Talk:Iraq War/Archive 14

Iraq Wars Bibliography

I think my Iraq Wars Bibliography at http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/EdMoise/iraqbib.html is good enough so it would be useful to have a link to it in this page. I am not sure whether this should be an item under the existing heading Bibliography (section 18 in the Contents) or whether a new subhead, Bibliographies, should be created for it (presumably coming after the existing subhead Media Echoes) under External Articles (section 20 in Contents). Ed Moise (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag on casualties section

I will remove the POV tag on the casualties section. There are a lot of points of view regarding the ammount of causulties, however the summing up of estimates is not. This is not to say that the section cannot be improvedBas van Leeuwen (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for Iraq War

There have been promulgated by the U.S. Government many reasons in support of the war, such as Saddam Hussein's participation in the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. in New York and Washington, his support for al Qaeda, his development of nuclear and biological weapons, and the danger he posed to the Middle East region. Also, Saddam Hussein attempted to take the life of President George W. Bush's father, the former president George H. W. Bush. And a perpetual war in the Middle East with the United States as the major participant fits in with the neoconservative hegemonic philosophy that the United States, as the sole remaining superpower, should, in fact has an obligation to project power in its own interest wherever and whenever it is able. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.86.145 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Reduction of Troop Deaths Following Surge

I've found several useful links providing information that shows a reduction in violence after the surge,

([1] [2] [3] [4])

...so I'm going to go ahead and add that information to the troop surge section. Mgerb (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopeless

This article has been confirmed to be nothing more than leftwing propaganda. It's simply laughable that the 2007 section lists the most minor of negative events, but completely ignores the thing that is most obvious to anyone who isn't in complete denial: the US is winning this war right now. Attacks are way down, whole areas have been cleansed of AQI, Sunni tribes are reconciling with the government and the coalition by the bushel. I'm really sorry that it is politically inconvenient for you, but your country is winning its war. I know that's terrible news to you and tough to take, but at some point you just need to accept reality, especially when you're supposedly running an unbiased news source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.192.184 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Here is the introduction section from the article's history which talks about ALL the causes for the war, not just WMD:

The Iraq War, also known as the Occupation of Iraq, the Second Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland invaded Iraq.

The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, and the coalition supporters was the belief that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These weapons were said to pose an "imminent," "urgent," and "immediate threat" to the United States, its allies, and interests. After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of the WMD or programs the administration claimed existed. Some U.S. officials claimed that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were cooperating. No evidence of any collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda has been found. Other reasons for the invasion stated by U.S. officials include concerns about other kinds of terrorism such as financial support for Palestinian suicide bombers, spreading democracy, Iraqi government human rights abuses, and the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply.

The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between many Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. Coalition nations have begun to withdraw troops from Iraq as public opinion favoring troop withdrawal increases and as Iraqi forces begin to take responsibility for security. The causes and consequences of the war remain controversial.

Replace it or no; why or why not? Boowah59 (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Er...so because a country wins a war that makes it justifiable? Like when the Americans defeated Mexico and robbed it of half its territory? Might is right...the Bible says so...Colin4C (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading what you're saying, but not following you. What part do you think is wrong? My main beef is to get the other causes for the war in. Boowah59 (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of stupid to declare a "victory" when no one can even agree on who exactly the US is fighting or what the real or even declared goals of this "war" are? "Attacks are way down" -- well, were there any Iraq-related attacks during, like, a decade before this war started? "Whole areas have been cleansed of AQI" -- was there ever any "AQI" in that country to begin with? I'm not even talking about how many hundreds of thousands have been (and are being) murdered because of this war there -- for what exactly? Guinness man 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If nobody else is going to put all the other reasons in, how long until I can? Boowah59 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to, I already added them :-) Elhector (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has a very liberal bias. For example, the troop quotes section. From that the reader would be led to believe that at least half of the troops in Iraq think that it is wrong and that they hate the US Government. The reality is quite the contrary. Another example is the lack of mentioning that WMD's in fact WERE found in Iraq. While left over from the Iran-Iraq war, they were stil functional, yet limited in quantity. I could go on, but pretty much every section is like this. Quovatis (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• This page is bias as hell. Why don't anyone edit this crap? Maxpower37 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of WMD? No evidence of Saddam AQ cooperation? NO EVIDENCE? This is a PATENTLY FALSE claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Updates

I believe British Intelligence still states that Saddam was trying to get Yellow Cake in Africa. I will the relevant references and if I am correct update this article. The Wilson investigation may be correct, but it appears to be entirely separate from the British Intelligence conclusions.

Wait . . . I thought Wilson reported that Iraq did attempt to purchase Uranium from Niger in 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will do an update on the Surge and in particular the turning of the Sunni Insurgents. There has been a dramatic drop in coalition deaths and bomb attacks over the past few months. If possible I will put this in the context of the 12 to 15 years it takes to fight an insurgency. Most likely this will just be in another article.

Another point is the gradual decline in the effectiveness of the UN Trade Sanctions.

