Talk:Iraq War

Baghdad

US Forces are still in Baghdad. I know because I have been there.205.110.156.226 (talk)

Commanders

Can someone answer why George W Bush and Obama are listed as commanders in the war? I thought the title of CIC is just a title and doesn't give jurisdiction over the armed forces? If anything, the commanders are the ones that plan the strategic elements in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.252.33 (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a title. The President of the United States is the highest commander of the US military. They literally have direct command over the entire military. The president commands the generals.--Abusing (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the war over?

Are the coalition still fighting? I thought the war was coalition forces versus Iraqi army, but that is no longer true, is it? Is insurgency the reason that is still not over, or is it not over until all foreign forces are withdrawn? "Date March 20, 2003 — Present" when are we gonna call it the end..? 83.108.225.137 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now there are still U.S. troops dieing on combat missions, so probably not over yet. There are also still troops heading over for new deployments. As one source puts it, "winding down", not over yet.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Even Odierno says it is still going.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean technically we have military operations going on in every country in the world at some point or another. We're a global peace keeper, I don't think that necessarily justifies war. Plus, World War II was considered over when the Japanese surrendered, not when the American Occupation forces left. For all intents and purposes, I think this war has reached an end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.132.156 (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely this was formally a war which ended with the effective occupation of Iraq (I don't think there was a formal surrender, so the date is a bit vague), followed by a military occupation, then by the formation of an Iraqi government which invited/requested the coalition forces to remain to maintain order, and finally by the reduction in foreign troop numbers and areas in which they were deployed until none were left (in 2011). So the war proper ended in 2003, followed by the occupation and then by decreasing numbers of peacekeeping forces invited to keep order by the government. There are obviously a lot josh is a buthead of nuances (e.g., the Iraqi government could not realistically have asked the coalition forces to leave earlier than they did). Pol098 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

When the last of the foreign troops have left then the war could well be considered over. The war against Iraq's conventional army is certainly complete, but while coalition troops continue to fight insurgent forces the war continues. The most effective solution to this disagreement would be to divide the article into two new articles Iraq War against Iraqi army and Iraq War against Insurgents. Saayiit (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Coalition

Under coalition forces it only shows the US, while 40 countries were part of the coalition at one point or another. It should show more than just the US. --Conor Fallon (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

US Coalition Victory?

The main info box accompanying this article includes the following phrase: "US Coalition Victory." Huh? Then why does the U.S. still have hundreds of thousands of troops and contractors in Iraq? And if the war is over, why are our troops still getting shot and blown up? It's true: the current war is not "classic" military textbook-style war; the U.S. is facing asymmetric warfare. But asymmetric warfare is war, nonetheless. Respected military writers like Thomas Ricks have documented how, not only is the war still ongoing, but it will likely last many more years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to mention Tom Fox in the list of people killed alongside Margaret Hassan in the section entitled Insurgent groups. Is there any objection? Thank you. 86.203.17.169 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the surge

One of the things on the to-do list is to provide more information on the success of the surge. The surge as a turning point in the war has been widely acknowledged across media and policy sources, but this article mostly seems to avoid the issue, instead focusing on failures to draw down troops as promised and more violence in the section about the troop surge. This section seems particularly biased by specifically ignoring much information, including information that is by now the accepted consensus. For this article as a whole to read in a neutral manner (which it doesn't really right now) this section definitely needs to be fixed first. Bonus Onus (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Title

I am proposing a change of title to Occupation of Iraq because this would be a more accurate title than "Iraq War". Izzedine (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. "Iraq War" is the only term I have heard for the entire conflict so I believe that is the most appropriate name for the article. Andy120290 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• This article describes the occupation of Iraq, not an "Iraq War"
• There would not be a "France War" or an "Italy War" or a "Turkey War".
• Occupation of Poland
• Occupation of Japan
• Occupation of Denmark
• Occupation of Norway
• Occupation of Nicaragua
• Occupation of Czechoslovakia
• Occupation of France
• Occupation of Lebanon
• Occupation of Lithuania
• Occupation of Luxembourg
• Occupation of the Channel Islands
• Occupation of Mongolia
• Occupation of Araucanía. Izzedine (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point, but the article does describe the background leading up to, the invasion of, and the occupation of Iraq. Simply calling the whole article "Occupation of Iraq" would be kind of a misnomer. Especially when there already exists an article dealing solely with the occupation period (Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present). Andy120290 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So we have 2003 invasion of Iraq and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present. In that case, we don't need [Iraq War]. I propose we make it a disambig page to the invasion and occupation articles. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with proposed change. every occupation starts with an invasion, so calling it occupation is not a misnomer. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't just an occupation. There was an invasion and occupation, but unlike the invasion of Panama or the occupation of Japan, the occupation included a large scale conflict -- a war -- in addition to the occupation. The invasion, the occupation, and the war are not the same thing. The conflict is certainly notable enough for its own article, without question. However, I do think the sections that cover the invasion and the occupation need to be greatly shortened, with more emphasis placed on their respective main articles. The Iraq war covers all of the topics we're discussing, but this article doesn't need to give complete coverage of something that has its own article.--Abusing (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on this leaves the impression that the occupation was intentional or @least part of the original warplan. It was not.

