Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 41.185.115.52 (talk) at 21:36, 23 January 2011 (→Definitive victory?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeIraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Acknowledge:Philippine Contingent and support

Who ever is maintaining or holding this article please acknowledge even in the smallest way the support and the numbers of soldiers brought in by the philippine military for medical and security purposes on the bases, thanks.Manager0916 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy are still in Iraq training the Iraqi Navy

More than 100 UK sailors who have been training the Iraqi navy in the southern port of Umm Qasr, will withdraw in May 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11833234) --SuperDan89 (talk) 07:46, 05 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had been looking for a ref to support that for a while, it seemed I stopped looking too early. Thanks for the source, it's just been added in to the article infobox! G.R. Allison (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile "bioweapons" weather balloon electrolysis trucks?

Where is the information on the trucks which were said by the CIA to be mobile bioweapons fermentation chambers but turned out to be hydrogen electrolysis generators for weather balloons? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: [1] Should it be in the article? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it would be a good addition to the "Alleged weapons of mass destruction" section or perhaps the section on unconventional weapons in the "Preparations for Iraq war" section. Kaldari (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American victory?

I think one can now safely say that the US won the war in Iraq. The Baath regime was toppled, Saddam was executed, a new government was elected, and the islamic insurgency has been mostly quelled. Iraq is now a major US ally. What do you think? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things are not this simple. There is much dispute over wheather the US succesfully installed a democracy, since the new government is becoming more and more authoritarian, candidates were banned from recent elections, there have been fraud claims during all 3 elections and many human rights violations have taken place. Also Iraq's status as a US ally (leave alone major US ally) is questionable, due to the strong ties to Iran of many leading Shi'a and Kurdish figures and the growth increasing influence of Muqtada al-Sadr's political party. Also the insurgency is far from quelled, although it's not as deadly as it was around 2006-2007, with at least 4,000 civilians, 900 security forces killed this year it is still one of the most deadly insurgencies on earth.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did stopping all insurgency (of which there will always be) and installing democracy become a prerequisite for officially winning a war, when the government upon whom one declared war has been toppled? By those standards, you'd have to more than double the official length of pretty much any war you can think of. The vast majority of wars in history had nothing to with democracy. And the fact that politicians who are anti-American are growing in influence there? I understand Pakistani and Indian politicians have never liked each other much - does this constitute a 64 year war? And the little I know of the region which is now Afghanistan, the Afghan War has been going on with brief periods of quasi-peace for the last few thousand years. Coincidental that it suits both hawks and doves to exaggerate the length of the war and include every car-bomb and street-fight (see below). I'm not saying the violence isn't terrible, but there's an important technical point here, so today's media don't mislead future historians.

Definitive victory?

At what stage do we consider the insugency completely broken, and are thus able to list this war as an allied victory? Obviously there will never be a military or other victory for the opposing force, and surely the war cannot assume a state of permanent stasis in the category of 'low level combat ops ongoing.' I mean, the occasional ad hoc bombing may kill a few dozen people or less but such acts are the last gasp of a dying insurgency, which will eventually peter out to such a degree that it can be considered a civilian rather than a military issue. In my opinion, this has already happened. Will the wikipedia hive mind take the lead in declaring the war won for america and iraq, or will it wait for public opinion to eventually hold it in common consensus that there has been a definitive victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.197.227 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"At what stage do we consider the insugency completely broken, and are thus able to list this war as an allied victory?" When reliable sources say it is. (Hohum @) 01:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did the war end? This is something I have a problem with. In alphabetical order, many of those AGAINST like to say the war lasted for years after Saddam's downfall so they can complain that it's gone on too long and is therefore an unmitigated disaster ("It's Vietnam again!"), and many of those FOR the war like to say the same thing because this gave the US and UK government a wonderful excuse to restrict civil liberties: "We're at war, you know. We've all got to make sacrifices." The reason given is that the war could not be over until troops all pulled out and all insurgents were crushed, but this is a VERY recent redefinition of 'war'. The allies kept troops in Germany long after the usually accepted end of World War II. The Northern US kept troops stationed to maintain peace in the South long after the official end of the American Civil War, and there was plenty of insurgent activity (the Ku Klux Klan, for example). But this activity was not part of a formal war - it was crime, and not by the same institutions on which war was declared. The US declared war on the Communist North Vietnamese government, fought them formally for 10 years, and lost. The US-led coalition declared war on the Baathist Iraqi government, toppled them within a month, after this there was (is) a long period violent insurgency by all sorts of other groups. By historians' definitions of war for centuries, except for some grey areas much greyer than this, the war was nevertheless over within a month. The rest was crime-fighting. When else in history has such a stringent definition of victory been used? Wikipedia is far more formal with wars over a hundred years ago, and doesn't apply the same standard. Split it up into more than one war if you wish, but there is a formal distinction here which both sides of the sensationalist media have chosen to ignore, for different reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.52 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I'm aware there have been episodes of great civil strife and other general conflicts in history called 'wars', but these have not been logged as such officially, whereas even over the last several years, this one is... are the Taxi War, or everyday life for policemen in the more crime-ridden areas of some of the world's major cities, officially considered wars? Usually not, since they do not meet the diplomatic and political criteria, even if there is an even higher death rate.

alleged weapons of mass destruction (first 2 paragraphs)

The first 2 paragraphs in section "alleged weapons of mass destruction" do not deal with the topic of wmd allegations and should be removed or moved elsewhere.Sasha best (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees

Shouldn't there be some mention about the refugee crisis in Iraq since this remains a serious problem dispite all the talk of the war being 'over'. There is a link in this article to another main page but that ariticle is pretty general on the refugee issue. There should be some mention about it in this article and more focus on the situation after the 2003 war and more up to date information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facts about AQ and Iraq Linkage and WMDs

The conventional wisdom is to believe the 9/11 commission and omit the many facts that exist for an Iraq and AQ connection. However below are a few examples of this evidence:

Blair testified again in front of the Iraq Inquiry about the linkage between Al Qaeda (AQ) and Iraq pre the Iraq war. Here is the direct quotes: "There was no sense that AQ would mount a full-scale operation in Iraq after the removal of Saddam. In retrospect as I said in my evidence, the intelligence that al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian AQ leader, had been in Baghdad in May 2002 should perhaps have been given more weight. But actually most of the British authorities were at pains to separate Saddam from AQ in 2002 not to link them." Blair urges them to look at the intelligence reports, specifically in 2005 and 2006 also, for this linkage. Despite the much held belief that there was no link between Iraq and AQ, the facts state otherwise. http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/110121.aspx http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/100129.aspx (http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/)

More evidence continues to abound. "The Clinton Administration's legal indictment in Federal Court against bin Laden in 1998 claimed, ``Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Here is a summary article of more of these concepts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

As for WMD:

Here is a Wired Magazine article that nicely details the WMDs (chemical WMDs) that were continually found. From the Wikileaks documents. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ "An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

if this Wikipedia article and similar others on WP are going to discuss these aspects, then they need to include real facts, and not simply ideology.

Thanks Makia G Systems12 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Citation 157 - Torture at Abu Ghraib link is broken. Fixed link: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.51.107 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've swapped the links. Thanks for pointing out this error. Dawnseeker2000 19:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War&oldid=409629976"