Talk:Iraq War/Archive 17

Iraqi Opinion section
This section is in need of update. The opinion polls date from before Summer and Fall 2007. Since that time, there have been significant changes in Iraqi popular opinion, both of the American military, but also al Qaeda. General Petraeus' introduction of new tactics (interaction with locals, more emphasis on nation building) on a wider scale than seen before have gone a long way towards changing popular opinion on the ground in Iraq.

Also, when I looked into the sources cited, I found conflicting information. For example:

"47% of Iraqis supported attacking U.S. troops.[299]"

If one goes to the article cited and reads what it has to say, one learns that Iraqis support attacks against U.S. troops because they feel that the U.S. presence endangers their lives by attracting al Qaeda, and more attacks on U.S. service personnel might encourage American forces to leave sooner. Also important and from this source as well, Iraqis want American forces to leave, but not immediately. Finally from the survey, one learns that most Iraqis feel that the hardships they have endured the past five years were worth it, to have a country free of Saddam.

By omitting this information, I think the meaning of this statistic lends itself easily to misunderstanding. Cdleitch (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

16-month/mid-2010 time horizon
Just since last week the Iraqis, Democrats, and Administration have moved to wrap things up. CENTCOM emailed its press corps saying that it was true, then that it was misinterpreted, but now there is no mistake. Finally some good news. Fortnight Wanderer (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

War on Terror debate
I see there has been previous debate as to whether or not the Iraq War is a part of the overall War on Terror, and that the consensus here has been to not include this page as part of the War on Terror template. it should be noted that Senator Obama now agrees that Iraq is part of the overall war. here is the quote and link:
 * "We have to win the broader war against terror that threatens American and its interests. I think that Iraq is one front on that war. But I think that the central front is in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan."

The current administration and now both presidential candidates believe that the Iraq war is part of the war on terror. why are wikipedia editors overruling these assertions? any comments.Anthonymendoza (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:Campaignbox_War_on_Terror is already in this article.--71.108.28.97 (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Slanted
Something has changed with wiki because the article I read a few years ago was way more balanced than this piece of shit. It sounds like some kind of left winger got into this and hacked it to pieces. The most annoying statement is "however". The word however is always used when making a disagreeing point like the saying the surge was a success however....  This is someone's opinion trying to negate or disagree with a fact.

This article is why I do not allow my college students to use Wikipedia as a source.

The information is slanted and useless. The most recent example is the reference to Woods' and Lacey's report Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," vol. 1.

The Wikipedia article uses this paper to "prove" Saddam and Al Qaeda did not cooperate. In fact, the report states that Saddam DID cooperate with elements of Al Qaeda - just not the leadership. Read the abstract on Page 93 if you don't want to search the entire document. I know many of you will do as I ask because you appear incapable of reading the entire report.

There are several other references which are OPINION pieces rather than investigative reports. Poorly done, vapid, and slanted -- three things we should banish from Wikipedia entries.

Iraqi Perspectives Project. Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents. Volume 1 (Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas J. Mason (talk • contribs) March 22, 2008


 * Your profession and negative views towards wikipedia are rather irrelevant here, and please refrain from making personal attacks against wikipedia editors, anyway this information is irrelevant to this article, perhaps you should see the article Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline which discusses the alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda in detail and is well sourced (most of these allegations are debunked) Thisglad (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What? His negative views come as a result of what he sees as inaccuracy. He doesn't see it as an inaccuracy because of his negative views. Did you take the time to look into what he was saying, or did you just immediately avoid it? He's not saying that any allegations were debunked, he's saying that the information presented, which cite the report "Iraqi Perspectives Project" are improper due to the actual contents of said report. I think this is a very valid point, and that you shouldn't ignore it simply because of his profession or negative view of this article. Professor, go ahead and make the edit, you have my blessing. And I think the more views of professors the better! Beamathan (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Page 93 says, "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely." Do you believe that this is at odds with what the article says? ("Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had been cooperating, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found.") 12.7.175.2 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anonymous college professor that this Wikipedia sounds very slanted. The article minimizes the proven links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. To come back to the question by User: 12.7.175.2, yes, the report contradicts the sentence "Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had been cooperating, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found." The 2008 Pentagon report certainly proves that there were links. The only way you can deny such a link is if you very narrowly define "al-Qaeda" as the immediate group of terrorists around Osama bin Laden. That would be a misunderstanding of what al-Qaeda is. I don't have a link to the full report but a good argument is brought forward by Stephen Hayes in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp.


 * I am afraid some of the opinions here are either falling for the ambiguous and misleading use of language that was such a feature of the build up to war or are themselves indulging in purposeful use of such language. There is no evidence of any real "collaborative relationship" between al-Quaeda and Hussein. There were some contacts between Hussein and some members of al-Quaeda but then there have in the past been links between Donald Rumsfeld and Hussein, at which the US administration gave Hussein assistance, and members of the British Government and the IRA! "Links", as it is phrased somewhat ambiguously, are not the same as a "collaborative relationship" and any professor who elides the two is not worth his tenure. Let's take that sentence from page 93 again: "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely." We are obviously dealing with fine terminological distinctions here, but does that really conflict with a statement in the article saying there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship? Perhaps the sentence might be better phrased more fully: "...but, although some links between Hussein's government and members of al-Queda have been alleged, a sustained collaborative relationship between the two organisations has not been found".As it stands,however, it is not slanted nonsense but actually a rather fair, if brief summary of the current evidence. I think it is a pity that someone who seems unable to read his sources without getting his glasses steamed up with apparently partisan fury seems so quick to criticise others in such arrogant terms.Buyo (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph in the article mentions Saddam's support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Dream Academy (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this entire article sounds very biased. Justifications are offered at every paragraph for why someone said something rather than only saying it was said. "Both claims were supported by some U.S. intelligence.", "Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had been cooperating,[49] but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found.". With a subject this highly in dispute it is unlikely that an objective article can be written that contains all of the data this one tries to convey. I suggest that most of the information be removed to other topics that are referenced from this one. Those topics will have more space to present the large number of references related to them. There are many objective facts. Any facts in dispute should be referenced as such and have their own pages, such as the death toll, veracity of reasons given for actions, and labeling some actions war crimes. The integrity of all of wikipedia is at stake. Biased articles like this could shift the use of wikipedia from a widely used resource to one ignored by most internet visitors. JoshuaGodinez (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As about half the comments in this section say, the article has an antiwar slant in many ways. I'll give additional examples: in the 2007 section, there is a tremendous amount of text on casualties, and virtually none on what was actually going on. There's nothing on how the Sunni tribal leaders turned against Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was the most important development in Iraq in the first half of 2007. There's a casualty graph with a least squares fit to a slowly increasing casualty rate over the period 2003-2007, with nearly invisible data points that, if they were visible, would show a steady decrease, by a factor of 3, in casualties over the time period of the actual surge. Minority prowar data - such as that mentioned above about cooperation with terrorists - is missing, while minority antiwar data - such as fringe element disagreements with generally accepted government statistics - is given equal coverage.

The whole article needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb if it's to become a balanced article - hopefully suitable for use as a source in college classes, as the original poster in this section mentions. In the meantime, I'm going to put an NPOV tag on the article pointing to this section to differentiate it from those parts of Wikipedia that actually are suitable for use as college citations. Feel free to use this section to note additional point of view problems, or comment on them if you think you've fixed them so people from all points of view can review the fixes to see if they're adequate. Warren Dew (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on where this article was a year ago, we've come a long way toward presenting a lot of different perspectives, and I don't think that every section is problematic enough to warrant a POV tag. I've moved the POV tag to the 2007 Troop Surge Section for now, since this seems to be the locus of your complaints. -Yitzhak1995 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article may indeed have been worse a year ago - I know it was much worse three years ago - and if you've been cleaning it up, that's great. However, I'm afraid it still has a long way to go.  The original comment in this section mentions a problem that pertains to the lead of the article, though, so the POV tag unfortunately needs to stay at the top.  It also needs to keep the |Slanted portion so that people can refer to this section of the talk page to see what the POV problems with the article are.