But as too often happens in govt. & industry, tactics were heavily revised without regard to strategy or to a timetable (which was originally 6 wk or March 20 thru May 1, 2003; as in "Mission Accomplished"). Am. forces occupied mainly Baghdad, then Iraq, because of a series of tactical blunders (e.g., allowing unimpeded looting & chaos for the first month, moving 10s of thousands of troops back to Kuwait) that culminated with our guys battling insurgents. "Occupation Iraq" implies intentionality: the war was intentional; the occupation was not; altho for the honchos to deny it would mean 'fessing to the tactical blunders, which's happened but so gradually that no one's noticed. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "occupation":

1. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory.

7. the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces

Definition of "war":

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Occupation is clearly the more appropriate, since conflict in Iraq involves foreign forces vs. indigenous forces. The term "Iraq War", in the context of the "war" definition, almost implies a civil war where all parties are Iraqi, which isn't the case. Of course, it is called this to give the impression that the state of Iraq is fighting the war, which is not the case. I'm voting for a change of title to "Occupation of Iraq". 82.0.220.117 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

British commanders

Such as HM Queen Elizabeth II and Major General Andy Salmon?

They should be on the commanders list, should they not? Flosssock1 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrible POV in intro, rewrite needed?

The information in the introduction pretty much consists of the following, in order:

• see also link to legality of the war in Iraq
• Definition of "Iraq War"
• War casualties
• Number of oprphans
• Number of uprooted Iraqis
• Opinions of illegality of the war and war crimes
• The UN had no evidence of WMD but "the US government announced that "diplomacy has failed", abruptly advised the UN weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Iraq and decided to wage war on Iraq."
• No evidence supporting the reasons for invasion was found
• Other reasons for the invasion
• Occupation
• Sectarian violence and insurgency
• Civilians killed in 2007
• One vague sentence on improvements
• Failed state index
• Coalition withdrawl
• Relevant government agreements
• US withdrawl

Does that really look like a neutral presentation of information to anyone? Not only is the information presented in a negative way, the style and tone of the introduction seem to be negatively biased. I think a rewrite is needed, or at the very least, some of the more specific information needs to be removed from the introduction. The intro is too long as it is; it should be shortened to a brief background and outline of the conflict, and it's current status, what it's accomplished, etc. There's no need for statistics such as the number of orphans caused by the war to be presented in the first paragraph of the introduction. --Abusing (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

do you think there is a positive way of presenting information about the war? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, all I know is that there's a neutral way of presenting information, and that's how it's supposed to be.--Abusing (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

UN weapon inspectors were denied access by the Iraqi government they weren't ordered out by the US thats utter crap. Reference is Peter Costellos autobiography - ahhh but we live in the disinformation age. The sheer ignorance of the anti-war majority is astounding. Put yourself in Bushes position. Your country has been attacked by terrorists, a country suspected of supporting terrorists kicks out UN weapon inspectors, you've got the worlds most powerful military at your control - would you sit on your hands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.129.190 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This has since been  Done --Abusing (talk)

Automobile

May I add link to Automobile because US & UK need their oil, & might be the cause of this whole war? Stars4change (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Bias?

