![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Needs to be qualified. The Poll was conducted in urban centers only and is not representative of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.242.246 ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Obama's act of formally ending combat operations was virtually the entire basis of the notion that the war is over. Despite this, Obama has publicly stated, multiple times, that the war is "coming to an end" or something similar, most notably in the State of the Union and during the Super Bowl XLV pregame interview, in both instances broadcast to millions of people. If Obama considers the war "coming to an end", he obviously does not his ending of combat operations an end to the war. The notion of "the end of combat operations" equaling "the end of the war" is thus, obviously, rendered completely and utterly obsolete. I think it should immediately be changed to reflect its ongoing status. Swarm X 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support This has been debated several previous times and most editors agreed that the war was not over, however, the notion was at the time among other editors that the war ended (which is not the case). I hope now since Obama himself is saying the war is coming to an end would reflect the situation properly. Diefgross ( talk) 04:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of consensus, you are going to need to find reliable sources that have the weight of the executive branch and the state department that directly and specifically state that the war is ongoing. At this point, with 7 months of relative quiet since the announcement that the war was over it's a bit absurd to be pushing for it to be ongoing. V7-sport ( talk) 06:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I have no doubt that if Obama said it was 'over', the editors insisting it 'isn't over' would find something else to show it 'wasn't over'. These claims are simply tendentious. If you want people to take your claims seriously, then please show that you have the first idea what event/situation/declaration would infact mark this war as being 'over', and in addition, show that reliable sources put any weight behind your personal theories. Because Wikipedia isn't you personal platform to dissemintate your opinions as if they were fact. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As with all wars of this type this will end with a whimper rather than a bang, as the fighting gradually draws down and declines, compairing this to insurgencess succeding wars (like WWII, the civil war, vietmam) is incorrect becouse these were of a much smaller scale and were after a sudden major reduction in fighting with a formal decloration of an end or serrendor. The current fighting is a smothe contiution from the leval of prious fighting and so is cearly still the war, we will be able to tell when the war ends after the violaence shivals belowe some difined point, the Best one is the UN defined 1000 battle deaths per yaer. Anything below that would be defined as civil strife.--
J intela (
talk) 01:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I also keep hearing (sometimes half jokingly) that we are now in "3 Wars" after the invasion of Libya, well if we aren't still at war with Iraq then how can the number be 3. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.98.40.217 (
talk)
06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I entirely agree with V7 that "This isn't a matter of consensus". The article was wrongly changed to declare the war over just because "combat operations" ended, even though the war is still considered to be ongoing by the president, the media and society. Casualty reports in the media are still reporting casualties of the "Iraq War". No one in government has stated the war is over. And few media sources even ventured to say "war over" in August. Swarm X 01:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to downplay the involvement of the Iranian government, if not denying it altogether. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/02/iranian_sniper_rifle.php Is one of many references from credible sources if you google ".50 caliber" "sniper rifle" and "iran" in any combination. Also google Iranian UAV's shot down, or Iranian agents in Iraq. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53495 Also, I'm not sure how much credibility you give to wikileaks, or how often you reference them (considering how often their site is down), but you can find many sources referencing wikileaks regarding Iranian involvement. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23iran.html I understand that the phrase "Although some military intelligence analysts have concluded there is no concrete evidence..." without any sort of reference is probably just a way to cover your bases, like the words "believed", "appeared", and so on, but if you say "some military analysts" should you cite that? In addition, this statement under "Tensions with Iran": "The Bush administration and coalition leaders began to publicly state that Iran was supplying weapons, particularly EFP devices, to Iraqi insurgents and militias although to date have failed to provide any proof for these allegations." I understand that the task force responsible found very little conclusive evidence on the EFP's, but when you group the EFP's with "weapons" and then state that there is no evidence, it makes the incorrect assertion that there is no evidence for either. Unless I'm just reading it wrong. Lmk8541 ( talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Under "Date" in the box on the right, it is falsely stated that the war lasted 7 years and 166 days when in fact it was 7 years and 164 days. It seems like the person calculating it calculated the total number of days, and then subtracted 7*365. The person forgot to count for leap years when subtracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.150.191 ( talk) 03:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
March 20 2010 to August 31 2010 =(31-19)+30+31+30+31+31=165 days, so 7 years and 165 days
March 20, 2003 to March 19, 2010 = 7 years = 5*365+2*366 = 2557 days. so 2557+165=2722 days QuentinUK ( talk) 10:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
"His presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory."
The above sentence, which is in section 1.3 -- "Preparations for Iraq War," is grammatically incorrect.
[5/20/11, 11:31pm pacific standard time] _________________________________________
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.88.168 ( talk) 06:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed QuentinUK ( talk) 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
"The Iraq War or War in Iraq, also referred to as the Second Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom,[49]"
The first citation in the main text is behind a paywall. Couldn't another source be found for this information? QuentinUK ( talk) 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This should be removed.Iraqi elections were marked by widespread fraud and by the fact that over 500 people were not allowed to run in the elections due to "ties with the baath party".
By the way,this whole article is amazingly bias and unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.140.63.52 ( talk) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Seriously. About 2/5's of the way down, an American soldier stands in front of a picture of Jesus, while the light shines in.
Are you people trying to make this a holy war? Absolutely biased and offensive, and if you want a neutral article it should be removed immediately.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.14.183 ( talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, full stop. the idea that this may offend you because it may contain elements of a different religion is something you need to get over. V7-sport ( talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, answers to your questions.
"The photo shows a soldier together with the image of Jesus"
Where does it say that is Jesus?
I think you refer to the image description. This description is completely unsourced.'
Wrong, it's sourced to a combat photographer who served in Iraq who was good enough to renounce the rights to the photo. Per
WP:IMAGE "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken."...
And how does this photo illustrates that there was a turning point?
It would be helpful if you would carefully read other editors comments.
Because Jesus appeared? The war turned because Jesus appeared?
Are you trying to be clever? Where does it say that is Jesus?
How is the is this image connected to the surge?
It is of a soldier clearing a house during the surge.
Where is the connection between the topic of the section the turning point and surge?
It is of a soldier clearing a house during the surge. Got it yet?
In my view your explanation does not make sense...
It would be helpful if you would carefully read other editors comments.
and the image does not help the readers understanding of the topic of this section. Or how does it?
