Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Cheney's Quote

This article includes the following text:

"For example, The Washington Post has noted that,

While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."[79]"

The source cited is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

The Washington Post article used does quote Cheney accurately. So it is a proper use of that source. But that source's use of his quote seems somewhat irresponsible. By including a bit more context, we can see that his statement was more nuanced (on Meet the Press, September 14, 2003):

This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Here's the full transcript: http://www.webcitation.org/6QR0lR6sS

It seems he was referring to the region as the geographical base of terror, and not limiting his comments to the nation if Iraq alone.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.250.39 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if that's true, then it would also be relevant to the the preceding War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and following Syrian Civil War. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

depleted uranium not even mentioned?!

During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of DU munitions were used.

Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq[1]

--Espoo (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, the section for "War Crimes" here doesn't mention any of the coalition crimes. The article seems to violate neutrality in terms of which facts it chooses to display and which ones it chooses to leave out - I think the most responsible course of action for all of us would be to remove these controversial sections until they can be settled, instead of just leaving them up with what one side believes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.46.21 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

-I don't think including "Depleted" Uranium in with "war crimes" fits the bill for what would be considered a war crime. This is due in large part to the fact that DU has a lower radioactivity than naturally occurring Uranium. [2] It might be worth mentioning in a "conspiracy theory" section on the article, since the idea that DU is responsible for civilian and military deaths due to exposure, originated from a number of controversial conspiracy speakers, in particular Alex Jones, and Glenn Beck. --Kitsunedawn (talk)

this is not invasion, this is liberation

123.203.118.107 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Canada

Recent edits have been made in attempt to give undue weight to the Canadian involvement in the event which is the subject of this article. If we look at the primary article, Canada and the Iraq War, most of the Canadian forces that participated in the Iraq War, were after the invasion, and thus primarily do not fall within the scope of this article. However, due to an article about a Wikileak memo, it is suggested that Canada was involved in the invasion. That being said if we look at what the article actually says, which I have provided a quote in the article's reference, it says that Canadian forces that were already in the Strait of Hormuz (not near Iraq, but between the UAE and Iran) due to Operation Enduring Freedom would escort ships that were going to participate in the invasion. This is military support, but not direct involvement. I have not found reliable sources that can verify that Canadian forces were within Iraq during the period of the invasion, which is the subject of this article.

If we are to include the in-direct military support that Canadian Forces provided, wouldn't that reasoning also be able to justify in-direct military support provided by Germany, Italy, and other nations who hosted American bases that supported forces that were utilized in the invasion? If so, where does this end? Could then countries that supplied the Coalition forces fuel also be called in-direct military support?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought they had 180 electronic warfare & AWAC personnel in the air during the invasion. Is that in the article? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is an article from March 2003 that lays out much of the "hidden" Canadian participation in the invasion. The lead quote "The breaking story today (March 27, 2003) is that a few Canadian troops are fighting on the ground in Iraq. This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. The truth is that Canada stands as the third strongest contributor to US forces in the Iraq war, after Britain and Australia." Capitalismojo (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to fall under WP:IRS; if there are other sources, reliable sources, such as news organizations, universities publishers, than that would be something, speculation shouldn't be added.
The closest I can find is this book; which states that there were Canadian Forces in distant support like at the CENTCOM HQ and in the Arabian gulf doing escort, but not actively involved with "boots on the ground" during the invasion. Again, if Canadian "military support" outside of Iraq should include a section, why is there not other sections about the other nations who didn't actually invade but provided military support?
I think if there is going to be a section in "Coalition and Allied contingent involvement", it should fall within a military support section which can include a paragraph on the Kurdish forces and Iraqi National Congress. Or rather why include anything at all, since it is already included in the main article Multi-National Force – Iraq#Clandestine deployment of Canadian forces. Given the extremely small size of their participation and not actually providing major forces during the invasion itself, why include their contribution at all?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the home page of the link I posted above. I agree that it doesn't look very RS. I could go either way vis-a-vis Canadian inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Putting Canada as a "belligerent" is really sketchy and imo bad idea. Western countries tend to have lots of military cooperation on different levels going on all the time, and theoretically you could go wild drawing connections how someone somehow indirectly supported someone else in some conflict. Should stick to belligerents that actually had some relevant presence on ground in combat theatre.--Staberinde (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I will remove this content in its entirety, I think it's fine to have the nation listed in the infobox, but if that's going to be the case all other nations who provided "military support" should be included as well. Any "military support" information can then be found in the main article about the invasion force Multi-National Force – Iraq.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I think if a nation supplied direct military support it was a belligerent.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Canadian forces were no where in the territorial waters, air space or land territory of Iraq during the scope of this article; otherwise direct military support can be said to have been received from Kuwait (where U.S. forces launched their assault), from Germany (where medical support was received), from Italy, where the 173rd originated from. So, "direct military support", does not fall within the coalition force that invaded/liberated Iraq.
Verify that there were Canadian forces directly involved in the invasion, as in within the territory of Iraq within the time of the invasion, and then it'll have met verify. Presently it does not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Most recent conflict between national armies which killed more than 1000 people? Not anymore maybe...