 * Just to clarify, if it's not clear - all the issues in this section of the talk page need to be addressed - not just the ones I specifically added, but all the ones other people have complained about as well. I agree with all those complaints; I just didn't feel the need to copy and paste them all.  Warren Dew (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it. -Yitzhak1995 (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't read this article without putting it in context with all the other Iraq War articles. For example Warren Dew points out the problem with casualties during the surge however, when reading the casualties article you find the reason is that the military deliberately undercounts casualties to prove the surge is working. Disagreements with government statistics is not fringe as there are admissions that the statistics are manipulated. A minor example is undue weight given to al Qaeda by the administration making it look like they are a significant presence when in fact they are around 1% of the insurgency. There is the problem of what is meant by "affiliated" with al Qaeda. This doesn't mean that they are them. Al qaeda actually refused to have anything to do with al-Zarqawi until the end of 2004 because their aims were different. al-Qaeda in Iraq is al-Qaeda the same way as the British in Iraq are American (ie: the Brits are affiliated with the U.S.). Pro western bias is inevitable as history is written by the victors but all sides will claim the article is biased no matter how it is worded so the best we can do is to be as factual as possible and leave readers to come to their own conclusions. Wayne (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead
I think the simplest way to remove the POV from the lead would be to delete the middle two paragraphs on justification for the war, and just leave the first and last paragraphs summarizing the war itself. This would allow me to move the POV tag to appropriate sections (which unfortunately is a lot of them, but it would be a start). I got this idea from looking at the World War II article, the lead of which says nothing about how the war started. I'd like some consensus on this before making the change, though. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The lead is possibly a little too long as it is, and there's no need to go that in depth into the rationale for war in the introduction. There's plenty of room for that discussion in appropriate sections. Yitzhak1995 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The entire article amounts to a criticism of the Iraq war.  Can anyone find a single sentence that presents the POV that the Iraq war was justified?  Where is the section describing the horrible conditions that the Iraqi people faced living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein?  Where is the section describing the progress made in bringing about a stable democratic government to this part of the world for the first time in recorded history?  How about the economic progress?  Women's rights?  A fair and impartial justice system?  Reduced corruption?  Freedom of speech?  Freedom of religion?  An Olympic team that isn't tortured if they lose a game?  Anyone reading this article could only reach the conclusion that the Iraq war was entirely unjustified, it had many bad consequences, and it achieved nothing at all.  This is not a NPOV. Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Support removal of middle two paragraphs. Now. --Mark J (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Tvaughan1, the issues you mentioned would deviate strongly from any sort of NPOV if included. They would be relevant if any of those issues were the justification used for going to war, but sadly, they were not.  The middle paragraph (as it is now...not sure if we are talking about the same lead section at this point) does a good job in my opinion of representing the rationale for entering the war and covers the conclusion in a respectful, neutral, and well-referenced manner.  Oh, and for whatever it's worth, many of the issues you mentioned simply aren't true.  For example, Iraq was officially un-invited from the Olymics recently, and several members of the olympics committee are currently "missing".  Your rationale in the last sentence is particularly troublesome. We should never censor content based on conclusions that people come to.  Work on neutrality and referencing, leave the "conclusions" to the reader.  Please read this with "good faith:" If you are going to argue for a neutral POV, you might as well start by using one yourself.   Johnny California  08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rampant propaganda on wikipedia since the civilian casualties count more than 90% of all deaths
yet the casualties list counts first casualties from pro-US forces. 1984 is alive. --Leladax (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have info that is not on wikkpedia, provide a valid source and add the information. If you want to re-arrange the information, propose changes here and gauge a response, or simply change the content to how you feel will improve it. Chendy (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I could source it, but who wouldn't want to undo it? Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Sections 9-17 with 1-8
I suggest we splice sections 9-17 with sections 1-8, perhaps giving sections 1-8 sub-headings with the addition of merged information. Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press (AP): "Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost"
The AP's chief military reporter Robert Burns and Robert Reid, the bureau chief in Baghdad report that the U.S. is now winning the war in in Iraq. May be of use in the article. Raecoli (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Justifications for Invasion
How do you feel about the third paragraph showing the major justificiations for invasion in summary rather then just one?

Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Americans believed... Saddam 9/11 Link
At the start of the war, Newsweek and USA Today reported the majority of Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11. This was a major reason for wide-spread support of the war initially. President Bush in 2004 also went on the record stating this.

However eliminating this section from the historical record and claiming it was WMD's alone is a non-neutral assertation of what was actually occured.

This is my proposed paragraph:

At the start of the war in 2003 a majority of people in the U.S. believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks launched by al-Qaeda. . U.S. officials by 2004 emphathized that Iraq had in its possession weapons of mass destruction that posed a imminent threat to the security and interests of the United States, Europe and the other nations of the Middle East. The intelligence was supported by British intelligence. A year after the invasion the American President went on the record stating that there was a link between Saddam and al Qaeda

Neutralaccounting (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the quote of Pres. G.W. Bush that states that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks? I'm very suspicious about that. If, on the other hand, Bush said that Saddam supported it in the sense that he was in favor of it happening and was glad that it did happen, then he would be completely accurate. There are 10 reasons listed in the authorization to use force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution It includes WMD, but it wasn't the only reason. It also includes "harboring Al Qaeda members". If you listen to speaches by Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others before the invasion they contain denounciations of Saddam for harboring terrorists including Al Qeada members.

I think it is well known who was involved in the planning and execution of 9/11, and it doesn't include Saddam Hussein. Although, in all fairness, before it was known who was responsible, Iraq would be a suspect.


 * If the americans are stupid enough to believe that propoganda then then US needs to look at itself thoroughly. I mean why don't the US just say "we hate all Asians"? 90.197.130.31 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote the American people believed it, not that Bush said it. (http://rawstory.com/email_story.php?sid=6591) (http://blog.lordsutch.com/archives/603). Two years after Al-Qaeda operatives committed the largest terrorist attack against civilians Bush went on the record stating there was a 'Al-Qaeda/Saddam' link. This stoked support for the war massively. However, I never said Bush stated there was a '9/11/Saddam' link. Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq war is about "hating Asians"???


 * The article seems to skim the Clinton years too rapidly. Just as the first Bush administration left Somalia undone for Clinton to unravel, so Clinton left Iraq "undone" for the second Bush administration to unravel.


 * Clinton to the Joint Chiefs of Staff mid-February 1998- "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tommorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and the clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."


 * Secretary of State Madeleine Albright a day later, attempting to be heard over a group of hecklers: "I am really surprised that people feel that it is necessary to defend the rights of Saddam Hussein when we ought to be making sure that he does not use weapons of mass destruction."


 * After striking at Iraq, Clinton said, "so long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, the region, and the world." This was pretty much a universal thought by not only the Clinton administration, but the country as well.


 * Seems to me that there ought to be room for comments such as these of the administration that preceded the second Bush.Student7 (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unrelated)
How long does an article have to be so no one will delete it off this web site? Marshall T. Williams (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"War on Terror"
Also, the term "war", with regards to the USA, has a specific meaning that OIF does not meet. Congress alone has the authority to declare war. Congress has not done so, therefore it is not a war. It's not a war for the same reason that a man and a woman living together are not married unless they ARE MARRIED. If Wikipedians are concerned about facts, this article should reflect the fact that we are not at war in/with Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.120.84 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So I guess that means the U.S. Civil War wasn't a war either.71.215.186.237 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Civil War is admitted from the rule of declaration of war due to the secession of the South. The secession makes it impossible to declare war due to lack of representatives....  Occasionally, wars can get by without a declaration, such as in Vietnam, but I believe there is a substantial difference between this conflict and Vietnam...  Just a thought...  Also, the Iraq conflict has very few similarities to a real war aside from war never being declared.  The U.S. have very little if anything to gain from the conflict where as most wars are fought either to gain something from a country or to defend a country from other attackers (i.e. containment or prevention of larger war [Vietnam]).  More than half of the soldiers in Iraq are from Iraq, pointing more to a military involvement than to a war.  The entire conflict is much closer to a military occupation than a war.  Compare this to  military involvement in other places.  The numbers match up much better than to the numbers in most wars.

