Talk:Iraq War/Archive 12

Criticism section: Professor Chip Pitts

There is a lengthy paragraph in the intro to the criticisms section that describes the views of Professor Chip Pitts. This seems like undue weight, especially because Pitts is talking about much broader issues than what this section is about. This section is about criticisms of the prosecution of the war. Pitts is talking about U.S. foreign policy in general. I woudl like to remove this paragraph, but want to propose doing so before I make the change. I think I have removed it before and someone put it back in, so I welcome their thoughts on why it belongs. Cheers --Mackabean 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the change.--86.25.50.222 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to just reduce it's size.--86.29.246.148 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

.

Bibliography

I've added a bibliography botty section. Ricks' 'Fiasco' and Gordon's 'Cobra II' look like the most up-to-date and comprehensive books on the conflict so far, but feel free to add. Colin4C 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's Make the Opening Paragraph Change

I've read a great deal of support for changing the opening paragraph to reflect a more neutral tone. It's time we make the change. I'm willing to make the edit myself in the next fews days if I sense I have the support of the contributors in the discussion. --Clayc3466 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a contributor to this article. So I might be out of line for replying here. But I feel it is needed, regardless.

The suspect lines are perhaps:

"The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush and supporters in the Republican and Democratic parties, was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat[29] to the United States, its allies and interests. In George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, he claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Saddam Hussein became imminent.[30][31]"

These might hint at an anti-war bias, but they are also facts that are reliably sourced. The primary rationale for the war in March 2003 was unarguably the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. Terrorism, liberation, and other reasons were mentioned but the focus of the President's speeches were on the possibility of Iraq gaining nuclear technology and on the possibility they would give these weapons to terrorist groups.

"After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons. To support the war, other U.S. officials cited claims of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda connection. Yet others pointed to human rights abuse in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the need to establish democracy in Iraq as reason for the war. They have also claimed that the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply limited non-military options. Many critics of the war have alleged that this was a primary reason for the invasion.[32]"

This is where I start seeing an obvious bias in the choice of words the article uses. But again, these are facts. No evidence was found that Iraq was actively developing a weapons of mass destruction program. This is all a matter of government record in which the conclusion has been that Iraq ceased such programs in the years following Gulf I. The line about oil not being sourced is particularly troubling to me, and I feel it should be removed unless it can be sourced or quoted. All of this is relevant, but this is more about the political implications of the war (for which there are numerous articles) than the history of the war itself.

"The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq. The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq.[33][34] As a result of this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have withdrawn troops from Iraq.[35] The causes and consequences of the war remain extremely controversial.[16][36][24]"

Failure to restore order is the only anti-war language I can see here. The war is controversial. That is a fact that is undeniable. Order was not restored. This is also an undisputable fact.

Assymetric warfare broke out. The Pentagon itself has stated this.

The US coalition occupies Iraq and tries to establish a democratic government. This is fact.

The force has been and remains to be primarily American and British.

That being said, my vote is that it is completely rehauled. Not because of bias, but because it is too long-winded and repetitive like my post here. I think about 2/3 to 1/2 of what currently exists could be there.

What do you mean specifically about 'neutral tone'? Which parts of the paragraph are non-neutral? Colin4C 08:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to nitpick a little bit here. Consider the following statements:

After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons.

I'm not disagreeing with this, but you need a reference. Without a reference it is a worthless statement.

The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq.

Considering the operation to restore order is ongoing, I think my friends who are deployed there would be quite surprised to learn that they've already failed. This is a broad and dangerous statement, and the author has provided absolutely no external support for it.

The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq.

No one attacked Iraq. The allied forces invaded the land and fought (and are still fighting, fyi) Iraqi military and paramilitary organizations. Iraqi civilians have never been harmed without first showing intent to harm others, except in a few tragic accidents and but for a handful of immature young troops who take potshots at passing Iraqis because they want action. I know this is a bit too nitpicky, but honestly that language (attacked Iraq) seems very immature. Its like something a ten year old would say. Lets use adult language to describe adult situations.

I'm not suggesting that the introduction needs to be entirely overhauled, but if you are going to make dramatic and controversial statements you must word them thoughtfully and you absolutely must include references. Mrmb6b02 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your allegation that only immature people use the word "attack" is, um, entertaining. Perhaps you could take your crusade against the word "attack" to the World War II articles; it is used quite heavily there. Then you could proceed to many other articles on wars and battles. Harvard yarrd

Hehe. I'll concede that one to you. I debated whether or not to include that in the first place. Perhaps I didn't debate long enough? A momentary lapse in judgement. I know we aren't supposed to remove talk page content, but what is the policy on striking? ;) Still, I stand by the difference of what I wrote. Cheers. Mrmb6b02 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To support the war, other U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No such link ever existed.

There are a few problems with this statement. First, there is no source. A statement this broad would need maybe at least two. Second, it hasn't been proven true. How can anyone ever say for sure that there was no link between them? And some people think that there was a link...

[1] Read both pages here. The author boldly claims a major link between Hussein and al-Qaeda.

[2] This author is on the opposite side of the argument; he or she admits a link but says that it was minor. However, it's still a link, which would make the quoted statement untrue.

This quote is based on the writer's point-of-view and is not a neutral Wikipedia-worthy statement. Possibly it could be replaced as, "It is disputed whether such a link actually existed." Then, cite sources from both sides of the argument. Mantipula 00:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Suddenly calling all opposing forces "al-Qaida"

This is bizarre. Does a summary of it belong in the article? 75.35.79.57 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Topically Related Imagery

The so-called topically-related imagery on this page is pathetic. It does not feature the war's victims in one single photograph, yet there are at least 5 tame, unrevealing photos of American forces.Nwe 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about that gallery of images at the end.--Timeshifter 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems have been corrected. --Timeshifter 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)

In the latest Firefox browser, and in the Microsoft Internet Explorer v7.x browser, it says

"Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

at the top of the browser when I am viewing this talk page. Does anybody know why? And how do we fix it?

Here is some linkbar code followed by the linkbars:

{{article|Talk:Iraq War}}

Talk:Iraq War (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Iraq War|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

{{article|Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)}}

Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maybe the history and log links can help figure this out. --Timeshifter 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah?

Is Hezbollah a player in the Iraq war? I note that an editor recently inserted it into the multiconflict insurgency side. There is the political movement Hezbollah Movement in Iraq which, if that article is to be believed, is not affiliated with Hezbollah. Anyway, since the article doesn't treat either of these groups, I am reverting the edit until it can be suitably referenced and clarified. Silly rabbit 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Officials: Hezbollah agent played deaf before confessing
2. U.S.: Iran helped in deadly Iraq strike
3. Michael Ware report here. Robbskey 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm still not convinced that Hezbollah should be identified as one of the combatants, although certainly they are deserving of some mention in the text. So far, there is evidence that the group assisted in training and arming Shiite resistance forces as a proxy for Iran. I don't think this is quite enough to justify identifying Hezbollah as a combatant: (1) Iran is already listed; (2) until evidence surfaces that Hezbollah actually has soldiers on the ground, it seems to attach undue significance to the role Hezbollah is playing in the war; (3) this is all rather recently revealed in the media, and still feels sort of speculative. That said, it probably is justified bringing this recent news up in the article somewhere. Silly rabbit 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disability Claims

Shouldn't these be mentioned somewhere? According to Veterans Affairs documents there have been 192,000 claims for disability by returned veterans. 110,000 were accepted, 21,000 rejected, 17,000 ruled as unrelated to war service and 44,000 still pending as of January 2007. That's a discrepancy of almost 140,000 in the number of injured compared to the info box. Wayne 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the source on that? Also, something specifically related to casualties might be better suited for a mention on this page with an in-depth reference on the Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 page. Publicus 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We need an offical sorce to back up the, infact true, claims. I heard it was about 115,000 recently.I'll look up a source for you.--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some intresting links on U.S. war dead, wounded and disabled-

[[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] --Comander E.I. Davis2 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a Typo

In the section "Calls for withdrawal from Iraq," there's a typo. "hile" for "while". D. Winchell 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For spelling mistakes just change it without discussion and put minor edit its no big deal no one will challenge u(ForeverDEAD 23:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