At the end of the introduction to the article it states that as of 2011 the 2003 Iraq invasion was the most recent fight between national armed forces which killed more than 1000 people. This was true as of 2011, but it is now 2015, and the War in Donbass has killed more than 1000 people while involving beyond reasonable doubt the national armed forces of Ukraine and Russia. Should this sentence be amended to "the 2003 Iraq invasion was the last conflict between national armed forces to kill 1000 people until the Donbass war of 2014", or be removed entirely?

I have not removed the edit, but re-added the RS that was removed in it. Please provide a reliable source, to verify the new content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.104.155 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the current conflict in Ukraine counts as a conflict between two national armed forces. We may all agree that Russia supports separatist groups fighting in Ukraine, but this doesn't make the separatists part of a national army. I would suggest removing this sentence as it is a spurious claim and doesn't help to understand the invasion of Iraq.--Likeabutterfly (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It also appears that Russians have sent troops over the border to fight Ukraine, and even shelled Ukraine from across the border, according to this source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/17/russia-shelled-ukrainians-from-within-its-own-territory-says-study Some troops on the separatist side are in the Russian military. While I agree that this is hardly essential to understand the Iraq invasion, the claim that the war was the most recent between national armed forces to kill 1000 seems increasingly outdated. If you want the whole paragraph gone, remove it, but do not leave the old line there from 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.104.155 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't find information about the number of sorties and tons of bombs dropped under the invasion ?

I see that that they have this information in the Gulf War-article, but I cant find such information in this article.--85.166.158.109 (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This question should go to WP:REFDESK. That being said found the following for you: United States Air Force Historical Support Division.
Hope this helps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

needs more Spain info and Saddam info

The Azores Summit between USA, UK, Spain, and Portugal should be covered. So should Saddams I nterview where he said he wanted people to think he had nukes. He did have them, nerve gas but not nukes. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Explanation for the deletion of inadmissible editorializing in the lead

I have deleted "The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the most recent armed conflict between standing national armies causing at least 1,000 battle deaths,[33] until the outbreak of the War in Donbass between Ukraine and Russia in 2014-15.[34]". This text appears to be OR and a pov editorialized connection. Source 33 is from 2011 and so cannot be used to sustain a claim related to events in 2014-2015. Source 34 has three sources, none of which even mentions Iraq, so cannot be used to sustain an Iraq-related claim. And of course 1000 deaths is an entirely arbitrary figure. Why 1000, given that there were far more than 1000 deaths as a result of the invasion of Iraq? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Conflicts between national armed forces

The article says that the Ukraine-Russia war is the only one between 2 countries to kill more than 1000 people since 2003. Where does the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen fit into this? Over 1000 people have died, but do the Saleh/Houthi government forces count as national armed forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.105.248 (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That bit of connection-editorializing is now gone. I find it astonishing it had remained in the lead, uncommented upon, for over a year. And when last February it was commented upon, nobody thought to say it was all just OR. (Oh noes, Drmies will surely block me for harassment for saying that). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Albania part of the invasion force?

according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#2008_withdrawals

Albania sent forces in April 2003 as part of the invasion which ended only on 1 May 2003.