This article mentions that President Obama has announced a strategy for withdrawal. What it does not show anywhere (I have checked other articles for this too) is that President Bush was the one who signed the withdrawal deal with Maliki, giving a timetable for Iraqi withdrawal. [1]

Also I have seen countless, countless references to hatred of Bush in Iraq and the humanitarian situatioin there (this article mentioned the number of orphans at least twice) but I haven't seen any examples of gratitude which the troops no doubt encounter on a daily basis. Even if most Iraqis are against the occupation, there are most definitely those who are glad that Saddam is out of power. If this article is going to point out critics, it should at least mention supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.237.17 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Start Date of War

We know now that the beginning of military operations in Iraq started at 5:25AM, March 19th 2003, with the bombing of the Presidential Palace and the address of the nation by Pres. George W. Bush that same day, as this report shows. Why is the start date of the war still March 20th? Outback the koala (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no comment in the next day or two, then I will go ahead and change the date. Outback the koala (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It may have been March 19 in the US, but it was March 20 in Iraq. Here [2] sixth aniversary of invasion clearly celebrated on March 20, not 19.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable quotes

I was just reading through this section and I noticed a few quotes from what appears to be non-notable people, two of which aren't even named. They all seem to be making the same point, IE the US is bad, caused terrorism, etc. I agree, but I don't think these quotes should included in the article as in doing so we're giving them undue weight. I'm probably gonna delete them if no one has any objections. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkey as belligerents?

Turkey did not actually take place in Iraq invasion coalition (in 2003). The turkish parliament have rejected the involment of turkish troops into the Iraq War on 1 March 2003. The clashes with PKK ist not a part of the Iraq War, this crisis resumes for nearly 30 years. So I think Turkey should not be in Belligerents List of the Iraq War, neither the PKK. I tried to change it but i could not manage to do. Can someone change it correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.22.18 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The US military in Iraq provided intelligence to the Turks about the PKK so they can strike them. This was greed to previously by editors.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

89.216.236.127's Unconstructive Edits

Comments moved from My Talk Page.

Outback the koala, please listen. My edit to the Iraq war article was not unconstructive, on the contrary. The infobox was like that for years. However, Kassjab recently messed up the infobox in a way that the civilian casualties are in the Mahdi Army row (his way it looks like that 1,000,000 Mahdi army insurgents died and not civilians) and the overall insurgent casualties are only in the Sunni faction row (the number of insurgents killed provided includes both Sunni and Shia). Leave it as it is please. At the very least if you have a problem please discuss it before reverting. Thank you.89.216.236.127 (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your User contributions page shows that you have begun to edit wikipedia as of today (26 October 2009), please consider creating a user account in the future, this way when you change computers the edits you have made will be identified as from you. The info box identifies that the killed are civilians, the box you are concerned with does not apply to the Mahdi army and is clearly under the Casualties and losses section. I will be reverting these edits and will be placing notification on your talk page as well. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not started editing on Wikipedia today, I have edited for four years...It's just that my cable network changes my ip every week or so. As for my edit in the South Ossetian Conflict, you said and I quote refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia which can be considered vandalism, that is so untrue. You didn't even check the reference I provided since you claim this. The reference I provided is from the official Georgian Ministry of Defence site which cleary states that 161 soldiers have been listed as killed up to date and 9 are missing, which is in contrast with the reference you are reinserting that states 185 dead. Please check the reference before accusing me of vandalism. As for the Iraq war article. I was only reverting Kassjab's edits. He put the civilian casualties in the Mahdi army coloumn in the infobox. Also, the Mahdi army has been separated from the Sunni faction of the insurgents, while the casualties provided in the Sunni coloumn on the number of dead insurgents is for both the Sunni and the Shia insurgents killed, not just Sunni. Do you understand me? The main point here is that the number of insurgents in the box is for both Sunni and Shia, and Kassjab separated them without consulting other editors. And yes I have an account I just wasn't in the mood to log in if that's so much of a problem to you than I will log in and make my edits but please don't revert me since my edits clearly don't constitute vandalism, I don't know where you got that idea, maybe because I was an anonymous editor and it looked like to you that I started working only today. I am sorry if we got of on the wrong foot. But there is no reason for hostilities and you accusing me of vandalism from the very start. I am sure we can work this out reasonably through discussion. 89.216.236.127 (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will revert until other editors have a chance to discuss these changes in that case as some may think I am in the wrong. Upon reaching a consensus then the part of the article that you want deleted/altered and format changes can be made. Please wait for other editors to comment before making these changes. Outback the koala (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you explain to me what is so unconstructive about my edit? You have not pointed out anything about that. And why are you defending Kassjab's edits so much? Kassjab's edit was the one that was made without discussion, not mine. His edits should be discussed if they are to be implemented and not my actions which are simply to keep the infobox as it was for six years before Kassjab came. Please give me answers to all these questions. And until than if you have the right to revert to an unagreed and undiscussed version of the infobox than I also have a right to defended the original and agreed to infobox. Also, if you continue reverting you are going against the revert rule of Wikipedia.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from My Talk Page. Outback the koala (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "by the way, let an administrator protect it, like I said before I have a username and so that will not do you much good.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "

