Talk:Iraq War

Pending tasks for Iraq War:

Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done: convert "200x in Iraq" articles (x==2...7 e.g. 2007 in Iraq) to Wikipedia:Summary style Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources Keep the article NPOV by equally including material that both supports and doesn't support the Iraq War. A concise paragraph that includes all justifications for the war from American top officials as well as keep it NPOV by giving space to rebuttals.

False statement

"Since the troop surge of 2007 levels of violence have dropped considerably"

This statement, in the opening paragraph, is not sourced and seems false. Can anyone deny/confirm it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.57.43 (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement is accurate. It should be referenced however. Please put a "fact" on it. Student7 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the war ended?

I would like for people here to come to some kind of consensus on using the term "has the war ended". Why not break down certain stages of the war like the invasion stage has ended because we did accomplish the goals set out in the invasion. Now about other enemies in Iraq such as Al-Queada and the militia groups should be separate because those groups were not connected to each other (as far as I know) or to the previous government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a true definition of the war show that it has ended? In technical terms, the 'war phase' really ended when Iraq had been defeated. At present it is a police/counter-insurgency action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.248.139 (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. The generally accepted definition for conquering an enemy was to occupy their territory, the original intent of the war. But with "assymetrical" warfare, who knows?

Different enemy now anyway, who attacks Iraq's own soldiers, selected by their legally elected government, along with allies. I guess wars of the future will go on indefinitely. There will never be an end to them. This plays well into the hands of the screwballs, unfortunately. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really an ambiguous issue because the term "war" was probably a misnomer to begin with.Johnny^California 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The war is far from being over, even when US forces pull out and Iraqi forces succesfully take over, then the casualty count sitll has to drop big time. The UN's definition for a major war is 1000 casualties annually. In Iraq there have been over a thousand casualties within the last three months. If it's still a major war, then how long will it take for it to transcend to a regular war, and then peace? - Pieter_v (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Saddam was defeated. And his military is gone. And mission accomplished. But that isn't good enough. Unfortuantely there's going to be a war so long as there's money to be made and Iraqi's to kill. Neutralaccounting (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you show us some figures on how much money each Iraqi death earns and who is receiving it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

People are making money killing Iraqis? It's costing the US taxpayers billions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think that money is going? Ask United Defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the number of casualties is a good way to define a war. Lots of people are murdered in the United States or any other country, but that isn't a war. If a war doesn't have to be bound by nationalities or actual armies, then when does, say, gang warfare become civil war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.248.139 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

See the Mexican Drug War. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Death toll!!

Can anyone here find any accurate number of Iraqi civilians killed by USA and UK?AlexBlues (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that no one can come up with an acceptable figure for the death toll of civilians for any reason. Worse, they cannot come up with a way of arriving at that figure. This is why estimates at the high level vary by factor of ten! Which is why the figures that are adopted look so pov. If your are liberal, the figures are in the millions and you can point to a "study." If you favor the war, you quote the lower figure which is alos supported by a "study." Ouch! Student7 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Renowned writer

Susskind is being repeatedly described as "renowned." I never know if these overstatements are being furnished by supporters or detractors. When I see that someone has said "renowned," I back off. Kind of like the Nigerian email scam when someone describes themselves as reputable. At that point, I direct it to my spam folder. More to the point, assuming the editor is a supporter, why would you have to say "renowned"? Kind of like saying "the famous Bill Clinton." A bit redundant isn't it? (Even sounds sarcastic).

But if you are a detractor, keep it up I suppose. You're making the statements which follow seem improbable.