WW1

According to my 'original research' (i.e. ability to count) the Iraq War has lasted longer than the First World War, in which, incidently, Iraq was involved. In general terms it might be worth keeping tabs on duration of war, compared to other conflicts. Colin4C 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting research Colin4C, I wasn't aware of the connections between the length of the Iraq War and WWI. Before you add this it might run into some problems with a straight comparison of time. Since Bush et al stated that major combat ops were over 4 years ago in May 2003, some editors may look at that as the end of the "war" and the beginning of the "occupation" phase. So your edit comparing these two very different wars might run into some trouble. On the other hand, having a section that compares the duration of the Iraq war with other notable conflicts might be worthwhile and useful. Just my two cents. Publicus 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that e.g. the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004 was bloodier than the initial invasion and that things seem to ratcheting up in a major way lately. Iraq is certainly a guerilla war if not necessarily a conventional one. Colin4C 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worth while to include a comparison of insuries and deaths between the different wars. Perhaps these comparisons should be a separate article though.--Kumioko 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think this isnt important and more pull out of iraq kinda thing. Comparing the two is like comparing the AK47 and the m16 its pointless. WW1 and iraq war are completly differnt wars as one is a convetional war and one is a guerilla war. obivously as geurilla tactics are usaly small local ambushes itss going to take longer to take. i have heard from experts(cant rember the source) that to effectivly crush a geurilla resistance it will at least take 10 years while a more convetional war can be more eaisly crushed as u have to take in account 1. public soport 2. military capibilty 3. being blockaded so therds my point if u wanna tell me sometin about my thery tell me on my talk page as i probaly will forget i posted this(ForeverDEAD 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

This Thing is Huge

I was opening the Iraq War article today and I thought there was something wrong with my internet connection. This article has reached critical mass. We are at 133Kb... that's over four times the size the Wikipedia recommends an article to be. Not only that, but the Manual of Style on article size states that after 100Kb, the article should "almost certainly…be divided up". Suggestions? And this problem will require a little more than just "make another snip here". We already have enough sub-articles to fill a library. We need a major overhaul, IMO. Massive mergers, cuts, and divisions. -- VegitaU 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:SUMMARY the "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" section down to one paragraph. I think I see some other low-hanging fruit ←Ben^B4 10:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Down to 112 KB. There's probably more WP:SUMMARY and refactoring to do, but I'm not up for any more at the moment. It's harder than it looks. ←Ben^B4 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is going to take a major long-term effort. -- VegitaU 11:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the refactoring I can think of is done, and all the easy WP:SUMMARY work is done. ←Ben^B4 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links in the external links section can be moved to the relevant spinout articles. See WP:SPINOUT. I already moved the casualty-related external links to Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?.

I dislike all the show-hide tables. They add a lot of kilobytes, and little substance. Since one has to go elsewhere to get the info. I think there should be a page with just those tables of lists. We should just link to that table/list page. Just like we lead people to other table/list pages if they want to get more info.--Timeshifter 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When I save the page, and check "properties" for just the saved HTML source code, I get 483 kilobytes. So I don't know what they are measuring to come up with 111 kilobytes when one clicks on the edit button for the whole page. And they may not update that 111 kilobyte number with each edit. I deleted some more and more stuff today, and it still said 111 kilobytes when clicking the full-page edit button. --Timeshifter 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You can probably move show/hide tables to template spage, though I don't know what the policy is for such used in just one article. 75.35.113.248 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We are down to about half the size of fr:Friedrich Nietzsche. ←Ben^B4 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smaller pictures, say 150px for the lot exsept for maps and the headder shot.--86.25.54.26 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please add a discussion of the intelligence leading up to the war

One of the most controversial aspects of the Iraq War is the intelligence that was used to justify it. Please add the following paragraphs in a section discussing the intelligence that led up to the Iraq War.

[text added to article ←Ben^B4 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)]

Bubbatex 17:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that needs to be added. I can't believe it wasn't in there. ←Ben^B4 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So why not add it yourselves? Then again, this article is already reaching Biblical size; you may want to rethink it. -- VegitaU 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it is huge, but this stuff is more central than some of what we already had. I'll refactor as soon as I track down the supposed UAVs off the Eastern Seaboard which belongs in there too. ←Ben^B4 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this topic needs some urgent atention aswell.--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Protests against war in Iraq

An editor has just changed some wording in the article from 'protests against war in Iraq' to 'protests against the war in Iraq'. I think that the latter wording is incorrect because the protests started before the war began. What do people here think? Colin4C 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

People were protesting the war in Iraq, i.e. the invasion by U.S. forces, which is - as far as I know - referred to as the war. If they wanted to protest war in Iraq they would've been rallying against the Kurdish conflict, the invasion of Kuwait leading to the First Gulf War (at that time), and whatever else there's going on there. Generally people don't care enough to actively protest a war that doesn't involve their nation somehow, although globalism is changing this. Nonetheless, the U.S. being a superpower, its citizens don't really have to care about other less important nations warring. But I'm starting to rant here, so I'll stop, and also, I don't see how 'the war' implies present times more than simply 'war'. Jack the Stripper 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we were protesting about war in Iraq. I had been protesting against the oppression of the Kurds, I was present at anti-war demos for the first time around calling for the Iraqis to get out of Kuwait and the UK to stay out of the war either way, and the majority of anti-war protesters appear to have protested against war in, on, and around Iraq. I would, however, argue that better wording would be "protests against the invasion of Iraq by the coalition". ~AnarchoPaddy --86.20.233.149 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jack the Stripper 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I say, 'Pro-Iraq' or 'pro-Saddam' protests.--86.29.242.195 13:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Crunch!--86.29.242.195 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Crunch indeed! --86.29.244.15 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

