on. Until there is an end of most or all occupation related violence, I think this will be a conflict in some way or another. [[User:ValenShephard|ValenShephard]] ([[User talk:ValenShephard|talk]]) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think the curent situation in Iraq meets the generally accepted definition of an occupation.
The US forces there are there under an agreement with the Iraqi government. And the US has kept to the Status of Forces Agreement, while the timeline was even made earlier at the request of the Iraqi government. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.24.220.22|76.24.220.22]] ([[User talk:76.24.220.22|talk]]) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::: Even the issue of whether combat operations have stopped is in question: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/ap-memo-iraq-war_n_705446.html AP Issues Standards Memo: 'Combat In Iraq Is Not Over'] [[User:Cleshne|Cleshne]] ([[User talk:Cleshne|talk]]) 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't actually matter what we think. It matters what reliable sources say, we are simply representatives of them. As far as I have read in the sources I've seen, the war is not over. Until we have reliable sources which proclaim in the majority "the war is over", when the Iraqi parliament for example signals an end to combat and police operations counter-insurgants, then we can discuss this issue again. [[User:ValenShephard|ValenShephard]] ([[User talk:ValenShephard|talk]]) 22:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
::"Is that violence connected to the reasons of those two wars? Very rarely, so your argument is weak."-ValenShephard
::There were 400.000 people put into mass graves by the Saddam Hussein regime, the Sunnis and Shiites have been at it for centuries, The Kurds were gassed, Kuwait and Iran invaded... Was that all due to the reasons of those two wars? No. Unless you can directly correlate the violence that is taking place to the invasion your argument is invalid and even if you can, it doesn't mean that the war is ongoing in terms of the coalition combat, only the anti- legitimate elected Iraqi government insurgency continues which is crime, not war. When the Baader-Meinhof Gang mitfered german police was that "War"? When they bombed the US barracks was that a continuation of WW2? [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 09:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
::::You're right V7-sport. The Iraq War *might* be over. While often "anti-legitimate elected Iraqi government insurgency continues which is crime, not war", sometimes it can constitute a civil war rather than a crime. It depends on how the next 2 years go. Then we might look back at when Obama declared the *American* combat mission over as the end of the entire war. However, no one is reporting that the war is over (in fact, the opposite is usually stressed), and no one will be until we see how things go. It's like the winning touchdown of a football game. You don't know you've made it at the time, but at the end of the game you can realize which touchdown won the game. - [[User:Atfyfe|Atfyfe]] ([[User talk:Atfyfe|talk]]) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Now I'm confused. Does someone else want to read the very short article that V7-sport cites as support of his claim that combat operations have ended. As I read it, it very clearly is a report concerning the end of *US* combat operations. I am not sure why V7-sport thinks he is justified in reverting my edits with the source he's cited. -[[User:Atfyfe|Atfyfe]] ([[User talk:Atfyfe|talk]]) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::My apologies, The link that I thought you had removed had been switched in an intermediate edit. I re-added the previous link which explicitly states "the end of heavy combat operations". The 2 citations together should suffice. Since the US was the last member of the coalition participating in combat operations further "combat" is an Iraqi police action and beyond the scope of this article. [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

===Proposal:denote three phases===
Let's get real here. Calling this whole thing the 'Iraq War' as if it has just one start and end date is just a massive over-simplification. It is so vague as to be pointless, it uses a start date of a conventional war, yet the end date is related to something far different to what anybody would define as declaring the end of a conventional war. Not to mention neither of the original opponents are now the current, primary opponents. The insurgency is a many headed beast, far removed from the Saddam regime by now, while the entity in the Iraq corner is also far removed from the original coalition invasion force, or even the CPA occupying force, by now. If people are genuinely interested in having the infobox display meaningfull and logical start and end dates to readers, rather than just pushing the agenda of 'look what George Bush did', then what is wrong with having a simple, three part definition, as follows:

* Conventional war (Operation Iraqi Freedom): March 20 – May 1, 2003
* Counter-insurgency against US-led forces (Operation Iraqi Freedom): May 1, 2003 - August 31, 2010
* Counter-insurgency against Iraq-led forces (Operation New Dawn): August 31, 2010 - ongoing