It's the only photo of a Soldier clearing a house during the surge. It illustrates that there was combat that was brought about as a result of the Surge.
Has this image ever been published in secondary sources?
Per
WP:IMAGE "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken."...
V7-sport (
talk)
01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope my arguments have not been refuted and i have never said that i personally find the image disturbing in the way you describe here. The fact is i never said that. The reasons for the removal are given above by me and at least two other editors and there is no need to repeat them here and there have been discussed and there is no consensus for removal. You are the vast minority with your view. Once again do agree to conflict resolution as WP:RFC as i have suggested to you multiple times or stop beating a death horse. WP:DEADHORSE Nothing more to say your. IQinn ( talk) 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
dis·turb (d-stûrb) tr.v. dis·turbed, dis·turb·ing, dis·turbs 1. To break up or destroy the tranquillity or settled state of: "Subterranean fires and deep unrest disturb the whole area" (Rachel Carson). 2. To trouble emotionally or mentally; upset. 3. a. To interfere with; interrupt: noise that disturbed my sleep. b. To intrude on; inconvenience: Constant calls disturbed her work. 4. To put out of order; disarrange.
The image in question is decorative and does nothing to illustrate the troop surge; a soldier looking up a flight of stairs doesn't even properly illustrate clearing a house. It clearly isn't censorship - it's just irrelevant and decorative. Additionally, please obey WP:CIVIL. ( Hohum @) 18:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The evening of Sunday April 5th, 2011, it has been confirmed by the U.S Government that Osama Bin Laden was killed by a Military Operation at a Mansion in Pakistan. I would like to request an edit of the article to include this content. Please see the following sources. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676 http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.dead/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler 14 420 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Iraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.130.247 ( talk) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Abu Ghraib 39.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 15 June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
In this article's "Location Status" there is a entry that claims Iraq has seen "improvements in public security." I think this is inaccurate and misleading. How have there been "improvements"? The Iraq War continues. Violence, bombings and assassinations still occur daily. Baghdad and other cities remain some of the most dangerous areas on earth. I suppose public security has "improved" since the even darker days of 2006---but this article should make that clear, rather than making a broad sweeping claim that there have been overall "improvements in public security" that the war has somehow brought about---when the opposite is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 ( talk) 15:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think one can now safely say that the US won the war in Iraq. The Baath regime was toppled, Saddam was executed, a new government was elected, and the islamic insurgency has been mostly quelled. Iraq is now a major US ally. What do you think? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 21:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Things are not this simple. There is much dispute over wheather the US succesfully installed a democracy, since the new government is becoming more and more authoritarian, candidates were banned from recent elections, there have been fraud claims during all 3 elections and many human rights violations have taken place. Also Iraq's status as a US ally (leave alone major US ally) is questionable, due to the strong ties to Iran of many leading Shi'a and Kurdish figures and the growth increasing influence of Muqtada al-Sadr's political party. Also the insurgency is far from quelled, although it's not as deadly as it was around 2006-2007, with at least 4,000 civilians, 900 security forces killed this year it is still one of the most deadly insurgencies on earth. Kermanshahi ( talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Dans popped
Since when did stopping all insurgency (of which there will always be) and installing democracy become a prerequisite for officially winning a war, when the government upon whom one declared war has been toppled? By those standards, you'd have to more than double the official length of pretty much any war you can think of. The vast majority of wars in history had nothing to with democracy. And the fact that politicians who are anti-American are growing in influence there? I understand Pakistani and Indian politicians have never liked each other much - does this constitute a 64 year war? And the little I know of the region which is now Afghanistan, the Afghan War has been going on with brief periods of quasi-peace for the last few thousand years. Coincidental that it suits both hawks and doves to exaggerate the length of the war and include every car-bomb and street-fight (see below). I'm not saying the violence isn't terrible, but there's an important technical point here, so today's media don't mislead future historians.
American victory or not, the war would still be going on for many years after the U.S occupation ends on December 31 2011.
Any long term endeavor will ultimately fall victim to ratchet effect, and plans inevitably change as the situation does, but the intent remains. The US was very clear about their goals at the start of the war, the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime after the violation of UNSC resolution 1441. While you may debate your perceived reasoning for an invasion the fact remains that the US documented their goals, stated them publicly, and accomplished them after a swift invasion. With the regime dismantled, the army dissolved, and weapons inspectors free to begin their search for WMDs, the US was very much "Mission Accomplished". Had we left after that there would be no doubt that the US and UNSC forces were victorious. Unfortunately some people felt that we had a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to national security, to help rebuild the country that we had just dismantled. In 2005 the US officially declared their new mission in Iraq, which was to establish a democratic ally in the middle east capable of fighting its own terrorists for us. In 2007 the UNSC reiterated this by declaring their goals as "A unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror". Since the definition of "democracy" seems to be subjective with you people, and because the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is thrown around too often, I guess we will never know if the US accomplished it's mission in establishing a democratic ally. By your definition the US doesn't even have a true democracy. Compare this to Vietnam however, where we withdrew forces before we could even eliminate the conventional forces, that was a very clear defeat. How is this anything like a war where we decimated the conventional enemy force and established a government to fight a diminishing terrorist threat in the region? Lmk8541 ( talk) 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I am pleased to see this article no longer has an arbitrary end date, but leaves the issue uncertain, emphasising that the ORIGINAL conflict is over, and was won by the US-led allies. When people hear the idea put forward that in any historical sense the ORIGINAL (2003) Iraq War is over, and that what is happening now is a different war or sectarian insurgency (comparable more to the similarly violent drug war in Mexico than a formal state-on-state war), against quite different enemies in quite different circumstances, they get very cross: "Is this a joke?! Are you a moron! Of course it's not over! A war is not won until every single person against one side is totally squished and everyone is dancing hand in hand round a rainbow! Duh!" This has never been considered the case before - quite frankly it's a tad idealistic, self-righteous, and only popped up after the Vietnam War. By this standard the war will never end (so the one side can continue moaning forever, and the other side can use it as an excuse for removing civil liberties). I'm not denying the awful facts on the ground, but why can't the all-powerful media split it into the Iraq War (2003) and the Iraq Insurgency or maybe Second Iraq War (2003 - present)? That would simply make more sense, whatever your moral position on the war. In 2003, the US, UK, etc. declared war on the Baathist government of Iraq, toppled them, and captured Saddam Hussein. (First) war over. Then there was insurgency by completely separate groups who had been opposed to both sides.
