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

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

Lead of Article

The article lead currently starts with "Invasion and Occupation of Iraq." However in the other related pages many say what the previous lead said, "Iraq War". There should be a consistency, either "Iraq War" or "Invasion and Occupation of Iraq." What do the rest of you feel? Hello32020 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The original designation for this operation was 1003V ("ten-oh-three-victor"), and should perhaps be included in the lead. Doing a Google search of 1003V site:.mil yielded 36 results for me. I was serving in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion and all I ever heard it called was "ten-oh-three-victor", and no one called it "Iraqi Freedom". On a few occasions at the beginning of this Iraq war several TV news reporters in Kuwait/Iraq also referred to the operation as "ten-oh-three-victor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primeris (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is so Extremely Biased that it is not a reasonable record of the Iraq war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwebb00 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is so extremely biased, that it is not a reasonable record of the Iraq war. The article text, and also the photographs used on the article are so selectively tilted in an “Anti-U.S.” opinion that most readers will quickly dismiss the page as propaganda or worse. The entire Wikipedia site has such extensive problems with media-bias (Wikipedia is a collection of pulp from the media, not an authoritative Encyclopedic reference) that no one will ever credit the Wikipedia as an Encyclopedic, or historical reference. Bwebb00 (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopeless

This article has been confirmed to be nothing more than leftwing propaganda. It's simply laughable that the 2007 section lists the most minor of negative events, but completely ignores the thing that is most obvious to anyone who isn't in complete denial: the US is winning this war right now. Attacks are way down, whole areas have been cleansed of AQI, Sunni tribes are reconciling with the government and the coalition by the bushel. I'm really sorry that it is politically inconvenient for you, but your country is winning its war. I know that's terrible news to you and tough to take, but at some point you just need to accept reality, especially when you're supposedly running an unbiased news source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.192.184 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Here is the introduction section from the article's history which talks about ALL the causes for the war, not just WMD:

The Iraq War, also known as the Occupation of Iraq, the Second Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland invaded Iraq.

The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, and the coalition supporters was the belief that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These weapons were said to pose an "imminent," "urgent," and "immediate threat" to the United States, its allies, and interests. After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of the WMD or programs the administration claimed existed. Some U.S. officials claimed that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were cooperating. No evidence of any collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda has been found. Other reasons for the invasion stated by U.S. officials include concerns about other kinds of terrorism such as financial support for Palestinian suicide bombers, spreading democracy, Iraqi government human rights abuses, and the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply.

The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of 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 many Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. Coalition nations have begun to withdraw troops from Iraq as public opinion favoring troop withdrawal increases and as Iraqi forces begin to take responsibility for security. The causes and consequences of the war remain controversial.

Replace it or no; why or why not? Boowah59 (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Er...so because a country wins a war that makes it justifiable? Like when the Americans defeated Mexico and robbed it of half its territory? Might is right...the Bible says so...Colin4C (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading what you're saying, but not following you. What part do you think is wrong? My main beef is to get the other causes for the war in. Boowah59 (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of stupid to declare a "victory" when no one can even agree on who exactly the US is fighting or what the real or even declared goals of this "war" are? "Attacks are way down" -- well, were there any Iraq-related attacks during, like, a decade before this war started? "Whole areas have been cleansed of AQI" -- was there ever any "AQI" in that country to begin with? I'm not even talking about how many hundreds of thousands have been (and are being) murdered because of this war there -- for what exactly? Guinness man 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If nobody else is going to put all the other reasons in, how long until I can? Boowah59 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to, I already added them :-) Elhector (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has a very liberal bias. For example, the troop quotes section. From that the reader would be led to believe that at least half of the troops in Iraq think that it is wrong and that they hate the US Government. The reality is quite the contrary. Another example is the lack of mentioning that WMD's in fact WERE found in Iraq. While left over from the Iran-Iraq war, they were stil functional, yet limited in quantity. I could go on, but pretty much every section is like this. Quovatis (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Updates

I believe British Intelligence still states that Saddam was trying to get Yellow Cake in Africa. I will the relevant references and if I am correct update this article. The Wilson investigation may be correct, but it appears to be entirely separate from the British Intelligence conclusions.