Finally, I will try to do a review of Lancet article on Deaths in Iraq. I think the two big issues are that the respondents claim something like 400,000 more death certificates than the Health Ministry states they have issued. That many deaths should generate a lot of "hidden" mass graves. This was the case with Saddam's regime, but none have been found. Also, you usually get three wounded for every death. This required level of wounded has not hit the hospitals.

A better discussion of the sectarian divisions in Iraq and the general bloody nature of Arab political culture should be included. ITBlair (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An explanation and description of the United Nations Resolutions that have legitimized the continued presence of American and British forces (and other nations) should at least be mentioned:

(e.g. from Wiki: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 was adopted by a vote of 14 to zero (with Syria absent) on 22 May 2003. This resolution resolved many of the legal and governmental ambiguities that resulted from the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and UK led "coalition of the willing". Its three most important features are that it empowered the coalition, making it the legitimate and legal governing and peacekeeping authority; recognized the creation of a transitional governing council of Iraqis; and removed all sanctions against Iraq that were placed upon the former regime of Saddam Hussein, additionally terminating the (now unnecessary) Oil-for-Food Program.

Deleted Updates

I noted the book the Connection, which outlines a set of contacts between Al-Qaeda, and the Saddam Regime. This reference was deleted. Just because one does not like a source or thinks it is incorrect is not grounds for deletion. You have to demonstrate that it is factually wrong. Otherwise it has to be left in the article, along with the opposing viewpoints.

Similarly, I noted the most Western Intelligence Agencies, including the prior Clinton Administration believed that the Saddam Regime had restarted his WMD program. This reference was also deleted. Again one has to demonstrate that this citation is wrong before deleting it.

From a context perspective, I noted that Saddam had WMDs and was within three years of a nuclear weapon in 1991. Otherwise the article would imply there is no factual basis for the US concern on WMDs. This reference was also deleted. In particular, the 9/11 attacks reveal that a non-state actor with access to WMDs could destroy several US cities. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction via massive retaliation does not work with non-state actors. These facts, along with increasing globalization has dramatically changed the US strategic calculus. There is a greater emphasis on premptive wars and not waiting a threat to fully mature before striking first.

I do not think any of the above proposed updates was factually incorrect and I provided the relevant citations. This is obviously a dispute among editors. I am requesting comments as to truthfulness of these assertions and if truthful, why they should not be in the article. As it stands, the current article reflects an strong anti-Iraq War perspective and explicitly denies any valid basis for this invasion. I think this is not the case; at the very least both viewpoints should be well represented in this article.

I deleted the reference to The Connection because it does not belong in the lead. You asserted that "a number of investigative journalists state that Saddam was generally involved in terrorism and had a collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda." To back up this claim, you provided one book that has been discredited by basically everyone knowledgeable on the subject of terrorism. The only thing appropriate to include in the lead (about this topic) is the consensus of the intelligence community, which is that there was no operational link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.--Rise Above The Vile 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other sources for these claims. In the interest of improving the quality of the content, the editors and other major contributors here who exert authoritarian control over such things might exhibit some good faith and ferret these sources out. Dependence on participants with other viewpoints simply doesn't work, especially given the level of hostility toward those viewpoints and the amount of effort it takes to get them heard. The results are shoddy and biased articles such as this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a lot of this discussion should probably go into the Wiki Article on Saddam and Al-Qaeda: (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#_note-Harmony). To my knowledge the Book (The Connection) has not been discredited. There are some doubts about the Atta meeting in Czech, but that is about it. I will try to eventually list its major points.

It should be further noted that Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Saddam's connection to AQ are not interdependent. Saddam's involvement in 9/11 was never given as a rationale for deposing him. What was clearly stated by the Bush Administration is that 9/11 changed the calculus and underscored the need for interrupting the cooperative activities of states and terror organizations. Clearly, much of this work still lies ahead.

Below is list of Eighteen (18) links (mainly journalists) on the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. At mininum he provided money, training, weapons, passports, safe haven, and medical treatments. Joint Operations were at least discussed. Direct Operations with Ansar al-Isalm were carried out. As the 9/11 Chairman notes: Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

As noted by the NY Times, the statements made by the Bush Admin. on the contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were essentially Correct. They never stated that Saddam had an operational role in the 9/11 Attacks: Bush Admin (Correctly) Claims Relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda: http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/iraq-quaeda.htm

It is obviously hard to get details on the Inner workings of a small terrorist organization, but in WWII the US destroyed entire cities on the basis of information that had the same level of credibility as these articles. The 18 links I noted above are as follows:

Al Qaeda proposed Operational Cooperation with Saddam (2006): http://www.nysun.com/article/29746

Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaidia Cooperated in Killing Anti-Saddam Kurds. http://www.nysun.com/article/39631

Al Qaeda Training in Northern Iraq (under Saddam): www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868301/posts

Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam (from 9/11 Report): http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

Detainee Assets Operational Contacts with Saddam: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Senator Clinton (2002) Notes Al Qaeda and Saddam Contacts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_abcs_of_iraq_and_al_qaeda.asp

Note on Al Qaeda + Saddam contacts in Report: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507011134.asp

W. Safire Note on Report listing Contacts: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EFDA1239F932A15755C0A9629C8B63

A list of Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam: http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_alqaeda_connection.htm

