Talk:Iraq

BIAS

There is a clear example and proof of bias in this article. Ignoring all the positive developments in Iraq, this communal blog simply states that "Although violence has declined from the summer of 2007,[40] the U.N. reported of a cholera outbreak in Iraq."

(You guys forgot to include a sentence about how the cholera outbreak is Bush's doing now that he's got more time on his hands.)

Empires

"Throughout its long history, Iraq has been the center of the Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Sassanid and Abbasid empires, and part of the Achaemenid, Macedonian, Parthian, Roman, Rashidun, Umayyad, Mongol, Ottoman and British empires.[5]" What about the fact that Iraq as been the centre of the Sumerian (Sumer) and Lakhmid (Lakhmids) Empire? Could someone maybe include these?

POV Issues

TOTALLY POV

500,000 children died as a result of the sanctions against Iraq?!? Common sense itself screams out against such an assertion. Although reference 15 does point to an article on a website, that article in no way backs up this claim. I am removing this outlandish claim unless a stronger reference can be found. --Murphoid (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see this crazy claim is back in the article, even though in both the references it is clearly a projection not a solid fact. --Murphoid (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

the article says it is an estimate. --neon white talk 15:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

gulf war article is totally biased POV. please put citations and references? or else I'll try my best to revert it. JoTp (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

A recently added paragraph at the end of the introduction is slightly point of view. The source of Iraq's political problems is ethnic differences and not the coalition forces. I doubt that the coalition is responsible for the shia/sunni conflict, or that it would easily go away when the forces withdraw. The definition in the "developing nation" article does not fit Iraq; Iraq is missing data to give it a classification. Also, the mention of the use of Iraq's massive oil reserves is suspiciously juxtaposed to coalition forces. Iraq has traditionally been a significant source of the world's oil production regardless of the invasion.

Such phrases as "Iraq currently faces several problems/challenges" are vastly different from "Invading forces have led to several problems/challenges for Iraq." Answering the question "why" more frequently has a POV tone than answering the question "what". As of June 2007, Iraq has the greatest political significance in America[1] Future additions should test for neutrality in the light that this is the most contentious issue for America at the moment. Legis Nuntius 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"The source of Iraq's political problems is ethnic differences..." This is rather disingenuous. It's clear that whatever differences already existed have been greatly exacerbated by the invasion and occupation. Even many people who initially supported the war acknowledge this. MFlet1 14:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

new comment---

"I doubt that the coalition is responsible for the shia/sunni conflict, or that it would easily go away when the forces withdraw"

This is in itself POV. That you doubt something doesn't mean jack. Your suggestions can be summed up as follows: You want the article re-written in your POV.

I agree that blaming problems on the invasion that were there before, although oppressed, doesn't make sense. It does seem anti US/Invasion pov. I say go ahead and make those eidts you mentioned Legis.75.67.137.34 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation/Transliteration/Pronunciation

The Motto

Is not it "God is One" ?

No (even 'God is greatest' is technically incorrect) It is "Allah is greatest" [[User:Cs1kh]] 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Allah just means God in Arabic.

'Rab' means god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.229.58 (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When a person says 'god', a person from any religion (or no religion) can ask which god? By explicitly using the word 'Allah' it states the god of Islam. As above: 'Rab' means god. 'Allah' is a name, though only ever used by Muslims and for God. Allah is used explicitly for the God of Islam (though Islam believes it is the only god of all people)! so the logo will be changed to "Allah is one" accordingly (as "God is One" is an incorrect translation) [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arabic word Allah is translated as God with a capital G in English. As far as I know Allah was originally formed from a definite article and the word 'god'. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt that Jews use the word Allah to refer to God! But I would be impressed if they do! [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The arab jews do :DEmadd (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jomhuri-ye Iraq"

Hello, The name of the country is given as "Jomhuri-ye Iraq". This is incorrect as "ye" is a Persian grammatical feature, and Arabic is the Official Language of Iraq. It should be something along the lines of al-jamhuriyat ul-'Iraq. Thanks! 68.163.146.156 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jomhuri-ye Iraq" is a Kurdish name of the country, though not the official one; that's كۆماری عێراق (Komara Iraqê). Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It read as Komari Iraq --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish transliteration?

Kurdish transliteration ?

As far as I know, عراق is an Arabic name. So why it's being transliterated using the transliteration rules of the Kurdish language?