Granted that the statements need to establish Susskind's credibility. But does "Pulitzer Prize winning" do that? He could have won it for fiction. Pulitzer prizes tend to be for entertainment or commercial success, IMO. I would be more impressed if he did something routinely, but maybe he is on his own now and no longer has those kind of credentials. An "investigative reporter" might be more credible. Then when the reader linked to Susskind, s/he would discover the Pulitzer for her/himself. Student7 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

“ The Pulitzer Prize is an American award regarded as the highest national honor in newspaper journalism ”

--117.201.64.26 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Premature FAC withdrawn

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iraq War/archive1, withdrawn from WP:FAC. Please see the instructions at FAC:

Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. ... Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilson and the Yellowcake

The article states that the administration sent off Joseph Wilson to determine whether Saddam was buying more yellowcake or not. This much is true.

What doesn't come out of the article, however, is the fact that Wilson, in effect sent himself. His wife "recommended" him and, via pressure was sent off, as hundreds of government people are "sent" on a daily basis. He wants us to think his was a unique mission. There may have been others. The administration had good reason not to believe him, and clearly didn't. I don't know the political reasoning behind sending off someone whose answer you are not going to trust when it comes back, but oh, well. I assume they were trying to get Plame/Wilson off their back. Ha! Anyway, the problem for any large government is wading through a sea of intelligence. Wilson's comment was one drop in that sea, and hardly the only report they had. There was a 50-50 chance of it's being correct. However, all other evidence the government(s) had said otherwise. As did most of the people in Saddam's government when captured.

And BTW, it is up to people at that level to make themselves believable to their superiors. Wilson didn't and found reasons to go to the press, the last refuge of the counter-credible. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon says

There is an opaque quote from Steve Simon, who has no bio himself though his higher level org does, to the effect that "long term goals have been traded off for short term ones." This is all very well and nice, but what the heck does it actually mean? This type of statement is the sort of thing you get from politicians who want to be sure of saying the "right" thing to make them later look prophetic!

At best, Simon's name should be removed and "a member of" substituted. Because it lacks specifics and sounds more like CYA stuff, I think it should be deleted in favor of an analyst with specifics: "US needed to have a, b, and c, from the Iraqi parliament, failed to get it but was satisficed with d, which is a poor stubstitute because...." It's not that the statement is automatically wrong. It's just that it is too vague. We shouldn't have statements which "can't fail to be right" when they are supposed to be WP:CRYSTAL! Student7 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be in lead paragraph either. Student7 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The content cannot be too specific in the lead because the information is naturally supposed to be an overview. Also, agreeing or disagreeing with the content isn't really the point since the test for inclusion on WP is verifiability. Finally, WP:CRYSTAL would apply to unverifiable speculation, while this information is from a former professor, RAND analyst, and Director at the National Security Council. (Steven Simon Bio)

Nonetheless, the Government Accountability Office and other groups have expressed about the same idea so we can attribute it to them instead.--68.251.191.149 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

War Articles lack of format adds to the confusion and heated debate.

A quick look at the wiki war articles shows a lack of consistancy except for the Military Information Box.

The Milatary Info Box helps to condence a huge amout of info and helps to offer a neutral look at the wars But the Catagories do not. A quick look at the Wiki Articles on the "Major US Wars" demonstrates how differntly the wars are presented. Many start with a a catagory called Backroud or Backround and Causes. Some then go on to list Milatary and Political Leaders, Political and Social Catalysts, Events and Battles or Cronlogy.

Since all of the 97 United States wars need to be organized, May I suggest that we start with Catagorizing and refining the Iraq War Article and work our way backwards. We can do this by starting with the American Revolutionary Article gathering ideas and catagories and research our way forwards.

May I suggust that all the War Articles start with a Backround Catagory. The second catagory could be Causes both stated and underlyingBold text As an example the Stated Cause ( which used to be drafted as a Declaration of War)for the Iraq War can be taken from the websites of both The White House and Iraq,Afganistat and Al Quida. The Unstated or underlying causes of the warItalic textcan also be listed accordingly.