Back in the day historians were (often) clearer about what constituted a war and when wars ended. Since declaration of war has become less formal, and sensationalist media and political spin have taken over, people are a bit fuzzier about these matters - I note that the opposite happened in Libya because it suited the media - even though the country was already split in two even geographically and had two armed forces killing each other's members en masse (this is known as a 'civil war'), the media didn't want to call it a 'civil war' for ages (the more positive term 'popular uprising' was in vogue in the news).
The Korean War (since neither government has been toppled) has even more claim to be ongoing (people are still being killed). Many other wars in history would be much longer, and this Iraq War ought to be combined with the Gulf War and Clinton's bombing, so I could hereby arrogantly declare its dates to be 1991-2607 (the year the media might finally admit the war is over, if they ever do). In fact, Iraq has been a pretty violent place (on and off) since the 3rd millennium BC, so how about combining it with everything from the Akkadian and Gutian invasions of Sumer, the neo-Babylonian invasion of Assyria, the Roman-Persian wars, the Abbasid Revolution and World War II? Different people fighting in different ways about different things, but apparently that doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.103 ( talk) 09:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The claim that the war (as opposed to just one particular phase of it) officially ended on August 31, 2010 is inaccurate and wrong.
This article should not present an official end date to the war when none exists. Formats ( talk) 03:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Two_wars.html
Agreed. Above is another article from September 2010 where Obama says that the U.S. is still fighting two wars. Thus, since many govt. officials say that the Iraq War isn't over yet, it shouldn't be considered over in this article either.
Its sad it took all that just to conclude that the Iraq war isn't over.-- J intela ( talk) 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Iraq had lost $8,800,000,000 in the" to "Iraq had lost $8.8 billion in the" because it differs in format from the rest of the article and because it is misleading in terms of amount, as 8,800,000,000 seems larger than 8.8 billion.
96.228.24.67 ( talk) 21:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes.
The Light Burns ( talk) 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Today the Iraq War officially was ended by President Obama. I would like to ask someone who is allowed to edit this article to be able to show that the war stopped today, December 14, 2011. Right now it shows the day it started to the present. I'd appreciate if someone could fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebowl99 ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The vast majority of this article is about interactions with America & Cooalition troops. But the more interesting thing is what is happening in Iraq itself. Who are the various factions and what are their motives and strengths? Most importantly, what really is the end game becoming? A flowering of peace and goodwill, or the rise of Sadam II? Tuntable ( talk) 23:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Iraq War/Archive 24 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
![]() |
to
Iraq War/Archive 24 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
![]() |
" in order to reflect the withdrawl of US forces.
138.130.68.60 ( talk) 05:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation ran concurrently with the war in Afghanistan, but an argument could be made that this is actually an extension of the Gulf War rather than a separate war in and of itself.
Looking at the timeline, the chain of events took place in an unbroken sequence, from the invasion of Kuwait to Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to the UN sanctions and weapons inspections, to the US and UK enforcement of the No Fly Zone, to repeated military attacks against Iraq in response to various violations by the Hussein regime, to the UN's reinstatement of the weapons inspections, to the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. That, I think, is the chain of events which historians will tie together. It's been well established that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although many people were confused on that point at the time of the 2003 invasion.
I'm not interested in a political debate about whether the 2003 invasion was correct or justified. Rather, I'm interested in looking at the Iraq War within its correct context, and that context leads me to conclude that this is a war which began with the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and will be ending this year with the full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, spanning 21 years and four Presidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Shield_(Gulf_War)#Operation_Desert_Shield
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Storm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northern_Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Thunder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbondate ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Contributors to this article may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Tense of some Iraq-war related articles. Yaris678 ( talk) 19:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Now when it is becoming more and more obvious that this invasion was indeed illegal act, not authorised by UN and not supported by majority of states, its quite justifiable to consider listing this war as an act of unjustified aggression to a state because of ideology/resources/political situation/...(yet to be decided). I know that most of us don't like the idea that even first world countries are still capable of such aggression, but, we are wikipedians, we should discuss this neutrally. So, I say this was a war of aggression. Why: justifying with no credible proof, unauthorised by UN and possible profitable gains from occupation(natural resources, greater control of the region).
discuss. Mrwho00tm ( talk) 19:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
History has shown that practically all wars can be considered "wars of aggression" where there is some form of economic gain or potential political advantage...that usually leads to an economic gain. Otherwise, it's not worth "fighting" over, whether it be by combatants or material support. It's not the wikipedians' jobs to pass any form of partial judgement or act as a court. All we do is try to update the facts reported by "reputable" sources as a "neutral" party. Until someone is "convicted" for this "illegal act", there is no justification in saying that it is or not. Now if next year some countries unite and take over the UN and convict the USA and all participants of the invasion of "illegal warring", then you can list all the details. Rasmasyean ( talk) 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
All the news reports say that "advisor" troops will stay behind, along with troops to defend the "embassy". How naive is wikipedia required to be? 108.65.0.169 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC).