So why is that country not listed among the invading nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony Blair as "commander in chief"?

Is having his name there a valid use of the commanders and leaders section of the infobox? While Bush might be commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces, there is no equivalent status for Tony Blair, and probably also John Howard. We don't have Hitler mentioned as a commander or leader in the Battle of France or Invasion of Poland. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi death toll

Someone just reverted edits to the Iraqi casualties part in the infobox. Surely 7000 Iraqi can't have died. Estimates say 600,000 have died, possibly more. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Someones don it again! Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 12:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This article deals only with the period from March 20 to May 1, 2003.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Estimates very all over the place, the Iraqi ministry of health put a figure out in January of 2009, that said 150-250,000 had died since March 20th, 2003.

The death toll for the Iraq invasion, covering the period from March 20 to May 1 2003 is what is covered in this article. This death toll is tiny compared with the death toll for the Iraq War, which one could argue was a different conflict fought for a different purpose.70.113.72.73 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That said this article only covers operation Iraqi freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

if iraq lost 600,000 deaths then how much coalitions have died in this war ???? its impossible that they lost only 172 !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.153.153.128 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The infobox hardly makes clear that it's only counting deaths in the first few weeks. The old text was misleading by omission. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

title is biased and inaccurate

2003 Invasion is biased. It is also never used much.

If anyone insist, they should be blocked for pov.

If the title persists, then World War II should be rewritten to show that the US invaded Germany even though Germany never invaded the US or bombed it. Instead, war loving America invaded peace loving Germany, which simply tried to establish an EU and didn't hate America.

Deepavali 2014 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with Deepavali. --Thomas de Mowbray (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Globalise

I added the globalise tag to the legality section, because it mainly cites US internal sources. Most nations that go to war of course themselves believe in the legality, but I believe this needs to be anchored on international law and not domestic legal procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:8FD:AE00:DC8A:B1BF:E72C:A45A (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The introductory quote by Wesley Clark is wholly inappropriate

The Clark quote about "seven wars in five years" that is beloved by conspiracy theorists is inappropriate for the article introduction. The fact that the next six planned invasions completely failed to materialise should tell us something about its usefulness.--81.136.59.51 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I've moved that quote to the "Casus belli and rationale section", it doesn't belong in the lead. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pentagon paid PR firm $540 million for fake Al-Qaeda videos in secret Iraq propaganda

New evidence about fake al-Qaeda videos needs to be added to this article. For example, check out this source. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Too long, and too much granular information being added to an overview article.

I have tagged the article as too long. 127 kb readable prose is far too high per WP:SIZERULE, and over 20 kb of overlery detailed information has just recently been added. This is an overview of the invasion, not an account of every event (i.e. the Jessica Lynch rescue, which would justify perhaps a sentence and a link to its main article. (Hohum @) 00:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced misleading statement

This "Since the invasion, the U.S. and British government statements concerning Iraqi weapons programs and links to terrorist organizations have been discredited." Is provided with no reference and clearly provides a wrong impression. While some claims of al qaeda cooperation were found to be overstated or groundless Saddams support of international terrorism was well documented. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/palestinians-get-saddam-charity-checks/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

I am going to remove the passage in 24 hours if no one rewrites or defends it. 

Batvette (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point - I changed "terrorist organizations" to "al-Qaeda". What do you think? --Cerebellum (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

New umbrella article created

After numerous discussions and consensus to create one, an umbrella article for the entire Iraq conflict (2003–present) has finally been created. However, it needs a great deal of work and I am seeking help in expanding it. Charles Essie (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Were WMDs really the reason for invasion or was it just an excuse to take there oil?