War's Other Names

The following is a discussion between myself and VegitaU on VegitaU's talk page regarding the alternative names that could be mentioned in the article's first paragraph, and whether "Operation Iraqi Freedom" equates to the war as a whole. I've copied it to here because at this stage it relates mostly to the article's content.Nwe 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate, and do not deserve, being addressed in such an aggressive manner as you just have on my talk page. If you have a problem with my edits, change or request citation in the appropriate areas, and address them with me in a calm and polite manner, and I will reciprocate. Edits that are made in good faith, as mine clearly was, should be considered in a respectful and civil manner. Nwe 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you got rid of a well-known fact, and replaced it with an unreferenced statement. That's why I cited you on your talk page. Sorry if you thought it was "aggressive", but I never made any uncivil remarks. -- VegitaU 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes you did, you were utterly uncivil. You said my edit was "nonsense", and even "vandalism" in your edit summary, prefixed it with this icon, , when there was no need. It is not a well-known fact. I, for one, always took "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to describe the initial invasion. If I am wrong in that then I apologise, but I have heard it used to describe the emergence insurgency. Even if it is ongoing, then it still merely includes "coalition" military operations, which is not the same as the conflict, which now mostly involves internecine Iraqi fighting, as a whole. It is also, incidently, unreferenced. If your problem with the rest of my statement was merely referencing, then you would also have excluded this name, and besides you could merely have requested citation. I would have obliged. And as I have already said, even if you do believe that I only "got rid of a well-known fact", and replaced it with an unreferenced statement", that does not mean I did not act in good faith, and hence deserve an element of civility and respect.Nwe 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read the citation, you'll notice I never used the word "vandalism". When I reverted your edit, I cited you with Twinkle on the basis of adding unreferenced material to the lead. It generated the message and I added a personal note about the nonsense. You had just deleted a well-known, unchallenged fact and replaced it with an unsourced conjecture. It seems you were genuine in your effort and I apologize for offending you, but I stand by my decision. Anyways, I added a source to OIF just to clarify even further: Operation Iraqi Freedom is an ongoing conflict…it hasn't ended. -- VegitaU 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you apologise for your original message though, or simply for offending me? Apologising for offending someone is usually a cop-out, meaning the person making it actually sees nothing wrong with what they have done. As I have said, it is not a well-known, unchallenged fact. OIF refers to "coalition" military operations in Iraq only, not the conflict in its entirety. If Twinkle is inappropriate to the edit you are making then simply don't use. You also need not have reverted the entirety of my edit, but could merely have requested a citation. Your edit summary uses the word "vandalism", and it was also uncivil to refer to my edit as "nonsense".Nwe 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I apologize for offending you, but I stick by my decision to revert the edit. Since the war was propagated by the United States and it is the major party in the conflict by far, Operation Iraqi Freedom is a correct term to use for the war. The argument you make that it doesn't refer to the conflict in its entirety is reflected in the article: "or in the U.S., Operation Iraqi Freedom". OIF isn't the title of the article. The article deals with the "Iraq War", but "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is what the U.S. calls it and that is written into the article. If you find a source for Third Gulf War, by all means add it. That actually wasn't what led me to revert—it was the fact you deleted 'OIF'. -- VegitaU 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you stick to your decision to call my edits "vandalism" and "nonsense" and and have a hostile message posted on my talk page? The Iraqis, not to the US, are the major party in the conflict by far. The current version of the article is inaccurate because, while the title is Iraq War, the conflict in its entirety is also know as OIF. Are you really saying that when Sunnis blow up a Shia market or when Shias mutilate a few dozen Sunnis, which is what most of the current violence in Iraq consists of, then that is regarded in the US as a feature of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", even though it doesn't involve Americans in any way? If you only had a problem with part of my edit, you should only have reverted part of it.--User:Nwe 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As you've posted our entire conversation here, allow me to retort with the central question: Should we continue having Operation Iraqi Freedom in this article or not? -- VegitaU 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its typical to still note the operation name in articles, if a different name becomes more well known and is used as the article name. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, wholly. -- VegitaU 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But the article and the war, as I argue above, do not equate.Nwe 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read your argument, Nwe, and it is, to put its simply, incorrect. You allege that because not everything done in the war is done by the USA, we cant note the original US codename. I would point you to Operation Barbarossa, an article which describes the well known phase of WW2. Not everything described in the article was carried out by Germany, indeed, it also describes the Soviet responses during the duration of the German operation. That is the case here, where America initiated the operation, and has yet to declare it ended (as is noted by sources.) Another more recent and apt comparison is to the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, where, like here, the article is not named after the operation, yet the operation is noted in the introductory paragraph. The article doesnt just describe what Israel did, but also the Palestinian responses. This article does not just describe what the USA does, but also the responses. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you've misunderstood my argument. It isn't that not everything done in the war is done by the US, its that most incidents in the war don't even involve the US. Operation Barbarossa does give details of the Soviet responses to the Germans, but then all of those responses affected and were related to the Germans. You regard the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict as a more apt comparison. For a start, as you yourself say, even in this article the Israeli operation codename is merely noted, not given as an abosolute alternative title. In the same way Barbarossa is defined as "the codename for Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union", not "the first sixth months of fighting on the Eastern Front in World War II". Returning to your Gaza analogy, consider another article, which I don't believe exists, called something like "Fighting in Gaza in 2006". Events described in this would compare far more smoothly to our article. But you couldn't say that fighting in Gaza in 2006 was "also known as Operation Summer Rains in Israel", that would be absurd, because a significant amount of the fighting didn't involve Israel directly at all, but was between Fatah and Hamas. Nwe 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that train of thought, but heres the problem: This article is not about fighting in Iraq between 2003 and onward. Its about the US initiated war. There is an article about the Civil war in Iraq, which I would certainly not say is part of the US initiated operation - yet it would be included in a general article detailing fighting in Iraq were one to be made.

I do, however, take issue with the opening paragraph stating that in the US, it is called OIF. It is not - thats the US military's term for it. I have never said that it should be viewed as an "alternative title," to the same level that things such as Second Gulf War are viewed as alternative titles, but I do think that it should be noted as the initiators military operation name. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And just as a note, the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict is not a perfect example. In that case, Operation Summer Rains was declared over in July, whereas the article describes a conflict which goes on to November and includes operations beyond it. This is different from here, because OIF continues. One is a case of a conflict which began with an operation yet goes beyond it, another is a case of a conflict which was conceived as an operation and continues at it. If, at some time, OIF is declared over yet this war which was initiated by it continues, we would do the same thing done at the Israel-Gaza article and state it was initiated as OIF by the USA. I actually thought that this was the case here, with OIF only being the name for the invasion phase until discovering otherwise recently. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But though the war was indeed US-initiated, it does not solely involve incidents affecting the US military, but violence in Iraq in its entirety, including Sunni-Shia violence etc., although not in the same detail as Civil war in Iraq.Nwe 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The civil war resulted from the US initiated war, but is not entirely seperate or parallel. Some aspects are relevent to both, for instance the destruction of the Samarra dome led to increased sectarian violence, which US forces attempted to deal with. There are certainly aspects which are unique to one or another, such as a specific firefight between Sunnis and Shias. I dont think this specific firefight would be considered a part of this Iraq War - but lets say that there was an across the board increase in firefights. As a trend, this might turn into a catalyst for a change in policy by the US forces, in which case it would be relevent to note the trend as relevent to this article. There are a lot of nuances here (and above, with the various cutoffs with whether a conflict is within an operation, or beyond one.) ~Rangeley (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply because it was a consequence of the US invasion does not mean it is a feature of OIF. Both wars are indeed very far from parallel, which is why all fighting in Iraq is in the same article, but the fact remains that a large proportion of fighting in the Iraq War has no direct US involvement. I am certain that a firefight between Sunnis and Shias would have to be considered part of this Iraq War, as this seems to be the article that includes all aspects of conflict in Iraq. Fighting between Sunnis and Shias very well might affect US policy indirectly, but most incidents will not, and the connection is far too vague to justify the equation of all bloodshed in the country to the US operation. The influence that this type of activity would have on US operations would be much more indirect than the impact on, say, Russian operations on Barbarossa. Can we also agree to a change at least in the wording of the current first paragraph, before further discussing whether the operation needs to be mentioned at all.Nwe 13:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If all you wanted is a rewording, I already stated that the military operation name should not be given the same weight as names that are used popularly in areas. "I have never said that it should be viewed as an 'alternative title,' to the same level that things such as Second Gulf War are viewed as alternative titles, but I do think that it should be noted as the initiators military operation name. " This article is not about general fighting, and really I challenge you to take a look at the infobox and tell me where Sunni-Shia fighting fits in. It does not, because this conflict is defined around the United States (and allied forces) efforts in Iraq, against the various (and sometimes unaffiliated) forces which have put up resistance. The civil war is not a feature of OIF, and I never said this. The Iraqi civil war is a "consequence" of this war, but its not entirely parallel and things which happen within the civil war can be relevent to this conflict as it is defined. Its these specific aspects which are noted in this article, not every aspect of the civil war. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have hered it called the '3rd Gulf war'. Iran-Iraq= 1, Gulf war=2, Iraq war=3. --Atlanic wave2. 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is absolutely about general fighting, it is intended as the article that documents the general course of all fighting in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, much of which by now hardly involves "coalition" operations at all. The infobox is extremely imperfect, even more than infoboxes generally tend to be, however the article describes increased sectarian violence in 2006, the militias, the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and the refugees. Actually there should be much more weighting towards the consequences and conduct of the among the Iraqi population, who are, I repeat, the central group in this conflict, but even in its current form the article is categorically about more than mere US operations in the country. I could accept some reference to the operation name in the opening peragraphs, but it has to be much more peripheral than it presently is. If you even look at the article on the Second Gulf War, Desert Storm, which was used in far more frequently than OIF is used in the case of this war (when did you last realistically here the fighting in Iraq referred to as OIF?), is only mentioned at the end of the intro.Nwe 14:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is imperfect because the resistance forces are not all outright allies with each other. Instead, they are where they are because this war is defined around the coalition and its efforts. This discussion is truly reaching a level of pointlessness - we agree that the name OIF is rarely if ever used anymore by the general population. We agree it should not be used much in this article. But we can do this (and we will do this,) without compromising the reality that this specific war is defined around a certain combatant and their efforts. As I said above, a specific firefight between a sunni group and shia group would not be included in the Iraq War. The casualties of that sectarian violence would not go on either side of this infobox - instead it would go on the Iraq civil war article. But that firefight might lead the coalition to move troops to that area and attempt to end the violence. If coalition troops were killed by those groups, we would note it here, and if the sectarian groups had people killed, we would note it here. Because the coalition is occupying Iraq, and the mission is "attempting to restore order," things such as sectarian violence levels or humanitarian conditions are relevent because they are the "barometers" if you will by which they determine where to send troops, what tactics to use, etc. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I say above, details of sectarian fighting IS included in this article. The Iraqi civil war article is a fork of this article, not a description of a parallel conflict. The firefight(or, more likely, the bombing or kidnapping and execution) would be included in the info-box. All three sources for Iraqi deaths on the info box -Iraqi Body Count, Lancet and the Iraqi Health Ministry - would count the fatalities caused by this violence. The reason the info-box only depicts a two-dimensional conflict is that the war is two complex to be summarised in any other way. The Iraqi Civil War article is only three-dimensional, which is nearly as inaccurate. I'm a bit confused now about where you stand on the use of OIF, would you accept a change to a more peripheral position?Nwe 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about the general violence in Iraq, it is about the coalition initiated war. I completely agree that the civil war is not a parallel conflict, and never argued that it was. It is not, however, the same conflict as this. Some aspects are shared, others are not. The Lancet study shows, at least as I understand, the amount of people who have died in Iraq who would not have otherwise died if the war did not occur. This is an interesting statistic, but it includes deaths from increased crimes, electrical outages, etc. Though deaths from sectarian fighting might be included in the total, it doesnt mean that all sectarian fighting is in this war, any more than all deaths due to power outages are. Deaths from sectarian fighting would not, however, go on either side of the infobox, because fighting between sectarian groups is the civil war, fighting between the coalition/allied forces and other groups is this war. And as I said above, I do not think that OIF should be treated as an alternative name on par with the other names which have gained their place through popular use. The opening sentence which has the phrase "in the U.S., Operation Iraqi Freedom" is misleading because it is not referred to this in the US, popularly. It is the US military's name for the conflict, and this would be accurate to state. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I.P.numbers