The article mentions a lot of different english names for this conflict, but doesn't state any name in arabic given by the enemy forces. In other war articles WP gives names in different languages in order to give names from all sides involved. Why not in the introduction of this article as well? -- 217.50.59.45 ( talk) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This war is over now :) Here's a newspaper article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8959558/US-formally-ends-Iraq-war.html
Didn't the war end after the Iraqi army was defeated? I thought the definition of a war was when 2 or more armies fight, not when one country occupies another. For reference, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War which includes the dates of invasion and final day of occupation whilst also explaining when large-scale fighting ended. By this basis the dates would include March 2003-to present with an explanation that Iraq was defeated in April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.43.208 ( talk) 19:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I AGREE!! There needs to be a discussion about this. There needs to be two clear sides for it be called a "War". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.91.206.172 ( talk) 18:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Coalition vs insurgents. There...two sides. We done? Learn what a war really is please before starting this kind of discussion. Thank you. Diefgross ( talk) 08:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
No , not done, that was an insurgancy , not pitched battles between opposing state armies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.28.57 ( talk) 01:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Coalition vs insurgents aren't two sides. You can't lump the insurgents all in one group because they were never unified, and often fought each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.34.84 ( talk) 19:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Does the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops really constitute the end of this war? Therequiembellishere ( talk) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia reflects what WP:RELIABLE sources say. The US President and members of the US governments are Primary sources, and reflect only the opinion of the US government. For older wars, we would reflect what reliable historians said. This is a current event, so we need to decide what the reliable sources for it are, while avoiding WP:RECENTISM. Reliable independent military and political analysts would probably be the best options. In my opinion, avoid what journalists are saying, they aren't qualified to say if a war is over or not. Hohum ( talk) 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to reflect what reliable sources say, not conduct original research and interpretation. Iraq's own army is now continuing where the multinational force left - it's up to reliable sources to decide if this means the war is over or continuing with less belligerents. Hohum ( talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The title of the section "endgame" is strange and strikes me as inappropriate. This is not a board game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.96.19 ( talk) 05:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Requesting title change from "Iraq War" to "USA War" or "USA War on Iraq" or "USA War 2003". Thank you. Sherzad ( talk) 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
As Ali Mussa Daqduq has been transferred to Iraqi custody, [1] [2] the mention of him being in American custody in the infobox should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.60.111 ( talk) 11:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
"Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the possibility of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction" G.W.Bush clearly stated that Iraq had WMD, first he stated that Iraq was part of the 9/11, but that was proven false, can someone correct that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.28.7 ( talk) 20:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Coalition casualties are severely out of date and do not reflect the final total. More accurate figures can be located here http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/11/attachments/Lutz%20US%20and%20Coalition%20Casualties.pdf and would strongly reccomend the sidebox underneath the image be updated to reflect this, with all casualties and deaths incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.98.38 ( talk) 05:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no edit button. Why? InnovationCover ( talk) 09:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it worth noting that the late Pope John Paul II met with both George W. Bush and Tony Blair to advise them not to invade Iraq in the section under "Opposition to Invasion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 ( talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
First of all, saying the War ended on December 15, is incorrect, because although US involvement may be over (which it isn't really, because of all the contractors), the war still continues between Iraqi government and insurgents. Also, the claim that the insurgency is currently "small-scale" is POV, because there is no clear definition for this, and it seems to have only been framed in such words to make the war seem more successful for US, which is POV. In reality, although the violence decreased, the insurgency is by no means small scale and with at least 3,777 deaths this year [5] it is still one of the most violent conflicts on earth. Most ongoing conflicts, which have articles on wikipedia, have nowhere near 3,777 deaths a year, or even in total, and we don't label them as finished. Kermanshahi ( talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That a "reliable source" quotes a US politician as saying the war is over, does not mean the war is actually over. As long as there is an ongoing conflict that means the conflict is ongoing. Many conflicts which see only 100 or less casualties a year, or even just one or two bombings a year are classified by wikipedia as "ongoing," meanwhile one of the most violent conflicts on earth labelled here as finished simply because Barack Obama says so? Are we his propaganda site or what? This is a clear double standard. As for who is "reliable," politicians lie, their journalists do, but numbers don't:
Baghdad: 7 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Baiji: 1 body. Mussayab: 2 bodies. Al-Sieniya: 1 Sahwa member by gunfire. Baquba: 1 Sahwa member by IED.
December casualties so far: 371 civilians killed.
Sunday 25 December: 17 killed Garma: 6 policemen by gunfire. Arbat: 2 by gunfire. Baquba: 1 body. Falluja: 1 policeman by gunfire. Abu Ghraib: 2 by IED. Baghdad: 1 by AED. Dujail: 1 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 1 Christian by gunfire. Tikrit: 2 by car bomb.
December casualties so far: 357 civilians killed.
Saturday 24 December: 9 killed Baghdad: 2 by IED. Kirkuk: 2 by AED, 2 bodies. Hawija: 2 policemen by IED. Mosul: 1 body.
December casualties so far: 340 civilians killed.
Friday 23 December: 11 killed Baghdad: 5 by IEDs. Mosul: 3 by IEDs. Kirkuk: 1 by AED, 1 body. Gatun: 1 by gunfire.
December casualties so far: 331 civilians killed.
Thursday 22 December: 85 killed Baghdad: 75 killed in several bombings. Baquba: 6 by gunfire. Mosul: 2 by IED, 1 body found. Kirkuk: 1 body.
December casualties so far: 320 civilians killed.
Wednesday 21 December: 6 killed Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Kirkuk: 2 by AED. Abu Ghraib: 1 Sahwa chief by AED. Baghdad: 1 by gunfire.
December casualties so far: 235 civilians killed.
Tuesday 20 December: 4 killed Falluja: 1 killed by bomb inside shop. Baghdad: 1 university lecturer by AED. Mosul: 1 by gunfire. Haswa: 1 by IED.