For example, اربیل which is a Kurdish name, is transliterated to "Irbil"; And the same counts for the "Iraq"!!! it must be transliterated into "Eraq" as per Arabic rules for transliteration (Look at this)

Anyone interested in this issue?

I agree the Kurdish name for Iraq is Êraq not Iraq, it is pronounced Éraq as opposed to the arabic pronounciation 'Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.201.40 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxee (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, the offical transliteration of Iraq in the DIN 31635 (the basis for the most common scientific transliterations of Arabic) has no "E" and uses "I" instead. "ʿIrāq" is correct. Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} In the "Etymology" section, please change "(3) is closer to the Arabic pronunciation than (2) is" to "(1) is closer to the Arabic pronunciation than 2 is". Pronunciation (3) is "eye-RACK", which is nothing at all like the Arabic, while pronunciation (1) is "i-RAHK", which is at least marginally closer. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that would really benefit from a reference. I would think some reliable source must have commented on the pronunciation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a typo, but I can't change it, since I don't have an account: "Despite being a large of military force, the Iraqi army was no match for the advanced weaponry of the coalition forces and the air superiority that the U.S. Air Force provided." shouldn't include the word "of". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.118.142 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The typo should be now fixed. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 11:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Pronunciations

And three "IPA" representations of them, totally unintelligible to almost all readers. Not such a good idea, IPA. Lou Sander (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"al-‘Irāq" is perhaps the best or "al-3Irāq". 3 (chat) or ` (backquote) stand for `ayn (ع). ʕ is the API symbol for it, so it would be "al-ʕirāq" --Atitarev (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthony rules

ANTHONY RULES IRAQ

Yes: anthony is the ruler of iraq and soon he will be the ruler of the world FOREVER

Occupation

The occupation ended in 2005 when power was handed over to the Iraqis. Iraq is currently not occupied; the foreign forces are there with permission from Iraq. The lead section needs to be changed. 163.1.215.53 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that was correct in October, but obviously now that Iraq's government has signed a treaty superceeding the UN mandate for the US troops Iraq is no longer occupied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The occupation of Iraq did end years ago, this article is grossly misleading and biased. Ofcourse we are meant to assume good faith, but after reading this article i find it impossible to do so. This article needs MAJOR changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factual accuracy

I have added the tag to this article as there appears to be more than one problem with it. My main concern is the grossly inaccurate claim in the opening paragraph saying that Iraq has been occupied by the United States since 2003. This is not the case, the occupation ended years ago and there are plenty of sources including the United Nations resolutions showing this to be the case. My concern is if the opening paragraph can be so misleading then there might be some other big problems as well. The dispute tag should remmain until this issue is fixed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is wonderful news! Our soldiers can come home now, then, and the war with Iraq is over? I'm sure President Obama will be thrilled to know that -- one less thing on his full plate! Get a clue. Geez... --JT (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolving the Legal Status of "Occupation"

I've consolidated the arguments on this page here so we can address the technical question of "occupation." The issue is fairly well addressed in Iraqi sovereignty. I'll address it legally here. First, the definition from Hague Convention, 1907, Articles 42, 43:

"Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[1] The first two articles of that section state:

Art. 42.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Art. 43.

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Then, Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, Section III, Article 6:

The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.

In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

That is, the "occupation" of Iraq could only last one year after the end of military operations against the previous government. UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1546 of June 8th, 2004 required the occupational government, the Coalition Provisional Authority, to transfer sovereignty. The CPA was dissolved June 28th, 2004, when sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqi Interim Government, thus formally ending the occupation. This sovereignty was recognized by the US, the UN, the Arab League, and many other countries. Bagsc (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for clearly explaining it here Bagsc and for making the required changes to article, ill remove the tag i added as that was my main concern with this article. Thanks again BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Factual error and substitution of opinion for fact concerning reconstruction of infratructure

The introduction to the article makes the following claim:

"Beginning with the invasion in 2003, a Multinational coalition of forces, mainly American and British, has occupied Iraq. The invasion has led to increased civil violence, political breakdown, the removal and execution of former president Saddam Hussein, and national problems in the development of political balance, economy, infrastructure, and use of the country's massive reserves of oil."

The inference about problems in infrastructure is factually inaccurate. There is ample documentation available online, at sites such as http://www.enr.construction.com/, site of Engineering News-Record, the world's leading construction and engineering professional journal, and the U. S. Department of Defense news site at http://www.defendamerica.mil/, of the extent of reconstruction and new construction in Iraq, especially in remedying deterioration and neglect dating to the Saddam regime.