I think the I.P. Numbers on this page may be meat or sock puppets.--Atlanic wave2. 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why the page has been semi-protected.--Commander E.I. Davis2 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong majorities

In the section International opinion of the War on Terrorism It is said that "In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia." What are these majorities? Government Majorities? News polls? Credible sources? Or taken after bias reporting? Please indicate the nature of the "majoraties".

As far as I can tell, polls and have elections have indicated that- Turkey is concerend about El-Queada; France, Germany and Russia suport Iraq; Japan and India want a diplomaic resalution to the despute; the U.S.A. wants to give up and leave, while the U.K., Australia, Poland and Denmark want to stay in Iraq to compeat the job! --Comander E.I. Davis2 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reality proves you wrong. Kensai Max 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As fare as I can tell, the U.K. would like to stay in, but is near to pulling out due to poor moral ansd lack of new helicopters!--Pine oak 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

War Status

Its interesting how this event is so commonly reffered to as a "war", even though the mission is to target specific groups of people within the country, not the country itself, meaning there is no hostility directly between countries.

And thus an official declaration of war by any country hasn't happened, so how can this article be named with the simple "Iraq War" tittle, not "Iraq-US insurgency", or something to that affect.I imagine atleast other names must have been proposed in the past, and the only reason for the current tittle must simply be the common,but inaccurate way to refer to the situation by the media and public. Rodrigue 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Because "war" is not limited to declared conflict between nations.

War (noun) - a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country;

a sustained campaign against something undesirable

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

-- VegitaU 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rodrique, also what other titles would you give the Vietnam war or the Korean war? Wikipedia is just going by the common usage here, nothing wrong with that. Reference materials bow to popular usage all the time. Publicus 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an international armed conflic, which was a war, untill Saddam fell, and a counter terrorisum/insergancy mission afterwards.--Freetown 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying the WW2 article should be changed to "The European conflict was an international armed conflict, which was a war, until France fell, and a counter terrorism/insurgency mission afterwards". Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting you down, but pointing out that usage is more important than what some politicians may call it. Wayne 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not feed the trolls. -- VegitaU 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whayne your wrong for comparing ww2 toa conflict as it was a war on all the axis nations in Europe after france fell the U.K. still had a decleration of war and when the U.S. joined Germany declared war on the U.S so making it still war, but anyway i personalyy think that the thing about the Vietnam and Korea should be called wars as thats the common name but techincaly they are conflicts ans should be called that(ForeverDEAD 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I agree that it should be called a war. First, this is the most common and popular usage. When you turn on your TV, you see news about the Iraq War, never the "Mission in Iraq". I think that if the name of the article is changed, many users will not be able to find what they think is the article they want to read. Second, a conflict like the one in Iraq does meet the definition of a war, "a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country" like VegitaU pointed out. The coalition forces use tanks, armored transports, gunships and helicopters. They are constantly under attack by heavily armed enemies with AKs, RPGs, mortars, explosives and other weapons. It may be a "postmodern war", but it is still a war. LK 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for the moment, we're not in a real war. We're not fighting Iraq itself, but terrorist insurgents that operate in Iraq. A real "War" would be America trying to destroy that very expensive democracy we set up. The War ended when Iraq surrendered and Saddam went into hiding. AznWarlord 10.35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is reflected in the sub-articles, i.e. invasion/occupation, but this the all-encompassing is named Iraq War because that's the popular usage which we must follow per WP:NC. ←Ben^B4 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I thank User:AznWarlord over the war's status.--Pine oak 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:AznWarlord, the war is over and a very bloody counter-insurgency campaign is now under way.--Pine oak 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Propose Removal of "Topically Related Imagery"

The Topically Related Imagery section at the end of the article serves informative purpose. It merely takes up space. I have not encountered such a section in any other article and since we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile, it is really of no use to anyone. Nwe 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile" - i disagree. Any photos/diagrams etc that aid Shushnig? understanding of the issue should be allowed to be on wikipedia, under a suitable subtitle or sub article.Chendy 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean there don't seem to be any good images that have been licenced by the copyright holder.Nwe 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are image galleries in wikipedia articles. I have seen them. The question is how many images should there be in the image gallery here. We can't fit anymore images in the right and left side columns. I tried a few days ago. I had to alternate sides in order for there not to be blank white spaces in the 2 browsers I checked (latest Firefox and latest MS Internet Explorer v7.x). I assume all the images are allowed in this wikipedia article, or someone would soon delete them. --Timeshifter 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are, they are not common to every article, and there is no reason why we should have them in this one, particularly when the images are so unsatisfactory, and the article is already so long and likely to expand. Don't bother adding any images if they're anything like the ones we have at present. And I'm sure these particular images are allowed, I only said that no good images were licenced.Nwe 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this rag-bag of images serves no particularly useful purpose in the article. Colin4C 10:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I substituted a couple photos. Feel free to substitute more. I found a collection of images here:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Iraq_War --Timeshifter 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely the proper place for an 'image dump' of Iraq war related images is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War. Otherwise we should integrate appropriate images with appropriate text in the body of the article. Makes sense? Colin4C 10:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Galleries are common, and are not image dumps. I think by continued substitution of better images, this gallery will be fine. 12 4-kilobyte gallery images take up only 48 kilobytes. Removing one of the larger-kilobyte, inline images from the text can save 30 kilobytes. --Timeshifter 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite other articles with similar image galleries? I still don't see the point of including images just because they exist, without immediate relation to the content. I know it's a great thing when it is established that the wikipedia actually has the rights to use an image, but that is no reason to go overboard with the sheer thrill of it...Colin4C 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"sheer thrill of it". Please ease up on the hyperbole. It is uncivil, and does not assume good faith. Offhand, here is a page with a photo gallery in it: Mexican general election 2006 controversies. Photos are just another form of sourced info useful to encyclopedias. Let us move on, please. --Timeshifter 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture gallery you cite in the Mexican instance is explicitly and thematically related to content in the text about a political rally. It is not a rag-bag of vaguely related images. As for incivility and bad faith, I have not directed any personal comments at any editor here, I am merely discussing the issue and I assume the good faith of anyone who has added pictures to the gallery or who created the gallery itself, even if I disagree with it on the grounds I have mentioned before. Colin4C 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I found a galary on the Headscarf and Railways pages to.--Freetown 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox "Combattants" and "Commanders" sections

Infobox Military Conflict has the option for three columns of combattants and commanders for a reason, for situations just like this one where there are three sides to a war, all fighting each other. If we include the Shia and Sunni groups all together on the left side, we make it seem like they're working together. It would make much more sense if this article had one column for Sunni forces (including Baathist Iraq), one column for Shia forces, and one column for Coalition and Iraqi Government forces. VolatileChemical 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We've got some Sunnis working with al Qaeda, and others fighting them. And the alliances are changing over time. At some points some Shias have worked with al Qaeda, I believe. And then there are the foreign fighters of all persuasions working with all sides, and fighting against some sides and each other. Hasn't there been some factional fighting among Shias, too? I don't remember. And there are many other groups, too. See Iraqi insurgency.