After reading the article I'm curious if the Invasion was actually in response to weapons of mass destruction or if that was just a convenient reasoning for the United States to invade and take spoils of War in oil. Rickfrickleton2 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)10/29/17 Rickfrickleton2 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Rickfrickleton2

This is not the place for such discussions.Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

What caused the United States to invade Iraq?

In the last weekend of March, 2003 U.S. president George W. Bush lunched the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. This was meant to overthrow Saddam Hussein and to kill Asama Bin La-din to which we all know what happened. The invasion was a successful one but the affects are still felt today because of the Syrian Civil War and the rise and fall ISIS. Terror attacks occur regularly in countries like Germany, France, Italy, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Bubba2018 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Bubba2018

What edit are you proposing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The War ended in 2003?

I came to this article trying to find the official date for the American withdrawal from Iraq (2009 or 2010?) - imagine my surprise to discover it was in 2003 - there is a hatnote linking to the main article, but the lede sentence could use some tweaking to articulate the scope of this article better and should probably link directly to the main article for the Iraq War? Seraphim System (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, looks better now, thank you. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Far-right POV

The title of this article is "2003 invasion of Iraq". "Invasion of Iraq" is the NPOV, factual, encyclopedic and mainstream way to refer to the subject of this article, and as the title of the article, is always an appropriate way to refer to its subject. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is a far-right extremist, propagandist, nationalist, fringe POV way to refer to the invasion of Iraq. Most Europeans wouldn't understand what that even means or would regard it as a blatantly biased and ridiculously propagandist term reminiscent of Trump's falsehoods and "alternative facts"; it is not a mainstream way to refer to the invasion of Iraq globally. There was an invasion of Iraq in 2003, unsanctioned by the UN and in violation of international law, that had nothing to do with any freedom as far of the rest of the world is concerned. --Tataral (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Spain was NOT belligerent

Spain wasn't involved during the invasion, other than supporting it. No spanish military units did participate. So, it surprises me to see Spain listed as belligerent. -Ignacio Agulló — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.243.83 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's me again. It has become quite a vicious cycle: from time to time I visit this page, find that someone has added Spain again to the belligerent list, and delete it... only to have someone return it later. This is childish. Whoever has this completely wrong idea, that Spain participated in the invasion (March-April 2003), had better check facts first. The BBC Iraq War Fact Book is probably a good source, and should back my claim. -Ignacio Agulló. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.138.142 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OIL

Operation Iraqi Liberation was more than a cynical epithet - it was also the name of several conferences in DC about how to apportion the spoils of war. Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.78.21.129 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

POW numbers?

No data on prisoners captured during the invasion in the Infobox? --195.225.41.202 (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It was raised, and not denied, that the proposed title is less concise. No consensus was formed that there would be any gain in other WP:AT criteria. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq → United States invasion of Iraq – As per the norm in other articles such as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, United States invasion of Afghanistan, United States invasion of Grenada, Iraqi invasion of Iran, etc. I could go on. This title would be better because currently "2003 invasion of Iraq" sounds slightly vague. The proposed title is direct and explanatory. I am open to discussing different titles such as 2003 United States invasion of Iraq or Invasion of Iraq. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3832:ECE5:4910:6709 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