As far as I can see, it is going to be pretty easy to get a majority of sources, both tabloid and academic, to agree on start and end dates for the first two phases, and that the third phase is still ongoing. Then, it wouldn't look so odd if the third phase goes on for a few more years, or worse, reverts back to a US-led counter-insurgency. I really don't think that technicalities like Iraq not yet having an Air-Force, or the various sovereing power phases of Iraqi interim govt, are worth dealing with at this top level, but frankly, 'March 20, 2003 - ongoing', is always going to look odd to a great many people, certianly as time goes on, if not on ideological grounds, then on simple basic logic and common sense. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 00:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
::Agreed. - [[User:Atfyfe|Atfyfe]] ([[User talk:Atfyfe|talk]]) 22:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I think this is fair. [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
:::It's an interesting proposal, with a rather large problem. Everyone calls this conflict the "Iraq War"--media, citizens, governments really don't distinguish these three phases that you've identified. Perhaps when this conflict is over for awhile--we'll be able to look back and determine some kind of overall structure. Right now, such an organization seems a little premature. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 23:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

== Burning Iraqi tanks? ==

Why are we getting more and more pictures put in the article of destroyed Iraqi tanks? It was a common theme for the mass media in the early days to show these triumphal images of burned out tanks, but it doesn't give a very good impression of the war. This war is primarily an underground insurgent war, tanks only figured in the initial invasion. I dont think it gives an accurate representation of the facts. What do we think? [[User:ValenShephard|ValenShephard]] ([[User talk:ValenShephard|talk]]) 10:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

::Agreed. - [[User:Atfyfe|Atfyfe]] ([[User talk:Atfyfe|talk]]) 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Agreed, deleted most of the images--tanks are definitely not a major part of the conflict. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 23:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

== Article is not remotely truthful or informative ==

I don't even know where to begin, so let's go from top to bottom:

''In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that it was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. Availed of access through such cooperation the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD. More conclusively accurate verification of Iraq's compliant disarmament requiring some additional months of inspections was not undertaken.[50][51][52][53] Lead weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq was cooperating in terms of access, Iraq's declarations with regards to WMD could not be verified at the time, but the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved within "months".[50][54]''

What Blix was saying is that if Iraq cooperated with the verification, it ''could'' have been resolved in months. He wasn't saying that it ''would'' have been resolved within months. He stated explicitly on January 27, 2003 that cooperation was insufficient to date.

There is not a single mention in the introduction about the elections in Iraq. On the other hand, there is too much material about refugees, and more recent events. There is also no mention about the surge in 2007.

''According to documents provided by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush, ten days after taking office in January 2001, instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime. A secret memo entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration.[87]''

What does this have to with anything? The U.S. was already trying to oust Saddam before Bush took over. Where is the evidence of the secret memo? What does the Pentagon map have to do with anything?

''The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002–2003, when Bush demanded a complete end to alleged Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction and full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions requiring UN weapons inspectors unfettered access to suspected weapons production facilities. The UN had prohibited Iraq from developing or possessing such weapons after the Gulf War and required Iraq to permit inspections confirming compliance. During inspections in 1999, Iraq alleged that UN inspectors included U.S. intelligence agents that supplied the U.S. with a direct feed of conversations between Iraqi security agencies as well as other information. This was confirmed by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.''

This makes it sound like the issue just came up in 2002 when it was festering for years. Why not mention of the Gulf War?

''During 2002, Bush repeatedly warned of military action unless inspections were allowed to progress unfettered. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002. The weapons inspections did not uncover any WMD in Iraq. Shortly before the invasion Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, advised the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and that the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved in a short period of time if Iraq remained cooperative.''

Once again, that is distorting what Blix was saying.

''In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to reexamine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was "stovepiped" to Cheney and presented to the public.''

This creates the misleading impression that the office of special plans was the only organization disseminating intelligence, and does not reference the 2002 NIE at all.

''In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate reports (later found to be forgeries) that Iraq was attempting to purchase additional yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." The Bush administration, however, continued to allege Iraq's attempts to obtain additional yellowcake were a justification for military action, most prominently in the January 2003, State of the Union address, in which President Bush declared that Iraq had sought uranium, citing British intelligence sources.''