The article fails to mention that Iraq is currently under US ocuppation and that Iraq's government is our country's puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.175.148 (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the freedoms the Iraqis now have, and have won for themselves, and their liberation from an undeniably tyrannical regime (facts not mentioned in this introduction), the claim that "these issues have led to major setbacks for Iraq" is obviously opinion masquerading as fact. Writeroflight 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is heading into a political battleground. As for the Department of Defense newsite, to what kind of opinion do you think it might be disposed? Yes, that which is put out in official press releases. Defence PR is not the same as objective journalism. I agree, there is much construction and reconstruction, but after the country being bombed and invaded, the infrastructure has been crippled; its problems have been well documented. You can read into the situation from either side: what is being done or what has happened. The former is for those who prefer optimism. As for your last point, a tyrannical dictator was deposed, to the benefit of all, but a mess was created, to the detriment of all but terrorists and militants. "A tyrannical regime was liberated" would be a very skewed statement to put into the article. It's closer to bombastic rhetoric than academic prose. RedRabbit 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

""A tyrannical regime was liberated" would be a very skewed statement to put into the article. It's closer to bombastic rhetoric than academic prose."" I disagree with that RedRabbit. I think it is a fact that "A tyrannical regime was dissolved" or some derivative of it. Liberated works, imho. 75.67.137.34 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Many iraqi people are liberated from all the primitive things like breathing or eating. They must be resting happy in peace, because their tyrannical regime was dissolved. By the way, is there any source, how many iraqi people called for help, to dissolve their tyrannical regime? What are you talking about? Iraq was probably not a good place to live, now it is definitely worse than hell. "Liberation"! Dont joke about drama of millions of people. --81.210.156.129 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars

Can we put this headline before the Invasion headline. thanks

U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars

Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Saeed Hasan reported earlier that Baghdad would delay the changeover until after Nov. 6, rather than put it into effect on November 1, as originally announced. Iraq has called the dollar the currency of an "enemy state."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justjihad (talk • contribs) 06:20, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what this has to do with anything now or historically, as it happened in 2000, when Saddam Hussein was controlling the country.

Do we know if this is still the case? Because either way, presenting this in any manner outside of it's historical significance (of which there is little if any) would be biased. 70.236.28.167 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be more relevant in the Iran Oil Bousse article, that nation recently has switched to the Euro and the Yen as their primary currencies for oil. Japan is one of Irans biggest single traders.--mitrebox (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WMDs

No WMD's were found

The article clearly, and rightfully, discusses in a paragraph that the reason for invasion primarily was the alleged development and possession of WMD's by Iraq. However, the article continues with a 'Post-Invasion' paragraph which completely fails to mention that these WMD's were never found and that the American government acknowledges this.

You can not write a paragraph about the reasons for invasion, and then completely omit that these reasons proved to be wrong... Especially in this context and heated debate about Iraq, these facts that they have not been found (and I don't think anyone argues whether this is a fact or not) need to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.44.118 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

When the article is updated to note that Iraq did not in fact fact have WMD in 2003, here is a reference (an interview with chief weapons inspector David Kay): http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1160609,00.html

In addition, since the article also referenced to Mr. Bush's comment, "This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out inspectors," it is also worth noting that Iraq had allowed inspections to return on Nov. 27, 2002, but they were effectively kicked out when Mr. Bush gave his 48 hours notice that the war was about to begin. (Reference: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm)

PawnshopTrash 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)PawnshopTrash

The point is moot. Not only were the inspectors were supposed to be allowed in, but they were supposed to have unfettered access. Saddam would block roads, deny access, and delay inspectors to such an extent as to make their job impossible. And no one has ever even tried to answer, if he had no weapons why not let in the international community in. If he thought the UN was biased he could invite teams from Japan,Russia,Germany,France to come in, open the sites, show the press. He had the same weapons he had in 1991, they had degraded to an non-deployable state. --mitrebox (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with any Intel experience or savvy knew that S.H. was bluffing, that he had to, to keep Iran and other enemies at bay. He (accurately felt that if they knew he DIDn't have WMDs, they would invade Iraq. It's reasonable to assume that GWB was also informed of this huge likelihood by CIA and other Intel sources' advice, but he chose to ignore and squash it, as it ran contrary to his intent. --JT (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Saddam Hussein admitted in interrogation that he did not let in inspectors because he wanted the rest of the world to think he had WMD's when he actually did not have any. Basically it was just a bluff. Also, The US has spent billions on trying to find any wmd's and the most the have found so far was an old wmd factory that had clearly been shut down since the treaty at the end of the persian gulf war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.1.110 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK so explain this -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

Jokem (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That is Fox News. If you need any further explaination, i pity you.