In my humble opinion, this article should be taken off the "War on Terror" list. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 or any other terrorist attack. The "war on terror" association is just Bush propaganda. Afganistan is the war on terror. Iraq is not. Dalebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, leave it on. Dick Cheney said there was a link between Iraq Intelligence and one of the 9/11 Hijackers... and a huge number of Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11 at the time of the invasion (Newsweek). It's embarassing to the pro-war faction, but fact. Neutralaccounting (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't recall ever hearing that...

Good point --Deadlyfish (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear Zarqawi is actually Dick Cheney's COUSIN!71.215.186.237 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The stated cause for invading Iraq was to remove WMD's that might be given to terrorists. This is Wikipedia, we don't give two shits about your opinion, this place is for facts.

I think that at the top of the info box it should say "Part of the War on Terror" just as the article on Vietnam says "Part of the Cold War"

Dunnsworth (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The WMD issue recieved very little coverage in the United States. In fact, I can tell which hemisphere you live in by which issue(s) you choose to focus on. People who drone on endlessly about WMDs and Abu Ghraib are nearly always from Europe. Americans didn't get blasted incessantly by neo-journalistic BBC propaganda, so most Americans can't even remember these "facts", and resort to mindless slogans like "Bush lied," not even actually remembering what he supposedly "lied" about anymore. Since most of the legal action surrounding the "Guantanamo controversy," occurred in the U.S., it gets a lot more ongoing press over here. But hardly anybody anywhere mentions it anymore anyway, because it's full of terrorists, and Bush never lied about that.71.215.186.237 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember talk of the lack of WMDs very clearly, thank you very much. There was plenty of press coverage about it.  I'm still confused as to how people can be surprised hearing about it.

Bush did not provide any evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", so you could basically say that he just made the whole thing up. Because of his actions, thousands of people in Iraq are dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.210.243 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem was that there was "evidence" -- see Iraq War. Listing Port (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes... But the bigger problem is that if having the capibility to attack America is means for military involvement, we would have to be involved in every country in the world...  Save for the Vatican, perhaps.

Well, it should still be part of the War On Terror list because there are terrists there the 2003 invasion of iraq article has nothing to do with the war on terror but the iraq war does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett (talk • contribs) 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there were never any wmds found and Al Qaeda, whom Bush continually stated had links to Iraq, actually hated Hussein for his [b]secular[/b] state. Thus, I think that because Wikipedia is about facts and not propaganda, the War in Iraq should not be part of the War on Terror. 24.199.206.42 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is proof that Al Qaeda is there NOW fighting, and as they are the main enemy of in the War on Terror as claimed by the United States Gov. Therefore, The Iraq War would be part of the War on Terror. The only way to deny that is to deny the fact that Al Qaeda currently has a presence in Iraq. So if the War on Terror tag goes, Al Qaeda should be taken off the combatants list. Dunnsworth (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Why are we over there if not to fight terrorists?  Oil?  we would have taken it already.  American Empirialism?  If that were true then we would be establishing a permanent military presence and hoisting American flags above Iraqi government buildings.  Come on, think, we are hitting them before they hit us...AGAIN.Prussian725 (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Just because al Qaeda has a presence there does not make the overall war part of the war on terror. My feeling is they are there simply because they are able to take advantage of a chaotic situation to both recruit and attack various Western targets. In fact, al Qaeda has not even been involved in some of the biggest battles in this war, take 1st/2nd Fallujah, Battle for Najaf--the Fallujah battles were Sunni tribes/Islamists fighting Coalition forces and Najaf was Shia militias fighting Coalition forces. For a further example, look at the recent fighting in Basra--that was Iraqi Army forces loyal to Maliki fighting Shia militias loyal to al Sadr or the local Shia leaders down there.Publicus 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The original raitonale for the Iraq war and the authorization for the use of force were WMD, not al Qaeda presence. There are far more variables going on than just a simple US fight against "terrorists." There are is Sunni vs Shia, Sunni vs Sunni (tribal issues), Shia vs Shia (tribal again), Turkey vs PKK, Baathists vs Republicans, Islamists vs Baathists, al Qaeda vs Sunni/Shia/whoever, Coalition vs. whoever, and on and on. The war on terrorism label is really just way to simple a cover for a much more complicated war. Publicus 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree wtih you Publicus. WMD's provided intellectual justification. 9/11 provided the emotional. Bush and Cheney claimed a 9-11/Iraq connection ...numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/) and %41 of Americans believed ...Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001... (http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html) which, combined with the mysterious anthrax attacks was a huge factor in America suporting the war. Neutralaccounting (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason america invaded iraq was sadam had just drafted plans to change iraq's export oil to trading in Euros. It is speculated that the rest of the middle east would have followed suit. This would have made the euro and the european markets the strongest in the world and the dollar would have fallen tremendously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.255.236 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A very plausible analysis! The Oil factor, in whatever form, must have played a big role in deciding to invade Iraq. Look at the current oil prices and profits of the large oil companies. It is almost a crime to deny that oil has nothing to do with it. After all, aside from Afganistan, the US did not invade Sudan or other terrorist harbouring countries. Why would that be? It seems that the US, and the rest of NATO in trail, only engage long term nowadays, when there is money to be made. Interestingly enough, a pipeline project was commissioned after the start of the Afghan chapter of the war on terror. Although the consensus is, and I agree, that the western intervention in Afghanistan is a righteous one. Sadly the opium production has resumed in full earnest. The sight of western soldiers walking trough poppy fields ripe for harvesting and export to the west is surreal. But that's a different story. Can anyone tell me why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.98.144 (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask everyone this: what do you think would have happened if we stayed out?Prussian725 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hussein family would be in power. The Baathist's would be in power. Tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers would still be alive. Syria would not have old Bechtel/Iraqi chemical weapons stashed away. The Kurds would be about the same, skimming off of the smuggling. The Shia in the south would have no power or money. Iran's influence in Iraq would be much less. No civil war or ethnic cleansing by now. No 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' either. Oh and Chinese bankers would have several billion more dollars in wealth since the Treasury department wouldn't have issued all of those T-Bills to pay for the war. And several thousand Iraqis wouldn't have been tortured to death or blown to bits by weapons wielded by one faction or another. Neutralaccounting (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What he said, but throw in that plenty of Iraqi's would still have terrible lives... But the U.S. would be less in debt.

Iran in the infobox
I noticed people tend to put bullshit in infoboxes, not just in this war.. when a country gives one AK47 to a rebel group then it's a belligerent..-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I added Iran as a belligerent due to the conflict with PEJAK that is ongoing within the borders of Iraq. I did this to balance the inclusion of Turkey and the PKK because of their ongoing conflict within Iraqi Kurdistan. Publicus 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets remove Iran and the PEJAK as well as the Turkey and the PKK since it truely isn't a part of the Iraq War, they are different conflicts near and in the borders of Iraq. When people associate the Iraq war combatants they usually think that the coaltion and the insurgents are the main combatants not the Turkish and PKK conflict or Iran. --EZ1234 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The government of Shi'a Iran has been providing support to the Shi'a of southern Iraq in their struggle against the Sunni government in Baghdad for decades. The greatest enemy of the Shi'a in southern Iraq was the Sunni Baathist Party ruling the country with murder and terror from Baghdad. Now the U.S. has taken out this enemy.

