Jump to content

Talk:Investment in post-invasion Iraq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Reconstruction of Iraq)

Untitled

[edit]

Let us all hope for a peaceful end, no matter when it does. someone not signed in.

Pedant 21:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geez, whatever happened to NPOV? Where's your reference(s) for wild statements like "...a huge escalation in the strength of the Iraqi resistance"? Nvinen 01:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, maybe this article is just out of date, it's saying stuff like "... by Summer 2004". That would explain why it talks about a huge escalation in the strength of the resistance when it seems to me that's no longer the case.


I propose the addition of brief subsections on Reparations (as paid by Iraq) and Debt, under the Economics section, since they both represent significant constraints on the developing economy. -Paul 18:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

"Although the water supply has reached prewar levels in some provinces, " Shouldn't this say whether the water supply has dropped (from being better) to prewar levels, or risen (from being worse) to prewar levels? (I can guess, because I've read that generally the situation is worse than before the invasion, so I guess that the water situation is rising from worse towards prewar levels, but I suggest fixing the statement to not require guessing.)

--

re: "Since June 28, 2004, the US-supported Iraqi Interim Government has been recognized by the United Nations, the Arab League and several other countries" As I've just pointed out elsewhere, this sentence has two problems. Firstly, the phrase "other countries" doesn't make much sense, as neither of the two noun phrases immediately preceding ARE countries (actually, this instance is worse than the other one I flagged here, as there aren't any countries mentioned at all, so the "other countries" is really bizarre). Secondly, "several other countries" kind of leads me as a reader to wonder if (a) this means that this is a usual state -- are most governments recognized by several countries (which I doubt) -- or (b) is this an unusual state (is this a surprising lack of recognition), and if so, what countries are the standouts here, and why do all the others not recognize it? That is, it speaks to me of a mystery, and so I wish it would at least link to information to reveal the mystery.

Sentence fragment

[edit]

"The transitional period during which the State of Iraq is undergoing a regime change from dictatorship to democracy." This sentence lacks a verb, so I don't know what it meant to say, but it doesn't actually say whatever that was.

Picture:The Proposed Baghdad Renaissance Plan

[edit]

"The Proposed Baghdad Renaissance Plan" isn't a good caption. Captions should be complete sentences and say something descriptive and relevant (to the picture and its place in the article) could some knowedgeable good-captioner fix that please? Thanks!! User:Pedant 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Military Section

[edit]

This section consisted of a handful of paragraphs of mostly out-of-date information an a few, fairly random, recent pieces of information. I support removal for two reasons: 1) the training of the Iraqi army since the 2003 invasion of Iraq is a large topic suitable for its own article - indeed there is one - New Iraqi Army - which appears to do a good job and is up to date. A reference to it has been placed in See Also. 2) Iraq Reconstruction focuses on the rebuilding of Iraq civilian infrastructure. Military infrastructure reconstruction is peripheral to this topic. Look forward to any comments on this change. User:Dpahlfeld 17 September, 2006

War damage and general improvements

[edit]

Cut from first sentence of intro:

damaged during the 2003 invasion and the subsequent occupation of Iraq

It might be a political hot potato, but I don't think it is universally believed that the reconstruction effort is solely to fix US-caused war damage - or even to counteract war damage in general. The 4,000-plus projects initiated by the US-led coaltion goes far beyond fixing battle-destroyed infrastructure.


If other Wikipedians dispute this view, then let us apply NPOV: state it as a political dispute between pro-Bush and and anti-Bush partisans:

  • some say the reconstruction will make Iraq even better than before
  • others say the reconstruction is limited to repairing war damage (and they blame this war damage on Bush's invasion decision)

Please help me describe this accurately and (if there's a partisan dispute) neutrally. --Uncle Ed 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, a partisan website shows a graph of using some of the Brookings data but with a fabricated October figure of only 2.4 hours - hiding the actual value of 6.7 and omitting the November value completely. The section heading is "incompetent establishment".
I didn't see anything in that website about the intent of US planners to provide more electricity to people outside of Baghdad. I think the website is using Baghdad electricity as a proxy for the whole country. But ordinarily we don't use proxies when we have the actual data.
Are they being "partisan" as I think, or am I the partisan one here? I will let other Wikipedians decide that. --Uncle Ed 17:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This Article fails to take into account the perspectives of ordinary Iraqis as well as those of the sectarian and Ba'ath Party forces currently fighting the foreign occupying forces in Iraq. Therefore It does not represent a worldwide view, hence the insertion of the tag.