The Iraq War Article if basicly a cronology of events that adds to the confusion and heated debate.Bill Ladd (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, when you look at the Wiki article on using the Summary Style for articles, it gives as an example a theoritical article on World War II, With Sections like Backround, Causes, but the article itself ( on WW2) does not follow the summury style that it gives as an example!!Bill Ladd (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

After an exhaustive comparison of the Articles on the Major US Wars, the World War 1 format seems the Best. Once a comprehensive outline is agreed on by the Wikiies,does it make sence to restructure and add the outline to all the war articles and let the future wikies fill in the blanks ? Bill Ladd (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted subtitles and suggested content in other (non-military) articles but commented out so only the editors can see them. While I don't have enough experience with this technique to comment broadly, this method seems to have worked so far and not caused problems. And it may have dissuaded energetic newbies from adding stuff randomly. I've seen other people add subtitles with nothing under them and was a bit irked to tell the truth. Looks funny to a reader IMO.

Either way, it encourages editors to use and maintain the "master" outline in the WikiProject. These get out of date with time. After a while sophisticated editing goes well beyond what the original editors had only hoped for two years ago. So it is an iterative process IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the World War 1 outline,I've tweeked it to come up with this outline that can be used for all the war articles. I would rather live with the discomfort of having a subtitle with nothing under it yet, acting as a guide to help people organize thier thoughts rather that the mess we have now with both the Viet Nam and Iraq Articles.

 1.Backround ( some artiles call this historical backround, is the word Historical too controvercial ?
 2.Causes/Origins of War- ( are Causes the same as Origins?)
  2A. Stated Causes :Declarations of War -( from all sides)   
  2B. Unstated Causes:
 3.Course of the War/ Battles -( Does  Course of the War or Cronoligy  better discribe the timeline of events?) 
 4.Cronology 
 5.Opposition to war- (The opposition is an event that happens before and during the war and listed before the end.
 6.End of War / Peace Treaty - Hopefully all wars end but not always with a Peace Treaty.
 7.Aftermath
 8.Soldiers Experience
 9.PRisioners of War
 10.War Crimes
 11.Economic
 12.Manpower
 13.Technology
 14.Historical Era
 15.notes
 16.References
 17.Literatue
 18.Movies
 19.External Links

Inspiration.."War is a vital matter of state. It is the field of which life or death is determined and the road that leads to either it’s survival or ruin, and must be examined with the greatest of care". Sun- Tzu “ The Art of War”Bill Ladd (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here it is today. (Some of which may have gone well beyond the outline. The outline may need updating).

   * 1 1991–2003: U.N. inspectors, no-fly zones, and Iraqi opposition groups
         o 1.1 Iraqi opposition groups
   * 2 2001–2003: Iraq disarmament crisis and pre-war intelligence
         o 2.1 U.N. weapons inspections resume
         o 2.2 Iraq's WMD controversy
         o 2.3 Authorization for the use of force
         o 2.4 Opposition to invasion
   * 3 2003: Invasion
         o 3.1 Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraq Survey Group
         o 3.2 Post-invasion phase
         o 3.3 Saddam Hussein captured
   * 4 2004: The insurgency expands
   * 5 2005: Elections and transitional government
   * 6 2006: Civil war and permanent Iraqi government
         o 6.1 Iraq Study Group report and Saddam’s execution
   * 7 2007: U.S. troop surge
         o 7.1 Planned troop reduction
         o 7.2 Effects of the surge on security
         o 7.3 Political developments
         o 7.4 Tensions with Iran
         o 7.5 Tensions with Turkey
         o 7.6 Private security firm controversy
   * 8 2008
         o 8.1 Spring offensives on Shia militias
         o 8.2 Congressional testimony
         o 8.3 Status of Forces Agreement
   * 9 Coalition troop deployment
         o 9.1 United Nations
   * 10 Armed Iraqi groups
         o 10.1 Insurgents
         o 10.2 Militias
         o 10.3 Al-Qaeda in Iraq
   * 11 Casualty estimates
   * 12 Criticisms and costs
   * 13 Alleged misappropriation of funds
   * 14 Forgery allegations
   * 15 Humanitarian crises
         o 15.1 Iraqi health care deterioration
         o 15.2 Orphans
         o 15.3 Iraqi refugees
   * 16 Human rights abuses
         o 16.1 Iraqi government
         o 16.2 Coalition forces and private contractors
         o 16.3 Insurgent and terrorist groups
   * 17 Public opinion on the war
         o 17.1 International opinion
         o 17.2 Iraqi opinion
   * 18 Relation to the Global War on Terror
   * 19 See also
   * 20 Topical images
   * 21 Bibliography
   * 22 References
   * 23 External articles