I will do an update on the Surge and in particular the turning of the Sunni Insurgents. There has been a dramatic drop in coalition deaths and bomb attacks over the past few months. If possible I will put this in the context of the 12 to 15 years it takes to fight an insurgency. Most likely this will just be in another article.

Another point is the gradual decline in the effectiveness of the UN Trade Sanctions.

Finally, I will try to do a review of Lancet article on Deaths in Iraq. I think the two big issues are that the respondents claim something like 400,000 more death certificates than the Health Ministry states they have issued. That many deaths should generate a lot of "hidden" mass graves. This was the case with Saddam's regime, but none have been found. Also, you usually get three wounded for every death. This required level of wounded has not hit the hospitals.

A better discussion of the Secretarian divisions in Iraq and the general bloody nature of Arab political culture should be included. ITBlair (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Updates

I noted the book the Connection, which outlines a set of contacts between Al-Qaeda, and the Saddam Regime. This reference was deleted. Just because one does not like a source or thinks it is incorrect is not grounds for deletion. You have to demonstrate that it is factually wrong. Otherwise it has to be left in the article, along with the opposing viewpoints.

Similarly, I noted the most Western Intelligence Agencies, including the prior Clinton Administration believed that the Saddam Regime had restarted his WMD program. This reference was also deleted. Again one has to demonstrate that this citation is wrong before deleting it.

From a context perspective, I noted that Saddam had WMDs and was within three years of a nuclear weapon in 1991. Otherwise the article would imply there is no factual basis for the US concern on WMDs. This reference was also deleted. In particular, the 9/11 attacks reveal that a non-state actor with access to WMDs could destroy several US cities. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction via massive retaliation does not work with non-state actors. These facts, along with increasing globalization has dramatically changed the US strategic calculus. There is a greater emphasis on premptive wars and not waiting a threat to fully mature before striking first.

I do not think any of the above proposed updates was factually incorrect and I provided the relevant citations. This is obviously a dispute among editors. I am requesting comments as to truthfulness of these assertions and if truthful, why they should not be in the article. As it stands, the current article reflects an strong anti-Iraq War perspective and explicitly denies any valid basis for this invasion. I think this is not the case; at the very least both viewpoints should be well represented in this article.

I deleted the reference to The Connection because it does not belong in the lead. You asserted that "a number of investigative journalists state that Saddam was generally involved in terrorism and had a collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda." To back up this claim, you provided one book that has been discredited by basically everyone knowledgeable on the subject of terrorism. The only thing appropriate to include in the lead (about this topic) is the consensus of the intelligence community, which is that there was no operational link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.--Rise Above The Vile 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a lot of this discussion should probably go into the Wiki Article on Saddam and Al-Qaeda: (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#_note-Harmony). To my knowledge the Book (The Connection) has not been discredited. There are some doubts about the Atta meeting in Czech, but that is about it. I will try to eventually list its major points.

Below is list of Eighteen (18) links (mainly journalists) on the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. At mininum he provided money, training, weapons, passports, safe haven, and medical treatments. Joint Operations were at least discussed. Direct Operations with Ansar al-Isalm were carried out. As the 9/11 Chairman notes: Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

As noted by the NY Times, the statements made by the Bush Admin. on the contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were essentially Correct. They never stated that Saddam had an operational role in the 9/11 Attacks: Bush Admin (Correctly) Claims Relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda: http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/iraq-quaeda.htm

It is obviously hard to get details on the Inner workings of a small terrorist organization, but in WWII the US destroyed entire cities on the basis of information that had the same level of credibility as these articles. The 18 links I noted above are as follows:

Al Qaeda proposed Operational Cooperation with Saddam (2006): http://www.nysun.com/article/29746

Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaidia Cooperated in Killing Anti-Saddam Kurds. http://www.nysun.com/article/39631