Iran will be the ones providing support to the Shi'a government in Baghdad if the United States leaves. And currently Iran is a major player behind the scenes in central and southern Iraq. If Iran stays as a country, Baghdad might be stable. If Iran is destroyed, Syria and Saudi Arabia will dominant the region and the Sunni militias will kick the Madhi Army to Tibet not to mention kill every Shia they can get ahold of. This will make Darfur look like Swan Lake.

Turkey wants to attack Northern Iraq because the PKK has bases in the rural areas there and the PKK has committed terrorism in Turkey. The PKK wants to continue its war against Turkey because the last time anyone let their guard down against them they got genocided. However Turkey did allow use of their border for humanitarian missions to Northern Iraq, as well as smuggling that helped benefit Northern Iraq in the 1990's. They are not all bad.

Eventually Turkey and Iran will want to divide Northern Iraq and its oilfields between them. Northern Iraq is the new Poland. Let's see who gets Kirkuk. Alternatively they could leave it alone.

Oh and there's two rival factions in Northern Iraq who only lately have did the whole cease fire thing.

Turkey should stay, Iran should stay.

Neutralaccounting (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys please, those kurdish conflicts are completely seperate from the other iraq war this article should be about. This article starts with "began on March 20, 2003". Did those Kurdish conflicts start at that time too? No! They're decades old! These conflicts have their own pages, don't mix them up with this war. Iraq War doesn't mean that every conflict in Iraq is part of it. It has to do with the US Invasion, the installment and stabilisation of a democratic government. That's why the war is also called the second gulf war for a reason. Is the Turkish-Pkk conflict part of the second gulf war? No! And neither is Iran's struggle with Kurds. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article starts with "began on March 20, 2003". Did those Kurdish conflicts start at that time too? No! They're decades old! If it involves war in Iraq after March 20, 2003 it should stay in. Did the North/South Iraqi conflicts(Assyria/Babylonia remember?) conflicts in Iraq start at March, 20 2003? No! Neutralaccounting (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A better way to improve the infobox is to add Iraqi commanders. I see US commanders even Polish commanders, even though the Iraqi army and police force is much bigger and has a lot more commanders. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and add some Polish/British commanders instead of presidents, presidents of the countries of coalition forces aren't actualy commanders. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I feel the article is currently right-of-center pro-american military intervention. It soft pedals everything else. It has a way to go before becoming NPOV on everything. Neutralaccounting (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you're wrong, if anyone is adding his POV too much it's you. Remember that readers are themselves to draw conclusion, not us. - Pieter_v (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you're wrong. I put in the fact that Dick Cheney linked Hussein to al-Qaeda (as did Bush) and %41 of Americans drew the conclusion Hussein was behind 9/11 and thereby supported the invasion. Both are facts, both were neutrally presented. Both were ommitted. Neutralaccounting (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, it used to be there actually, but the way you inserted it was a bit too dubious. I'll try to retrieve it. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Deaths!
I would like more on the spiealing casulty count!  


 * I've added the reference to the civilian body count in the infobox... the right wing revisionists are leaving it alone for now. It's the low estimate though- only those who were processed through official paperwork before burial. Neutralaccounting (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War misappropriations
Don't you think more information should be given regarding Iraq War misappropriations? --117.201.65.49 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Financial issues are a part of war. A NPOV article would mention them. However they are very embarassing and can't be easily explained away using indirect Chicago Style language so people don't like leaving them in. Neutralaccounting (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthrax Letters
News Media linked Saddam and Anthrax attacks.

ABC implicated Iraq (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html)

McCain implicated Iraq (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-anthrax-iraq/)

Peter Jennings (excerpt), '''This news about bentonite as the additive being a trademark of the Iraqi biological weapons program is very significant. Partly because there's been a lot of pressure on the Bush administration inside and out to go after Saddam Hussein. And some are going to be quick to pick up on this as a smoking gun.'''

Neutralaccounting (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the war ended?
I would like for people here to come to some kind of consensus on using the term "has the war ended". Why not break down certain stages of the war like the invasion stage has ended because we did accomplish the goals set out in the invasion. Now about other enemies in Iraq such as Al-Queada and the militia groups should be separate because those groups were not connected to each other (as far as I know) or to the previous government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a true definition of the war show that it has ended? In technical terms, the 'war phase' really ended when Iraq had been defeated. At present it is a police/counter-insurgency action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.248.139 (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This makes sense to me. The generally accepted definition for conquering an enemy was to occupy their territory, the original intent of the war. But with "assymetrical" warfare, who knows?


 * Different enemy now anyway, who attacks Iraq's own soldiers, selected by their legally elected government, along with allies. I guess wars of the future will go on indefinitely. There will never be an end to them. This plays well into the hands of the screwballs, unfortunately. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is really an ambiguous issue because the term "war" was probably a misnomer to begin with. Johnny California  16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The war is far from being over, even when US forces pull out and Iraqi forces succesfully take over, then the casualty count sitll has to drop big time. The UN's definition for a major war is 1000 casualties annually. In Iraq there have been over a thousand casualties within the last three months. If it's still a major war, then how long will it take for it to transcend to a regular war, and then peace? - Pieter_v (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Saddam was defeated. And his military is gone. And mission accomplished. But that isn't good enough. Unfortuantely there's going to be a war so long as there's money to be made and Iraqi's to kill. Neutralaccounting (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show us some figures on how much money each Iraqi death earns and who is receiving it?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

People are making money killing Iraqis? It's costing the US taxpayers billions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you think that money is going? Ask United Defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the number of casualties is a good way to define a war. Lots of people are murdered in the United States or any other country, but that isn't a war. If a war doesn't have to be bound by nationalities or actual armies, then when does, say, gang warfare become civil war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.248.139 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Mexican Drug War. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Renowned writer
Susskind is being repeatedly described as "renowned." I never know if these overstatements are being furnished by supporters or detractors. When I see that someone has said "renowned," I back off. Kind of like the Nigerian email scam when someone describes themselves as reputable. At that point, I direct it to my spam folder. More to the point, assuming the editor is a supporter, why would you have to say "renowned"? Kind of like saying "the famous Bill Clinton." A bit redundant isn't it? (Even sounds sarcastic).

But if you are a detractor, keep it up I suppose. You're making the statements which follow seem improbable.

Granted that the statements need to establish Susskind's credibility. But does "Pulitzer Prize winning" do that? He could have won it for fiction. Pulitzer prizes tend to be for entertainment or commercial success, IMO. I would be more impressed if he did something routinely, but maybe he is on his own now and no longer has those kind of credentials. An "investigative reporter" might be more credible. Then when the reader linked to Susskind, s/he would discover the Pulitzer for her/himself. Student7 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Pulitzer Prize is an American award regarded as the highest national honor in newspaper journalism

--117.201.64.26 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Premature FAC withdrawn
Featured article candidates/Iraq War/archive1, withdrawn from WP:FAC. Please see the instructions at FAC:"Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. ... Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilson and the Yellowcake
The article states that the administration sent off Joseph Wilson to determine whether Saddam was buying more yellowcake or not. This much is true.

What doesn't come out of the article, however, is the fact that Wilson, in effect sent himself. His wife "recommended" him and, via pressure was sent off, as hundreds of government people are "sent" on a daily basis. He wants us to think his was a unique mission. There may have been others. The administration had good reason not to believe him, and clearly didn't. I don't know the political reasoning behind sending off someone whose answer you are not going to trust when it comes back, but oh, well. I assume they were trying to get Plame/Wilson off their back. Ha! Anyway, the problem for any large government is wading through a sea of intelligence. Wilson's comment was one drop in that sea, and hardly the only report they had. There was a 50-50 chance of it's being correct. However, all other evidence the government(s) had said otherwise. As did most of the people in Saddam's government when captured.