You moved that one comment of mine from your talk page bud didn't answer my questions, answer the questions.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Has the change into a three-side i'box been discussed?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that was a totaly undiscussed edit by Kassjab.89.216.239.108 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You want to block me now Koala without discussion just because I have a different opinion? Is that your way of resolving the problem? Just kill the competition so nobody oposses you? And what are those unconstructive edits, you still haven't answered my questions?89.216.239.108 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Koala, editors do not need your permission to edit the page. I see that you reverted several times without giving an explanation in the edit summary nor on 89.216.239.108's talk page. Further, I do not see what is gained by requesting 89.216.239.108 to create a Wiki account. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 89.216.239.108 is correct in that the new organization creates an unnecessary third column specifically for the Mahdi army. I have reverted to the previous version pending further discussion of Kassjab's version. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The changes being made were substantial changes to the page, page format, and removal of useful information, such as; the continued removal of info from the commanders section of the infobox; adjusting correct grammar in the caption for the lead photo to incorrect grammar. For me, these justify as being unconstructive edits, even though they had what some might see as a useful editing within them. The focus was not on the changes to the infobox layout, so much as the parts of the edits that were detrimental to the page. I did not feel, and still do not, that the box identifying that the statistics that showed one million civilians killed, the box 89.216.239.108 was so concerned with, did not appear to apply to the Mahdi army and as it clearly was under the Casualties and losses section listed as civilians. I also felt that a distinction between the Sunni and Shi'ite factions would be beneficial to the page, however I see that the lack of stats for this third column, and that said stats might be difficult to find. In light of this I would not object to continuing with two columns currently, but we should indicate(in brackets) that the different insurgents belong to different branches of Islam and that Shi'ite insurgents are supported by Iran, another thing lost in 89.216.239.108's editing frenzy. In addition, what is gained by requesting 89.216.239.108 to create a Wiki account, is that, other than benefiting this anon user's tracking of pages, is that statements like, "I have edited for four years," won't appear to be so baseless, as his history show the opposite. And indeed, at first I was skeptical, as would any wikipedian confronted by an anon user claiming to have edited for years, but who couldn't be bothered to log into their own account, but maintains they have one. I do not contend to make wikipedia a closed encyclopedia, and don't feel like I acting in a way that made it so, as I believe it's openness is one of its greatest strengths. note: I will not reply to 89.216.239.108 or 89.216.236.127, depending on where he is today and still cant bother to login to his account that exists, until he starts to follow WP:etiquette. Thank You.Outback the koala (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about etiquette shall we? Initially, after the edit by Kassjab, 89.216.236.127 reverted it with a lengthy explanation in the summary. You then reverted with no explanation. Following that, 89.216.236.127 reverted with another lengthy explanation in the summary and a comment on your talk page. You responded by reverting without an explanation in the summary, commenting on his edit history, and leaving an unconstructive edit warning on his talk page. This was followed by yet another cycle of his explained reversion and your wordless reversion. I can understand your skepticism of anon users as about 90% of vandalism comes from anons, but this anon is being more careful in his documentation and more cooperative in the discussion than you are. Even if this was his first edit, your zeal would be unwarranted; we should avoid biting the newcomers. Honestly, I do not see how he has been uncivil. It seems to me that you have not assumed good faith. Let's try and follow the dispute resolution process and keep the discussion focused on the article rather than eachother's editting history.

I think that your suggestion about the parenthetical comment regarding the Shi'ite and Sunni factions would be a suitable compromise for now while we discuss further changes to the infobox. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I hear your constructive criticism of my response in this matter and will in the future attempt to provide more of an explanation as to my actions that I am taking in my editing and reverting. Although I think we should stop the talk about WP:UNCIVIL and start to spread some wiki love. As far as the info box goes, I don't think anyone else is still arguing for a 3 column info box anymore so we can probably stick with it, but I couldn't seem to figure out how to get the Iranian support flag back into the box without reverting before, so someone else will have to do that. This all seems like a fair compromise that keeps a maximum amount of the info in a clear and concise way. Thanks Azure. Outback the koala (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the Iranian support flag back to the belligerents section of the infobox. Is this what you were envisioning? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed what I was thinking. Do you think it would be overkill to put their religion in brackets, as Iran only supports the Shi'a militias and not the Sunni. For example: Baath Party Loyalists (Sunni) . Outback the koala (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added the belligerents' denominations to the infobox. Look good? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is 100% good. Thank You Azure for the great work! Outback the koala (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have the belligerents' denominations mentioned? "Iraq War" generally refers to the Coalition and Iraq vs. the insurgency, while what can be called the "Iraqi Civil War" refers to the conflict between religious factions. In other words, this infobox only needs to list the combatants that make up the insurgency, not necessarily their respective religious faction. I don't think it's necessary to include the denominations in the infobox at all. We can easily present the same information without it:

...