Al Qaeda Training in Northern Iraq (under Saddam): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868301/posts

Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam (from 9/11 Report): http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

Detainee Assets Operational Contacts with Saddam: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Senator Clinton (2002) Notes Al Qaeda and Saddam Contacts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_abcs_of_iraq_and_al_qaeda.asp

Note on Al Qaeda + Saddam contacts in Report: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507011134.asp

W. Safire Note on Report listing Contacts: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EFDA1239F932A15755C0A9629C8B63

A list of Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam: http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_alqaeda_connection.htm

Links Missed by 9/11 Report: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

Saddam Trained Thousands of Terrorists, many Al Qaida Afflicated: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Original Summary of Defense Review of Contacts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Ansar Al-Islam in Iraq http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={9E091170-6A9D-48CA-BC7B-02FF7F84A443}

Zarqawi Trained by Al-Qaeda in 1989, in IRAQ in 2000: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1793632,00.html

Al Qaida and Antrax Attack: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/usnews/whispers/main3500524.shtml http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/startling_implications_of_a_ji.html

Review of Selected Sources on Saddams Support of Terror and Al Qaeda: http://www.regimeofterror.com/

Saddam & Terror Funding (some Al Qaeda Links): http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Saddam & Al Qaeda Links (2003): http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31597

Surge: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119561766597900285.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWZiZTg5YWYyNjY1ZWU1ZDRjM2Q5YWI3NDUzNjUzM2I=

ITBlair (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on three of these at random, and what I got was speculation, uncertainty, and op-eds. Do any of these meet wikipedia's WP:RS criteria? Also, if there was a hit of credibility to any of these, then Bush would be talking about them daily. 85.214.79.185 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Over 1.2 million kids and civilians killed