So I think the current infobox setup is fine. As the saying goes, "If it aint broke, don't fix it." The infobox says it is a multi-sided conflict. If that is inadequate, maybe the wording in the infobox could be improved. --Timeshifter 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. There are a lot of nuanced sides with shifting allegiances, but those are covered in the text, and if we tried to represent them in the infobox, there wouldn't be enough columns. Leaving it with the two sides of the invasion doesn't try to oversimplify because it's going to be seen as such. ←Ben^B4 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if allegiances are changing? If we put Sunnis fighting al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda itself in the same column, we're not saying they're necessarily supporting each other, we're just saying they're the same basic group—Iraqi Sunni Insurgents. You're saying we shouldn't do that because it would seem like the anti-Qaeda Sunnis and al-Qaeda were working together, or two rival Shia groups were working together, or things like that.
Ask yourself, which is worse; the table making it seem like enemy Shia groups or enemy Sunni groups were working together, which is what you're saying I'm proposing, or the table making it seem like Sunni and Shia groups that are enemies with each other (the conflict between which is much more clear-cut and defined) are working together, which is how it is now?
The Iraq civil conflict—one of the main, as yet unrepresented in the infobox, aspects of the Iraq War—is Sunnis and Shias fighting each other. The fact that some Sunni groups are opposed to one another, or some Shia groups are opposed to one other, is minor when compared to the main aspects of this war. The way the infobox is now, we're saying that the conflict between the insurgents and the Coalition is more important that the conflict between insurgents and other insurgents. Allegiances, alliances and opposition within the sects is not part of this war. No one would consider the animosity between the Islamic Army in Iraq and al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of the Iraq War. Conversely, anyone would consider the conflict between the Mahdi Army and Jaish Ansar al-Sunna as part of the Iraq War.
The way we have the infobox now, it would appear that the main fight is Coalition versus Insurgents. If you don't do your research and don't search other articles, and just look at the infobox in the "Iraq War" article, you would think the only fight is Coalition versus Insurgents. The phrase "multi-sided conflict" only hints that these groups on the left might be combating each other, let alone violently and intensely combating each other.
Basically, the current scheme is presuming that the main fight is Coalition versus Insurgents. It might be; it very well might also be Sunnis versus Shias. We shouldn't assume with this infobox, like we do now; we shouldn't assume it's sufficient to have one conflict clearly represented, and another only hinted at, and cryptically at that. That would be akin to having the Coalition and Sunnis on one side, and the Shias on the other. I mean, both the Coalition and the Sunnis are fighting the Shias. It would technically be correct. It would be wrong, but it would be technically correct. But it's still wrong, because it makes it seem like the Sunni insurgents and the Coalition are working together. Which they're not. The best we can do is represent the situation as it is, without picking sides as to what's more important. And I don't see any other way to do that besides having three columns for Sunnis (including Baathist Iraq), Shias, and the Coalition. VolatileChemical 06:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, my proposed "Coalition" column includes the Kurdish Army and the New Iraq Army, in case anyone wanted to catch me on that. VolatileChemical 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sure seems like you've thought about this. Why don't you fork the first few sections off to your userspace and work out what you want so everyone can see your proposal? I'm sure an include/don't include decision once people can see exactly what you mean will be be easier for everyone to reach consensus on than the image decision. My skepticism is rooted in the fear that you will not have sufficient horizontal space for three columns, and widening the infobox will be somewhat problematic. So, let's see what you have in mind. ←Ben^B4 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Ben. Show us what you have in mind in a sandbox off your user page. Just paste in [[/Sandbox]] and [[/Sandbox2]] and [[/Sandbox3]], etc.. on your user page. Then experiment for awhile. When you have it set up the way you like, tell us about it, so we can see what you mean.--Timeshifter 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to get another set of allegiances now. The Sunni-Shiite coalition is dead and buried, but no idea exactly what's next other than no Sunnis. ←Ben^B4 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No updates since March

I notice there have been no updates to your (incredibly biased) article since March. Too much good news happening lately, which you can't bear to report? I'm telling you guys, when we win this thing you're all going to look very foolish. The only way your prophesies of doom can come true is if you manage to convince the American people to quit. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I'll be here trying to win the country's wars.

From Iraq with Love. 216.40.86.90 00:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And I noticed you've been vandalizing other articles. Getting bored? If you feel around to it, edit this "incredibly biased" article, as you call it, to your liking. Do something productive, you might surprise yourself, but we don't need another whine about POV here. Oh, and I didn't realize Chantilly, Virginia was in Iraq. Heh. -- VegitaU 00:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The great thing about anonymous edits is that they leave an IP address which can be traced to a physical location. Which is how I know you are in Virginia rather than Iraq. I did the same thing as Vegita before I saw the post. This is a really bad joke. Wikipediatoperfection 08:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For one, this is the only time I have posted in Wikipedia. And two, yes I am in Iraq. So obviously your foolproof way of tracing me is very flawed, just like your knowledge of what is going on over here. I am using a public computer in an MWR, so I suppose it is possible that someone else posted on Wikipedia from this computer in the past. However, whether or not it was "vandalizing" is something I couldn't comment on. I'm certainly not going to take YOUR word for it after I've seen your grasp of the truth as reflected in this article as well as in your accusation that I'm falsifying my military service.

216.40.86.90 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"A public computer in an MWR"? For over an hour? Right. Being that I've actually been to Iraq, I know that there's no way you can spend that much time on a computer. Rules in Balad were for 15 minutes a day. And your way of talking gives you away. An "MWR"? No one uses that term…unless they Googled it up. Ahem, so tell me, what branch of service are you from? And I take it, you'll be responding tommorow since a quick response would kill your credibility. -- VegitaU 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple- why don't you both name the heroic regiments you served in! Also, is this what is meant by a MWR [8]?--Freetown 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple: Because it would be a possible OPSEC violation and I want to avoid problems. MWR: Moral, Welfare, and Recreation. -- VegitaU 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

...And if you cold say what actual section was 'biased', then we may know what needs fixing. I also don't see any point in squabbeling over military service. Mutualy assured destruction (MAD) by peronsal attack (PA)? Make peace and sort out the supposed bias together.--Freetown 02:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note, that there have been updates to this article since March. Unfortunately most of those updates were bad news. (i.e. coalition dead increased from 3,241 US and 134 UK to 3,684 US and 168 UK) "Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war." (Winston Churchill) --Raphael1 02:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Offer to include

If anyone wants to leave just a URL to a news report in a reliable source such as an independent newspaper or news agency, here or on my talk page, I promise to incorporate it into the article. I've added lots of stuff since March, and very little of it was good news but that wasn't my choice. I've been tracking the corresponding Conservapedia article, and they don't have much good news either. In the past week the Sunnis left Maliki's government, and just today Maliki announced a pipeline deal with Iran. I considered adding those but didn't. ←Ben^B4 03:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some intresting sources here, Ben4-

[9][10][11][12][13]

--Freetown 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

More sources-

[[14]][[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]][[20]][[21]]

--Freetown 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen those, and I think they're generally well represented, with the counts updated at least once per day and at the top of the article. Is there a particular story you had in mind? ←Ben^B4 03:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I beleve the steddily mounting allied deaths deserve a page of ther own- 'Coalition of the willing and Iraqie deaths in the Iraq war.'

We have Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003, List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006, List of insurgents killed in Iraq. ←Ben^B4 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[[22]] [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] --Freetown 14:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I said "a URL to a news report." Pick just one please. ←Ben^B4 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They apper to be too bias towards the Irqies/insergents to be taken seriosly any how.--Kerry Perry 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A usefull set of links!

War veterens- [[35]]

War dead- [[36]][[37]] [[38]] [[39]] [[40]] [[41]]

Liars- [42]

Iraqie femanists- [[43]] —The preceding comment is by 86.29.255.39 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 30 July 2007: Please sign your posts!

U.K.