How is it "slightly vague"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Just saying "2003 invasion of Iraq" is rather devoid of context. Was it an Iranian invasion? American? British? Most other invasion articles have the country that is invading, as per the articles I linked above. And I don't think many invasion articles are termed by the year the countries are invaded; there is no 1980 invasion of Iraq, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, etc. It's just a better, more contextual title. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D8D3:A548:A312:D65A (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
But it was not just the US. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the invading forces were 3/4 American. While I'd prefer a slight refinement ("U.S.-led invasion of Iraq"), I support the original proposal or any of the multiple related redirects, such as U.S. invasion of Iraq, United States invasion of Iraq, 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, etc. fgnievinski (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This appears to be a WP:POINTY/WP:SOAPBOX issue of trying to draw a comparison to other articles. But the reason for the current name is that, as the first sentence states, this was a multi-party invasion with numerous countries, and there is not a good reason to make the title inaccurate and exclude the other countries involved. The comparisons to other, separate invasions are pretty useless here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I also oppose the "US-led" alternative -- it's definitely better than the proposed one, as it doesn't make it inaccurate, but it's a non-standard form for which no compelling reasons have been provided besides a need to right perceived great wrongs. The idea that this is about somehow hiding information is just silly, given the contents of the article lead.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    Where did I claim that there is a "great wrong" or that something is being hidden? Do you think we should rename 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to "2022 invasion of Ukraine?" 2601:85:C101:C9D0:B58B:FAAB:2A40:B3DE (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
See my reply to Slater. 128.6.36.237 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not vague, and yes this just looks like it's trying to make a point. It was a US led, but not solely US invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Would you be opposed to the suggestion above: US-led invasion of Iraq, or Invasion of Iraq? I'm not committed to any particular name, I just think it can be improved. 128.6.36.237 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
We do not move articles for the sake of it, we move them if there is a pressing need to change the name, I have not seen one presented. Now there maybe a case for changeing it to "US led", but I have not seen it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
US-led invasion of Iraq is more explanatory (clearer) than 2003 invasion of Iraq, I don't see on Wikipedia that invasions are named by the year in which they occur. That is a good enough reason. And no, there doesn't need to be a "pressing" need to change the name, so long as it's an improvement. Note, I'm not here to "make a point" or claim wrongdoing, I just think the title can be improved to "US-led invasion of Iraq." 128.6.36.237 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a pressing need to globalize the coverage. For example, in the French Wikipedia, we have fr:Invasion de l'Irak par les États-Unis en 2003: "Invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003". Unfortunately, it's reasonable the proposal might be unpopular in the English Wikipedia, as it tends to be biased towards the Anglosphere. Only cynics wouldn't find the current title an instance of whitewash/cover-up. Other countries wouldn't get as much lenience from Wikipedia editors. See, for example, the current proposal to rename Invasion of Kuwait to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. fgnievinski (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Making it U.S. centric would make it both less accurate and do the opposite of globalizing the title. I'd also note that it appears nearly every other language Wikipedia besides the one you selected uses "Invasion of Iraq" in some form, so I'm not sure why "ignore other usage except for French" would be a compelling argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The majority of the invasion force was American, with some accompanying forces from other nations. Therefore, "US-led invasion of Iraq" isn't unreasonably "US-centric" since the majority of the allied army was American, it's actually more accurate than my original proposal of US invasion of Iraq or just Invasion of Iraq. As I stated above, "US-led invasion of Iraq" accurately reflects who did the invasion and what the invasion was composed of, making a clearer and more explanatory title. 128.6.36.86 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was US-centric: the American president himself declared the invasion's start and end dates singlehandedly. The current title gives the impression the invasion was anonymous. (And the title version in smaller Wikipedias is likely a direct translation of the English version.) fgnievinski (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A solution in search of a problem. Srnec (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
See my reply to Slater? And there is no problem, just an improvement. 128.6.36.237 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the title has to be "explanatory" at all. Recognizable will suffice. Srnec (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Titles shouldn't be explanatory, and should not adequately describe an event? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:B58B:FAAB:2A40:B3DE (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"2003 invasion of Iraq" does adequately describe the event. Srnec (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
In light of that opinion, do you believe we should change the Russian invasion of Ukraine article to "2022 invasion of Ukraine?" 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1973:32D9:A93E:FF39 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - Current title is recognizable (includes date, event and country). The change won't make it more recognizable, and might make it less recognizable to some people (e.g. people who think about the invading force as being multi-country).
Both titles are about equally natural.
Both titles are precise in that there was no other invasion of Iraq in 2003 to differentiate, US-led or otherwise.
The proposed title is less concise.
There's no obvious pattern that would make either title more consistent. Although the article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is clearly in contrast, it's arguably too recent to serve as an example of established practice. If you think it truly comes down to consistency, and that the Ukraine invasion article might carry enough wait to tilt the scales, I'd recommend waiting at least a few years to see where the naming dust settles with that one first. Akbansel (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Other invasion articles I have seen do not have dates, save for the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. I would be ok with a move to "Invasion of Iraq" similar to other articles. Speaking of consistency, the Iraqi invasion of Iran, United States invasion of Grenada, and Invasion of Yugoslavia all either name the main invader or just have "invasion." Dates are not really included. So there are two prevalent options to conform to. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1973:32D9:A93E:FF39 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It makes zero sense for the title to just be "Invasion of Iraq" as if it was some sort of UN-led military action. There is a precedent for the aggressor to be named in the title (Such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) so I don't see why this should be any different. — Soveryvivid  04:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq" is accurate and supported by the article itself. Year could be optional. For the most part, Wikipedia follows the format of "A invasion of B", which makes sense because the word "invasion" naturally lends to the naming of perpetrator and target nations, as opposed to words like "war" or "battle" where the major actors might be left unspecified in the title. Senorangel (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - Current title is accurate - Wikipedia should not be Political, as much as I detest what was done to Iraq, the FACT is it was 46 odd countries, people have compared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but that is President Putin putting estimated 200,000 soldiers into Ukraine and starting his own little war. I know Belarus provided some tactical support as did other States that Putin has made his own, but there can be no denying of the fact that it is an invasion by Russia. Has this question come up simply to divert attention away from Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Davidpalmer24 (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC).
It is truly odd that one of your main points is to claim that this is to "divert attention" from Ukraine. And yes, Bush also started his "own little war." I made the move request because I found it odd that the title contained the year of the invasion, when other invasion articles did not. And that the title didn't show who invaded, as in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Nevermind that, however. I'm assuming you oppose "United States invasion of Iraq," because the invasion force was multinational. I believe that is a fair point. If so, do you think "US-led invasion of Iraq" would be better? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:E4B4:DC:A7E9:D53E (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US victory?