• Mahdi Army
  Soldiers of Heaven
  • Supported by
    Iran
• Baath Party Loyalists

...

That's how it was before, and it might be simpler than using the denominations in the infobox.--Abusing (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't feel strongly about it one way or another, but let's see what koala has to say before we make any significant changes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, I think it is irrelevant to the article as the Iraq Civil War is a part of the Iraq War, as per the main infobox on the Iraq Civil War page. As well, we should note that while all insurgents are hostile toward the Coalition, only some are hostile toward each other, usually along religious lines. It seems to me, that it was, and still is in some ways(in its impact), an important part of the war. Perhaps a small link to the Iraq Civil War page could be slipped in at the bottom of that section. It would most likely be something like;

"For fighting between insurgent groups, see Iraq Civil War."

Would this be a good improvement to clarify, Abusing? Outback the koala (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I like your idea. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the information isn't relevant to the article, just that its relevance to the "belligerents" section of the infobox is unclear. I think that would be a good improvement, so I'll slip that in. Abusing (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Abusing (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Update needed?

The information on the strength of the insurgency (in the infobox) is apparently from 2006 and 2007 at the latest, as is contractor strength. Updated info is needed on the strength of the combatants.--Abusing (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Invasion/Insurgency phases

The article's infobox says there is an invasion phase and an insurgency phase. Is this information verifiable at all? Are there any sources that say the war took part in two distinct phases, with the insurgency phase beginning the day after the invasion ended? If not, it needs to be removed and listed as one date, since "Iraq War" generally refers to both the invasion and occupation.--Abusing (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapons of mass destruction!

Shouldn't there be a subject on not finding WMD(Weapons Of Mass Destruction)? George Bush's intelligence said that their were WMD but none were found or claimed to be. Is it that hard to believe that Iraq had WMD, when saddamm Hussein had already used these weapons on his own people. The nation of Iraq used,possessed, and made efforts to aquire WMD. Duramax (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the first section following the overview: Iraq_War#2001.E2.80.932003:_Iraq_disarmament_crisis_and_pre-war_intelligence. This is a link in that section: Iraq disarmament crisis. This is a subsection of that section: Iraq_War#Alleged_weapons_of_mass_destruction. Might try reading the article before you make claims about what is or is not in it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Duramax, I reverted your addition on this topic per WP:BRD, and left a note on your Talk page. Let's discuss. As noted in my edit summary, my main concerns were that the addition did not fit the style of the rest of the article, and included no citation(s). Regarding the latter, I'm sure you could find appropriate references. Regarding the former, I'm sure someone could help re-write. However:

• As noted by User:AzureFury, there is already a section on this in the article. Is this section insufficient?
• Is there consensus for your addition?

Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The information provided is sufficient, just over read the article. Im aware of this now "buddy". thanksDuramax (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC) It was a simple questions that needeed to be answered. If i recall that is what talk protion is here for.No disrespect is needed.Duramax (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2002 military action

This article discusses how the UK and US started bombing Iraqi positions in 2002. I can't seem to find any mention of it in this article or in other related articles but it seems like it should definitely be included. Should it go in the Iraq_War#Preparations_for_war section? 131.111.30.22 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the article. It is mainly written as an allegation against the US and UK. There are some facts which are tied together by the editor to form a conclusion which may or may not be true. While we can publish allegations on Wikipedia, we may only do so if they have been widely reported on by many reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we avoid publishing things of questionable accuracy. So step number one if you want to get this allegation included is find multiple, mainstream, reliable sources that attest to this allegation's accuracy. Then we can work forward from there. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapons of Mass Destruction

It appears the article leaves out the fact that the US forces found 550 metric tons of yellow cake from Iraq, which was subsequently removed. While the yellow cake would not be the optimum choice for a nuclear bomb, it could be used in a 'dirty bomb' by insurgents and elements determined to mount an attack on Western nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.126.62 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear that then?! I'd guess that the US and UK governments would have made quite a lot of noise about it if they'd been right all along! If you have a source for this then please add it below. Smartse (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search was all it took.[3] I don't know how this isn't in the article, it needs to be, ASAP. 24.12.93.206 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)