Talk:Battle of Baghdad (2003)

Untitled comments
References on force sizes? I have doubts that there were 45,000 Republican Guard and 30,000 Americans. Stinger503 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Should mention denial by Iraqi Information Minister that there are any "coalition" troops in Baghdad. --Daniel C. Boyer

"Coalition" being the operative word here. The entry falsely uses the term "allied", perhaps in subconscious reference to "The Allies" Britain, France, United States and Soviet Union, who fought and defeated Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese in the second World War. This is not an "Allies vs. Axis" scenario, even if some in the Bush administration would have you believe it. -- jjf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.36.95.61 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 April 2003.

Eer... is the title of this article quite correct!? To my recollection I don't think I've ever heaqrd of anyone "invading" a city. You invade countries and occupy or liberate cities. Mintguy 22:51 May 11, 2003 (UTC) If you can invade a house (house invasion) then I'm sure you can invade a city (I think Battle of Bagdad is fine though) Stinger503 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority of important artifacts from the museum in Baghdad were discovered safe in a vault, placed there safely by the curator and staff before the bombing started. MBP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.13.212 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 24 July 2004.

This is a place to discuss how to improve the article. Not spew political garbage. Thank you. USS Noob Hunter (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Information incorrect and removed
U.S. media repeatedly showed images of crowds of Iraqi civilians cheering as the statue was toppled. The presentation implied that hundreds or thousands of people were involved, though wide shots of the plaza showed no more than about a hundred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.100.215.4 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 February 2005.
 * That information happened to be correct and was later confirmed by the Los Angeles Times.  --GD 07:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See below again you are incorrect.

Linked is a photo proving informationclearinghouse incorrect
and other information.... http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/comments/4097/
 * Those aren't even wide-angle shots. They prove nothing. --GD 07:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GD you are 100% incorrect. They clearly show many more people than your site suggests. Please count them.

The people are also gone who followed the head down the street. Look outside of the pillars. There are other pictures that also prove that your photo was taken after the event. Please research better! http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.war.main/ http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/galleries/statue/11.htm Look past the pillars in photo and you can see crouds outside of pillars not in both of our photos.

Again the proof...first your website http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm The person who put this together knew that they were fooling people. They purposely rearanged the web cam photos to make it appear as if "Picture 2" ( Linked here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/SQ2.gif ) occured during the event. When in fact it occured sometime after.

Note in his photo, the statue and the group that followed the head down the street are long gone. http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1223477&nav=5D7iF88p Please again see picture proving your incorrect. The times article is not show otherwise. http://www.right-thinking.com/images/uploads/statue_debunk.jpg

And finally.. see comment 32 "Here a few you forgot" Picture says Why didn't you show these people? http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/63998

Hussein statue toppling was staged?
From the article: "A 20-foot tall statue of Saddam in Firdus Square was toppled by a group of Iraqi exiles brought from London by the U.S. forces"

Could someone cite sources? Xen0phile 00:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Found another Wikipedia page on the statue toppling controversy: 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage. Xen0phile 01:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

American Bias
This article is written in extremely biased manner, almost entirely told from the point of view of the American military. It should be edited to be less obviously pro-American.


 * Allied forces were the victors in this??, you mean someone actually did something besides the US and England???, while in the media the term "coalition forces" is used, here in wikipedia there is no trouble in stating that these were "allies".

Since no one other than US forces were involved in the battle, it is 'not an allied victory but a US victory, so go to hell.--Aj4444 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have problem with the pic... If this is really Avenger 64 (Unsure of actual call-sign)(Cojone Eh?) it was hit by a Strela-7 compound warhead, and was 'killed' by American tanks to deny the Iraqi forces a 'war prize'...See 'Thunder Run' for details. Why does it then become iconic for the invasion of Baghdad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foamking (talk • contribs) 06:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

UK was involved
I am a US soldier that was in Iraq and I was in the Battle of Baghdad and I dammn well know a few British Tanks and Troops were involved here. My partner Will is a British soldier who fought in the Battle of Baghdad.

I agree My father is with the Royal Army and He fought there to in the Battle of Baghdad.