Why they still on the combatant list. I thought they pulled out?--Kingforaday1620 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sub Headings

I increased the size of the sub-headings to make the chronology of each separate year of the war more explicit. If you had a book about any war the years or blocks of years, would be given seperate chapter headings. Look also at accounts of wars in other wikipedia articles, such as Vietnam War, Second Sino-Japanese War etc. The previous format I felt was confusing. What do people here think? Colin4C 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid that, because the top-level header is "timeline." You are absolutely right about how book chapters are ordered, but I assure you this is normal for encyclopedia sections. ←Ben^B4 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So have the editors of the wikipedia Vietnam War and Second Sino-Japanese War articles got it wrong? And why should all the events of a long war be crammed under one heading of 'timeline'? The present heading format is somewhat confusing IMHO. By the way, I have made many contributions to both the wikipedia and hard-copy encyclopedias (for Cambridge University Press etc) so am not a complete ignoramus! Colin4C 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and changed my mind. I'll put it back the way you had it. ←Ben^B4 20:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I did it, but I have to say I really, really don't like it. Before there was a clean break between hsitory and the topics which transcend moments in time (superhistorical?) Now there's not. Unless someone agrees with you in 24 hours that this way is better, I'm going to put it back. ←Ben^B4 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything happens in time. There is nothing transcendental or superhistorical unless you believe in Christian theology or the philosophy of Hegel - which is not what this article is about. History consists of events happening in time at certain places to certain people. Abstracting transcendental themes from the events of history gets us into philosophical (and political) heavy water. History is contingent. The abstractions are based on the contingent history not the other way around. Colin4C 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean, for example, is that the following sections like "Criticism" apply to all the periods on the timeline. Having slept on it I can live with it this way. The numbers line up nicely. ←Ben^B4 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Annan's assessment

For several months now, Kofi Annan's opinion on the illegality of the war has been in the first section of events leading up to the war. I thought it was there to meet WP:NPOV by balancing the American opinions that the war was legal. However, it has just been moved to the Criticism section. Is that the right place for it? ←Ben^B4 15:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that both opinions should be in the first section to maintain neutrality. Go ahead and change it back. Wikipediatoperfection 07:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to criticisms in an attempt to shorten the "background" to the Iraq war section. If you feel it should be in that section for balance I have no problem. However, I do think it would be helpful to shorten the overall background section since it does seem to be a little long. Publicus 13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. There needs to be some assertion that the war wasn't legal (which is probably held by several times the population of the U.S. in addition to Annan) up were the assertion of legality is made, and not several sections later. ←Ben^B4 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Iraq

I have added Occupation of Iraq as one of its principle names. This is in widespread usage, particularly outside of the United States. I have used a New York Times article on Saudi King's condemnation of the occupation as the source. If anyone has another source that would be great too. Wikipediatoperfection 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the "occupation of Iraq" is the name for the war. Its most likely the name for the... occupation. I dont really see why we should list it as yet another alternative name when its better suited for the article detailing the actual occupation. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. On one hand, the lead-up and invasion were never called the occupation. On the other hand, the vast majority of the time and events covered by this article can be called the occupation. Don't we already have an article about the occupation alone (which, if I remember correctly, is really poorly maintained and ought to be a redirect her probably anyway)? ←Ben^B4 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rangely a war is a war not an 'occupation'. Even when the Americans leave I'm guessing that the war will continue: like it did in Vietnam. In Vietnam the Americans left in 1973, but the war continued until the fall of Saigon in 1975. Colin4C 16:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Various Wikipedia articles aside, occupation of Iraq is a common way to refer to the fighting in Iraq. As someone above pointed out, this will certainly continue until the United States withdraws. War is not just war (there are many types of wars, like civil wars for instance). War invokes a frame of legitimacy, occupation invokes a frame of illegality (as argued by Annan among others). Neither is a neutral term. Both are in common usage for the same general issue. They should both head the main article Wikipediatoperfection 18:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It turns out the closest we have is Occupation of Iraq timeline (which ends a year ago and overlaps with other timelines) so I'm not opposed to calling this article the occupation, too. ←Ben^B4 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What about my point about Vietnam? There the war continued after the occupation ended. The two concepts are not synonymous. Colin4C 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but while the occupation is ongoing, the term "Iraq War" is being used to mean the occupation. We can easily remove the extra intro name if and when the occupation ends. Now I'm not saying people use "Occupation" to mean the entire war, and that is reflected in the fact that Occupation of Iraq redirects to our poorly-maintained post-invasion article. ←Ben^B4 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my major issue is that calling this the occupation of Iraq is the equivalent to calling this the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was only a phase, so too is the occupation only a phase, albeit much larger. But nonetheless, its an inaccurate title for the entirety of the war. Certainly many call the phase its at an occupation currently, but this article is not about merely this phase, any more than its merely about the invasion phase. Its about all the phases.

The post invasion article is the equivalent to the occupation article, and even though it may be poorly maintained, thats the proper place to have the title. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the invasion can also be called an occupation, in that it was when the US occupied Iraq, in the transitive verb sense. I just looked at Google News on "Iraq War" by date, and seven out of the first ten articles in the results use it to mean the occupation. We should reflect popular usage. ←Ben^B4 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

CIA and FBI

I find this snippet from the article interesting:

On August 16, 2007 Reuters, the news agency, reported that Wikipedia software had discovered that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had been editing the Wikipedia article on the Iraq War. CIA spokesman George Little denied that the CIA was officially performing the deliberate editing. The FBI never responded to the accusations. Colin4C 12:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very interesting, but it's not relevant to the subject of the article, and it's completely allowed and should be expected to some extent, and we're not supposed to mention it per WP:SELF. Accordingly, I removed this sentence:

The government has been editing this page.

However, having said that, I would not be opposed to having a note to that effect at the end of the page. (For one thing, though, it would have to specify which government.) What do others think? ←Ben^B4 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that whoever wrote the comment above yours Ben, should sign his name. Colin4C 16:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(ed.conf.) Huh? ←Ben^B4 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see someone already added a section at the end, so I'll put this reference on it. Does anyone know whether the CIA and FBI edits were biased, and if so in which direction? ←Ben^B4 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another link to the same article:

"CIA, FBI Computers Used for Wikipedia Edits". Washington Post. August 16, 2007. --Timeshifter 00:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit too self referential. We are trying to get the page shorter, remember. Is this truly important enough to the course of the war to appear? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It means wikipedia editors are possibly implicated in White House propaganda. Wikipedia itself is possibly implicated - putting your head in the sand about this and imagining that wikipedia is not implicated in what goes on in the real world is very naive indeed. And as for self-reference - aren't the tags constantly put on wikipedia articles questioning the neutrality of articles etc self-referential? Therefore it seems that self-referentiality IS allowed on the wikipedia. Colin4C 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELF. The info can be put in this article or other related articles. It just can not be self-referential. It has to be in the typical WP:NPOV way of "who says what." From reliable sources. Whether it is important enough to be in this main Iraq War article is debatable. The info could be in other wikipedia articles. I think it may merit its own wikipedia article. --Timeshifter 22:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Surge Assessment

To use a very crude method of determining success on the stability scene in Baghdad, the assertion that the level of violence in Baghdad has returned to pre-surge levels recently doesn't hold water. IIRC, before the surge began there were well over a thousand bodies being found in Baghdad every month, which dropped to something like three hundred during February/March, climbed back to around eight hundred in May and has dropped back to five hundred recently. This is well documented. Fighting has also shifted elsewhere lately, for example to Diyala province, as a direct result of insurgents fleeing the crackdown in Baghdad.