71.197.212.92 (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WMD

However, no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been found since the invasion.[15]

Not true. Chemical weapons were found and a biological program that had not managed to be productive yet. What you mean is no nuclear WMD were found. Did you even read those reports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

This give a reference which is a bad link.

What about the CycloSarin found by Polish forces?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that fox news is not considered a legitimate source by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.251.214 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I'd even trust CNN more than that.--Hamster X (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, How about this

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/2/112615.shtml

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/07/mil-040702-rferl02.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm

www.freerepublic.com/tag/cyclosarin/index?tab=articles

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=143&sid=5055996

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1078&dept_id=151021&newsid=12185667&PAG=461&rfi=9

I am pretty sure, though, that a reference which is a bad link is preferable to you two.

Jokem (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the revert monkeys are active again. Jokem (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

These articles say that Polish troops obtained old chemical weapons from the First Gulf War, and they were highly degraded and no longer useable. That has little relevance. The important question is whether Hussein continued any weapons programs after the First Gulf War, and possessed significant quantities of useable ones at the time of the invasion. There is no evidence for that. I'm going to clarify this in the article, which will make it apparent that this is not a relevant or important point. So it should probably be deleted. Also I will add this reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

Rotiro (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There, I changed it from "Yet, there are news reports which contradict this" to "There are accounts of Polish troops obtaining antiquated warheads, dating from the 1980s, two of which contained trace amounts of the nerve gas cyclosarin, but U.S. military tests found that the rounds so deteriorated that they 'were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces.'" The previous statement was very misleading, overreaching, and not an accurate representation of the references. The current statement is neutral and accurate, but so irrelevant and pointless that it should be deleted. Rotiro (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are determined to explain this away no matter what. And since the revert monkeys outnumber me, I have given up. The statement you have made is most likely true even of fresh, right off the assembly line warheads. The coalition forces are a modern, organized force, which precautions and preparations against nerve agents of a variety of types. You also are silent about whether such agents would be useful vs. civilians. So your 'explaination' is misleading. Jokem (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Population

The population figure for 2007 is out of date, especially since major resettlement of refugees and population growth over the last two years has occurred. World-gazetteer.com cites an estimate of about 34.83 million as of mid-December 2008, a 19% increase over the figure currently in the article. 5 million people "missing" results in a lot of problems (see below). Do we have any information on when a new census might occur? And in the meantime, what it the rule for reliable estimate sources? Bagsc 13:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (Note: I reorganized a few comments so they can be addressed comprehensively)

Iraqi Turkmens: Where are they?

According to Iraqi 1957 census, there were 600.000 Turkmens in Iraq at that time. 600.000 Turkmens means 10% of Iraqi population was Turkmen at that time. However in this article it says Turkmens+Assyrians+etc = 5%. So where are the missing millions of Turkmens? Let me say it, under the pressure of Kurds...Please edit the article. The real number of their population is 2-2.5 million and 10% of total Iraqi population. These are some references: http://www.unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=27 http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_155.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.247.26 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

UNPO is not reliable, but the answer is this: many Sunni Turkmens are counted as Sunni Arabs because they formed with them a bloc against the Kurdish nationalists. You can see so many Turkomanic names under Iraqi Sunni Arabs e.g. Pachachi. The other who were pro-Kurd are counted as Kurds. Shiite Turkmen however were not part of this business and are closer to other Shiites in the power struggle in Iraq. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics Statistics

The figures in this section have recently been arbitrarily altered by an editor with no references quoted either before or after. I have tagged all the changed numbers and added an "Accuracy" template to the section. I am assuming good faith on the part of the editor and that he can actually provide a source. If not, I believe the figures should be reverted to the original data. Comments? SpinningSpark 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree here - these are entirely arbitrary. Especially such a highly cited figure of 20% for the Kurdish Population. Everything I have seen and read has stated anywhere between 10-15%. Unless some citations can be brought in I suggest removing them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.73.112 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kurds in Iraq

In Iraq lives more than 7 Million Kurds, so 25% of the Iraqi people are Kurds and not 15%- 20%.

Please, correct this

Cite sources at the bottom of the article!

