Talk:Battle of Ramadi (2004)

This article is unbalanced
This article while well written has two major flaws, first it presents information only from the coalition’s POV. Second and more Importantly it has no information links whatsoever and as such it is totally unverifiable. Feel free to remove the tag once these issues have been addressed Freepsbane 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a information link for you is this verifiable for you enough.http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-12-ramadi_x.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.229.112 (talk • contribs)

OK listen people you say this article is unbalanced, in that case if that bothers you that much then you find the points of view (POV) from the insurgents, see if there are embeded journalists with the insurgents that took there stories. And if you need a reference for the casualties and for the date of the battle it's all in the one reference that there is on this minor but SIGNIFICANT battle. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-12-ramadi_x.htm

And for the result. It was not indecesive. In principal,actualy at any given time I would agree with you. BUT almost all of the insurgents from the attacking force were killed, and as for the Americans they sustained almost 30 percent casualties but won. It was a pyric victory for them. So I think that as a felow wikipedian put it a Nominal U.S. Victory is the correct term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.229.112 (talk • contribs)


 * Thirty percent casualties does not mean a pyric victory unless the americans were unable to reinforce themselves, Or the cost wasn't worth the price. Well we all have opinions on the subject, the question of whether the battle was worthwhile is best left to historians. In World War two and one thirty percent casualties was accepted as light casualties all the time and its clear we won those wars. regardless though I will leave it as a pyric victory because its debatable, what's not debatable as far as i'm concerned is stating that several marines experienced "mental problems". That there was at least one suicide, that the insurgents took control of the city two months later, all without citation. Casualties can be confirmed and therefore if they are way off can be corrected, but saying things about the mental state of the marines who fought there, saying somebody killed themselves (which shouldn't be that hard to confirm if true) and stating what the tactical situation was, all without citation is wrong. A person can take uncited facts about casualties and the way the battle was fought without citation (though clearly they should have them). Because if true it can be confirmed and changed if not true. But the mental state of the men?, possible suicides?, the later tactical situation in Ramadi?. We have to take the authors word for it and can't easily confirm if its nonsense. I am going to remove the sentences I mentioned and change indecisive to pyric victory (even if the unsubstantiated claims about the insurgents taking back the city two months later are true it hardly matters. the article is solely abot the battle of Ramadi itself, not what happened two months later, you might as well tell us what's happening now and say it was part of the battle. That is, they won the day, that was the battle, pyric victory or not). Colin 8 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory?
By what military standards does being outnumbered 2 to 1 and inflicting fifteen times as many casualties on the enemy constitute a Pyrrhic victory? A Pyrrhic victory is that which leaves one party in control of the field but is so devastating to their fighting force that subsequent battles leave them at a disadvantage or in defeat later in the war. This is not the case in Iraq now, nor was it directly after the battle. I would support recategorizing this battle as an indecisive US victory, which is more accurate. 70.17.205.109 01:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I second this Vladiator 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Robbskey 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Campaignbox Iraq War battles
Hi Top Gun. I disagree with your position that the template isn't relevant to this article. It's arguably more relevant to the article than the Campaignbox Iraq War template that's there right now. This is, afterall, one of the battles in the template. Also, there's no real harm in having the battles template. We're not a paper encyclopedia after all. Anyone else have thoughts or comments on the matter? Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Parsecboy. Having the template on the same page as the battle is a lot more useful than the vague "battles and operations" link which is there now. Lawrencema (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't understood me. Over a year ago it was decided between all of the editors of the Iraq war that the template that lists just the battles was just getting to big. So it was decided that another template, Campaignbox Iraq War, was to be made, it would have a link to an article which lists the military operations of the war and to an article that lists the bombings. In the article with the list of operations we put the template which lists the battles and in the article with the list of bombings with put the template which lists all of the mayor bombings.(Top Gun) 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk)

Air Support
Where was the air support? As an A-4E Skyhawk pilot from VietNam and a Foward Air Controller (ground) I wonder where the air support was for hours. I thought we had Marine Super Cobras there and a Harrier Squadron there for Marine or other services support during troops in contact. Do we not have Close Air Support anymore? I know in Nam we were limited during the Monsoon season but no mention was made of inclimate weather. Was there no Arty support either? These types of support worked well in VietNam for our grunts and I wonder why they weren't used in Iraq. Am I that far out of the current warfare strategy? Rdl014 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lioness
Also involved in this battle were the female soldiers of the military from the 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st ID. They were augmented to the Marines to seach the female civilians and provide a way to ease tension. They did not rush to combat, but had combat thrust upon them. This is in a documentary call Lioness, viewed on pbs with a web site of www.lionessthemovies.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.185.49 (talk • contribs) 02:55, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I have just removed a large section from the article that was plagiarized from the USA Today article "Fight for Ramadi exacts heavy toll on Marines (archived by WebCite here)." It was added by the now-indefinitely blocked user Top Gun, who is also the Wikipedia article's creator, in November 2006! How could nobody have spotted this? It was so obvious that "The Battle" section was copied verbatim from a news source, and the sole inline reference even linked to the USA Today article by someone else! Because it was referenced, the plagiarism was eliminated, but it was still a copyright violation. — J0ptionPane (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ramadi (2004). 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/20100326034327/http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx to http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx

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) 05:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)