Where would you move these today? Okay to mark up my outline above. Just be clear that it is your proposal by either puting and arrow ----> or inserting in brackets or something.

Editors will feel more relieved when they know that their edits won't be lost! Student7 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets start with this

Name of War											
1.Backround 

United States history of involvement in region starting in WW2 including Oil drilling,overthowing of democraticly elected governments in neighboring Iran and installing the brutal dictator "The Shaw of Iran" . United States help in overthrowing the Iraq government (in 63?) and helping to install Sadam Hussain by having the CIA help to murder 200 "communists" during the coup. Making lots of $ from convential and chemical weapons during the Iraq and Iran War. Sending Rumsfeld to help negociate an oil pipeline deal that Sadam turned down. The plan to attack Iraq that started in the Neo-Conservative think tanks of the Project for a New American Century and The Vulcans. ( I'n not sure that we can call The Vulcans a think tank once Bush joined it )

      * 1 1991–2003: U.N. inspectors, no-fly zones, and Iraqi opposition groups
         o 1.1 Iraqi opposition groups
      * 2 2001–2003: Iraq disarmament crisis and pre-war intelligence
         o 2.1 U.N. weapons inspections resume
         o 2.2 Iraq's WMD controversy
         o 2.3 Authorization for the use of force
         o 2.4 Opposition to invasion

2.Causes/Origins of War-											
     2A. Stated Causes:Declarations of War -( from all sides) USA, IRAQ, AL Quida

     2B.Unstated Causes:

3.Course of the War/Cronology

   * 3 : Invasion
         o 3.1 Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraq Survey Group
         o 3.2 Post-invasion phase
         o 3.3 Saddam Hussein captured
   * 4 : The insurgency expands
   * 5 : Elections and transitional government
   * 6 : Civil war and permanent Iraqi government
         o 6.1 Iraq Study Group report and Saddam’s execution
   * 7 : U.S. troop surge
         o 7.1 Planned troop reduction
         o 7.2 Effects of the surge on security
         o 7.3 Political developments
         o 7.4 Tensions with Iran
         o 7.5 Tensions with Turkey
         o 7.6 Private security firm controversy
   * 8 
         o 8.1 Spring offensives on Shia militias
         o 8.2 Congressional testimony
         o 8.3 Status of Forces Agreement

                 * 9 Coalition troop deployment o 9.1 United Nations (dosn't 9&10&11 belong in the Milatary Info box?)
                 * 10 Armed Iraqi groups
                     o 10.1 Insurgents
                     o 10.2 Militias
                     o 10.3 Al-Qaeda in Iraq
                  * 11 Casualty estimates
   
   * 14 Forgery allegations
   * 15 Humanitarian crises
         o 15.1 Iraqi health care deterioration
         o 15.2 Orphans
         o 15.3 Iraqi refugees
   * 16 Human rights abuses
         o 16.1 Iraqi government
         o 16.2 Coalition forces and private contractors
         o 16.3 Insurgent and terrorist groups
   * 17 Public opinion on the war
         o 17.1 International opinion
         o 17.2 Iraqi opinion
   * 18 Relation to the Global War on Terror
   * 19 See also
   * 20 Topical images
   * 21 Bibliography
   * 22 References
   * 23 External articles

5.Opposition to war- 	

6.End of War/Peace Treaty - Hopefully all wars end but not always with a Peace Treaty.	

