Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)

First image
I'm not sure the image with the two insurgents is a good encyclopedic picture for being the first image displayed on this article... I feel strange to read an encyclopedia article and the first image be two insurgents who do attacks against Americans and who apparently aren't afraid of the camera. It looks more like a "publicity" photo rather than an educational photo... Who would want to read an educational encyclopedic article about a war and the first image she sees is two anti-Americans who kill American troops? I'm not saying to delete the image, but rather to put it somewhere else inside the article if not remove it altogether and keep a link to its Commons category or something... What are your opinions about this image as the first image? Should it stay or should it go? Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, it kinda freaked me out when I first saw it, even though this message is bit late. Linphil (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Two things
Hello, I'm an Iraqi War Veteran; 2005 and 2007-2008...First, this is a bad article...and needs some cleaning, but I do like the picture that it has...couldn't give an answer. Second, when they say Civil War 2006-2008, they are saying "Surge", maybe this will clarify that(from the media).Wnicholas70 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

New umbrella article created
After numerous discussions and consensus to create one, an umbrella article for the entire Iraq conflict (2003–present) has finally been created. However, it needs a great deal of work and I am seeking help in expanding it. Charles Essie (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Enhanced interrogation, Insurgency. This isn't serious.
The "insurgents" were a legitimate resistance movement that rose up against crimes committed by the occupying forces.

That this became a fertile soil for extremists doesn't change that. And the extremists exist on both sides. By both sides, I mean those supported by the USA. The Peshmerga are known to have committed war crimes, but are depicted in favorable light because they are on "our" side.

The legitimacy of the war itself is in doubt. So why not apply the same charitably interpretation to both sides?

The fact that Wikipedia uses euphemisms designed by a partisan party (the Bush admin) should be enough to give pause. My point is that Wikipedia should not be the mouthpiece for the US government.

At the very least this page could be called "Iraqi resistance and insurgency." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Museum sacked? Not mentioned.
During either this time or a later time (2011-2013), one or more museums with ancient artifacts was sacked (perhaps the Baghdad Museum). This is a huge thing, but it is not mentioned in either article. Can someone with good knowledge and sources add it? Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's mentioned in 2003 invasion of Iraq, there's also a (low-quality) article on Archaeological looting in Iraq. But you're right it should be mentioned here as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fallujah killings of April 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah_killings_of_April_2003

This event is not mentioned on this page or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Fallujah killings of April 2003 ignited the insurgency. The US is as responsible for the insurgency as it is for the initial invasion of Iraq. It should be made clear. As it stands now, the insurgency is presented as uncaused. "Shit just happens."

That the insurgency was caused by gross incompetence on the part of the US does not negate responsibility. We know that the US had no clue beyond the invasion, other than being greeted as liberators and there would be streets named after Bush. But nobody bought that nonsense.

"Terrorism in iraq" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Terrorism in iraq. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"Iraqi terrorism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Iraqi terrorism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Result
is the result correct? was it a victory for either side? or should we put stalemate? Ali36800p (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)