Wilson reported the sales did not occur, but this did not alter the British intelligence which said sales were intended.

''On May 1, 2005, the "Downing Street memo" was published in The Sunday Times. It contained an overview of a secret July 23, 2002, meeting among British government, Ministry of Defence, and British intelligence figures who discussed the build-up to the Iraq war—including direct references to classified U.S. policy of the time. The memo stated, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."''

It is just irresponsible to provide one out of context sentence whose meaning has been hotly disputed.

''The CIA had contacted Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was being paid by the French as an agent. Sabri informed them that Saddam had hidden poison gas among Sunni tribesmen, had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.According to Sidney Blumenthal, George Tenet briefed Bush on September 18, 2002, that Sabri had informed them that Iraq did not have WMD. Bush dismissed this top-secret intelligence from Hussein's inner circle which was approved by two senior CIA officers. The information was never shared with Congress or even CIA agents examining whether Saddam had such weapons.''

Clearly, Blumenthal is being dishonest, as it is directly contradicted by the above. If this was true, why didn't the French report that their intelligence had doubts about the WMD?

''In September 2002, the Bush administration, the CIA and the DIA said attempts by Iraq to acquire high-strength aluminum tubes that were prohibited under the UN monitoring program and which they said pointed to a clandestine effort to make centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs.[96] This analysis was opposed by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and INR, which was significant because of DOE's expertise in such gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs. The DOE and INR argued that the Iraqi tubes were poorly suited for centrifuges, though it was technically possible with additional modification.[97] A report released by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2002 reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium.''

It should be noted that only INR disputed the nuclear program, and no agency was disputing chemical or biological weapons.

''A meeting between George W. Bush and Tony Blair took place on January 31, 2003, in the White House. A secret memo of this meeting purportedly showed that the Bush administration had already decided on the invasion of Iraq at that point. Bush was allegedly floating the idea of painting a U-2 spyplane in UN colors and letting it fly low over Iraq to provoke Iraqi forces into shooting it down, thereby providing a pretext for the U.S. and Britain to invade. Bush and Blair made a secret deal to carry out the invasion regardless of whether WMD were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to the British House of Commons afterwards that the Iraqi regime would be given a final chance to disarm.''

How does this contradict what Blair said? Just because they didn't find anything, doesn't mean it wasn't necessarily there.

There needs to be more quotes from Bush, Blair, and Saddam during the lead up. Also, post-war intelligence investigations.

The post-invasion phase does little to emphasize the Sunni character of the initial insurgency.

''On March 6, five United States Army soldiers of the 502nd Infantry Regiment, raped the 14-year-old Iraqi girl Abeer Hamza al-Janabi, and then murdered her, her father, her mother Fakhriya Taha Muhasen and her six-year-old sister. The soldiers then set fire to the girls body to conceal evidence of the crime.[159] Four of the soldiers were convicted of rape and murder and the fifth was convicted of lesser crimes for the involvement in the war crime, that became known as the Mahmudiyah killings.''

Why on earth does this one incident merit attention in a conflict which has killed thousands?

''Reports from the ground dispute that the surge had a significant effect on security in Iraq. While life in Baghdad improved in 2007–08, the main reason this was that the battle for Baghdad in 2006–07 between the Shia and the Sunni populations was won by the Shia, who as of September 2008 controlled three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes appeared permanent; Sunni families who try to get their houses back faced assassination. Thus the war against the U.S. occupation by the Sunni community, who had been favored under Saddam Hussein, had largely ended. The Sunni have been largely defeated, according to The Independent, not so much by the U.S. army as by the Shia-led Iraqi government and the Shia militias.[195]''

This is a fringe view, at most it deserves one sentence, not three paragraphs. It simply is insane to believe that the massive bloodletting in which peaked in 2006-2007 was going to subside quickly on it's own regardless of what the U.S. did. The aricle makes no attempt to explain the clear and hold tactics that were implemented during the surge. Nor does it mention the Sunni Awakening.