Links Missed by 9/11 Report: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

Saddam Trained Thousands of Terrorists, many Al Qaida Afflicated: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Original Summary of Defense Review of Contacts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Ansar Al-Islam in Iraq http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={9E091170-6A9D-48CA-BC7B-02FF7F84A443}

Zarqawi Trained by Al-Qaeda in 1989, in IRAQ in 2000: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1793632,00.html

Al Qaida and Antrax Attack: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/usnews/whispers/main3500524.shtml http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/startling_implications_of_a_ji.html

Review of Selected Sources on Saddams Support of Terror and Al Qaeda: http://www.regimeofterror.com/

Saddam & Terror Funding (some Al Qaeda Links): http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Saddam & Al Qaeda Links (2003): http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31597

Surge: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119561766597900285.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWZiZTg5YWYyNjY1ZWU1ZDRjM2Q5YWI3NDUzNjUzM2I=

ITBlair (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on three of these at random, and what I got was speculation, uncertainty, and op-eds. Do any of these meet wikipedia's WP:RS criteria? Also, if there was a hit of credibility to any of these, then Bush would be talking about them daily. 85.214.79.185 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the logic here is clear. Much which is "speculative" is included in this article without your objection. Clearly, speculation which favors your position is acceptable and speculation which is in opposition to your position is not. This is the problem with this article specifically, and with Wikipedia in general. You folks seem to have a serious handicap when it comes to looking at these things objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Over 1.2 million kids and civilians killed