December casualties so far: 229 civilians killed. Kermanshahi ( talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
^^It doesn't. It refers to the Iraq War. The Vietnam War article doesn't end with end of US intervention either. Kermanshahi ( talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
If that's the case then you could make the case that the "War" started in 1980 with the Iran-Iraq War (possibly even earlier that that) and it has just been one on-going conflict since then (which by your logic is what it should be), there will always be violence in Iraq but this conflict is now over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 ( talk) 04:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
No you couldn't make that case at all, because the conflict between Saddam Hussein and the government of Iran ended in 1988 with a cease-fire. The conflict between the Iraqi insurgency and the new Iraqi government, installed by the US in 2003, has continued until today, and therefore is still ongoing. Kermanshahi ( talk) 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh but there was fighting between those two well before 2003- Just face it, violence will always continue in Iraq but the Iraq War is now Over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 ( talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The Iraq War is clearly over as the aims of the coalition forces to determine if Saddam Hussein's regime was hiding WMD have concluded and the U.N. resolutions to bring military forces into the country have been resolved. The subsequent occupation of coalition forces resulted from the ousting of Saddam Hussein's regime, as the Iraq War was the strategic removal of the regime's military stance against the U.N. resolutions. The battles between insurgents, therefore, are related to the occupation and not to the Iraq War/U.N. peacekeeping effort of the various coalition nations. The aims of the occupation were to stabilize the country and the region as Iraq moved towards a representative democracy. The war in Iraq was over once the U.N. resolutions were resolved. The occupation should not be included in this Wiki except as a reference, and the insurgent fighting and sectarian violence the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Needs to be qualified. The Poll was conducted in urban centers only and is not representative of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.242.246 ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Obama's act of formally ending combat operations was virtually the entire basis of the notion that the war is over. Despite this, Obama has publicly stated, multiple times, that the war is "coming to an end" or something similar, most notably in the State of the Union and during the Super Bowl XLV pregame interview, in both instances broadcast to millions of people. If Obama considers the war "coming to an end", he obviously does not his ending of combat operations an end to the war. The notion of "the end of combat operations" equaling "the end of the war" is thus, obviously, rendered completely and utterly obsolete. I think it should immediately be changed to reflect its ongoing status. Swarm X 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support This has been debated several previous times and most editors agreed that the war was not over, however, the notion was at the time among other editors that the war ended (which is not the case). I hope now since Obama himself is saying the war is coming to an end would reflect the situation properly. Diefgross ( talk) 04:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of consensus, you are going to need to find reliable sources that have the weight of the executive branch and the state department that directly and specifically state that the war is ongoing. At this point, with 7 months of relative quiet since the announcement that the war was over it's a bit absurd to be pushing for it to be ongoing. V7-sport ( talk) 06:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I have no doubt that if Obama said it was 'over', the editors insisting it 'isn't over' would find something else to show it 'wasn't over'. These claims are simply tendentious. If you want people to take your claims seriously, then please show that you have the first idea what event/situation/declaration would infact mark this war as being 'over', and in addition, show that reliable sources put any weight behind your personal theories. Because Wikipedia isn't you personal platform to dissemintate your opinions as if they were fact. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As with all wars of this type this will end with a whimper rather than a bang, as the fighting gradually draws down and declines, compairing this to insurgencess succeding wars (like WWII, the civil war, vietmam) is incorrect becouse these were of a much smaller scale and were after a sudden major reduction in fighting with a formal decloration of an end or serrendor. The current fighting is a smothe contiution from the leval of prious fighting and so is cearly still the war, we will be able to tell when the war ends after the violaence shivals belowe some difined point, the Best one is the UN defined 1000 battle deaths per yaer. Anything below that would be defined as civil strife.--
J intela (
talk) 01:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I also keep hearing (sometimes half jokingly) that we are now in "3 Wars" after the invasion of Libya, well if we aren't still at war with Iraq then how can the number be 3. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.98.40.217 (
talk)
06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I entirely agree with V7 that "This isn't a matter of consensus". The article was wrongly changed to declare the war over just because "combat operations" ended, even though the war is still considered to be ongoing by the president, the media and society. Casualty reports in the media are still reporting casualties of the "Iraq War". No one in government has stated the war is over. And few media sources even ventured to say "war over" in August. Swarm X 01:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to downplay the involvement of the Iranian government, if not denying it altogether. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/02/iranian_sniper_rifle.php Is one of many references from credible sources if you google ".50 caliber" "sniper rifle" and "iran" in any combination. Also google Iranian UAV's shot down, or Iranian agents in Iraq. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53495 Also, I'm not sure how much credibility you give to wikileaks, or how often you reference them (considering how often their site is down), but you can find many sources referencing wikileaks regarding Iranian involvement. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23iran.html I understand that the phrase "Although some military intelligence analysts have concluded there is no concrete evidence..." without any sort of reference is probably just a way to cover your bases, like the words "believed", "appeared", and so on, but if you say "some military analysts" should you cite that? In addition, this statement under "Tensions with Iran": "The Bush administration and coalition leaders began to publicly state that Iran was supplying weapons, particularly EFP devices, to Iraqi insurgents and militias although to date have failed to provide any proof for these allegations." I understand that the task force responsible found very little conclusive evidence on the EFP's, but when you group the EFP's with "weapons" and then state that there is no evidence, it makes the incorrect assertion that there is no evidence for either. Unless I'm just reading it wrong. Lmk8541 ( talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Under "Date" in the box on the right, it is falsely stated that the war lasted 7 years and 166 days when in fact it was 7 years and 164 days. It seems like the person calculating it calculated the total number of days, and then subtracted 7*365. The person forgot to count for leap years when subtracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.150.191 ( talk) 03:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
March 20 2010 to August 31 2010 =(31-19)+30+31+30+31+31=165 days, so 7 years and 165 days
March 20, 2003 to March 19, 2010 = 7 years = 5*365+2*366 = 2557 days. so 2557+165=2722 days QuentinUK ( talk) 10:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
"His presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory."
The above sentence, which is in section 1.3 -- "Preparations for Iraq War," is grammatically incorrect.
[5/20/11, 11:31pm pacific standard time] _________________________________________
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.88.168 ( talk) 06:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed QuentinUK ( talk) 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
"The Iraq War or War in Iraq, also referred to as the Second Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom,[49]"
The first citation in the main text is behind a paywall. Couldn't another source be found for this information? QuentinUK ( talk) 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This should be removed.Iraqi elections were marked by widespread fraud and by the fact that over 500 people were not allowed to run in the elections due to "ties with the baath party".
By the way,this whole article is amazingly bias and unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.140.63.52 ( talk) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Seriously. About 2/5's of the way down, an American soldier stands in front of a picture of Jesus, while the light shines in.
Are you people trying to make this a holy war? Absolutely biased and offensive, and if you want a neutral article it should be removed immediately.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.14.183 ( talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, full stop. the idea that this may offend you because it may contain elements of a different religion is something you need to get over. V7-sport ( talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, answers to your questions.
"The photo shows a soldier together with the image of Jesus"
Where does it say that is Jesus?
I think you refer to the image description. This description is completely unsourced.'
Wrong, it's sourced to a combat photographer who served in Iraq who was good enough to renounce the rights to the photo. Per
WP:IMAGE "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken."...
And how does this photo illustrates that there was a turning point?
It would be helpful if you would carefully read other editors comments.
Because Jesus appeared? The war turned because Jesus appeared?
Are you trying to be clever? Where does it say that is Jesus?
How is the is this image connected to the surge?
It is of a soldier clearing a house during the surge.
Where is the connection between the topic of the section the turning point and surge?
It is of a soldier clearing a house during the surge. Got it yet?
In my view your explanation does not make sense...
It would be helpful if you would carefully read other editors comments.
and the image does not help the readers understanding of the topic of this section. Or how does it?