And BTW, it is up to people at that level to make themselves believable to their superiors. Wilson didn't and found reasons to go to the press, the last refuge of the counter-credible. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

List of sources
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon says
There is an opaque quote from Steve Simon, who has no bio himself though his higher level org does, to the effect that "long term goals have been traded off for short term ones." This is all very well and nice, but what the heck does it actually mean? This type of statement is the sort of thing you get from politicians who want to be sure of saying the "right" thing to make them later look prophetic!

At best, Simon's name should be removed and "a member of" substituted. Because it lacks specifics and sounds more like CYA stuff, I think it should be deleted in favor of an analyst with specifics: "US needed to have a, b, and c, from the Iraqi parliament, failed to get it but was satisficed with d, which is a poor stubstitute because...." It's not that the statement is automatically wrong. It's just that it is too vague. We shouldn't have statements which "can't fail to be right" when they are supposed to be WP:CRYSTAL! Student7 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably shouldn't be in lead paragraph either. Student7 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The content cannot be too specific in the lead because the information is naturally supposed to be an overview. Also, agreeing or disagreeing with the content isn't really the point since the test for inclusion on WP is verifiability. Finally, WP:CRYSTAL would apply to unverifiable speculation, while this information is from a former professor, RAND analyst, and Director at the National Security Council. (Steven Simon Bio)
 * Nonetheless, the Government Accountability Office and other groups have expressed about the same idea so we can attribute it to them instead.--68.251.191.149 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

False statement
"Since the troop surge of 2007 levels of violence have dropped considerably"

This statement, in the opening paragraph, is not sourced and seems false. Can anyone deny/confirm it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.57.43 (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement is accurate. It should be referenced however. Please put a "fact" on it. Student7 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily update to fatalities
Someone, usually an unregistered editor, is making daily updates to the fatality count in order to make a political point. IMO this is just one more "nuisance" edit to have to read for no good reason. Further, they are making it over at least one reference which states "exceeds 4000, meaning that the count in the article no longer matches the reference. I think this sort of thing should stop. Monthly is fine. Daily is stupid and time consuming for the rest of us.

Also, updating the civilian count is useless, since no once has any idea of what they are to start with, so a "daily" update is totally nonsence. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that an exact number is useful as a reference; that being said, I'm not regularly editing the article.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is useful to have updates if we have them, with exact numbers when available, but these should always be accompanied by a source. If someone wants to update the source daily, that's great.  As for civilians, we have a whole section on this; there are reliable estimates from several sources; the Lancet study is pretty dated now but it is considered authoritative, but a much more conservative estimate based purely on the number of dead civilians specifically documented in at least two news accounts is available from Iraq Body Count.  The latter source is updated frequently but of course it is misleading since it ONLY counts rigorously documented deaths, but it does give us an absolute minimum number to start with.  It's updated daily I think, but I don't know how to keep that number current here without someone updating it daily (unless we use the IBC counter on this page, but some people would probably not like that as it would seem to promote a website).  I can update the figure now since I'm looking at it, but I'm not coming back every day to do so -- best we can do is indicate source and date checked. csloat (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Updating with a source on regular intervals seems to be the best approach as I'm not sure Wiki allows for the inclusion of dynamic content.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In answer to a generalized question in the Village Pump, an knowledgeable editor replied: "...if the editing activity constitutes news coverage in Wikipedia, it would be better for the editor to contribute to Wikinews and link from the Wikipedia article to Wikinews coverage. In that way, the editor's interest in the topic is satisfied while maintaining the Wikipedia article's encyclopedic focus."Student7 (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The casualties are more than news in this case, they are also part of the war's information box (many other current wars have the same thing happening with their information boxes). Your argument would refer to particular news stories worthy of a news article but not an encyclopedia entry. An example of this would be information about an individual soldier who recently died and the details surrounding their individual death.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Strength of Mahdi Army is wrong
The Mahdi Army wikipedia page lists them as having a strength of 60,000. Bill Roggio of Long War Journal gives the number at 40 - 60,000 here http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/mahdi_army_taking_si.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.165.10 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Measuring deaths
Where were the breathless daily death reporters back when Saddam was fighting his |war against Iran which killed 1,000,000 of his own people? Where were they when he killed 250,000 Iraqis with skulduggery. And can these figures be reported here for comparison? Most Iraqis think that "they are better off than they were ten years ago." Don't they count?Student7 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Casualties of the Iran-Iraq war are covered in the Iran-Iraq war article. Maybe you would also like to include the US's support for Saddam Hussein during the war or the U.S.'s relative silence during Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran?
 * I would very much like to see the poll where Iraqis say they are better off than they were ten years ago, and especially five years ago. Apart from the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis which have been killed in this conflict, one in six of the population have been displaced. Of those which are not displaced, millions have incredibly poor access to basic services like electricity and nearby sanitary water. 78% of Iraqis oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq and 51% approve of attacks on U.S. troops.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would assume there is no poll where Iraqis say "they are better off than they were ten years ago." --99.1.99.177 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, here is a poll where ~90% of Iraqis say things were better before the U.S. invasion.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this ("99.1.99.177") is all Liberal POV, Not anything creative or constructive toward the reconstruction of a useful article. Of course the US would have taken a sinister position against Iran who had just held Americans hostage for 444 days. The US did not catch the magnitude of the chemical weapons crime until later. Try to include something positive and normal here. Not just left wing anti-US crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.50.152 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of those statements was unverifiable? Iran held American diplomats out of concern that the US was going to launch another coup from the U.S. embassy, and install another U.S.-backed dictator who would give America friendly energy policies. Iraqi public opinion and humanitary conditions may be unfortunate, but they also exist. My apologies to ("68.231.50.152"), but Dr. Stephen Colbert has said that reality has a well-known liberal bias. --99.1.99.177 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. The Iranians thought that Jimmy Carter would invade them? They should have been taken out for sheer stupidity! The raid on the embassy was done as a "mob stunt" by "students." The leaders, seeing that nothing bad was going to happen, backed the students (while pretending otherwise of course). Insurance? Ha! I hope "liberals and reality" doesn't wind up in the article! Student7 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Carter has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. The U.S. embassy was raided in response to the coup the U.S. executed against the democratic republic of Iran. It seems the Iranians did not like a U.S.-backed dictator running their country. The ignorance of basic history is stunning; however, you might read Guests of the Ayatollah, Moin Khomeini, or Jimmy Carter and the 1979 Decision to Admit the Shah into the United States if you want to learn about the Iranian hostage crisis..--99.1.99.177 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you have any response to the poll mentioned above or do you view Iraqi public opinion as irrelevant as Iranian public opinion (and innocent Iraqi deaths as irrelevant as innocent Iranian deaths)?--99.1.99.177 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Update to casualties on 9/4 made over a reference from 8/23. The reference does not match. Either a legitimate reference should be provided or else this is merely WP:SOAP. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP wouldn't really apply unless you think reporting an objective measurement is propaganda. A quick Google test is all you need to verify. Anyways, there is now a source which is frequently updated so there shouldn't be any more mistakes in the future :-) --99.130.168.83 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hizbullah’s Role in Attacks Against U.S. and British Forces in Iraq
I am very new to Wikipedia, but I have recently stumbled upon this report. It is well cited and scholarly and I believe it is of importance to implement information from it into this article. Would anyone care to help me figure out the best ways to go about this?--Einsteindonut (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a controversial article and not the greatest place to start ones editing career IMO. Having said that, there is virtually no source that everybody will agree to. IMO (again), this particular source has reason to exaggerate the impact that the Hezballah has in Iraq for political purposes. I don't know that they have been quite as effective as the articles seem to say. There are all sorts of groups in Iraq with all sorts of agendas. The best (and fairest) way of sorting them out, unfortunately, is to count bomb blast or deaths and try to figure out who produced them. These articles take the side of the producer for subtle reasons. We don't know that they are really that effective, however.