''Iraqi voter turnout failed to meet the original expectations which were set and was the lowest on record in Iraq,[264] but U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker characterized the turnout as "large".[265] Of those who turned out to vote, some groups complained of disenfranchisement and fraud.[264][266][267] After the post-election curfew was lifted, some groups made threats about what would happen if they were unhappy with the results.[268]''

Groups always complain about disenfranchisement or fraud. Where is the evidence?

''On April 9, 2009, the sixth anniversary of Baghdad's fall to coalition forces, tens of thousands of Iraqis thronged Baghdad to mark the sixth anniversary of the city's fall and to demand the immediate departure of coalition forces. The crowds of Iraqis stretched from the giant Sadr City slum in northeast Baghdad to the square around 5 km (3 miles) away, where protesters burned an effigy featuring the face of former U.S. President George W. Bush, who ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and also the face of Saddam. Shi'ites were brutally persecuted under Saddam's rule.[271] There were also Sunni Muslims in the crowd. Police said many Sunnis, including prominent leaders such as a founding sheikh from the Sons of Iraq, took part.[272]''

A demonstration of tens of thousands is hardly notable for a city of several million.

''The withdrawal of U.S. forces began at the end of June, with 38 bases to be handed over to Iraqi forces. On June 29, 2009, U.S. forces withdrew from Baghdad. On November 30, 2009, Iraqi Interior Ministry officials reported that the civilian death toll in Iraq fell to its lowest level in November since the 2003 invasion.[274]''

This seems to imply a linkage that certainly should not be implied.

''Casualty estimates''

It should be noted that the vast majority of casualties have been inflicted by the insurgents and militias.

''Criticisms and costs''

We should have a section for supporters as well as critics.

Overall, this article in not remotely encyclopedic. Even people against the war should be offended by this article's disjointed and relentlessly biased nature. [[Special:Contributions/71.65.71.145|71.65.71.145]] ([[User talk:71.65.71.145|talk]]) 00:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
::Overall I agree, this article is biased and arbitrary and has been for a while. [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 09:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
::If you have problems with the article, create an account and lend some help. It's hard to take the thoughts of an IP number as either consistent or serious. <font color="green">[[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']]</font> 22:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

==Question about this article's lies==

So when is the blatant lie about Blix saying things were going to be resolved in months going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about the surge doing nothing going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about Joe Wilson debunking the forgeries going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about Blair contradicting his statements to the house of commons going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about Sabri saying there was no WMD going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about a secret document in January 2001 going to be corrected?

When is the dishonest implication about the Downing street memo being a smoking gun going to be corrected?

Just curious [[Special:Contributions/71.65.71.145|71.65.71.145]] ([[User talk:71.65.71.145|talk]]) 21:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
::Provide proof that they are lies and correct them. [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 00:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

== Btw this "free elections held" outcome is also nonsense ==

Elections were held prior to 2003 as well. Yes, they were not held in a democratic atmosphere, however neither have post-2003 elections. <br>The "elections" in the past 7 years were conducted under occupation, war, killing, intimidation and military dictatorship <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.216.156.67|89.216.156.67]] ([[User talk:89.216.156.67|talk]]) 09:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Btw this "most of the iraqi insurgency destroyed" outcome is also nonsense ==

In 2003-2007, the insurrection was estimated by Washington to number 20,000 people or 30,000.

Afterwards, 100,000 fighters - dubbed "former insurgents" joined the so-called Awakening. So, what we have is a 20k insurgency turning into 100k and deciding to side with the aggressor country <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.216.156.67|89.216.156.67]] ([[User talk:89.216.156.67|talk]]) 17:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Do you have a source for that? There is already a section on the resurgence of the taliban, is that not enough? [[User:ValenShephard|ValenShephard]] ([[User talk:ValenShephard|talk]]) 17:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

==Booked==
Let's be bland and all agree, at least within the article itself. The more we've disagreed, the more trees we've caused to be slaughtered. Don't believe me? See:
*http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/the-backstory-of-wikipedias-take-on-the-iraq-war/?hp
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/stml/sets/72157624693833091/
*http://booktwo.org/notebook/wikipedia-historiography/
An artifact put together by or for somebody who clearly is in less desperate need of storage space than I am. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 09:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:06, 10 September 2010

Saddam Hussein was a dickhead.

Discuss.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War&oldid=384023490"