Is victory at hand? Hell no. It will take a great deal more fighting and bloodshed before anything approaching stability returns to Iraq. The recent round of fighting has helped the security situation however and we should present this clearly instead of trying to undermine it. I don't care whether you're right, left, up or down, good news from Iraq is good news for everyone. Kensai Max 06:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting those numbers? The LA Times says civilian deaths (for the whole of Iraq) are essentially flat (graph.) ←Ben^B4 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War in Popular Culture

I hear that there are several feature films due to be released with an Iraq war theme. Probably best to put these in a separate Iraq war in popular culture article I guess, unless somebody can think of a better idea...Colin4C 11:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we don't need Hollywood cluttering up another 20 kilobytes. I've been holding off on adding all kinds of apparently significant developments because I know they are all going to be dwarfed by what Petraeus decides to say in response to congressional questions in ten days time. That should warrant at least another three paragraphs, after the administration responds. ←Ben^B4 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

'End of major combat operations'

The title of this sub-section is both untrue and POV. It is untrue because the biggest battle of the war was the Second Battle of Fallujah in November of 2004 which had over 1000 casualities. It is POV because it dovetails with President Bush's propagandist and untrue 'Mission Accomplished' claim. This latter assertion is palpably untrue in the light of President Bush's latest speech (August 2007) comparing the Iraq war to the Vietnam war. Therefore I will change it. Any objections? Colin4C 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to change it to 'Transition to assymetric warfare' or something? There seems to be a definite point at which the warfare shifted. Despite Bush and others claims to the contrary, this war is very unlike Vietnam. Ursasapien (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than engage in original research as to the nature of the war maybe a better sub-heading would be 'Mission Accomplished?'. This would allude to Bush's major speech on the issue and the feeling at the time that the war was over, but wouldn't prejudge the issue of whether or not the mission was or wasn't accomplished or whether the war was or wasn't over. 'Mission Accomplished' is POV. 'Mission Not Accomplished' is POV. 'Mission Accomplished?' with a question mark is NPOV. Colin4C 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say "Bush: 'Mission accomplished'" instead? ←Ben^B4 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As thats typically a way of attributing a statement to someone, its also misleading. How about "Bush: 'End of major combat operations'," as this would be correctly attributing a statement he made to him. And "Mission Accomplished?" is not typical format for an Encyclopedia. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think Mission accomplished is inappropriate. Jogurney 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done ←Ben^B4 01:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Political developments

If we're going to include the Sunni bedfellows and a Bush speech, we probably should say something about that the Maliki government effectively collapsed, or is gridlocked. Someone please figure out the NPOV way to put it.[44][45][46] ←Ben^B4 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So now we have the GAO, the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, the Iraqi Embassy, and now the Congressional Research Service all in agreement:

"My assessment is that because of the number and breadth of parties boycotting the cabinet, the Iraqi government is in essential collapse," Kenneth Katzman, the author of the [Congressional Research Service] report, said. "That argues against any real prospects for political reconciliation...."

"I would even question the military progress," he said.

Many senior State Department officials in Iraq believe a political solution to the war is now "hopeless," according to a top diplomat.

"I would agree with that," Katzman said.

So of course Petraeus and Bush are still out there saying something different with no evidence to back it up. ←Ben^B4 00:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"

Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon:

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail....[47]

Sheesh. ←Ben^B4 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like you found an opinion piece in an online magazine. Congratulations. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say it's an opinion piece? ←Ben^B4 23:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the part about how the URL is under salon.com/opinion ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. " That's definitely interesting and important. And quite relevant, obviously. Kevin Baas^talk 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what about "this is an opinion piece" is so difficult to understand. I do not deny that something like this, if true, would be important. But if the information is solid, then there must be a secondary (non-opinion) source which will back it up. It would be best if such a source could be provided in its place -- this is a pretty powerful accusation, and given the author's political history, it would eliminate allegations of undue weight or bias. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked about this at WP:RSN#Sidney Blumenthal in Salon and I will incorporate the advice there. ←Ben^B4 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff from respected writer, Sidney Blumenthal, and respected online magazine, Salon.com. Well sourced. Article archived here:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/06/3646/ --Timeshifter 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

David Duke's anti-"Jewish Supremacist Warmongers" site

Someone please review this continued insertion of http://www.nowarforisrael.com/ in the external links. There is no "About us" or any other indicator of the size of legitimacy of the site's base. However, WHOIS says it's David Duke's site. ←Ben^B4 14:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Contribution of Georgian Forces

Since the Georgian force is the third largest coalition force in Iraq, [48], shouldn't they be listed in the 'combatants' list as its own entity, instead of under 'other'? Inless there hasn't been confirmation of the troops yet, then i would understand.Ravenmasterq 21:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

For the UK I think the Queen is technically the commander in chief of the armed forces not politicians like Blair and Brown etc. Colin4C 08:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If she's not giving orders, we should stick with the people doing the commanding.

Can she even give valid military orders without the permission of the prime minister? ←Ben^B4 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In constitutional terms the Queen is commander in chief of UK armed forces equivalant to the Presidency in the USA. In theory the Prime Ministers are just her first ministers. In theory she could have booted out the war-mongering Blair...It might have resulted in rioting in the streets and Civil War but I would have supported her...Colin4C 11:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Queen could give military orders if she so chose. However, for obvious reasons she rarely chooses to use the political powers that she could exercise. She is the actual Head of State for the UK. It is Her Majesty's Government. According to the Royal Prerogative, it's the Queen's job to "declare war and make peace." In practice, though, that's not the case.--Gloriamarie 11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless she starts, lets just list the actual commanders. ←Ben^B4 16:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"inherent capability" of UAVs

I removed the reference to the "inherent capability" of UAVs as a CBW delivery system, because a fleet of Saddam's size, which was known accurately at the time, would have not even be able to begin to mount an attack against the Eastern seaboard as was claimed. ←Ben^B4 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the reports I've seen, Saddam's UAV "fleet" basically consisted of largish Radio Control(RC) planes not military-spec UAVs. The only attacking these "UAVs" were ever capable of was on the intelligence of reasonable people. Publicus 16:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a long NYT article with all the details but I'm having trouble finding it. ←Ben^B4 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was Knight-Ridder; it has excerpts from the before-and-after-declassification of the reports at the end. ←Ben^B4 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

I'm wondering why the ORB and Lancet studies are posted first, and there's no realistic up-to-date total until the bottom. It seems a bit POV to me. I'm saying this because the Iraq Body Count project said Lancet was not very realistic. This is a group dedicated to ending the war by counting the innocent civilians killed, and they don't think a huge number like that is possible. That tells you something isn't right. Isaac Pankonin 05:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You reordered the estimates. That is fine by me. Wikipedia just puts out the info in the WP:NPOV way of who says what. Then the readers make up their own minds. --Timeshifter 10:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, we should not forget that criticism is almost entirely voiced by people and organisations having strong non-scientific incentives to lowering the figure. Second, it is difficult to understand why we should trust doctors to treat us based on therapies, developed using the techniques which have been used for years and have been published in all medical journals, yet today and only in this case their research technique is flawed.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I cited an example of a group that has incentive for raising the figure. You didn't comment on that. Isaac Pankonin 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Iraq War

I added pertinent information regarding Congressional Opposition to Iraq War under the "Opposition to Iraq War" section of this article.

Recently, a certain Admin has overstepped his bounds by blanketly deleting my addition to the Iraq War Opposition. Here is what I added:

--Begin--

The opposition to the war in Congress was spearheaded by Texas Congressman Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul). In order to prevent Congress from yielding its constitutional authority to declare war to the executive branch, which does not constitutionally hold that power, Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 giving Congress the opportunity to declare war on Iraq, rather than merely "authorizing" the president to deploy forces without a declaration of war. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war. As one of six Republicans to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, Paul inspired the founding of a group called the National Peace Lobby Project to promote a resolution he and Oregon representative Peter DeFazio sponsored to repeal the war authorization in February 2003. His column "35 Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq" http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm was translated and published in German, French, Russian, Italian, and Swiss publications before the Iraq War began. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm

--End--

The admin who deleted this portion offered no meaningful explanation as to why he thinks this bit of history is not significant. Keep in mind, this cannot have anything to do with political advertisement since it happened back in 2002, which was before the 2004 Presidential elections, in which he did not even run for President. I did not mention anything that indicates his current campaign or anything that could be construed as political advertisement.

What I am proposing is to put the significant historical facts out there so that all of the relevant history can be seen, not what is convenient for majority opinions. If a Congressional led opposition to the Iraq War is not significant, then anyone deleting this addition needs to offer a thorgouh explanation.

Here are the only points the admin offered for the deletion followed by my comments:

--Begin--

Admin: In the scope of the overall article, and the course of the war and the buildup to the war, Ron Paul's actual individual actions and contributions are not notable enough to mention.

Comment: How does Congressional opposition by Ron Paul, 6 other Republicans, and some Democrats constitute individual actions and contributions. Keep in mind Ron Paul represents a large constiuency in Texas. In combination with the 6 other Republicans and several Democrats, we are talking about a large portion of people. This oppositon by definition is *not* individual. As a result, your remarks are thoughtless.

Admin: In terms of his presidential campaign, adding Ron's contribution to major causes to unrelated Wikipedia articles when we don't already make appropriate mention of other candidates' actions is political advertising.