I believe there should be section about the 2006 survey that claimed 655,000 civilians (children, women, old ladies, mothers, fathers) where killed and wiped out like vermin. Who knows how many thousands of dogs and cats were also killed by all the bombs. Not sure anyone really cares? And the hundreds of thousands who lost there limbs. Here is one CNN link http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ and here is another one that claims 1.2 million children, mothers and civilians were killed http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html --Persianhistory2008 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a section dealing with casualty estimates and the studies that were conducted to arrive at these numbers. You are referring to the 2007 ORB study that carefully extrapolated from the Lancet Studies of 2004 and 2006. These represent the only serious, scientific research into casualty figures conducted in Iraq. Pinkville (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ps-The section should also mention the multi-millions of people who have endured extreme, extreme hardships and had the lives altered, and handicapped forever.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The section immediately after "Casualty estimates" is Humanitarian crises. Pinkville (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The section you write about is not that clear, that 1.2 million children, women, old ladies, mothers, fathers have been exterminated! This is going to leave a major scar on history. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will seem like a trip to the park compared to the 1.2 million who have been exterminated. The 1.2 million people who have been wiped out deserve a better section. --Persianhistory2008 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Find some reliable sources to back up that statement, write it neutrally and add it. Mr.Z-man 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I should point out that the survey that found 1.2 million Iraqis have died was conducted by a polling agency, not by researchers. As such, its findings must be taken with a grain of salt. I see no reason to include it in the article.--Rise Above The Vile 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody has a different say on the casualty, but nobody as good info on it. (P.S. Nobody got exterminated by the United States of America, only the terrorist kill the Iraqis) SG 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Polling agency" and "researchers" needn't be a dichotomy. Carefully conducted polling - like that performed by ORB - is scientific research. ORB extended the work of the scientific researchers whose findings appeared in the 2004 and 2006 Lancet Studies. Thus far, these three studies are the only careful estimates of the number of casualties due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The methods and results of these studies have been accepted by the scientific community and other experts. Pinkville (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding ALL OF US ! The death of these million Iraqis is obviously the result of an Insurgency to kill Iraqis (the heart of Iraq) to achieve their own socio-political objectives. It is the insurgent bombs that kill the scores of unarmed civilians. The foreign insurgents are the criminal culprit guilty and responsible for all of THAT nightmare -- the sad and horrible death of the innocents. Is this fact so hard to accept? So hard to fathom? The only reason to lay this blame on any other country (USA, UK, Australia, or whoever) is to literally USE these insurgent-murders against the west-- who is trying to help Iraq. Please , writers … do not attempt to tell “lies into history”. In the end, the history books will read a little clearer on all of this matter. Sadly Wikipedia will not be a part of that story. Because the Beyond-Propaganda-Radicals who write articles like this here will have blown their chances on telling the truth. Bwebb00 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In the invasion phase of the war (March 20-April 30), 9,200 Iraqi combatants were killed along with 7,299 civilians, primarily by US air and ground forces. That's SEVEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE CIVILIANS killed by Bush and Blair. Osama, Saddam and the insurgents had nothing to do with these deaths, they (men, women and children) were killed by allied bombs and bullets. You think that is justified? What if that was your mother or father or sister or brother killed amongst those dead? Would you rejoice? If you thought you were liberating a country would you personally shoot SEVEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE CIVILIANS through the head to bring it about? "Sorry little girl, we Yankees are bringing freedom to your country, you have to die" BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! Now for the forced-homosexual pile up at Abu Ghraib YUMMY! I can sell this to all the porn channels as "Moslem Gang-Bang Orgy" God bless America!" Colin4C 13:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Colin. I was addressing the “1.2 Million” death toll "killed by all of the bombs" , etc. It was obvious I was not talking about the number of innocents killed in the initial 2003 invasion. To “Use” that number in the fashion that you just have, is as unreasonable as to say that attacking Germany during WW2 is “criminal, a crime against humanity, and unacceptable, because civilians will be killed”. Sadly, far too many innocents (including German civilians) did perish during Allied attacks to remove the Nazi’s and their leader from power in WW2. However , the consequences of leaving Hitler in power for any longer was not an acceptable option. In Iraq , the simple fact of the matter: leaving Saddam in power was no longer an acceptable option. And in Iraq too --- it is horrible that so many innocent civilians have been killed. But it seems like a massive lack of accountability and a lack of objectivity to claim that the invasion death toll is so awful – while overlooking how horribly Saddam, his sons, and his thugs murdered so many Iraqi’s on a recurring basis. Should have just left him in power? It seems more likely that many will simply USE the "1.2M", or the "7,299" figures to attack Tony Blair, and Pres Bush. The incredible Winston Churchill had plenty of liberal left wing critics as well. They laughed at him when he warned that Hitler was building weapons during the mid-1930's. Bwebb00 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you stating that 99% of the world does not hate us (the US) because of the war? Do you not realize that Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 YEARS (1979-2003) and only killed less than a million. But just in a few years ever since the war against "Evil" Iraq, over one million little girls and civilians have been killed! How many Americans did stupid Saddam kill? How many Americans did Bush kill? And what about the little kids killed in Afghanistan? By the end of the war, millions of Muslims will have been whipped off the planet who had nothing to do with the war (and thousands of Americans). And all this because they had weapons of mass destruction or was it because "this is the guy who tried to kill my daddy." CNN Just wait and see what the history books and world leaders will say about the Iraq War! What is Allan Greenspan saying about the war?--Persianhistory2008 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note: Saying that President Bush killed the Americans demonstrates your POV. Happyme22 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear "Persianhistory2008". Yes, I am stating it, and assuring you that 99 percent of the world does not hate the US, nor does some “99 percent” hate the US because of the Gulf War. Furthermore, when the religious extremists in Iraq start to chop off fingers (for smoking cigarettes) or murder women (for not covering their faces) it is the US troops that Iraqi Civilians turn to for help, to purge the Muslim Extremists from their communities. Many actually admire US troops, for protecting them, and for protecting their families from the extremists. Whether you like it or not, the world, and Iraq does not all "hate the US". Your opinions appear to be motivated by your personal extremist views.Bwebb00 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong, it’s not my opinion that counts. If you travel outside the US as much as I do, you would understand how most of the world hates the US and its policies. Hate is a strong word, but there are enough books and articles written in French, German, and hundreds of other languages to prove the point. Even in England which is suppose to be our #1 ally, 90% of them disagree with us and they got rid of Tony Blair so quickly he did not know what hit him! Sorry if you don't agree, but why don't you go there or read some of the foreign books and articles. Chelsea Clinton also would disagree with you. She went to school in England and after Sep 11. 2001, she stated "It's hard to be abroad right now. Every day I encounter some sort of anti-American feeling. Sometimes it's from other students, sometimes it's from a newspaper columnist, sometimes it's from 'peace' demonstrators,". CNN anti-American feeling Now if they are so anti-American in England as I know they are, god help us when it comes to other countries. They simply hate us! You have to ask why?--Persianhistory2008 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic; let's try to keep trolling to a minimum. Now, Persianhistory, you are well aware that we have no independent way to confirm some of these things you are claiming, and as such relaying personal experiences doesn't strengthen an argument. If you have a reliable source to back up your 1.2 million claim, by all means present it. Wikipedia is not a forum, so let's keep our focus on improving the article instead of wasting time arguing our opinions about the war. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I did, just read the above and you will see a direct link to references and external links. You obviously did not read any of the above. Most of what I wrote is VERY well documented. Just read the source.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Combatants