7.Aftermath

8.Soldiers Experience	
9.Prisioners of War - Did I miss something or was prisioners of war and torture left out of this article ??	
10.War Crimes	

* 16 Human rights abuses

11.War Profiteers 
                *12 Criticisms and costs
                *13 Alleged misappropriation of funds
             	
12.Economic	
13.Manpower	
14.Technology	
15.Historical Era
16.notes
17.References
18.Literatue
19.Movies/Media
20.External Links

This is a big job. How much am I getting paid for this?

The problem is that it is similar to the Viet Nam War Article, a chronology of events without a big picture organizational structure that is found in the WW 1 Article. The feel of both articles are as if it was written by the Pentagon and then rebutted by Wikiees line by line.

The second paragraph of the Viet Nam Article starts with the war fighting tactics. The Second Sentence of the Iraq article turns into a debate on WMD’s

I encourage anyone interesed in getting to the truth of the matter to look at the WW1 Article's format inclucing the seperate article on the origins or causes of the war, and compare it to any of the other 97 US Wars in it's elegance and clearity.

Inspitation: "Any military commander who is honest with himself, or with those he's speaking to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He's killed people unnecessarily — his own troops or other troops — through mistakes, through errors of judgment. A hundred, or thousands, or tens of thousands, maybe even a hundred thousand. But, he hasn't destroyed nations. And the conventional wisdom is don't make the same mistake twice, learn from your mistakes. And we all do. Maybe we make the same mistake three times, but hopefully not four or five. They'll be no learning period with nuclear weapons. You make one mistake and you're going to destroy nations "We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What "the fog of war" means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily" Robert McNamara - "The Fog of War" Documentary Bill Ladd (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily update to fatalities

Someone, usually an unregistered editor, is making daily updates to the fatality count in order to make a political point. IMO this is just one more "nuisance" edit to have to read for no good reason. Further, they are making it over at least one reference which states "exceeds 4000, meaning that the count in the article no longer matches the reference. I think this sort of thing should stop. Monthly is fine. Daily is stupid and time consuming for the rest of us.

Also, updating the civilian count is useless, since no once has any idea of what they are to start with, so a "daily" update is totally nonsence. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that an exact number is useful as a reference; that being said, I'm not regularly editing the article.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is useful to have updates if we have them, with exact numbers when available, but these should always be accompanied by a source. If someone wants to update the source daily, that's great. As for civilians, we have a whole section on this; there are reliable estimates from several sources; the Lancet study is pretty dated now but it is considered authoritative, but a much more conservative estimate based purely on the number of dead civilians specifically documented in at least two news accounts is available from Iraq Body Count. The latter source is updated frequently but of course it is misleading since it ONLY counts rigorously documented deaths, but it does give us an absolute minimum number to start with. It's updated daily I think, but I don't know how to keep that number current here without someone updating it daily (unless we use the IBC counter on this page, but some people would probably not like that as it would seem to promote a website). I can update the figure now since I'm looking at it, but I'm not coming back every day to do so -- best we can do is indicate source and date checked. csloat (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Updating with a source on regular intervals seems to be the best approach as I'm not sure Wiki allows for the inclusion of dynamic content.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In answer to a generalized question in the Village Pump, an knowledgeable editor replied: "...if the editing activity constitutes news coverage in Wikipedia, it would be better for the editor to contribute to Wikinews and link from the Wikipedia article to Wikinews coverage. In that way, the editor's interest in the topic is satisfied while maintaining the Wikipedia article's encyclopedic focus."Student7 (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The casualties are more than news in this case, they are also part of the war's information box (many other current wars have the same thing happening with their information boxes). Your argument would refer to particular news stories worthy of a news article but not an encyclopedia entry. An example of this would be information about an individual soldier who recently died and the details surrounding their individual death.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased Article