I believe there should be section about the 2006 survey that claimed 655,000 civilians (children, women, old ladies, mothers, fathers) where killed and wiped out like vermin. Who knows how many thousands of dogs and cats were also killed by all the bombs. Not sure anyone really cares? And the hundreds of thousands who lost there limbs. Here is one CNN link http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ and here is another one that claims 1.2 million children, mothers and civilians were killed http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html --Persianhistory2008 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a section dealing with casualty estimates and the studies that were conducted to arrive at these numbers. You are referring to the 2007 ORB study that carefully extrapolated from the Lancet Studies of 2004 and 2006. These represent the only serious, scientific research into casualty figures conducted in Iraq. Pinkville (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ps-The section should also mention the multi-millions of people who have endured extreme, extreme hardships and had the lives altered, and handicapped forever.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The section immediately after "Casualty estimates" is Humanitarian crises. Pinkville (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The section you write about is not that clear, that 1.2 million children, women, old ladies, mothers, fathers have been exterminated! This is going to leave a major scar on history. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will seem like a trip to the park compared to the 1.2 million who have been exterminated. The 1.2 million people who have been wiped out deserve a better section. --Persianhistory2008 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Find some reliable sources to back up that statement, write it neutrally and add it. Mr.Z-man 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I should point out that the survey that found 1.2 million Iraqis have died was conducted by a polling agency, not by researchers. As such, its findings must be taken with a grain of salt. I see no reason to include it in the article.--Rise Above The Vile 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody has a different say on the casualty, but nobody as good info on it. (P.S. Nobody got exterminated by the United States of America, only the terrorist kill the Iraqis) SG 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Polling agency" and "researchers" needn't be a dichotomy. Carefully conducted polling - like that performed by ORB - is scientific research. ORB extended the work of the scientific researchers whose findings appeared in the 2004 and 2006 Lancet Studies. Thus far, these three studies are the only careful estimates of the number of casualties due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The methods and results of these studies have been accepted by the scientific community and other experts. Pinkville (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding ALL OF US ! The death of these million Iraqis is obviously the result of an Insurgency to kill Iraqis (the heart of Iraq) to achieve their own socio-political objectives. It is the insurgent bombs that kill the scores of unarmed civilians. The foreign insurgents are the criminal culprit guilty and responsible for all of THAT nightmare -- the sad and horrible death of the innocents. Is this fact so hard to accept? So hard to fathom? The only reason to lay this blame on any other country (USA, UK, Australia, or whoever) is to literally USE these insurgent-murders against the west-- who is trying to help Iraq. Please , writers … do not attempt to tell “lies into history”. In the end, the history books will read a little clearer on all of this matter. Sadly Wikipedia will not be a part of that story. Because the Beyond-Propaganda-Radicals who write articles like this here will have blown their chances on telling the truth. Bwebb00 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In the invasion phase of the war (March 20-April 30), 9,200 Iraqi combatants were killed along with 7,299 civilians, primarily by US air and ground forces. That's SEVEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE CIVILIANS killed by Bush and Blair. Osama, Saddam and the insurgents had nothing to do with these deaths, they (men, women and children) were killed by allied bombs and bullets. You think that is justified? What if that was your mother or father or sister or brother killed amongst those dead? Would you rejoice? If you thought you were liberating a country would you personally shoot SEVEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE CIVILIANS through the head to bring it about? "Sorry little girl, we Yankees are bringing freedom to your country, you have to die" BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! Now for the forced-homosexual pile up at Abu Ghraib YUMMY! I can sell this to all the porn channels as "Moslem Gang-Bang Orgy" God bless America!" Colin4C 13:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Colin. I was addressing the “1.2 Million” death toll "killed by all of the bombs" , etc. It was obvious I was not talking about the number of innocents killed in the initial 2003 invasion. To “Use” that number in the fashion that you just have, is as unreasonable as to say that attacking Germany during WW2 is “criminal, a crime against humanity, and unacceptable, because civilians will be killed”. Sadly, far too many innocents (including German civilians) did perish during Allied attacks to remove the Nazi’s and their leader from power in WW2. However , the consequences of leaving Hitler in power for any longer was not an acceptable option. In Iraq , the simple fact of the matter: leaving Saddam in power was no longer an acceptable option. And in Iraq too --- it is horrible that so many innocent civilians have been killed. But it seems like a massive lack of accountability and a lack of objectivity to claim that the invasion death toll is so awful – while overlooking how horribly Saddam, his sons, and his thugs murdered so many Iraqi’s on a recurring basis. Should have just left him in power? It seems more likely that many will simply USE the "1.2M", or the "7,299" figures to attack Tony Blair, and Pres Bush. The incredible Winston Churchill had plenty of liberal left wing critics as well. They laughed at him when he warned that Hitler was building weapons during the mid-1930's. Bwebb00 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you stating that 99% of the world does not hate us (the US) because of the war? Do you not realize that Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 YEARS (1979-2003) and only killed less than a million. But just in a few years ever since the war against "Evil" Iraq, over one million little girls and civilians have been killed! How many Americans did stupid Saddam kill? How many Americans did Bush kill? And what about the little kids killed in Afghanistan? By the end of the war, millions of Muslims will have been whipped off the planet who had nothing to do with the war (and thousands of Americans). And all this because they had weapons of mass destruction or was it because "this is the guy who tried to kill my daddy." CNN Just wait and see what the history books and world leaders will say about the Iraq War! What is Allan Greenspan saying about the war?--Persianhistory2008 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note: Saying that President Bush killed the Americans demonstrates your POV. Happyme22 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear "Persianhistory2008". Yes, I am stating it, and assuring you that 99 percent of the world does not hate the US, nor does some “99 percent” hate the US because of the Gulf War. Furthermore, when the religious extremists in Iraq start to chop off fingers (for smoking cigarettes) or murder women (for not covering their faces) it is the US troops that Iraqi Civilians turn to for help, to purge the Muslim Extremists from their communities. Many actually admire US troops, for protecting them, and for protecting their families from the extremists. Whether you like it or not, the world, and Iraq does not all "hate the US". Your opinions appear to be motivated by your personal extremist views.Bwebb00 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong, it’s not my opinion that counts. If you travel outside the US as much as I do, you would understand how most of the world hates the US and its policies. Hate is a strong word, but there are enough books and articles written in French, German, and hundreds of other languages to prove the point. Even in England which is suppose to be our #1 ally, 90% of them disagree with us and they got rid of Tony Blair so quickly he did not know what hit him! Sorry if you don't agree, but why don't you go there or read some of the foreign books and articles. Chelsea Clinton also would disagree with you. She went to school in England and after Sep 11. 2001, she stated "It's hard to be abroad right now. Every day I encounter some sort of anti-American feeling. Sometimes it's from other students, sometimes it's from a newspaper columnist, sometimes it's from 'peace' demonstrators,". CNN anti-American feeling Now if they are so anti-American in England as I know they are, god help us when it comes to other countries. They simply hate us! You have to ask why?--Persianhistory2008 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear your explanation for the election of Merkel and Sarkozy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic; let's try to keep trolling to a minimum. Now, Persianhistory, you are well aware that we have no independent way to confirm some of these things you are claiming, and as such relaying personal experiences doesn't strengthen an argument. If you have a reliable source to back up your 1.2 million claim, by all means present it. Wikipedia is not a forum, so let's keep our focus on improving the article instead of wasting time arguing our opinions about the war. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I did, just read the above and you will see a direct link to references and external links. You obviously did not read any of the above. Most of what I wrote is VERY well documented. Just read the source.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting that "civilian" is difficult to define in modern warfare. U.S. and Coalition forces wear uniforms, but the insurgents and terrorists do not; they wear civilian clothes when they attack Coalition forces and non-combatants alike. They've also been known to use hospitals and schools, etc, to store weapons caches and even fire rocket-propelled grenades from (as was seen in the recent Isreali-Lebanon conflict). I'd like to know how accuarately "civilian casualties" are being or have been counted in the past, and if such counts should be included in a wiki supposedly dedicated to accuracy and neutrality if no such parameters are defined. IntrepidDemise (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice Try Happyme22

Nice try attempting to the get the truth on here, but don't waste your time. This site is clearly propaganda and no serious person will put any stock in it. I mean, the huge story coming out of Iraq for just about all of 2007 has been the success of the surge and the reduction in violence, and these guys refuse to even mention it. Instead, they are harping on any tiny negative thing that might have happened in 2007, things that pale in importance to the overall improvement in the situation. And then you have a guy that says the reduction in violence is due to less US troop presence? Is this backwards day? I wouldn't call a surge of 21,000 additional troops in Baghdad--not to mention the new strategy of going out into smaller neighborhood patrol bases--less US presence. In fact, I would call it the exact opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.192.184 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the article; sign up, get an account, and start editing. It's free, anonymous, and more helpful than comments by IP numbers on the talk page. The more editors there are the more areas are covered. Publicus 17:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? I don't see much acceptance of opposing viewpoints here. I see double-standards, bias, and opinion masquerading as fact. Why should he, or anyone bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That is why the template says it is untrue. I deleted the fact about U.S. soldiers because their is no proof that is right nor is their a link. SG2090 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Body Count in infobox