Ex: In "demographics" section:

"Shi'a as much as 60%, Sunni about 40% (source: Britannica, Religion section of Iraq article). Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37% (source: CIA World Fact Book)." - 134.121.247.116 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New Flag? (22 Jan 2007)

According to alarabia.net, a temporary flag is approved for a year by the parliament on 22 January 2007. Experienced users kindly update the flag section 82.194.62.230 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Find an English page and we'll talk, as far as I know it says SAMPLE on that flag.--mitrebox (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The new flag is official flag of Iraq, and I think they also changed the Coat of Arms of Iraq to reflect the change in the flag. --D.Kurdistani (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Coat of Arms —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Kurdistani (talk • contribs) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for prompt update :) 82.194.62.230 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TEMPORARY & SAMPLE, that's mean they didn't take final decision about it, and in the other side most of the Iraqi people didn't agree about this change, so you shouldn't change it that early, Iraqis now don't feel good about this.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Yousif (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq is still under occupation and the new flag is hotly contested. We should keep the old one until issues in the real world are resolved. Please don't be arrogant with issues you don't know about. It's not black and white. Leave the old flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.192.123 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Halabja

Why dont you put images of tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.57.9 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq formerly known as Mesopotemia

the last time when I read this article, I saw soemthing like Iraq formerly known as Mesopotemia.. now this text has been removed. Is there a reason behind this?. Iraq's former name in Greek was Mesopotemia, why has this been removed ?? Here's link for it: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=iraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.125.210 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deliberate misquoting of source

"Roughly 40% of Iraq's middle class is believed to have fled, the U.N. said. Most are fleeing systematic persecution and have no desire to return" This is ridiculous. The paragraph attempts to portray the diaspora as a result of Saddam Hussein's rule. But the numbers given are clearly for those that fled after the U.S. invasion - read the sources. The article cited for this claim said NOTHING about "systematic prosecution". It made clear that the diaspora was a result of the Iraq war, which the article completely ignored. Naurmacil (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

In the arabic article for Iraq, it's stated that Iraq is an Arab country, located in the middle east, against, the general view, which states that Iraq is a country located in the middle east.

Biased, I tried to change it, but seemed to face a ...Goliath! --41.200.140.163 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to figure out how this all had happened is like trying to figure out a puzzle when your missinng 15 pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.127.56 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stand-alone article on Iraq under Saddam?

Would everyone be open to creating an article on the previous "Iraq" as it was before the 2003 Invasion? Something along the lines of the USSR article, Austro-Hungary or Yugoslavia I'm very curious about how Saddam's government was set up and if there's any data on GDP and whatnot from back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.182.185 (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. Iraq was a completely different place before Saddam took presidency. I would be up for it 71.197.212.92 (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

the USSR is different then the Russian federation, that was a country dissolving and smaller states taking over from it, iraq was a forced regime change--Jakezing (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Subsection on Politics

Currently, the last statement reads, "In 2008, the U.S. pressured Iraq to enter an alliance with imposing conditions. If Iraq enters this alliance, the U.S. plans to establish 50 military bases in Iraq that will be stationed with U.S. troops. U.S. personnel will also enjoy full legal immunity and the U.S. will not be required to notify the Iraqi government when or how many of its troops enter or leave the country." Instead of quoting speculation and currently in negotiation sections of the treaty/alliance, wouldn't it be better to just state that a new treaty/alliance is under discussion, in order to maintain the neutrality of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1453 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Summarized the finalized agreement without POV issues in the above mentioned quote. Bagsc (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed

US Interest in Persian Gulf

I found the following statement in the article: "The United States, which had enormous vested interests in the oil supplies of the Western Asia,[citation needed] led an international coalition into Kuwait and Iraq." I'm a little bewildered why someone would question why the US has an interest in the Persian Gulf oil supplies, considering the US is the worlds largest importer of oil and the Persian Gulf countries are the worlds largest exporters of oil. Oil is a strategic commodity comprising trillions of dollars of international trade per year. If anyone has a more detailed question of why this is important, please ask so I can clarify. Until then, I'm removing the tag. Bagsc (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

This article is in no way suitable to be considered a "good article" right now. Here, for starters are just some things that need citations or need to be changed completely:

In the third paragraph, this article states that after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq has experienced

"significant economic growth, building of new infrastructure, and use of the country's huge reserves of oil."