This article is so biased it is frankly laughable. Among the innumberable lies and distortions in the article, the part that is particularly amusing is how it goes right from talk about how the United States is doomed to failure to talk about the aftermath of the war, i.e. the drawdown of US troops. It completely fails to mention the US victory in 2007. This article is nothing more than ultraliberal propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If the US was victorious in 2007, then why is a gradual drawdown necessary? Is the US victory similar to the British victory?--99.1.99.177 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you usually drawdown your troops after you win unless your goal was to conquer, which in this case it wasn't? I could cite about 1,000 wars in which an Army went somewhere, won, and then left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I live in the US and I must have missed the victory celebrations? I was here for all of 2007; when was the official victory? I can't believe I missed out on my Iraqi Freedom Party Whistle! csloat (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want the US to lose the Iraq War, then I can see one having the POV which follows this bunk that the 2007 troop surge was ineffective---(incorrect by all responsible estimates). There will be plenty of “media articles” (and “studies”) published for years to support the view that ’07 was unsuccessful though . There was not a "Victory Party" for the Korean war, but the Korean war WAS a huge success, in preventing Communist China and North Korea from doing whatever they wanted (taking S. Korea and who knows what else). Like, Iraq, the Korea situation is an ongoing work -- without a finite victory day. Anyone denying that the US Troop Surge of 2007 was effective is believing brainwash from the left, or the spineless BBC (which is the same thing) rather than the voice of reason. The troop surge had a huge impact on the war. It was surprisingly effective in making the insurgent’s business less effective, and in making the Iraq War “winnable” (something that many contributors to this article do NOT want – A Coalition victory in Iraq). Also Spineless; the American people, with little or zero interest, or concern that the US and coalition turned the tide of a very unpopular war. The general public does not want to hear it (even more so outside US borders). This article will always be garbage, a ugly , terrible piece of junk - vandalized by POV Warriors who are out to prove we are losing this war, when in fact we are winning it. Bwebb00 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While I strongly agree with this opinion, this line of discussion (as yet) is not conducive to improving the article. We need to focus on what specifically is wrong with the article, and work to set the record straight one section at a time. On that note, where do you think would be a good place to start off? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The average U.S. taxpayer has spent $1930.00 so far to finance the war (enough to pay the salary of every Iraqi for three years), and the U.S has almost lost 5,000 of its soldiers. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction are no longer a threat to the United States homeland anymore. The U.S. was victorious in its mission, and the Iraqi people and government are now asking us to leave their country. How much more money and how many more lives do we need to spend, and what would be spending them for now? If the American people are "spineless", then why don't you finance and fight the war yourself?--99.1.99.177 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing your opinions or reciting your talking points. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss changes to the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I would like to compliment the cost of the war section and suggest that more could be added about the impending US withdrawal.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Strength of Mahdi Army is wrong

The Mahdi Army wikipedia page lists them as having a strength of 60,000. Bill Roggio of Long War Journal gives the number at 40 - 60,000 here http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/mahdi_army_taking_si.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.165.10 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Measuring deaths

Where were the breathless daily death reporters back when Saddam was fighting his against Iran which killed 1,000,000 of his own people? Where were they when he killed 250,000 Iraqis with skulduggery. And can these figures be reported here for comparison? Most Iraqis think that "they are better off than they were ten years ago." Don't they count?Student7 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties of the Iran-Iraq war are covered in the Iran-Iraq war article. Maybe you would also like to include the US's support for Saddam Hussein during the war or the U.S.'s relative silence during Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran?