I don't know how this is considered a US victory? US lost almost it's credibility in full, more spent than achieved and no real gain until 2019 US was entangled. The only victor here is Iran who won the remote war. 2001:8F8:1127:8EB1:A928:8E37:C9A1:C83F (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Because it won the actual war, then lost the peace. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
If we consider (toppling) the government of Iraq is the only goal, it's success within 20 days.
But I remember the goal was to search for WMD which was not found. And to establish a new system by which the new government controls the country, so far the system is fully controlled by Iran.
btw there was no peace in Iraq since 2003, till 2020 the US Embassy was mortared in Erbil which is supposed to be safer than Baghdad.
Neither US Army nor Iraqi citizens consider this a victory for US. 2001:8F8:1127:8EB1:A97B:4C22:F409:83F8 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
We need to be living in both countries to rule out, when attending forums or walking streets.
I am a citizen of both. 2001:8F8:1127:8EB1:A97B:4C22:F409:83F8 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I am unsure what you mean but just in case this violates wqp:or, please read it and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
My intent is strictly not to argue, I am not a lawyer and I don't argue in my nature.
Close the thread pls.
On a side note, I invite you to both countries to enjoy tourism and to rule out this point if you were interested. 2001:8F8:1127:8EB1:A97B:4C22:F409:83F8 (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

466,000 + others = 300,000?!

The numbers for the coalition forces don't add up. Either the total is wrong, or some of the individual numbers are wrong, but something is obviously wrong. 188.27.183.233 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

no explanation since march 26, i'm removing it. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaders

Surely we should only have heads of government and CIC of armed forces and theater commander? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ I. Al-Sadoon, et al., writing in the Medical Journal of Basrah University, (see Table 1 here). This version from data by same author(s) in Wilcock, A.R., ed. (2004) "Uranium in the Wind" (Ontario: Pandora Press) ISBN 097361532X
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq/Archive_9&oldid=1215338603"