 * Don't let my opinion sway you about contributing to Wikipedia. We need thoughtful editors. Student7 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be better to start this source off in the Iraqi insurgency article, and let it briefly be summarized over here as more comes out.--75.2.15.194 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

War Articles lack of format adds to the confusion and heated debate.
A quick look at the wiki war articles shows a lack of consistancy except for the Military Information Box.

The Milatary Info Box helps to condence a huge amout of info and helps to offer a neutral look at the wars But the Catagories do not. A quick look at the Wiki Articles on the "Major US Wars" demonstrates how differntly the wars are presented. Many start with a a catagory called Backroud or Backround and Causes. Some then go on to list Milatary and Political Leaders, Political and Social Catalysts, Events and Battles or Cronlogy.

Since all of the 97 United States wars need to be organized, May I suggest that we start with Catagorizing and refining the Iraq War Article and work our way backwards. We can do this by starting with the American Revolutionary Article gathering ideas and catagories and research our way forwards.

May I suggust that all the War Articles start with a Backround Catagory. The second catagory could be Causes both stated and underlyingBold text As an example the Stated Cause ( which used to be drafted as a Declaration of War)for the Iraq War can be taken from the websites of both The White House and Iraq,Afganistat and Al Quida. The Unstated or underlying causes of the warItalic textcan also be listed accordingly.

The Iraq War Article if basicly a cronology of events that adds to the confusion and heated debate.Bill Ladd (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, when you look at the Wiki article on using the Summary Style for articles, it gives as an example a theoritical article on World War II, With Sections like Backround, Causes, but the article itself ( on WW2) does not follow the summury style that it gives as an example!!Bill Ladd (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

After an exhaustive comparison of the Articles on the Major US Wars, the World War 1 format seems the Best. Once a comprehensive outline is agreed on by the Wikiies,does it make sence to restructure and add the outline to all the war articles and let the future wikies fill in the blanks ? Bill Ladd (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have inserted subtitles and suggested content in other (non-military) articles but commented out so only the editors can see them. While I don't have enough experience with this technique to comment broadly, this method seems to have worked so far and not caused problems. And it may have dissuaded energetic newbies from adding stuff randomly. I've seen other people add subtitles with nothing under them and was a bit irked to tell the truth. Looks funny to a reader IMO.


 * Either way, it encourages editors to use and maintain the "master" outline in the WikiProject. These get out of date with time. After a while sophisticated editing goes well beyond what the original editors had only hoped for two years ago. So it is an iterative process IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the World War 1 outline,I've tweeked it to come up with this outline that can be used for all the war articles. I would rather live with the discomfort of having a subtitle with nothing under it yet, acting as a guide to help people organize thier thoughts rather that the mess we have now with both the Viet Nam and Iraq Articles.

1.Backround ( some artiles call this historical backround, is the word Historical too controvercial ? 2.Causes/Origins of War- ( are Causes the same as Origins?)   2A. Stated Causes :Declarations of War -( from all sides)      2B. Unstated Causes:  3.Course of the War/ Battles -( Does  Course of the War or Cronoligy  better discribe the timeline of events?)   4.Cronology   5.Opposition to war- (The opposition is an event that happens before and during the war and listed before the end. 6.End of War / Peace Treaty - Hopefully all wars end but not always with a Peace Treaty. 7.Aftermath 8.Soldiers Experience 9.PRisioners of War 10.War Crimes 11.Economic 12.Manpower 13.Technology 14.Historical Era 15.notes 16.References 17.Literatue 18.Movies 19.External Links

'''Inspiration.."War is a vital matter of state. It is the field of which life or death is determined and the road that leads to either it’s survival or ruin, and must be examined with the greatest of care". Sun- Tzu “ The Art of War”'''Bill Ladd (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here it is today. (Some of which may have gone well beyond the outline. The outline may need updating).

* 1 1991–2003: U.N. inspectors, no-fly zones, and Iraqi opposition groups o 1.1 Iraqi opposition groups * 2 2001–2003: Iraq disarmament crisis and pre-war intelligence o 2.1 U.N. weapons inspections resume o 2.2 Iraq's WMD controversy o 2.3 Authorization for the use of force o 2.4 Opposition to invasion * 3 2003: Invasion o 3.1 Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraq Survey Group o 3.2 Post-invasion phase o 3.3 Saddam Hussein captured * 4 2004: The insurgency expands * 5 2005: Elections and transitional government * 6 2006: Civil war and permanent Iraqi government o 6.1 Iraq Study Group report and Saddam’s execution * 7 2007: U.S. troop surge o 7.1 Planned troop reduction o 7.2 Effects of the surge on security o 7.3 Political developments o 7.4 Tensions with Iran o 7.5 Tensions with Turkey o 7.6 Private security firm controversy * 8 2008         o 8.1 Spring offensives on Shia militias o 8.2 Congressional testimony o 8.3 Status of Forces Agreement * 9 Coalition troop deployment o 9.1 United Nations * 10 Armed Iraqi groups o 10.1 Insurgents o 10.2 Militias o 10.3 Al-Qaeda in Iraq * 11 Casualty estimates * 12 Criticisms and costs * 13 Alleged misappropriation of funds * 14 Forgery allegations * 15 Humanitarian crises o 15.1 Iraqi health care deterioration o 15.2 Orphans o 15.3 Iraqi refugees * 16 Human rights abuses o 16.1 Iraqi government o 16.2 Coalition forces and private contractors o 16.3 Insurgent and terrorist groups * 17 Public opinion on the war o 17.1 International opinion o 17.2 Iraqi opinion * 18 Relation to the Global War on Terror * 19 See also * 20 Topical images * 21 Bibliography * 22 References * 23 External articles


 * Where would you move these today? Okay to mark up my outline above. Just be clear that it is your proposal by either puting and arrow > or inserting in brackets or something.


 * Editors will feel more relieved when they know that their edits won't be lost! Student7 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets start with this I'm adding more detail to the structure starting with Reasons for war.Bill Ladd (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of War: Iraq War ...etc 1.Backround The backround of this or any war should contain all the backround such as: United States history of involvement in region starting in WW2 including Oil drilling,overthowing of democraticly      elected governments in neighboring Iran and installing the brutal dictator "The Shaw of Iran". United States help in overthrowing the Iraq government (in 63?) and helping to install Sadam Hussain by having the CIA help to murder 200 "communists" during the coup. Making lots of $ from convential and chemical weapons during the Iraq and Iran War. Sending Rumsfeld to help negociate an oil pipeline deal that Sadam turned down. The plan to attack Iraq that started in the Neo-Conservative think tanks of the Project for a New American Century and The Vulcans.

* 1 1991–2003: U.N. inspectors, no-fly zones, and Iraqi opposition groups o 1.1 Iraqi opposition groups * 2 2001–2003: Iraq disarmament crisis and pre-war intelligence o 2.1 U.N. weapons inspections resume o 2.2 Iraq's WMD controversy o 2.3 Authorization for the use of force o 2.4 Opposition to invasion Reasons for War.

1. Stated Reason / Declaration of War -( from all sides) USA, IRAQ, AL Quida A. Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Distruction that are an iminant treat to the United States. B. Regeime Change C. George Bush was told by God to invade Iraq.

