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 69.121.144.8 (talk) at 16:11, 29 December 2015 (→‎Lancet survey: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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


Iraqi Opinion Section

"In 2006, a poll conducted on the Iraqi public revealed that 64% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction and 77% claimed it was worth ousting Saddam Hussein.[375]" 

Both of these statistics are supported by the source but they are both from January '06. The source presents them amongst other data for the same questions from various other dates including more recent dates. The source doesn't give any greater prominence to these dates. I can't see any rationale for using them in preference to the most recent data provided by the source 52% and 61% respectively. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the page to the most recent stats as above, although they are still only from 2006. This [1] suggests by 2008 public support, in Iraq, for the initial invasion had fallen further, though an even more recent source would be good. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Law

The German version of this article describes the war as being a violation of international law in the very first lead sentence("Der Irakkrieg ...war eine völkerrechtswidrige Invasion"). Should the English article do the same, or is this not a neutral description? SomePseudonym (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the German article is properly sourced, you could use those same sources and see how people receive it. I'd be curious to see the text and sources myself. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most wars can be described as illegal, and most wars including the Iraq War can be described as legal, it's all very subjective. War is an inherently extralegal process, so even the notion of an "illegal war" is not NPOV because declaring something illegal depends on a politicized process, primarily the UN security council voting that a war was illegal. The UN Security Council has not voted the Iraq War illegal, and is unlikely to do so, because of the weight of a US vote against such a measure. Basically whether one regards a war to be illegal just means that one was politically opposed to a war. Many Germans opposed the Iraq War so it's not surprising that the German article is anti-war and consequently declares it to be an illegal war. The biggest factor in whether a war is illegal is whether the war is engaged in "self-defense" which is an extraordinarily subjective notion. American supporters of the Iraq War would assert that the war was fought as a result of the 9/11 attacks which forced the US to invade the Arab middle east in order to occupy bases there from which it could engage jihadist forces directly. Even anti-war US political figures such as John Kerry describe the war in terms of being motivated by a post 9/11 desire to aggressively project US military force into the Arab middle east without the constraints that US bases in Saudi Arabia were under (and the whole WMD issue was a contrivance to justify it to US allies). Whether this counts as self defense depends on whether one regards projecting US force into and against the Arab middle east region as an effective, let alone essential, strategy, which is a highly partisan question. Walterego (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video: Cheney describes the invasion, war, and aftermath

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I

Should a summary of that video be included in the article? 2601:283:4403:8012:9C68:B561:A144:9317 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why are my contributions being removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John O Callaghan2 (talkcontribs) 19:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why are my contributions being removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John O Callaghan2 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oil

"There are many problems with this line in the lead. It is unsourced. It is vague (who are the "many", specifically? Scholars? World leaders? The public?) More fundamentally, it is not supported by ANYTHING in the body except Nelson Mandela" —TTAAC

@TheTimesAreAChanging: This I cannot disagree with. Perhaps someone with enough care and time can write something sourced about it. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet survey

Given the near-universal agreement by government bodies and scientific observers that it's an inaccurate study, why is it till listed in the casualty box? The other estimates are much closer to each other and have much more solid support by various professionals. 69.121.144.8 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]