Is it reasonable to mention the Iraq Body Count in the infobox at the top? They admit they are an undercount. Boowah59 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it; all of the estimates are represented in the body of the article, where the IBC's own disclaimers are apparent; that was not the case in the infobox. Boowah59 (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cost of War conspicuously missing

There seems to be no section on the funding/cost of the war. Is this because people are it taking out? and if so, why? --69.110.47.207 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Genneraly the cost of the war isnt an important one. Its a given that MOST wars are exspesive. So unless its the cheapest of most exspenive its not important Esskater11 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume a conspiracy. The most likely reason the information would be missing would probably be difficulty in finding a source for that figure which was not only reliable but up-to-date. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not absent, it's listed under the criticism section with the article Financial cost of the 2003 Iraq Conflict. If it has less visibility perhaps that's something we could work on. Publicus 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is about "Genneraly the cost of the war isnt an important one"? Is this a joke? Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. How do you think the Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Egyptian Empire, etc. all went under. It was by over expanding and over spending. We are spending billions of dollars we don't have. We not only owe trillions of dollars, but the US dollar has gone under. Inflation of the US dollar is at a all time high. Financially the war is an absolute disaster. The billions they spend could go to finding a cure for cancer, aids, diabetes, etc.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Persia, please see WP:SOAPBOX. This talk page is reserved for discussion to improve the article, not to push one's personal views. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed strange that costs are listed in the criticism section. The cost of the war is despite the uncertainty of calculation a factual thing. I understand that the cost of a war can be used as an argument against it, if one feels it is not worth that price. Perhaps it is moved to the criticism section because editors feel this way? Anyway, it should be moved, the criticism could include a statement like: the financial costs outweigh the benefits. I will do my bit later on. 145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the costs are listed in the criticisms section because the issue of financial cost is one of the main criticisms (among others) by the anti-war movement about the Iraq war--that it is costing too much both in terms of lives, money, and relations abroad. This can be seen in the ongoing negotiations between Bush and Congress about whether to continue to fund the war, at what level, whether to attach benchmarks, etc. The cost of the war is rarely is ever mentioned by supporters of the war as a positive--more of a "cost of doing business" type mention, such as "it costs a lot but we need to do it." Just something to consider on this. Publicus 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The costs of the war are indeed often used as an argument against that war. However that does not mean that it should solely be seen as a criticism. Many other section subjects of this article (casualties, humanitarian crisis) are (as you rightly remark) also used as critical arguments, however you do not see many people arguing that those be put solely under criticism. My point is, that listing a subject under criticism makes it an opinion. The number of casualties or the cost of the war are facts (although disputable ones), the opinion is that the war is not worth paying such a price. The latter should be in the criticism section, the former should not.145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The best template for how to present an article on a controversial war would be to emulate wikipedias articles on non-controversial wars. Wiki's WWII page doesn't include costs nor does it WWI page. The only time the costs of war is even brought up is as a criticism of this specific war. The cost of war should remain in the criticism section and that section should just be labeled 'Criticism' and not 'Criticisms and Costs of the Iraq War'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.108.47 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the war articles do have costs, and my paper encyclopedia has costs for some of the wars, too. I added the financial cost to the WWII article. Boowah59 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the third paragraph, which is about the results. Boowah59 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey needs to be added to the combatants of this war. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_kurds They are killing hundreds of rebels. Sgt Simpson (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. SG2090 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkey v PKK

I've separated Turkey and PKK from the list of general combatants with a line. I've also added the two commanders for them as well. However, we should talk about how we want to handle continued updating of this portion of the conflict, some questions:

1. Do we also want to add PKK and Turkish casualties, strengths, etc to the info box? Probably should to be consistent.
2. What is the best way to signify their inclusion in the conflict, but not confuse readers as to the level of involvement? Maybe a line separating them is enough, but perhaps there are other options.
3. Iran and the PEJAK have also had some border incursions, not as significant as Turkey's/PKK's current ops, but if we include one border conflict, should we include the other? Or should we wait for the Iran v PEJAK conflict to reach a certain level before inclusion? Publicus 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