I doubt you are a real "US soldier", but yes, the British Military was involved. USS Noob Hunter (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing any British troops there in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.139.145 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There were British forces involved. Though they aren't mentioned much, Thunder Run describes American ground forces calling in airstrikes from Royal Air Force Tornado fighter-bombers. 24.231.246.30 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

the SAS and Paras were involved PyrrhusEP (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Flag Icon
The flag icon next to the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard is the flag of the new Iraq. Shouldn't it be the old Iraqi flag? USS Noob Hunter (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

34 Dead, Laughable
The projected losses by a US General in Feb 2003, on the BBC to take Baghdad was 3,000 if the Iraqis put up moderate resistance. Afterall, Baghdad is a city the size of L.A. We know according to embedded reporters that the Iraqis put up 'savage' resistance (Quoting David Zuchino with 3id). Yet the death toll according to the U.S. State is 34. Anglo-Americans are unbelievably gullible. They don't realise that their propaganda is as bare-faced as the Soviet Union. 34 dead. Whatever. They lost several hundred in the underground complexes of the Airport alone before they decided to unleash willie pete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.74.106 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks! I'd wondered where Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf had gotten to.  He had some real career opportunities with Madison Avenue.  For a time, he was quite a celebrity.  Rklawton (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the book "Thunder Run" by David Zuchhino too, and he confirms the 34 dead. He was there. Yes, they did put up savage resistance, but a lot of it was ineffective. He talks at length about Iraqi soldiers firing AKs at tanks and APC/IFVs, which obviously did nothing to them, and most RPGs just bounced off. The 3000 casualties and months predicted were if the Coalition tried to take Baghdad with a siege, meaning trying to secure every block with infantry, which they didn't do. Driving infantry and tanks right into the center of Baghdad and shutting their government center down caused the battle to last 3 days, not months. When his counterattack failed, Saddam and his forces collapsed, that's why the casualties of the Coalition were so low. And nobody used W.P. in the Baghdad Intl. Airport, where do you come up with this stuff? The heaviest fighting at the airport happened outside it and on the way to it. Do some actual research. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC) _______________________ reply:

Your article lacks minimum evidence and objectivity. It is a mere expression of American official narration which is formed of lies and distortion. We could say Oh your opinion is plausible if you had presented some recounts from your opponents (Iraqis). In Arabic, the story is quite different of what you presented. I have read cohesive narrations from different Iraqi soldiers and officials about this battle. For example, in less than 3 hours the American loss was over 2500 dead and almost twice this number of wounded. This is without what happened the night before at the "Tigris Arm" which the Americans call it (the dark night? where a catastrophic battle occurred and the Americans lost over 1000 fighters (plus other losses). The only thing which the US balanced this defeat after all is what the US described as "Broken Arrows". The broken arrows was the use of internationally prohibited weapons. Indeed, two American jets (MC 130H Combat Talon) flew from Kuwait and each of them was carrying a 9m long bomb (MOAB: 9530kg). This bomb constitutes a superbaric formation which produces 10.000 degree of heat. this bomb is directed by satellite and its effect is restricted in less than 5 kilometres square where every single entity turns like a burnt bread in the oven. The US, in accordance to the Russian embassy in Baghdad, had prepared 10 bombs in this sort to be used in Baghdad, if the Iraqis were going to resist the occupation as they did at the airport. This is how the Americans turned the defeat to a victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.8.249 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead photo
The article is about the battle of Baghdad which saw Baghdad fall to coalition forces, yet the lead photo is of a burned out American tank. By placing the image here, one would think that the American's lost this particular battle. While the image might make sense under the casualties section, it's not very appropriate in the lead. The fall of Baghdad is generally symbolized by the destruction of Saddam's statue as it represents the end of Saddam's rule. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you got a point. Like the article about the battle of 73 Easting in Gulf War I, the picture is of the one lost Bradley and not of the 80+ Iraqi vehicles destroyed. That tank in the picture was lost by the 3rd ID, but it was the only tank they lost. Several Iraqi vehicles were blown up around the time of that tank getting hit. And the tank wasn't destroyed, just the engine disabled, the Air Force finished it off to prevent it from being captured. Not a big deal, we knew who won both 73 Easting and the Battle of Baghdad, but its true. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what, maybe we should put the Saddam statue being toppled picture at the head, it something to think about. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated equipment loses
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/ch-5.htm

According to US Army history of the Invasion Iraq by 5th Corp. This does not include the fighting at Objective Peach which was 18 miles South of Baghdad but should be considered part of the battle.

Vehicle losses as follows: US 1 Bradely IFV damaged, 1 M-1 MBT destroyed, 1 M-113 Damaged, 2 Ammo trucks destroyed, 1 Fuller truck destroyed, 4 Humvees lost, 1 A-10 shot down, and another 22 vehicles damaged or destroyed. The later is unknown because the was article was vauge. The article states 34 Americans were killed in the battle. The VFW magazine stated American loses around Baghdad to be 58 dead. Five less then were lost in the Battle of Fallujah in 2004. Wounded unkown. It was in the March 2012 Magazine titled story Iraq: A U.S. Combat Chronology 2003-2011.

