Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq

Iraq Supported by:
Really, France, Sweden? Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, surely we only label countries as supporting in cases when they provide material assistance to one side of a conflict? I get that these countries have publicly opposed the invasion, but I'm skeptical you could find many reliable sources stating all of those countries outright supporting Iraq in this war. Most of the listed countries had absolutely abysmal relations with Iraq in 2003. Fanatizka (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Oppoed to" and supporting are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Agreed that it shouldn't be listed as "support." The question is whether it could merit inclusion in the article if simply listed as opposed invasion? Could be helpful for readers to quickly glean some information on the diplomatic situation at the time. Fanatizka (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not in the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree🤣🤣🤣 Parham wiki (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Back again, edit warred back in. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Russia should stay, the rest should be removed. Parham wiki (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2023

 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq → United States invasion of Iraq – Per WP:PRECISE. Just like with the United States invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion was US-led and was also launched to achieve U.S. goals (overthrowing Saddam Hussein). WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Broadly support. I think the reasoning here makes sense. Either "United States invasion of Iraq," "U.S. invasion of Iraq" or (as it is on French Wikipedia) "2003 United States invasion of Iraq." Any of these, I think, are better than just saying "2003 invasion" without mentioning the main country doing the invading.
 * XTheBedrockX (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The nom does not give a reason why the proposal is an improvement. Srnec (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * People didn’t accept the United States invasion of Afghanistan page to be named 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, wuth valid reasons. Why should we keep 2003 invasion of Iraq the way it is right now? Check the talk page of us invasion of afghanistan, the last section and see why. I first wanted to change to 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, but I’ve changed my mind. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See my comments below, but i think your arguments at the talk page about the Afghan invasion case were the better ones, so I encourage you to change your mind back! hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * comment - complex but inclined to oppose. The article needs a title that is most appropriate for a global audience. The invasion was a major political issue, at the time and historically, in other countries that were invasion participants, particularly the UK and Australia. To add "US" to the title would be an inaccurate reflection of their involvement. It also appears the change is unnecessary in terms of the concision element of the policy. FWIW, i think the title of the Afhganistan invasion article is unwise. Some countries - Afghanistan is a good example, see Invasions of Afghanistan - experience multiple invasions and wars and a good approach to titles of articles would be one that is likely to provide a unique identifier. The obvious one is to use a year, not a country. I think United States invasion of Afghanistan is the title that needs to change. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I’m wrong, but I guess that on some RMs, only people who oppose your choice are commenting on those. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. If it had to be changed, it would be United States–led invasion of Iraq, as the proposed title would suggest only the USA was involved. But obviously we shouldn't change per WP:DONTFIXIT. It could also be confused with American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021), and War in Iraq (2013–2017). 90.254.30.143 (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to propose a WP:SNOWCLOSE. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the outcome is quite clear (at best no consences). If neither nor  object, I could close this or we could just leave it as it is due to be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The proposed title change, in my opinion, better portrays the nature and principal involvement of the United States in the events surrounding the 2003 Iraq invasion. Mikeyspeed7 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Arguably any argument for this change is equally an argument to change the others. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think that the Nom misconstrues WP:PRECISION. The invasion was by a coalition, albeit US led, so the proposal is not more precise. It is sufficiently precise give that (per WP:AT) concision is generally the primary consideration. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2023 (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.

Created a draft outline page for the Iraq War
The page is currently over at Draft:Outline of the Iraq War, for anyone else interested in contributing to this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Illegal Iraqi war since 2003, only now senate recognizes... tsk tsk tsk...
www.npr.org/2023/03/29/1165581083

Senate votes to repeal unwarranted 2003 War authorization...

encyclopedia sup/m e.o r g/iraqtragedy /=re 102.64.169.160 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you want us to do? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not post above, but how come war criminals like George Bush jr, Dickey Cheney, Toni Blair are free...

They are guilty of war crimes at least in some jurisdictions...

aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.61.124 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you expect us to do? Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Bush's condemnation of the invasion
Hi, I feel like Bush's condemnation of Iraq is very relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.

It's not a freudian slip. he says 'Iraq too' afterwards. this needs to be in there somewhere. It's highly relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEr7TayrmU CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Problem is, do any RS think this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * who is rs CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * wp:rs, read it please, ohh and wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Youtube video of the Telegraph is not reliable? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly Bush said this and clearly it is relevant, so please help me add it instead of just breaking down. I'm new to wikipedia. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is you saying it was not a slip up, and that he thinks this, the source does not say that. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you watched the clip? he says 'Iraq too'. That is the admission. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

But I have raised my objections time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is something to be made of this, then it will be made in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)