Just a general query really, wondered if maybe Poland should be on the combatant list, i think i read somewhere they are contributing the fourth largest army to the Iraq War, i think it was Poland and Denmark ??? (Neostinker 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

"Human rights abuse" section and POV

Wow. That's all I can say. This section makes so many claims, most of which are not cited. If they aren't cited, I'm going to remove them for being uncited. And unless cites can be provided they should not be added back.

Plus, there was a lot of POV with the image captions which i have worked on. I know this is a very controversial topic, but I've only spent about a half hour on this page and can already see it is extremely biased against the US and coalition forces. Happyme22 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed much of the uncited and added {{cn}} tags for the others that are known but aren't cited. Plus, it seems as if this page focuses way to much on how bad the US is, giving special attention to the Abu-Ghrahib incident and "human rights abuses." May I remind everyone that the terrorists are the ones killing the incident civilians? And yes, there are small groups of soldiers that have violated the "code" if you will, and enaged in poor acts that reflect badly on the United States. But, let's not let those acts (Abu-Ghrahib, rape) speak for the total US presence in the region. I'm going to say 97% of soldiers are doing great work and fighting for our country, compared to 3% estimate that aren't. Again, this article cannot allow the poor acts of a minor group of people to represent the entire group and the entire mission.

It seems few users have risen up to the challenge of removing all the POV in this article, so I am taking it upon myself. This is making my blood boil. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with facts. Terrorists are not the ones killing the civilians. Much of it is sectarian violence and the humanitarian problems. Are you seriously suggesting these deaths would have still occured without the invasion? While I support some of your edits some are too POV and doing so many edits in such a short time is not allowing them to be easily reviewed or reverted. Also do not delete claims due to no cites unless you have a cite refuting them. Tag it and leave the community to decide if they stay or not. Wayne 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting at all that would have occured without the invasion - that's completely false. I do however feel that this article is biased and will attempt to reverse much of that slander. I'm sorry if you feel that some of my edits were too POV; I will try to keep it more NPOV. And I will tag the uncited work in the "human rights" section.

Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that I am not insane: What the small section of US troops did to those poor Iraqis in Abu Ghraib was viscious, toturous, and definetely morally repugnant. For sure, I'm not supporting their actions in any way. What I am saying is that this article cannot blame all US troops for this one incident. What those few people did does not reflect the views and morals of all our troops. I know four marines that have fought in Iraq. All four say Abu Ghraib is disgusting, but all four agree that the mission must go on and that people, both Iraqi and American, should not judge the war by that incident, nor the incidents of rape or allegations of other murderous deeds. Now do they deserve mention? Of course, as that would be keeping with NPOV (with cites). But the successes of the operation also need to be mentioned, including the removal of Saddam and the now present democracy in the region. Yes, it is a weak democaracy with much controversy, but it's there and that deserves to be highlighted just as well as the failures. That would completely NPOV.