Iraqi Equipment losses: 36 Tanks (mostly T-72s), 8 IFV, 29 tech vehicles, 1 suicide bus, 2 suicide cars, 18 BM-21 Rocket launchers, 19 Air defense vehicles or guns, 12 artillery pieces, 19 Anti Tank weapons (non RPG), and at least 80 other armored or wheeled vehicles (unkown from article). Equipment loses were probably even higher but the accounts in the report did not specify types of all Iraqi vehicles destroyed and were once again vauge. Iraqi military loses were probably even higher than 2,300 reported. Iraqi military personel wounded is also unkown. Civilian deaths from what I have read were around 1,700 and 2,700 civilians killed in Baghdad.

Making it the bloodiest battle during the GWOT. Those were just a sampling from Iraqi 60/124 Hospitals in the Baghdad Iraqi. How many of those were civilians or Iraqi defense forces dressed in civilian attire may also never be known.

Updated equipment loses
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/ch-5.htm

According to US Army history of the Invasion Iraq by 5th Corp. This does not include the fighting at Objective Peach which was 18 miles South of Baghdad but should be considered part of the battle.

Vehicle losses as follows: US 1 Bradely IFV damaged, 1 M-1 MBT destroyed, 1 M-113 Damaged, 2 Ammo trucks destroyed, 1 Fuller truck destroyed, 4 Humvees lost, 1 A-10 shot down, and another 22 vehicles damaged or destroyed. The later is unknown because the was article was vauge. The article states 34 Americans were killed in the battle. The VFW magazine stated American loses around Baghdad to be 58 dead. Five less then were lost in the Battle of Fallujah in 2004. Wounded unkown. It was in the March 2012 Magazine titled story Iraq: A U.S. Combat Chronology 2003-2011.

Iraqi Equipment losses: 36 Tanks (mostly T-72s), 8 IFV, 29 tech vehicles, 1 suicide bus, 2 suicide cars, 18 BM-21 Rocket launchers, 19 Air defense vehicles or guns, 12 artillery pieces, 19 Anti Tank weapons (non RPG), and at least 80 other armored or wheeled vehicles (unkown from article). Equipment loses were probably even higher but the accounts in the report did not specify types of all Iraqi vehicles destroyed and were once again vauge. Iraqi military loses were probably even higher than 2,300 reported. Iraqi military personel wounded is also unkown. Civilian deaths from what I have read were around 1,700 and 2,700 civilians killed in Baghdad.

Making it the bloodiest battle during the GWOT. Those were just a sampling from Iraqi 60/124 Hospitals in the Baghdad Iraqi. How many of those were civilians or Iraqi defense forces dressed in civilian attire may also never be known.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.119.180 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Battle of Baghdad (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090422232025/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/international/worldspecial/08CND-CAMERAMAN.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/international/worldspecial/08CND-CAMERAMAN.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Battle of Baghdad (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141028114048/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/03/international/worldspecial/03MILI.html?pagewanted=all to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/03/international/worldspecial/03MILI.html?pagewanted=all

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Battle of Baghdad (2003). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609232054/http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/DigitalCollections/IraqiPerspectivesProject.pdf to http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/DigitalCollections/IraqiPerspectivesProject.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618173716/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1111-10.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1111-10.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326034327/http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx to http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015205541/https://asuwebdevilarchive.asu.edu/issues/2003/04/10/sports/413823 to https://asuwebdevilarchive.asu.edu/issues/2003/04/10/sports/413823
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016032951/http://gawker.com/5993525/a-stupid-death-in-a-stupid-war-remembering-michael-kelly to http://gawker.com/5993525/a-stupid-death-in-a-stupid-war-remembering-michael-kelly
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20030421142619/http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2518342 to http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2518342
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030824121301/http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1503&ncid=1503&e=1&u=%2Fafp%2F20030408%2Fts_afp%2Firaq_war_baghdad_media_030408165654 to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1503&ncid=1503&e=1&u=%2Fafp%2F20030408%2Fts_afp%2Firaq_war_baghdad_media_030408165654
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326061752/http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf to http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

'The Destruction of Babylon'
Evangelicals were responsible for George Walker Bush winning the 2000 Presidential Election. Evangelical leaders including Jerry Falwell Sr. met with him in the Oval Office after 9/11 2001 and encouraged him to attack Saddam Hussein and Iraq. They felt this would satisfy the prophecy of the "Destruction of Babylon" - Revelation Chapters 14, 16-18. CBS 60 Minutes did an episode on this featuring Falwell, "Now all the prophecies have been fulfilled - Christ will return." The prophecy of the 2nd Beast/Antichrist refers to ''"And he performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from the heavens in full view of everyone." - Rev 13:13''. The missile attack on Baghdad was seen live worldwide on CNN and Al Jazeera. 73.85.200.138 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2020 (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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * SaddamStatue.jpg