It's the only photo of a Soldier clearing a house during the surge. It illustrates that there was combat that was brought about as a result of the Surge.
Has this image ever been published in secondary sources?
Per
WP:IMAGE "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken."...
V7-sport (
talk)
01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope my arguments have not been refuted and i have never said that i personally find the image disturbing in the way you describe here. The fact is i never said that. The reasons for the removal are given above by me and at least two other editors and there is no need to repeat them here and there have been discussed and there is no consensus for removal. You are the vast minority with your view. Once again do agree to conflict resolution as WP:RFC as i have suggested to you multiple times or stop beating a death horse. WP:DEADHORSE Nothing more to say your. IQinn ( talk) 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
dis·turb (d-stûrb) tr.v. dis·turbed, dis·turb·ing, dis·turbs 1. To break up or destroy the tranquillity or settled state of: "Subterranean fires and deep unrest disturb the whole area" (Rachel Carson). 2. To trouble emotionally or mentally; upset. 3. a. To interfere with; interrupt: noise that disturbed my sleep. b. To intrude on; inconvenience: Constant calls disturbed her work. 4. To put out of order; disarrange.
The image in question is decorative and does nothing to illustrate the troop surge; a soldier looking up a flight of stairs doesn't even properly illustrate clearing a house. It clearly isn't censorship - it's just irrelevant and decorative. Additionally, please obey WP:CIVIL. ( Hohum @) 18:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The evening of Sunday April 5th, 2011, it has been confirmed by the U.S Government that Osama Bin Laden was killed by a Military Operation at a Mansion in Pakistan. I would like to request an edit of the article to include this content. Please see the following sources. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676 http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.dead/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler 14 420 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Iraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.130.247 ( talk) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Abu Ghraib 39.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 15 June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
In this article's "Location Status" there is a entry that claims Iraq has seen "improvements in public security." I think this is inaccurate and misleading. How have there been "improvements"? The Iraq War continues. Violence, bombings and assassinations still occur daily. Baghdad and other cities remain some of the most dangerous areas on earth. I suppose public security has "improved" since the even darker days of 2006---but this article should make that clear, rather than making a broad sweeping claim that there have been overall "improvements in public security" that the war has somehow brought about---when the opposite is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 ( talk) 15:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think one can now safely say that the US won the war in Iraq. The Baath regime was toppled, Saddam was executed, a new government was elected, and the islamic insurgency has been mostly quelled. Iraq is now a major US ally. What do you think? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 21:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Things are not this simple. There is much dispute over wheather the US succesfully installed a democracy, since the new government is becoming more and more authoritarian, candidates were banned from recent elections, there have been fraud claims during all 3 elections and many human rights violations have taken place. Also Iraq's status as a US ally (leave alone major US ally) is questionable, due to the strong ties to Iran of many leading Shi'a and Kurdish figures and the growth increasing influence of Muqtada al-Sadr's political party. Also the insurgency is far from quelled, although it's not as deadly as it was around 2006-2007, with at least 4,000 civilians, 900 security forces killed this year it is still one of the most deadly insurgencies on earth. Kermanshahi ( talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Dans popped
Since when did stopping all insurgency (of which there will always be) and installing democracy become a prerequisite for officially winning a war, when the government upon whom one declared war has been toppled? By those standards, you'd have to more than double the official length of pretty much any war you can think of. The vast majority of wars in history had nothing to with democracy. And the fact that politicians who are anti-American are growing in influence there? I understand Pakistani and Indian politicians have never liked each other much - does this constitute a 64 year war? And the little I know of the region which is now Afghanistan, the Afghan War has been going on with brief periods of quasi-peace for the last few thousand years. Coincidental that it suits both hawks and doves to exaggerate the length of the war and include every car-bomb and street-fight (see below). I'm not saying the violence isn't terrible, but there's an important technical point here, so today's media don't mislead future historians.
American victory or not, the war would still be going on for many years after the U.S occupation ends on December 31 2011.
Any long term endeavor will ultimately fall victim to ratchet effect, and plans inevitably change as the situation does, but the intent remains. The US was very clear about their goals at the start of the war, the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime after the violation of UNSC resolution 1441. While you may debate your perceived reasoning for an invasion the fact remains that the US documented their goals, stated them publicly, and accomplished them after a swift invasion. With the regime dismantled, the army dissolved, and weapons inspectors free to begin their search for WMDs, the US was very much "Mission Accomplished". Had we left after that there would be no doubt that the US and UNSC forces were victorious. Unfortunately some people felt that we had a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to national security, to help rebuild the country that we had just dismantled. In 2005 the US officially declared their new mission in Iraq, which was to establish a democratic ally in the middle east capable of fighting its own terrorists for us. In 2007 the UNSC reiterated this by declaring their goals as "A unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror". Since the definition of "democracy" seems to be subjective with you people, and because the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is thrown around too often, I guess we will never know if the US accomplished it's mission in establishing a democratic ally. By your definition the US doesn't even have a true democracy. Compare this to Vietnam however, where we withdrew forces before we could even eliminate the conventional forces, that was a very clear defeat. How is this anything like a war where we decimated the conventional enemy force and established a government to fight a diminishing terrorist threat in the region? Lmk8541 ( talk) 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I am pleased to see this article no longer has an arbitrary end date, but leaves the issue uncertain, emphasising that the ORIGINAL conflict is over, and was won by the US-led allies. When people hear the idea put forward that in any historical sense the ORIGINAL (2003) Iraq War is over, and that what is happening now is a different war or sectarian insurgency (comparable more to the similarly violent drug war in Mexico than a formal state-on-state war), against quite different enemies in quite different circumstances, they get very cross: "Is this a joke?! Are you a moron! Of course it's not over! A war is not won until every single person against one side is totally squished and everyone is dancing hand in hand round a rainbow! Duh!" This has never been considered the case before - quite frankly it's a tad idealistic, self-righteous, and only popped up after the Vietnam War. By this standard the war will never end (so the one side can continue moaning forever, and the other side can use it as an excuse for removing civil liberties). I'm not denying the awful facts on the ground, but why can't the all-powerful media split it into the Iraq War (2003) and the Iraq Insurgency or maybe Second Iraq War (2003 - present)? That would simply make more sense, whatever your moral position on the war. In 2003, the US, UK, etc. declared war on the Baathist government of Iraq, toppled them, and captured Saddam Hussein. (First) war over. Then there was insurgency by completely separate groups who had been opposed to both sides.