Comment: Keep in mind, this cannot have anything to do with political advertisement since it happened back in 2002, which was before the 2004 Presidential elections, in which he did not even run for President. I did not mention anything that indicates his current campaign or anything that could be construed as political advertisement.

Admin: We don't have the space, nor would it be morally appropriate, for us to allow every candidate to insert a position statement into every issue article related to their campaigns. This is an encyclopedia.

Comment: This is absurd and thoughtless. See my previous comment.

--End--

The bottom line: Admins or anyone else need to explain themselves with ponderance before deleting historical information. I have been offered no thoughtful or respectful response, only a blanket deletion twice now. Admins should not forget they are providing a service here and are here to serve the community. As such, the burden of explaining lies chiefly upon their shoulders. If an admin is not comfortable with this, then they need to reconsider their Admin role.

I motion to include the info I tried to add twice now above. Any recommendations on rewording this pertinent historical information would be appreciated.

The problem is that the only legislation we've covered is the authorization to use force. Why should we include a bill that failed? There have been at least a dozen, including one yesterday about giving troops the same time at home as deployed. This article really is pressed for space, up around 140 KB, after we trimed it down to 110 KB a few months ago. Is there a source that says Paul's bill is more important than the other failed bills? ←Ben^B4 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The AUMF was challenged using this exact same logic in the court case Doe v. Bush. It was dismissed. End of story. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2. Isaac Pankonin 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many wikipedia articles on the Iraq War. Some of them probably cover the history of Congressional opposition in detail. If not, then start one. I see no problem with it. It is certainly notable. There is not enough room, though, in the Iraq War article to cover it fairly and in detail. --Timeshifter 07:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshifter and BenB4. The only legislation that should be covered in the Iraq war article is legislation directly relevant to the war. There is not the space, nor really the need, to cover "proposed" legislation relating to the war. If you feel the need to cover this subject, I would suggest creating a separate article with a wiki link to it from here. Publicus 15:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitehouse.gov on Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal

User:Ipankonin added this whitehouse.gov source claiming that Iraq sheltered terrorists. I'm not buying that fighters in the Iran-Iraq war are pertinent, and the information given on Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal seems at odds with the existing sources in our articles on them. Nidal, for example, didn't enter Iraq until between the Pan Am 103 bombing and 2001, and was not on good terms with Iraqi government, which apparently caused him to commit suicide while trying to arrest him in 2002. I love my country, but a claim that the Iraqi government supported him (with "training, logistical assistance, and financial aid") is going to need a better source than whitehouse.gov.

Also, I fear that "shelters" as used in that source may very well mean, "allows to live in." ←Ben^B4 08:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix it later. Many of the sources I cited above in the last section also mention this. I'm done editing for now. Isaac Pankonin 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "sponsored". That was the word used in the 9/11 commission testimony. I also added more refs. Let me know what you think. Isaac Pankonin 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Euphemisms

Should we use euphemisms such as 'lost' rather than 'killed'? Isn't that just weasel words like Hitler calling the killing of the Jews 'The Final Solution' rather than 'Genocide'. Whose interests do we serve by using misleading and euphemistic terminology? Are we politicians? Colin4C 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right to avoid them, but any story about war is drenched in euphemisms like "collateral damage." Funny how we get that and for nonviolent things get metaphors like "edit war." That is irony. ←Ben^B4 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, funny but tangental. You don't want me to go off on the congressional sedition going on right now. Let's stick to the article, shall we? Isaac Pankonin 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Support for suicide bombers in Palestine

WLRoss: You're mistaken. He provided funds to suicide bomber families, as quoted:

• "The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars."
• Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000.
• Iraq under Saddam supported international terrorist organizations to bolster Iraq's revolutionary credentials, ensure his own role as Great Arab leader, and intimidate rival governments. In examining the history, methods, and patterns of behavior of Saddam Husayn in supporting international terrorism, some "truths" stand out. Beginning in the early 1970s, Saddam provided safe haven, training, arms, and other forms of assistance to Palestinian and Arab extremists. Baghdad hosted the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and the Hawari faction of the PLO. In addition, Baghdad created the Arab Liberation Front (ALF) as its personal surrogate in the wars against Israel. Although the ALF conducted no terrorist operations, Saddam used it in the 1970s and resurrected it again in the current Palestinian intifada as a means to recruit Palestinians and, in 2001, to win praise for offering $25,000 to the family of each Palestinian "martyred" in an Israeli attack.
• <redacted> saying that Iraq paid a total of $10-15 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. <redacted> Throughout the 1990s, open sources also showed that Saddam Hussein was a vocal advocate of martyrdom operations against Israel. The CIA provided two reports translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service as examples of his statements in support of the Palestinians, one of which described speeches in which Saddam urged the Arab nation to rise up against Israel and the U.S., and another which included Palestinian students thanking him for erecting a statue in honor of a Palestinian suicide bomber. Page 15 (or 318 according to the document).

So I'm re-reverting. Thanks! Isaac Pankonin 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever else Saddam supported you can't call aid to the families of suicide bombers as supporting terrorism. The aid was specifically to compensate for the homes that were bulldozed in retaliation for the attacks. Bulldozing the homes is collective punishment and a war crime under the Geneva Convention.
The other point I reverted was your insertion of "stockpiles". This is very POV as it infers WMD were found, just not enough to be stockpiled so it should not be used. Wayne 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly an example: Imagine that a family member murdered someone and the government fined you for letting them live with you before the act. You now have no money so you get welfare from the Salvation Army. Do you honestly think this aid implies that the Salvos supports murderers?
Another couple of points. What relevance is it that Saddam helped anyone? It was not a factor for the Iraq War. The US and Israel both financed or gave assistance to Palestinian and Arab extremists in the 70's and to some of the same ones Saddam did. The US still supports some terrorist organisations today so should we put that in too? Put it in the Saddam article as it really doesn't belong here. Wayne 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but it does. We're talking about international terrorism, and that doesn't start or stop with Qaeda. If the invasion stopped some terrorism, it would definately be relevant. Apparently the 9/11 commission thought his support for families was relevant, since they included it in their report. WMD were in fact found, but not the stockpiles we were looking for. There have been various chemical warheads exploded in Iraq as part of IED's that the insurgents probably thought were explosives. I can get sources if you wish. They are probably already in the article. Isaac Pankonin 09:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. International terrorism for the purposes of the Iraq War rationale did start with al Qaeda, specifically with the 9-11 attacks. Saddam's various levels of support for militant Palestinian groups from the 1970s is not relevant to the Bush administration's rationale for war. What is only relevant was the perceived connections between al Qaeda and Saddam, which is why it was so important to have stories about 9-11 terrorists meeting Iraqi intelligence. Publicus 15:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My position is as follows: 1) He gave money to families of suicide bombers, and 2) suicide bombers are terrorists. I don't think either of those points are disputed. There's a reason the GWOT is not specifically called the "War on al Qaeda". I agree that it wasn't stated as a rationale. That's not the point. It's part of the answer to the question, "What does the war in Iraq have to do with the war on terrorism?" That's what the section is about. Isaac Pankonin 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

While neither of those points are disputed linking them for cause and effect is OR. Another problem is that giving money to families has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The only terrorism in Iraq prior to invasion was al-Zarqawi's which was based in the no fly zone where Saddam had no control. What Saddam did 30 years ago is not relevant in regards to the invasion. "What does the war in Iraq have to do with the war on terrorism?" It has fuelled a major increase in terrorism worldwide. In Iraq itself the only terrorism is by AQI which constitutes 2% of the attacks and is rather insignificant. Yes WMD were in fact found but they were all ones Saddam had declared to the UN. As far as undeclared WMD are concerned there were zero. I have never heard of chemical warheads used as IED's. I'd put it in the same basket as the IED's allegedly made in Iran. IE: Propaganda. Wayne 06:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about WMD or AQI. You're stating a conclusion, and that's not what we should be doing. We need to present all the reliably sourced facts and let the reader decide. That's what NPOV is all about. Please allow the article to be neutral. That's all I'm asking. Your opinion is not really relevant. Isaac Pankonin 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't include facts not related to the war in Iraq as that makes it POV by infering that Iraq deserved to be invaded. Wayne 05:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide whether or not Iraq deserved to be invaded. It's up to the reader to decide, and we serve our purpose by presenting all the facts and letting them do so, not by skewing it to one side or another. Isaac Pankonin 23:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)