I got the feeling just from reading the image captions that the article seemed to be biased against the United States and coalition forces (examples: "Iraqi soldier killed in April 2003 by US Marines"; "American medic tends to some minor injuries after two car bombs exploded Nov. 18, 2005 near a residential area in Baghdad." ; "An Iraqi woman looks on as U.S. soldiers search the courtyard of her house during a cordon and search in Ameriyah, Iraq. House searches by U.S. soldiers are a common occurrence in the Iraq war.")

The first one I listed there seems to be typical of the page: Americans killing people. I changed it to "Iraqi soldier killed in April 2003 while defending a bridge; US marines can be seen in the background" which I feel is much more NPOV. The second one I gave was somewhat-POV but not entirely. It says that an American is treating someone. What it fails to mention is that that American is a soldier, so I changed it to read: "A US soldier-paramedic tends to some injuries after two car bombs exploded November 18, 2005 near a residential area in Baghdad". It seems to eliminate POV, but is a little structurally akward. Thirdly, a very POV statement is given. I changed it to: "An Iraqi woman looks on as U.S. soldiers search the courtyard of her house during a cordon and search in Ameriyah, Iraq. House searches are a common occurrence in the Iraq war as militants take cover in houses." User:smb reverted it and I'm curious to know why (I dropped him a message on his talk page). This is basically what it implies: US soldiers are raiding her house and have kicked her out (because she's sitting on the side of the road). Now in my alteration, it shows that the soldiers aren't just invading her home for no reason except to have her sitting in the streets, but they are searching for any militants that could be hiding in there (as this article can back up). Plus, it's not just the US that searches possible terrorist strongholds (see here).

Also, many of the section headings themselves seem to be negative: "worsening humanitarian crisis" ; "human rights abuses" - these can all be combined into a "criticism" section which should be moved into the "opinions" section. Again, I am willing help with much of this. Thanks everyone, and I look forward to working with you all. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be going too far. For the second picture it is obvious it is a soldier (or are you editing for blind people?) and it is right that we were told he is american and a medic. US soldier-paramedic says exactly the same thing but it does not flow grammatically. I can't see how it could be biased against the US as it shows the US in a good light (helping). The third picture caption was correct as it was. Everyone already know militants take cover in houses so it is unwieldy and irrelevant to say that. You are reading your own views into the captions. I oppose merging the sections strongly. They are in separate sections because they are notable in their own right. The failures by far overshadow the successes so it is not POV to reflect that. It is POV to trivialise the failures. I feel that if the invasion had been legal then the coalition would have been treated more kindly. Criticism has to fall somewhere and it rightly falls on the invasion (as a whole) itself... who do you suggest? Wayne 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that we were not just kicking her out: we had a reason for doing so which I think needs to be said. Yes, some of my changes might seem radical as they are coming from somone who largely is for the war. Nice crack with the blind people, but I was serious there. But I'm going to reiterate a point: not everyone knows that the soliders were searching her house for militants. Yes, most people in the US probably do, but not in other parts of the world because Wikipedia is open to everyone. And heres your POV: stating that the mission is not legal. While it's ok to question the legality, nothing as far as I know, has been proven to state that it is not legal. And I frankly have no idea who to blame for all the chaos. It's crazy over there, and things have not been going well, but according to the top general the death rate are declining and things are starting to turn around. That deserves mention, as well as all the negatives that have resulted. I did not remove all the negatives as a whole. I simply categorized them all under the criticism section. They were all negative, some people do'nt like them, therefore they are criticisms by people who have found flaws. Happyme22 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