Back in the day historians were (often) clearer about what constituted a war and when wars ended. Since declaration of war has become less formal, and sensationalist media and political spin have taken over, people are a bit fuzzier about these matters - I note that the opposite happened in Libya because it suited the media - even though the country was already split in two even geographically and had two armed forces killing each other's members en masse (this is known as a 'civil war'), the media didn't want to call it a 'civil war' for ages (the more positive term 'popular uprising' was in vogue in the news).
The Korean War (since neither government has been toppled) has even more claim to be ongoing (people are still being killed). Many other wars in history would be much longer, and this Iraq War ought to be combined with the Gulf War and Clinton's bombing, so I could hereby arrogantly declare its dates to be 1991-2607 (the year the media might finally admit the war is over, if they ever do). In fact, Iraq has been a pretty violent place (on and off) since the 3rd millennium BC, so how about combining it with everything from the Akkadian and Gutian invasions of Sumer, the neo-Babylonian invasion of Assyria, the Roman-Persian wars, the Abbasid Revolution and World War II? Different people fighting in different ways about different things, but apparently that doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.103 ( talk) 09:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The claim that the war (as opposed to just one particular phase of it) officially ended on August 31, 2010 is inaccurate and wrong.
This article should not present an official end date to the war when none exists. Formats ( talk) 03:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Two_wars.html
Agreed. Above is another article from September 2010 where Obama says that the U.S. is still fighting two wars. Thus, since many govt. officials say that the Iraq War isn't over yet, it shouldn't be considered over in this article either.
Its sad it took all that just to conclude that the Iraq war isn't over.-- J intela ( talk) 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Iraq had lost $8,800,000,000 in the" to "Iraq had lost $8.8 billion in the" because it differs in format from the rest of the article and because it is misleading in terms of amount, as 8,800,000,000 seems larger than 8.8 billion.
96.228.24.67 ( talk) 21:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes.
The Light Burns ( talk) 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Today the Iraq War officially was ended by President Obama. I would like to ask someone who is allowed to edit this article to be able to show that the war stopped today, December 14, 2011. Right now it shows the day it started to the present. I'd appreciate if someone could fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebowl99 ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The vast majority of this article is about interactions with America & Cooalition troops. But the more interesting thing is what is happening in Iraq itself. Who are the various factions and what are their motives and strengths? Most importantly, what really is the end game becoming? A flowering of peace and goodwill, or the rise of Sadam II? Tuntable ( talk) 23:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Iraq War/Archive 24 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
![]() |
to
Iraq War/Archive 24 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
![]() |
" in order to reflect the withdrawl of US forces.
138.130.68.60 ( talk) 05:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation ran concurrently with the war in Afghanistan, but an argument could be made that this is actually an extension of the Gulf War rather than a separate war in and of itself.
Looking at the timeline, the chain of events took place in an unbroken sequence, from the invasion of Kuwait to Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to the UN sanctions and weapons inspections, to the US and UK enforcement of the No Fly Zone, to repeated military attacks against Iraq in response to various violations by the Hussein regime, to the UN's reinstatement of the weapons inspections, to the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. That, I think, is the chain of events which historians will tie together. It's been well established that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although many people were confused on that point at the time of the 2003 invasion.
I'm not interested in a political debate about whether the 2003 invasion was correct or justified. Rather, I'm interested in looking at the Iraq War within its correct context, and that context leads me to conclude that this is a war which began with the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and will be ending this year with the full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, spanning 21 years and four Presidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Shield_(Gulf_War)#Operation_Desert_Shield
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Storm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northern_Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Thunder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbondate ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Contributors to this article may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Tense of some Iraq-war related articles. Yaris678 ( talk) 19:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Now when it is becoming more and more obvious that this invasion was indeed illegal act, not authorised by UN and not supported by majority of states, its quite justifiable to consider listing this war as an act of unjustified aggression to a state because of ideology/resources/political situation/...(yet to be decided). I know that most of us don't like the idea that even first world countries are still capable of such aggression, but, we are wikipedians, we should discuss this neutrally. So, I say this was a war of aggression. Why: justifying with no credible proof, unauthorised by UN and possible profitable gains from occupation(natural resources, greater control of the region).
discuss. Mrwho00tm ( talk) 19:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
History has shown that practically all wars can be considered "wars of aggression" where there is some form of economic gain or potential political advantage...that usually leads to an economic gain. Otherwise, it's not worth "fighting" over, whether it be by combatants or material support. It's not the wikipedians' jobs to pass any form of partial judgement or act as a court. All we do is try to update the facts reported by "reputable" sources as a "neutral" party. Until someone is "convicted" for this "illegal act", there is no justification in saying that it is or not. Now if next year some countries unite and take over the UN and convict the USA and all participants of the invasion of "illegal warring", then you can list all the details. Rasmasyean ( talk) 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
All the news reports say that "advisor" troops will stay behind, along with troops to defend the "embassy". How naive is wikipedia required to be? 108.65.0.169 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC).