2. Unstated Reasons for War. A. More Controle of Middle East Oil B. The Iraq Oil Pipeline. C. Influence of Isreal's Forign Policy. 3.Course of the War/Cronology

* 3 : Invasion o 3.1 Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraq Survey Group o 3.2 Post-invasion phase o 3.3 Saddam Hussein captured * 4 : The insurgency expands * 5 : Elections and transitional government * 6 : Civil war and permanent Iraqi government o 6.1 Iraq Study Group report and Saddam’s execution * 7 : U.S. troop surge o 7.1 Planned troop reduction o 7.2 Effects of the surge on security o 7.3 Political developments o 7.4 Tensions with Iran o 7.5 Tensions with Turkey o 7.6 Private security firm controversy * 8          o 8.1 Spring offensives on Shia militias o 8.2 Congressional testimony o 8.3 Status of Forces Agreement

* 9 Coalition troop deployment o 9.1 United Nations (dosn't 9&10&11 belong in the Milatary Info box?) * 10 Armed Iraqi groups o 10.1 Insurgents o 10.2 Militias o 10.3 Al-Qaeda in Iraq * 11 Casualty estimates * 14 Forgery allegations * 15 Humanitarian crises o 15.1 Iraqi health care deterioration o 15.2 Orphans o 15.3 Iraqi refugees * 16 Human rights abuses o 16.1 Iraqi government o 16.2 Coalition forces and private contractors o 16.3 Insurgent and terrorist groups * 17 Public opinion on the war o 17.1 International opinion o 17.2 Iraqi opinion * 18 Relation to the Global War on Terror * 19 See also * 20 Topical images * 21 Bibliography * 22 References * 23 External articles

5.Opposition to war- 6.End of War/Peace Treaty - Hopefully all wars end but not always with a Peace Treaty. ''' 7.Aftermath 8.Soldiers Experience 9.Prisioners of War' - Did I miss something or was prisioners of war and torture left out of this article ??'' 10.War Crimes * 16 Human rights abuses 11.War Profiteers *12 Criticisms and costs *13 Alleged misappropriation of funds '''12.Economic 13.Manpower 14.Technology 15.Historical Era 16.notes 17.References 18.Literatue 19.Movies/Media 20.External Links'''

This is a big job. How much am I getting paid for this?

The problem is that it is similar to the Viet Nam War Article, a chronology of events without a big picture organizational structure that is found in the WW 1 Article. The feel of both articles are as if it was written by the Pentagon and then rebutted by Wikiees line by line.

The second paragraph of the Viet Nam Article starts with the war fighting tactics. The Second Sentence of the Iraq article turns into a debate on WMD’s

I encourage anyone interesed in getting to the truth of the matter to look at the WW1 Article's format inclucing the seperate article on the origins or causes of the war, and compare it to any of the other 97 US Wars in it's elegance and clearity.

Inspitation: ''"Any military commander who is honest with himself, or with those he's speaking to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He's killed people unnecessarily — his own troops or other troops — through mistakes, through errors of judgment. A hundred, or thousands, or tens of thousands, maybe even a hundred thousand. But, he hasn't destroyed nations. And the conventional wisdom is don't make the same mistake twice, learn from your mistakes. And we all do. Maybe we make the same mistake three times, but hopefully not four or five. They'll be no learning period with nuclear weapons. You make one mistake and you're going to destroy nations "We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What "the fog of war" means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily" Robert McNamara - "The Fog of War" Documentary'' Bill Ladd (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Highjacking
The left has highjacked the article again. The war is not known in neutral circles as "Occupation of Iraq." Furthermore, the article's title should match the first words of the lead. They now don't.

A quote I just noticed has Bush as claiming that "God told him to invade Iraq." The quote was not from a reliable source. I researched the quote and discovered that even reliable liberal news sources rather doubt that he ever claimed this. Errant nonsense may give Bush-haters more meat to chew on, but it won't persuade neutrals who will stop reading right about there. Maybe he said that "he was inspired.." or "motivated.." Maybe this got mistranslated into "inspired by God.." or whatever. But no politician is going to tell anyone this nonsense. I don't know what is worse - liberals misquoting this stuff and believing it, or putting it in here thinking someone else will. Student7 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Death toll!!
Can anyone here find any accurate number of Iraqi civilians killed by USA and UK?AlexBlues (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that no one can come up with an acceptable figure for the death toll of civilians for any reason. Worse, they cannot come up with a way of arriving at that figure. This is why estimates at the high level vary by factor of ten! Which is why the figures that are adopted look so pov. If your are liberal, the figures are in the millions and you can point to a "study." If you favor the war, you quote the lower figure which is alos supported by a "study." Ouch! Student7 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Iraqi government has a death toll. They wouldn't be inclined to minimize the casualties. And I do not believe some of the estimates, such as the Lancet, which put the estimate at 600,000 in 2006. That would imply that nearly 9 out of 10 dead Iraqis are unaccounted for with no official record such as a death certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Iraqi Health Ministry estimated approximately 151,000 violence-related Iraqi deaths from March 2003 through June 2006; however, the estimation does not include the past two years and there are also concerns about its accuracy since citizens were being asked by represenatives of the government. I'm not sure where you got your number for the number of death certificates issued up to 2006, but the number of Iraqi casualties is surely in the hundreds of thousands as reported by multiple reliable sources. Best to show what a few reliable sources estimate given the lack of precise consensus though.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There was an article on CNN's website several moths ago where a conservative estimate of civilian casualties in Iraq where around 250,000. I know that information is useless without a source, but I will try to find the article and post a link up on the talk page. Then perhaps a few of the regular editors can read it and decide if it warrants an addition to the article.--67.234.217.156 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here affects most third world countries. Reporting statistics to a central government for compilation is a very western characteristic. This may seem pointless to a non-first world bureaucrat and the people who are supposed to supply the raw data: morticians, hospitals, police, coroners, etc. Many of these people are new in their jobs. Another messy problem is lack of a unique "national identity." Westerners have "social security cards" or the equivalent for unique identity. Most countries don't. Worse, Arab spellings and names fluctuate. My point being that a compiler can't eliminate duplicates or ensure that people he suspects are missing from a list are not on there under a similar name. And we haven't even talked about causes. We would count a person injured by a bomb last year who died this year as a result of injuries as a "bomb casualty." Not everyone thinks this way. Nor did we until a few decades ago. Also, there may be many non-coroner attested deaths. To what are they attributed? A lot of problems with no real faith in their system yet, nor probably for awhile. Student7 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two reports from the Congressional Research Service which are useful here: Iraqi Civilian Casualties Estimates (May 2008) and Iraqi Police and Security Forces Deaths Estimates (February 2008). The reports indeed warn that the estimates are based upon "varying time periods" and warns that they "have been created using differing methodologies". I think providing a few reliable estimates is the best approach.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Article History
What happened to the Introduction copy that was linked to the first 30 footnotes? Bill Ladd (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I know what you mean, but I believe you're looking to see that the 30 first footnotes appear in the infobox on the right hand side at the beginning of the article.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some paragraphs from the lead got moved down into a new "Overview" section. However, WP:LS says that four paragraphs is more appropriate for an article of this size than two. The "Overview" is now redundant with what people put back into the lead, so I tried to merge and trim it back to for paragraphs. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New source on Bush's strategy
A front page article in the Washington Post by Bob Woodward gives some good information on the US's change in strategy in Iraq in late 2006 and how that came about. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Part 2:  & . Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the significant views reported in Woodward's articles is that it wasn't just the surge that reduced violence in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. According to Woodward, new, top secret sources, methods, operations, and tactics allowed coalition forces, beginning in 2007, to inflict heavy losses on key al-Qaeda, Sunni, and Shia insurgent leaders and combat cells .  The second factor in the reduction in violence was the "Anbar awakening" in which thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda and allied with the Iraqi government and coalition forces.  The third factor was Moqtada al-Sadr's order to his followers to suspend attacks on US troops. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article on Jack Keane's behind-the-scenes role in the surge strategy and the selection of Petraeus to be its new leader . Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:IAILogo.gif
The image Image:IAILogo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Iraq term
Introducing another source was the best way to correct the error you found, which the other editor simply may have been unaware of. Adding the more recent source definitely improved the article. :The Occupation of Iraq name is used academically, in media, by Iraqis, and across the globe. If you wish to note that the name is controversial, not universally accepted, etc. this can definitely be done. If the article completely ignored controversy there would probably be no article, so a common name should be reported even if it is controversial. We should just briefly note the controversy.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuing to note that the war is still very popularly called this across the globe. Examples of usage may be found in the following press: Middle Eastern Times, AFP, Middle Eastern Times(2), Lebanon Daily Star, Pakistan's "The News", The Guardian, USA Today, ...
 * The article should make use of a name which is very common. It can be noted that the name is controversial or not universally accepted, but we can't just ignore the name because it is disagreed with (just note the disagreement).--Nosfartu (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The occupation of Iraq is a phase of the "Iraq war" or the "war in Iraq". I read all those refs you linked, and they were describing a phase of a war, not naming the conflict the "occupation of Iraq." This article went thru a similar evolution in its name, back in 2003-2004, when editors wanted to call it the "invasion of iraq" instead of the "Iraq war". I think you are incorrect in continuing to claim that the "occupation of Iraq" is one of the names of this conflict. The most common names continue to be "Iraq War" and "War in Iraq"--the other names really have no place and aren't even descriptive of the conflict. Currently, the Coalition forces are operating under both an Iraqi agreement and a UN mandate that permits them to help stabilize the country for the current Iraqi government, which is a sovereign body. There certainly was an occupation phase of this conflict, but it ended back when the Iraqis elected a government and that government choose to continue to allow Coalition forces to support it. This is why the current Status of Forces agreement is so important for the Bush Administration and the Maliki government--they are changing the rules for Coalition forces for the first time since the Iraqi government was elected AND they are doing it without the possibility of any extension of the current UN mandate. A better way to look at the current phase is more of a partnership with a much more senior/powerful partner trying to gear up and empower a junior/less powerful partner. Publicus 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the "Iraq war" is going to continue even without any Coalition forces. It will shift(and has already started to) to Sunni vs Shia, and Islamists vs Secularists, and Arabs vs Kurds, etc. Don't you think it would be kind of silly to call an Iraqi Sunni vs Iraqi Shia conflict the "occupation of Iraq"? Even if there is a continued Coalition presence somewhere in the deserts trying to track down a few al-Qaeda types, that potential phase of this conflict isn't an occupation by any stretch.Publicus 16:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the sources cited are current, and there is a perception that the "more senior/powerful partner" is actually forcing things on to the "junior/less powerful partner". We may have our own individual opinions about whether this is true or the degree of this, but the fact is that this is a popular conception. This is why it has been outlined this way in a number of sources..--Nosfartu (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sources are current, what I was talking about was their reference to a particular phase of the overall Iraq war--not using the sources as support for possible name of the conflict as the "occupation of iraq." And I totally agree with the perception you mentioned--obviously, the US is pushing the Iraqi government around (withholding military aid, Iraqi funds held by the Federal Res. Bank of NY, etc)--but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is an occupation going on. The presence of US troops and of the US government pushing other countries around is unfortunately a very regular occurence--but that doesn't make the situation an "occupation."Publicus 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the sources seem to be speaking about the current U.S. military presence and not a particular phase of the war. To quote some of the sources cited above:
 * Middle East Times:"... the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq accused U.S. officials of exploiting the force to eliminate a legitimate expression of opposition to the occupation of Iraq"
 * AFP:"He said the movement would organise literacy drives for young men and women although it did accept that most "young men want to resist" the US occupation of Iraq."
 * Lebanon Star:"The timetable for ending the US occupation of Iraq has proceeded much more quickly."
 * Again, a value judgement as to whether the Iraqi government is acting sovereign is not being made. The sources are supporting the fact that the war in its current entirety is referred to as an occupation. It's just a common name supported by sources, whether we agree with it or whether it is true are completely irrelevant. --Nosfartu (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points--if that's the interpretation from those sources I have no problem with occupation of iraq as one of the possible names people are calling this conflict. I'll revert myself on this edit.Publicus 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