After the latest edit to the page which undid my work, and if everything I do to try and remove some of the very apparent and hurtful POV in this article is undone, than I don't even want to continue on a page that seems to be very protected by editors who are not open to fair styles of writing. I might return later, but I'm not up for an argument right now, so goodbye. Happyme22 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is that you are doing a lot of large edits in a short time and it is far easier to revert all than work through them to decide what goes or stays. Most editors do small edits over time to give them a chance. The "top general" is welcome to his views but there are other opposing views. The humanitarian crisis may be getting worse (as shown by the increase in cholera) and the reduction in violence seems linked more to less coalition presence than things getting better (as shown by the british pullout being directly responsible for a 90% reduction in violence and US forces shifting from "search and destroy" tactics to what they call "search and avoid"). Legality of the war is largely now semantics. Even some members of the Bush administration have admitted it's illegality (ie Wolfawitz and Perle). Don't give up so easily. Try to edit without preconvieved ideas of what NPOV is. Read both and pro and con articles and work from there as both contain facts that the other ignores. If your edits are legitimately NPOV then many will be accepted (some may not be but then find better sources for them). This is a controversial article so it is only natural it will take time and effort to edit with many dissapointments along the way. Wayne 03:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Soldier Opinion Addition

I am a veteran of OIF I & II. I have added a U.S. Soldier section to the Opinion section because I feel that it is important that the U.S. Soldier's voice is heard. Not all soldiers feel they should be in Iraq and some soldiers do. Please help me in respecting the soldiers who have fought and died by keeping this section and even adding to it. Without the U.S. Soldier we would not be able to voice our opinions, just like in these articles.Rmouser (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think having the opinion of soldiers is a good thing for the article. However, your introductory piece was WP:OR and the picture needs some explanation before it can be used. Ursasapien (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I have made some changes to the picture and I will cite myself for the introduction.Rmouser (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The subtitles now state "solder who believe WE should('nt) be in Iraq". It should be obvious that "we" should be changed to "US troops" as a start. As a second I doubt the relevance of the entire subsection. I understand that the voice of US soldiers needs to be heard. The question is whether it should be heard in an encyclopedia. I think not. Perhaps it would be relevant to include research (if it exists) regarding U.S. soldiers stances on the war, however such research does not include some more or less random quotes. I thus feel the section should be removed, and will do so later this day when I have my login data. 145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have again posted the U.S. Soldier tab to the Opinions section. I made a change on the subtitles from We to U.S. Soldier. I still believe that this is a very important and needs to be kept on the OPINIONS tab. I emphasize Opinion because thats what it is, an opinion's section. It is impossible to research all U.S. Soldier's opinions, that is why I included two quotes for both topics and leave it open to all U.S. Soldiers to add to it. It is time to recognize the people who put their lives on the line and let their words be a part of the Iraq War History.Rmouser (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is really interesting. I really like the idea, but I'm not sure this section is completely in line with Wikipedia policies. I don't want to remove it personally because I don't want to get into a fight about patriotism and censorship of soldiers opinions. Personally I love our troops, I have a lot of friends that serve in the military and I do support the mission in Iraq but I don't think think this section will stand the test of time. I'm going to leave it per WP:IGNORE. Like I said, I love our troops and like this idea but don't be surprised when others come here to remove the section and argue that it's against policy here. I can see this becoming a heated issue really quick here unfortunately. Elhector (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am user 145.9.226.69 from the post three up (now logged in). Elhector makes a valid point, the section is not suitable for Wikipedia. Let me be the first to do what should be done, and that is to remove it. I am sympathetic to the U.S. soldiers, especially those who are willing to speak up. However Wikipedia is not a forum. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cost of War conspicuously missing