The article mentions a lot of different english names for this conflict, but doesn't state any name in arabic given by the enemy forces. In other war articles WP gives names in different languages in order to give names from all sides involved. Why not in the introduction of this article as well? -- 217.50.59.45 ( talk) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This war is over now :) Here's a newspaper article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8959558/US-formally-ends-Iraq-war.html
Didn't the war end after the Iraqi army was defeated? I thought the definition of a war was when 2 or more armies fight, not when one country occupies another. For reference, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War which includes the dates of invasion and final day of occupation whilst also explaining when large-scale fighting ended. By this basis the dates would include March 2003-to present with an explanation that Iraq was defeated in April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.43.208 ( talk) 19:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I AGREE!! There needs to be a discussion about this. There needs to be two clear sides for it be called a "War". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.91.206.172 ( talk) 18:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Coalition vs insurgents. There...two sides. We done? Learn what a war really is please before starting this kind of discussion. Thank you. Diefgross ( talk) 08:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
No , not done, that was an insurgancy , not pitched battles between opposing state armies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.28.57 ( talk) 01:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Coalition vs insurgents aren't two sides. You can't lump the insurgents all in one group because they were never unified, and often fought each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.34.84 ( talk) 19:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Does the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops really constitute the end of this war? Therequiembellishere ( talk) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia reflects what WP:RELIABLE sources say. The US President and members of the US governments are Primary sources, and reflect only the opinion of the US government. For older wars, we would reflect what reliable historians said. This is a current event, so we need to decide what the reliable sources for it are, while avoiding WP:RECENTISM. Reliable independent military and political analysts would probably be the best options. In my opinion, avoid what journalists are saying, they aren't qualified to say if a war is over or not. Hohum ( talk) 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to reflect what reliable sources say, not conduct original research and interpretation. Iraq's own army is now continuing where the multinational force left - it's up to reliable sources to decide if this means the war is over or continuing with less belligerents. Hohum ( talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The title of the section "endgame" is strange and strikes me as inappropriate. This is not a board game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.96.19 ( talk) 05:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Requesting title change from "Iraq War" to "USA War" or "USA War on Iraq" or "USA War 2003". Thank you. Sherzad ( talk) 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
As Ali Mussa Daqduq has been transferred to Iraqi custody, [1] [2] the mention of him being in American custody in the infobox should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.60.111 ( talk) 11:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
"Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the possibility of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction" G.W.Bush clearly stated that Iraq had WMD, first he stated that Iraq was part of the 9/11, but that was proven false, can someone correct that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.28.7 ( talk) 20:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Coalition casualties are severely out of date and do not reflect the final total. More accurate figures can be located here http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/11/attachments/Lutz%20US%20and%20Coalition%20Casualties.pdf and would strongly reccomend the sidebox underneath the image be updated to reflect this, with all casualties and deaths incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.98.38 ( talk) 05:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no edit button. Why? InnovationCover ( talk) 09:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it worth noting that the late Pope John Paul II met with both George W. Bush and Tony Blair to advise them not to invade Iraq in the section under "Opposition to Invasion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 ( talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
First of all, saying the War ended on December 15, is incorrect, because although US involvement may be over (which it isn't really, because of all the contractors), the war still continues between Iraqi government and insurgents. Also, the claim that the insurgency is currently "small-scale" is POV, because there is no clear definition for this, and it seems to have only been framed in such words to make the war seem more successful for US, which is POV. In reality, although the violence decreased, the insurgency is by no means small scale and with at least 3,777 deaths this year [5] it is still one of the most violent conflicts on earth. Most ongoing conflicts, which have articles on wikipedia, have nowhere near 3,777 deaths a year, or even in total, and we don't label them as finished. Kermanshahi ( talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That a "reliable source" quotes a US politician as saying the war is over, does not mean the war is actually over. As long as there is an ongoing conflict that means the conflict is ongoing. Many conflicts which see only 100 or less casualties a year, or even just one or two bombings a year are classified by wikipedia as "ongoing," meanwhile one of the most violent conflicts on earth labelled here as finished simply because Barack Obama says so? Are we his propaganda site or what? This is a clear double standard. As for who is "reliable," politicians lie, their journalists do, but numbers don't:
Baghdad: 7 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Baiji: 1 body. Mussayab: 2 bodies. Al-Sieniya: 1 Sahwa member by gunfire. Baquba: 1 Sahwa member by IED.
December casualties so far: 371 civilians killed.
Sunday 25 December: 17 killed Garma: 6 policemen by gunfire. Arbat: 2 by gunfire. Baquba: 1 body. Falluja: 1 policeman by gunfire. Abu Ghraib: 2 by IED. Baghdad: 1 by AED. Dujail: 1 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 1 Christian by gunfire. Tikrit: 2 by car bomb.
December casualties so far: 357 civilians killed.
Saturday 24 December: 9 killed Baghdad: 2 by IED. Kirkuk: 2 by AED, 2 bodies. Hawija: 2 policemen by IED. Mosul: 1 body.
December casualties so far: 340 civilians killed.
Friday 23 December: 11 killed Baghdad: 5 by IEDs. Mosul: 3 by IEDs. Kirkuk: 1 by AED, 1 body. Gatun: 1 by gunfire.
December casualties so far: 331 civilians killed.
Thursday 22 December: 85 killed Baghdad: 75 killed in several bombings. Baquba: 6 by gunfire. Mosul: 2 by IED, 1 body found. Kirkuk: 1 body.
December casualties so far: 320 civilians killed.
Wednesday 21 December: 6 killed Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Kirkuk: 2 by AED. Abu Ghraib: 1 Sahwa chief by AED. Baghdad: 1 by gunfire.
December casualties so far: 235 civilians killed.
Tuesday 20 December: 4 killed Falluja: 1 killed by bomb inside shop. Baghdad: 1 university lecturer by AED. Mosul: 1 by gunfire. Haswa: 1 by IED.
December casualties so far: 229 civilians killed. Kermanshahi ( talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
^^It doesn't. It refers to the Iraq War. The Vietnam War article doesn't end with end of US intervention either. Kermanshahi ( talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
If that's the case then you could make the case that the "War" started in 1980 with the Iran-Iraq War (possibly even earlier that that) and it has just been one on-going conflict since then (which by your logic is what it should be), there will always be violence in Iraq but this conflict is now over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 ( talk) 04:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
No you couldn't make that case at all, because the conflict between Saddam Hussein and the government of Iran ended in 1988 with a cease-fire. The conflict between the Iraqi insurgency and the new Iraqi government, installed by the US in 2003, has continued until today, and therefore is still ongoing. Kermanshahi ( talk) 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh but there was fighting between those two well before 2003- Just face it, violence will always continue in Iraq but the Iraq War is now Over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 ( talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The Iraq War is clearly over as the aims of the coalition forces to determine if Saddam Hussein's regime was hiding WMD have concluded and the U.N. resolutions to bring military forces into the country have been resolved. The subsequent occupation of coalition forces resulted from the ousting of Saddam Hussein's regime, as the Iraq War was the strategic removal of the regime's military stance against the U.N. resolutions. The battles between insurgents, therefore, are related to the occupation and not to the Iraq War/U.N. peacekeeping effort of the various coalition nations. The aims of the occupation were to stabilize the country and the region as Iraq moved towards a representative democracy. The war in Iraq was over once the U.N. resolutions were resolved. The occupation should not be included in this Wiki except as a reference, and the insurgent fighting and sectarian violence the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)