Better introduction

[edit]

I think this article would benefit enormously from a longer, more comprehensive introduction that summarizes the main ideas in the article. The content in "introduction" should really appear before the TOC, as per Wikipedia standards. Does anyone object if I make that change? Thanks. --Mackabean 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Compact with Iraq

[edit]

I added International Compact with Iraq to the See Also... I don't know where else it might be integrated into the text. Please help! MPS 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the Compact and update the Compact article. Dpahlfeld (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture content / hotel rendering

[edit]

The picture next to the introduction strikes me as somewhat inappropriate given that it is a 3d rendering of a not-yet-built building and as such does not reflect the actual 'reconstruction of Iraq' as it exists today. It is also somewhat politically charged and thus inappropriate. I think this should be replaced with a more appropriate image, preferably a photograph that actually shows reconstruction in progress. Opinions?

206.124.6.36 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree regarding picture - I have removed it - Any objections? Dpahlfeld (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basra Development Commission

[edit]

The UK Government has established a commission to facilitate the effective development of public services and regeneration. This involves using oil revenues to provide the means for public services, so that the people of Basra and Iraq receive the benefit of the oil revenues, unlike what happened under the authoritarian Ba'ath Regime of Saddam Hussein. The commission provides an effective means to liase with and between the Iraqi people and oil companies and leads to a significant reduction of corruption. [1] --Minotaur500 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The commission appears to be a business development entity - which is outside the scope of this article in my opinion. Dpahlfeld (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Citation

[edit]

"There was also much controversy surrounding the granting of no-bid contracts to large American corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel, both of which have made generous donations to President George W. Bush and the Republican Party." -This statement is cited by reference #16, which leads to a file not found page on a site. Appatently the article was removed. So can someone fond a new citation? --Abusing (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the text to avoid a need for this reference. This topic is covered well by the other references. Dpahlfeld (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objective article questioned

[edit]

It seems to me, that the article isn't very objective here are some of the reasons why.

  • Uses alot of emotionally charged words like "pre-invation".
  • Uses old stats from 2004,2005,2006. Much has improved since then.
  • Talks about Iraq being a failire as a fact.
  • Little mention of the current reconstruction efforts (2008 on) which have been tremendously successful (since the siege) anyone who looks at the facts (even opponents of the iraq war like Obma have commented on its new founded success)
  • Article focuses on the bad, evil, murder, and corruption. Almost all comparisions are made with saddam and how much better they had it. This is well and good those stats shouldn't be removed but what about the otherside? The article should equally focus on the GOOD things that have happened. Unlike a news real who are natrually attracted to bad news (its what the public likes) wikipedia is supposed to provide an accuate objective account. Both the good and the bad should be shown.
  • The structure of the article implies Iraq as an "invasion" without no voice talking about a "liberation". Both views should be allowed to be represented through the structure of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.209.103.34 (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War vs neglect

[edit]

Obv a lot of damage is done by war, our bombing and actions by terrorists - which are not our fault - initiators are responsible, not who they are reacting to. But the reason Iraq needs a lot of new infrastructure is war AND years of neglect, Saddam raking in billions and spending it on gaudy palaces for himself, bribing people and building WMDs and torture chambers. A lot was wasted. A lot of the oil was never sold. Sanctions were in place. Iran did some damage. But from today's perspective, in the 1960s, Iraq had no modern infrastructure in the first place, just like every other developing country. The first paragraph should reflect this, and not blame the Americans for every lack of a service in the world, just because they PRECISION bombed a city for a few days. It's like blaming the Romans for Britain having no skyscrapers in the middle ages just because they were ONCE the aggressor - yes, but they built a lot of the rest of the infrastructure. The article implies that everything Iraq does not have or used to have was destroyed by coalition forces. The primary culprit was Saddam. --81.105.242.11 (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment made above, whilst huge damage was done by the invasion and war there should atleast be some mention of the fact Iraqs services had lacked funding and resources for some time following UN sanctions and incompetent / corrupt government. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A new section on the status of pre-2003 infrastructure has been added. Dpahlfeld (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

I have added the disputed tag to this article, as at the moment it fails to present a balanced view on the reasons for reconstruction of Iraq. I fully accept that alot of damage was done during the invasion and the occupation and in the following years because of violence, but there should atleast be a sentence explaining that Iraqs infastructure was under funded and poor before the war aswell. Idealy i think a section on Iraq before the invasion would be able to detail the situation and present a more balanced view. Once atleast a mention of the state of Iraq before the invasion is added, i will remove the tag but its clear by the above post im not the only one who has a problem with the current wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the presence of a new section on pre-2003 infrastructure I have removed the dispute tag. Any objection? Dpahlfeld (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

"Reconstruction of Iraq describes attempts by the international community to improve and repair the infrastructure of Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, when much was destroyed by the international community."

fixed that for you ;) 78.86.37.93 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) seriously, why not highlight the irony here?[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Investment in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Investment in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Investment in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Investment in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investment_in_post-invasion_Iraq&oldid=1198576181"