This is wildly misleading and inaccurate. I do not have statistics on economic growth but I think this could be easily discredited. "...building of new infrastructure" is wildly misleading and doesn't indicate that their is MUCH LESS working infrastructure post-invasion. "...use of the country's huge reserves of oil" does not indicate that most of the oil and oil profits has been redirected and stolen and the money is not aiding the Iraqi people nor funding the rebuilding of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquascepter (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From an economic perspective, and as a person who lived in Iraq, I can tell you reconstruction does increase economic activity. Of course, the question being begged is how much was economic activity reduced immediately before (during the war)? Infrastructure building increases when infrastructure has been destroyed, but that doesn't mean the infrastructure is up to the same level. There is no basis to the claim that "most" oil or oil revenue has been "stolen." The UN gave the CPA authority over the DFI, with oversight from IAMB and SIGIR, which proved shoddy accounting, and the IIG took over in 2004, then replaced by the ITG in 2005, and is now run by the GOI. Certainly, a large amount of corruption and misaccounting has occurred, perhaps $30 billion over 5 years, but the Iraqi government has been decent at accounting for the oil and revenue, and has been choosing not to spend the money on development projects in order to avoid having the money being lost to corruption at the provincial, local, and contractor levels of the projects. The government's belief is that accounting and law enforcement isn't sufficient yet to spend all the money. Additionally, the government foresaw that oil prices wouldn't be sustained at such high levels, and was budgeting for future years construction. Some other reading on the Iraq oil revenues accounting, government spending, and Infrastructure spending: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17636/ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081031.pdf http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2008/10/30/Iraq_to_take_over_oil_revenue_oversight_despite_critique/UPI-43991225406346/ http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11381&Cr=iraq&Cr1=Bagsc

Why is the no-citations thing at the bottom

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.10.146 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Issues

British Mandate of Mesopotamia

"They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.[specify][16]"

I don't dispute that this is a relevant fact if verifiable, but elaborating seems challenging without a trip to the library. Anyone have an opinion on whether to elaborate or omit? Bagsc (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reconstruction

I like the paragraphs added on reconstruction, but i was wondering if it would be possible to add just a sentence to it somewhere explaining that lack of investment prior to the invasion also led to the need for major reconstruction and investment. At the moment it sounds like all the damage was done because of war which ignores past history of sanctions and corrupt government leading to the suffering of the Iraqi people and failing services.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and do so. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and al-Qaeda in Iraq articles need to me merged

Preferrabky in the writing style of al-Qaeda in Iraq (Tawhid is more of a list than an article). --RamboKadyrov (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Major Rewrite Effort, Addition of Recent History Content to Address Conflicts

I've been trying to flesh out some ambiguous legal areas that have been at the root of some disputes in the Modern History, and I know I've gone overboard. My intent was to link out to more of the HUGE number of Iraq 'history' type articles. I am also worried that in addressing the contention and complaints which revolve around the United States-Iraq relations, it's getting too focused on the US/UN perspective, and neglects the Iraqi perspective. Some of this should be moved to the History of Iraq article and other supporting articles. However, before I start doing that, I want to see what other people's opinions are on what should and should not be in the summary.

Once we've addressed the most common and contentious issues with the article, I can go through with sourcing all the contentious statements, and a rewrite purely for style. The end goal is to finally get this article nominated for Good Article, preferably in January. All feedback is encouraged and welcomed. Bagsc (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its right to move some of the information to the correct separate articles and have a more balanced article on Iraq here rather than a huge focus on recent history with the US. Ill read the article through fully a few times in the next couple of days and let you know what i think and if i have any suggestions. I suspect its going to be difficult to get a nomination supported for this article, but atleast trying to do so will provide a lot of ideas / suggestions on what things need improving. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Bush & Chaney's lies regarding WMD

Please use http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf (Bush) and http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf (Chaney) as citations demonstrating their lies. Thanks! --JT (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Syriac and Armenian

The article lacks name of Iraq in other locally official languages such as Syriac and Armenian, apart from Turkoman. Ellipi (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

higgigi[http://www.example.com link title--66.220.213.240 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Subscript text

{| class="wikitable" border="1"

|Bold text[[[Link title]]] |}]

Lead Rewrite

Why is it, that the lead, which is supposed to cover a comprehensive summary on the article as an entirety, devotes 50%, or 2/4 paragraphs to the current Iraq war? Perhaps a sentence or two on a complete history of the region and the Republic! The war is not so important as to warrant two paragraphs in the lead! --haha169 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)