I would very much like to see the poll where Iraqis say they are better off than they were ten years ago, and especially five years ago. Apart from the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis which have been killed in this conflict, one in six of the population have been displaced. Of those which are not displaced, millions have incredibly poor access to basic services like electricity and nearby sanitary water. 78% of Iraqis oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq and 51% approve of attacks on U.S. troops.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would assume there is no poll where Iraqis say "they are better off than they were ten years ago." --99.1.99.177 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, here is a poll where ~90% of Iraqis say things were better before the U.S. invasion.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this ("99.1.99.177") is all Liberal POV, Not anything creative or constructive toward the reconstruction of a useful article. Of course the US would have taken a sinister position against Iran who had just held Americans hostage for 444 days. The US did not catch the magnitude of the chemical weapons crime until later. Try to include something positive and normal here. Not just left wing anti-US crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.50.152 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Which of those statements was unverifiable? Iran held American diplomats out of concern that the US was going to launch another coup from the U.S. embassy, and install another U.S.-backed dictator who would give America friendly energy policies. Iraqi public opinion and humanitary conditions may be unfortunate, but they also exist. My apologies to ("68.231.50.152"), but Dr. Stephen Colbert has said that reality has a well-known liberal bias. --99.1.99.177 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The Iranians thought that Jimmy Carter would invade them? They should have been taken out for sheer stupidity! The raid on the embassy was done as a "mob stunt" by "students." The leaders, seeing that nothing bad was going to happen, backed the students (while pretending otherwise of course). Insurance? Ha! I hope "liberals and reality" doesn't wind up in the article! Student7 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. The U.S. embassy was raided in response to the coup the U.S. executed against the democratic republic of Iran. It seems the Iranians did not like a U.S.-backed dictator running their country. The ignorance of basic history is stunning; however, you might read Guests of the Ayatollah, Moin Khomeini, or Jimmy Carter and the 1979 Decision to Admit the Shah into the United States if you want to learn about the Iranian hostage crisis..--99.1.99.177 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you have any response to the poll mentioned above or do you view Iraqi public opinion as irrelevant as Iranian public opinion (and innocent Iraqi deaths as irrelevant as innocent Iranian deaths)?--99.1.99.177 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Update to casualties on 9/4 made over a reference from 8/23. The reference does not match. Either a legitimate reference should be provided or else this is merely WP:SOAP. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP wouldn't really apply unless you think reporting an objective measurement is propaganda. A quick Google test is all you need to verify. Anyways, there is now a source which is frequently updated so there shouldn't be any more mistakes in the future :-) --99.130.168.83 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

external links

this article is an almost outright violations of wikipedia links. Most importantly, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." and "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links." There is no need to link to any or every opnion and analysis. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." And "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." As for the google links: "Links to the results pages of search engines." neither are web logs suitable for external links.

Also, for "Anti-war activists and war critics." One should see that it does not come to be "Advertising and conflicts of interest."

Of course, the casualties are not "external" links either.

Most of the links could cited in the article for some point or another. There is nothing compelling for this list to be so big. Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hizbullah’s Role in Attacks Against U.S. and British Forces in Iraq

I am very new to Wikipedia, but I have recently stumbled upon this report. It is well cited and scholarly and I believe it is of importance to implement information from it into this article. Would anyone care to help me figure out the best ways to go about this?--Einsteindonut (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a controversial article and not the greatest place to start ones editing career IMO. Having said that, there is virtually no source that everybody will agree to. IMO (again), this particular source has reason to exaggerate the impact that the Hezballah has in Iraq for political purposes. I don't know that they have been quite as effective as the articles seem to say. There are all sorts of groups in Iraq with all sorts of agendas. The best (and fairest) way of sorting them out, unfortunately, is to count bomb blast or deaths and try to figure out who produced them. These articles take the side of the producer for subtle reasons. We don't know that they are really that effective, however.

Don't let my opinion sway you about contributing to Wikipedia. We need thoughtful editors. Student7 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to start this source off in the Iraqi insurgency article, and let it briefly be summarized over here as more comes out.--75.2.15.194 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article History

What happened to the Introduction copy that was linked to the first 30 footnotes? Bill Ladd (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)