One other question, on which side should we place these new combatants?Publicus 18:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the sides, I have already included the 175 killed PKK fighters on the list of insurgent casualties, because for one, the US military gave inteligence to the Turks so they can destroy their infrastructure, and second, Bush himself has declared the PKK to be a common enemy of the US and Turkey in the War on terrorism. If you decide that the PKK should not be included in the war I will remove them from the casualty toll.Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 23:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Top Gun-I figured you would be on top of the PKK casualties. Let's wait until after the holidays to see how editors would like to handle this. Publicus 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the PKK insurgents? Turkeys dispute is a separate issue from the occupation of Iraq but is connected to the Iraq war so probably needs a section in this article. It is complicated by the U.S. also supporting the PKK in Iran. According to Haaretz Israel is supporting Turkey and Israeli crews are operating the UAVs used to target Iraqi Kurds so we need to include Israel in comabatants as well. Wayne (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, what's the link on the Israeli support of Turkey on this? I haven't heard anything about that.Publicus 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just found the story you must be talking about [5]. From this story it appears that Israeli Aerospace Industries is supporting the Turkish military due to some contractual issue regarding providing UAVs to Turkey. Since these Israeli crews appear to be working as contractors for Turkey--and not as official Israeli military personnel, I'm not sure if Israel should be listed as a combatant. Publicus 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Soldier Opinion Addition

I am a veteran of OIF I & II. I have added a U.S. Soldier section to the Opinion section because I feel that it is important that the U.S. Soldier's voice is heard. Not all soldiers feel they should be in Iraq and some soldiers do. Please help me in respecting the soldiers who have fought and died by keeping this section and even adding to it. Without the U.S. Soldier we would not be able to voice our opinions, just like in these articles.Rmouser (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think having the opinion of soldiers is a good thing for the article. However, your introductory piece was WP:OR and the picture needs some explanation before it can be used. Ursasapien (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I have made some changes to the picture and I will cite myself for the introduction.Rmouser (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The subtitles now state "solder who believe WE should('nt) be in Iraq". It should be obvious that "we" should be changed to "US troops" as a start. As a second I doubt the relevance of the entire subsection. I understand that the voice of US soldiers needs to be heard. The question is whether it should be heard in an encyclopedia. I think not. Perhaps it would be relevant to include research (if it exists) regarding U.S. soldiers stances on the war, however such research does not include some more or less random quotes. I thus feel the section should be removed, and will do so later this day when I have my login data. 145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have again posted the U.S. Soldier tab to the Opinions section. I made a change on the subtitles from We to U.S. Soldier. I still believe that this is a very important and needs to be kept on the OPINIONS tab. I emphasize Opinion because thats what it is, an opinion's section. It is impossible to research all U.S. Soldier's opinions, that is why I included two quotes for both topics and leave it open to all U.S. Soldiers to add to it. It is time to recognize the people who put their lives on the line and let their words be a part of the Iraq War History.Rmouser (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is really interesting. I really like the idea, but I'm not sure this section is completely in line with Wikipedia policies. I don't want to remove it personally because I don't want to get into a fight about patriotism and censorship of soldiers opinions. Personally I love our troops, I have a lot of friends that serve in the military and I do support the mission in Iraq but I don't think think this section will stand the test of time. I'm going to leave it per WP:IGNORE. Like I said, I love our troops and like this idea but don't be surprised when others come here to remove the section and argue that it's against policy here. I can see this becoming a heated issue really quick here unfortunately. Elhector (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am user 145.9.226.69 from the post three up (now logged in). Elhector makes a valid point, the section is not suitable for Wikipedia. Let me be the first to do what should be done, and that is to remove it. I am sympathetic to the U.S. soldiers, especially those who are willing to speak up. However Wikipedia is not a forum. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good you removed the following text, it would really confuse people after reading everything else in the article.

U.S. Soldiers Who Believe The U.S. Should Be In Iraq * "Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going foward with no changes. Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and its's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible." Captain Jim Modlin[206] * "It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave." Captain Mike Lingenfelter[206]

--Exterior37 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have once again deleted the section because it provides no encyclopedic information on the subject - obviously soldiers are going to have opinions on the war, stating this fact adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. Having statements by four random soldiers as somehow expressing the opinion of the United States' military is a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE. I'm not saying that I oppose having a section on the opinion of US troops, but I am demanding that the section be representative of the views of the entire military, not just four soldiers. Notice how the international and Iraqi public opinion subsections discuss opinion polls, rather than just listing quotes?--Rise Above The Vile 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag: any substance?

After reading this talk page, I am not sure the POV tag is on the article for anything more than personal feelings. Does anyone have any reason to believe that this article is biased because it omits or misrepresents anything found in reliable sources? If the only reason for the tag is based on gut feelings, rumors, op-eds, or innuendo, then it should not stay. Boowah59 (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, the POV tag is not linked to a specific concern and should be removed, in any case such a concern has not been explained in detail why it would constitute an NPOV violation Thisglad (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to change it back to {{current event}} then. Anyone is welcome to re-add the {{POV}} tag, but please put the reasons here on this talk page, and please make sure those reasons are based on reliable sources. Boowah59 (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• The {{current}} tag was removed. It is intended for articles edited by many, as in a hundred or so, in the same day. Not the case for this article. See Template:Current#Guidelines. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow Picture

At least let me leave my picture there for now. This all started because of an english project at Purdue University. When I have more time I'll work on a better addition for the U.S. Soldiers (without them sites like this probably wouldn't exist).Rmouser (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange Statement