There seems to be no section on the funding/cost of the war. Is this because people are it taking out? and if so, why? --69.110.47.207 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Genneraly the cost of the war isnt an important one. Its a given that MOST wars are exspesive. So unless its the cheapest of most exspenive its not important Esskater11 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume a conspiracy. The most likely reason the information would be missing would probably be difficulty in finding a source for that figure which was not only reliable but up-to-date. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not absent, it's listed under the criticism section with the article Financial cost of the 2003 Iraq Conflict. If it has less visibility perhaps that's something we could work on. Publicus 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is about "Genneraly the cost of the war isnt an important one"? Is this a joke? Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. How do you think the Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Egyptian Empire, etc. all went under. It was by over expanding and over spending. We are spending billions of dollars we don't have. We not only owe trillions of dollars, but the US dollar has gone under. Inflation of the US dollar is at a all time high. Financially the war is an absolute disaster. The billions they spend could go to finding a cure for cancer, aids, diabetes, etc.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed strange that costs are listed in the criticism section. The cost of the war is despite the uncertainty of calculation a factual thing. I understand that the cost of a war can be used as an argument against it, if one feels it is not worth that price. Perhaps it is moved to the criticism section because editors feel this way? Anyway, it should be moved, the criticism could include a statement like: the financial costs outweigh the benefits. I will do my bit later on. 145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the costs are listed in the criticisms section because the issue of financial cost is one of the main criticisms (among others) by the anti-war movement about the Iraq war--that it is costing too much both in terms of lives, money, and relations abroad. This can be seen in the ongoing negotiations between Bush and Congress about whether to continue to fund the war, at what level, whether to attach benchmarks, etc. The cost of the war is rarely is ever mentioned by supporters of the war as a positive--more of a "cost of doing business" type mention, such as "it costs a lot but we need to do it." Just something to consider on this. Publicus 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The costs of the war are indeed often used as an argument against that war. However that does not mean that it should solely be seen as a criticism. Many other section subjects of this article (casualties, humanitarian crisis) are (as you rightly remark) also used as critical arguments, however you do not see many people arguing that those be put solely under criticism. My point is, that listing a subject under criticism makes it an opinion. The number of casualties or the cost of the war are facts (although disputable ones), the opinion is that the war is not worth paying such a price. The latter should be in the criticism section, the former should not.145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice Try Happyme22

Nice try attempting to the get the truth on here, but don't waste your time. This site is clearly propaganda and no serious person will put any stock in it. I mean, the huge story coming out of Iraq for just about all of 2007 has been the success of the surge and the reduction in violence, and these guys refuse to even mention it. Instead, they are harping on any tiny negative thing that might have happened in 2007, things that pale in importance to the overall improvement in the situation. And then you have a guy that says the reduction in violence is due to less US troop presence? Is this backwards day? I wouldn't call a surge of 21,000 additional troops in Baghdad--not to mention the new strategy of going out into smaller neighborhood patrol bases--less US presence. In fact, I would call it the exact opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.192.184 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the article; sign up, get an account, and start editing. It's free, anonymous, and more helpful than comments by IP numbers on the talk page. The more editors there are the more areas are covered. Publicus 17:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That is why the template says it is untrue. I deleted the fact about U.S. soldiers because their is no proof that is right nor is their a link. SG2090 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Wars Bibliography

I think my Iraq Wars Bibliography at http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/EdMoise/iraqbib.html is good enough so it would be useful to have a link to it in this page. I am not sure whether this should be an item under the existing heading Bibliography (section 18 in the Contents) or whether a new subhead, Bibliographies, should be created for it (presumably coming after the existing subhead Media Echoes) under External Articles (section 20 in Contents). Ed Moise (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag on casualties section

I will remove the POV tag on the casualties section. There are a lot of points of view regarding the ammount of causulties, however the summing up of estimates is not. This is not to say that the section cannot be improvedBas van Leeuwen (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rampant bias

I know that this probably won't do any good since it's obvious that there is a core group of left-wingers who control this page with an iron fist, but I just had to say something. This is without a doubt THE single most biased, skewed, and downright propagandizing page about a well publicized event that I have ever seen on this site, and that's saying a lot. I don't like the Bush administration or the Iraq War, but that doesn't make me any less repulsed by the propaganda stench emanating from this sorry excuse for an article. Though I'm not sure of the exact process, it would seem to me that this page is in serious need of some sort of official review, because whatever has been done to it up until now has failed miserably. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if what you say is 100% true, how do you expect to convince anyone or get them to do anything about it without some particulars? Pbt54 (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)