United Nations figures on death tolls
I'm not sure what image "United Nations" conjures up in the readers/editors minds. These are largely a group of non-European anti-Americans (in this case) collecting data from a bunch of Shiite appointees conspiring to manipulate the figures so that they appear worse than they should. I rather trust the NY Times. What is it about the NY Times that editors don't like? Yes, they have a liberal bias, but I don't think that they would deliberately lie. I'm pretty sure the UN and Iraqi bureaucrats would. Student7 (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's pretty breathtaking arrogance that you would let your prejudices about the UN dictate what the reader should be told. The NY times is (at best) a secondary source and totally unofficial. The UN figures stay and are presented as the correct ones.GiollaUidir (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary sources have a liberal bias. So does reality. We won the war, and now we need to keep staying!--70.236.79.188 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, yeah...GiollaUidir (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. What makes the United Nations a "better" source? The Iraqi government is not terrifically competent. What makes them any better? In other words, what makes the NY Times an inferior source to the UN? The UN is just collecting stuff from the Iraqi bureaucrats. These statistics are only as good as the people reporting them. I know the quality of the NY Times. I don't know and don't trust the UN/Iraqi sources. Student7 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The UN is an official source, although it has massively underestimated the death toll itself anyway, which makes the NYTimes figs all the more irrelevant.GiollaUidir (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's kind of funny to trust a public for-profit American corporation for unbiased reporting, rather than an international non-governmental organization composed of 180+ member countries. Just an observation. Publicus 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's true that the Times has bias to make the figures seem worse than they are. Nevertheless, I would trust body counts "on the street" more than I would somebody collecting these figures a month or two later and several bureaucrats later in some archive someplace, when their is absolutely no reason to have any veracity in those figures. It is a third world country. We can rely on figures out of first world countries. Third world figures are only as good as their collection system which usually isn't very good or very credible.


 * You seem to think that there is an "official" figure that the NY Times or UN must meet to be correct? And what figure would that be? The problem with any third world country is that you can't believe any statistic without oversight. First world countries have massive oversight. Third world countries have next to nothing. The only figures we can believe in this article are those relating to allied countries conducting operations. We don't even know for sure how many people the Iraqis have in a given squad/platoon/battalion/etc. and how many of those are effectively trained? Unless we have someone right there on the spot doing the counting. And these are live people! There are no believable figures relating to civilians. Student7 (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should just report what the statistics are and who they are from, and leave it to the reader to decide for themselves. You are proposing your own original analysis, which doesn't appear to be published in any reliable third-party publications.--70.236.79.188 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This all started when one editor said that the NY Times figures underreported the actual death toll when compared to the UN figures. The word "underestimated" or underreported is WP:POV. I agree that the Times figures should be reported as the Times figures and the UN figures reported as theirs. They should not be favourably or unfavourably compared, one against the other. (The editor correctly objected when I turned the phrase around and said the UN figures were overstated when compared. But he reverted it to its biased original missing the point). The point being that making a judgement when comparing is biased. If the WP:POV and probably WP:OR comparison is still there, will you correct it or shall I? Student7 (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It says the NYT has "underestimated the total death toll by 50% or more when compared to studies by the United Nations", which is perfectly true if you use a calculator (a liberally biased one?). The UN/Iraqi government figures have traditionally been low as well compared to other sources, so your constant complaints really don't make much sense..--70.236.79.188 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we've just arrived back at where the discussion began. I claim that there are no "official" figures that the NY Times must match. That the NY Times is as good as the UN guesses which they get from the Iraqi governments speculations which they in turn get when somebody feels like sending them in with whatever unaudited changes they have deigned to manufacture. After we argued this for awhile, then we got to the point where I thought we were at, that figures may be presented based on whoever made them. But now an editor claims (again) that there is some sort of gold standard for reporting deaths. I think that remains to be proved. Kind of funny. First time I ever heard a liberal complaining about figures in the NY Times not being sufficiently biased! Student7 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Change of tack: the whole section is a mess and needs rewritten. The only real statistical analysis of the effects of the surge that I can find are on [iraqbodycount.org IBC] and they show incredible ambiguity. The only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the violence simply moved from Baghdad to the regions. (2007 analysis).GiollaUidir (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)