"Approximately nine months after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States initiated Operation Southern Focus as a change to its response strategy," The statement seems to imply a cause and affect. Clearly 9 months is an irrelevant time span. If it were 1 months maybe I could see a cause and effect. Every significant effect have impacts on future events and the 2 are related in that they are both related to the general war against radical Islam. Still there was no Direct connection between the 2 events. I am sorry, the pentagon was not sitting around one day deciding what to do about Iraq and radar installations who were locking onto our Jets who were patrolling the no fly zone. Then someone stands up and says, it's been 9 months since 9/11 we really need to start using bombs. September 11 significantly impacted a number of things. For example September 11 created 1300 orphans, New York City saw a 20% births after 9/11. There are many reasons why 9/11 impacted birth rates. It brought people together, changed their priorities, made people forget about petty arguments, increased the time spent with loved ones due to unemployment and the fear of going out. 9 months is the normal gestation period for humans. So yes September 11 clearly had clear and direct impact in conception. That being said I don't believe there is a policy at the pentagon that says 9 months after a significant terrorist attack you must change tactics in areas of operations. If we adjusted our tactics the next day or week after 9/11, then a connection could be made Even then the 2 events could be not directly related. In any case the line is random, misleading and not relevant to events in Iraq. I mean we could say "In response to the increase in birth in New York City, the pentagon decided escalate operations in Iraq". I removed the line entirely, I assume no reasonable person will object.Mantion (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rampant bias

I know that this probably won't do any good since it's obvious that there is a core group of left-wingers who control this page with an iron fist, but I just had to say something. This is without a doubt THE single most biased, skewed, and downright propagandizing page about a well publicized event that I have ever seen on this site, and that's saying a lot. I don't like the Bush administration or the Iraq War, but that doesn't make me any less repulsed by the propaganda stench emanating from this sorry excuse for an article. Though I'm not sure of the exact process, it would seem to me that this page is in serious need of some sort of official review, because whatever has been done to it up until now has failed miserably. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if what you say is 100% true, how do you expect to convince anyone or get them to do anything about it without some particulars? Pbt54 (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The artical is largely just facts and the grammar is usually a product of either consensus or mediation due to this being a controversial subject. I know that there are parts that lean a little left but there are just as many that lean right. Overal the artical is basically nuetral so nothing stands out as particularly biased. As Pbt54 said....give specific concerns and we can see what needs to be done. Wayne (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article on the Iraq War is complete skewed toward left-wing opinions and the factual significance of this article has gone completely out the window. Notice that many of the sources are from extreme left-wing propaganda outlets such as the the BBC or Al Jazeera, whose polls dont mean a hill of beans because they are rigged in favor of leftist and islamist extremists. It's further interesting that nothing was mention of the 35 French missiles and Russian night vision gogles that were discovered following the 2003 invasion, that truly explains French and Russian opposition to the invasion in the first place: The French and Russians were illegally supplying Hussein with weapons and technology banned under UN sanctions. The same UN sanctions forbade Saddam Hussein from possessing missiles with a range of over 150 km (93 miles), and yet in the opening days of the invasion he fired an untold number of SCUD missiles at Coalition forces. Barrels of toxic chemicals were found in a schoolyard south of Baghdad, and nuclear reactor parts were found buried in the ground after the invasion. It doesn't matter what the report said on Saddam's WMD stockpile. The WMDs were there and SaddamHussein got help from Russia, France, Syria, and Iran to move the weapons out of the country, just to discredit the U.S. and its allies for the invasion. Aside from the WMDs Hussein needed to be removed from power for what he did to his people. His reign of terror in the Middle East made Slobodan Milosevic look like a humane person. Wxstorm (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You tell'm Wxstorm! Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look at that. The truth has been told. SG2090 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some questions:

1. Is there a reliable source that calls the BBC an, "extreme left-wing propaganda outlet"?
2. Is there a reliable source that says the French and Russian opposition was because of their missles and night-vision googles that had been supplied to Iraq?
3. Is there any reliable source that says the French and Russian governments were even aware of those items? A shred of proof that they were not supplied by independent dealers?
4. What is the source for the "barrels of toxic chemicals found in a schoolyard"?
5. Is there any reliable source that says WMDs were moved out of Iraq?

You have to realize that Wikipedia can only include what has been published in reliable sources. Speculation and personal opinion are not allowed.

I am familiar with the buried "reactor parts" and if you look deeper you will find that the scientist who buried them has maintained that he did so on his own, without official instructions to do so. Also note please that, at my request, and later with my help, the introduction to the article now makes clear all of the reasons for the invasion, not just WMDs. Boowah59 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

O...K... I had no idea the left wing bias was soooooo rampant. WP:Be bold. Add the night googles and stuff but don't complain too much if someone adds something like this: "Twenty-four U.S.-based corporations have been implicated in connection with illegally supplying Saddam Hussein’s government with weapons and technology. Groups documented in the report included U.S. government agencies such as the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and Department of Defense, Eastman Kodak, Dupont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Sperry, Hewlett-Packard, and Bechtel." Wayne (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that recognize the left lean of the BBC. Again, your standard of reliability would seem to only include some other left leaning media outlet which has called the BBC left leaning. LAUGHABLE!!! Just as a quick case in point . . . some sources have pointed out the obvious bias in an article like this one . . . [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7160520.stm ]. Of course, this is but one example of many that can be found among the numerous sources that you almost certainly reject out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What are the "numerous sources" and "some sources"? I am going to guess that you are referring to op-eds in right-wing publications. The BBC is world-renowned for its accuracy, and anything more than a tiny mistake, which is rare, becomes a mini-scandal. And what are the specifics here? Which specific BBC story is being called into question? Boowah59 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted a link to one such story. The issue here isn't accuracy, but bias. Something can be completely accurate, but still reflect a particular viewpoint. Often what is left out of a story is what makes it biased. Also, fixation on particular viewpoints, while ignoring others, is biased. I don't reject the BBC out of hand. They are not a bad news source, but I do see a left lean in their reporting. They are a state run news agency funded by a poll tax. By nature they lean left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.34.27 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This one??? First, it doesn't seem to even be used in this article. But most importantly, why is it biased? It looks to me like it reports all the arguments from both sides. How does it lean left? Boowah59 (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To suggest the BBC is not leftist in point of view (particularly in reporting on Operation Iraqi Freedom) would be like saying that NBC is neutral and non-biased, or that FOX News is not a conservative media outlet. I am not just saying "BBC is considered a leftist outlet" I am stating that factually BBC leans left to support their viewpoints and media objectives (e.g., get the British out of the Iraq war). Almost funny, to think anyone will counter that fact. To change the subject for a minute .... An obvious “BAD” on Wikipedia (worse than even the BBC) is how the best writers here (some of you write EXTREMELY well) strive to strike conservative remarks, or half-baked conservative views on the war, but allow Left Flap to go unchecked for months or years. One very small example; (here for almost 2 years) the photo caption of Lynndie England stating that she was convicted for torturing civilians .... "England was convicted by a US Army court martial for the torture of civilians". That is deliberate Left-Wing bias. She was never convicted of torture. She was convicted of abuse ("maltreatment") of detainees. This is almost funny, but rather sad … because it shows how messed up this “Wiki” is. Then too, it is a bit extreme, because it tells a lie in order to propagandize the article. And most likely, propagandize the article to push a political objective. England did mistreat prisoners, and rightfully she was court martialed, convicted and punished. Everyone rebuked, rejected and abhorred that they did that stuff to those prisoners. But it is simply left-wing bias here to continue stating that which is NOT fact. Write it as if writing an article into history, or do not write here at all. The article on Lynndie England also froths-forth this "torture" point of view ("The formal charges did not mention the word "torture," although some commentators have so described her conduct." A quote from the Wikipedia article on Lynndie England). So-What? Who cares what "some-commentators" say? The writer is using this "some commentators" quote to skew the article. It would be irresponsible to include this in the article, even IF the commentator(s) were listed. I will remove the word "torture" from the photo caption on this page today. But in classic fashion, I suspect that someone will reinstall the word “torture” tonight.

“The Nation” as a reference on abuse in the war? On this page , bottom, there is a large pure quote paragraph on; “Falsely framing dead or captured Iraqis as enemy combatants or insurgents; “ The Nation is the only source here. The Nation is publicly obvious outspokenly extreme liberal, and not a reliable source of anything. Tilted and opinioned in their “research”, the only real objective of The Nation seems to support and swing political opinion towards liberal, by bashing conservative politics. Their main focus as-of late; bashing the war … and "reporting" War-Crimes. They fund and perform all of their own versions of research which (almost entirely) consists of gathering opinions of whoever (they want) to help purport their claims of crimes and abuses. Clearly a problem, and a bad choice to leave The Nation articles plastered on a historic article (or as a reference, or as a quote, or as research). This logic applies to any article if WIKIPEDIA is to ever be respected as more than another extreme-left-wing-opinion outlet. To compare, it would be like using a lower, more irresponsible source than The National Enquirer to report on a celebrity -- and thinking nothing of it. Bwebb00 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're complaining about the BBC, okay, we've got Fox News and NewsMax stories in the references, too. Again, which BBC story do you have a problem with?

As for "torture" you are right to quote the source directly, but in addition to the unnamed commentators, what happened fits my dictionary's definition of torture as "intentional infliction of pain and suffering," and there's a lot more to that effect at Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, an article I've never even seen before now.

If you were complaining about a Nation op-ed, I'd be in complete agreement. But the story you're talking about is some of their investigative reporting, and unless you can point to where they've been faulted for accuracy, I think they have a fairly decent track record. And really, do you seriously question the accuracy of that passage? It wouldn't surprise anyone who has ever been in combat. Boowah59 (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC? I did not cite a particular article at the BBC that I have a problem with. I have a problem with the BBC editorial staff altogether. BBC (their senior leadership) reports that they have a problem with liberal bias. It gets worse than just this. Research the rest yourself. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6764779.stm

FAULTED FOR ACCURACY. “The Nation” and their article “the Other War” is off the left-rocker to the point of lunacy. The Nation did not troll for this story, they literally trawled the bottom to scrape it up. By selectively editing and choosing opinions in an order to bias an article one can create propaganda. But to continue and create a report like this, creates a falsehood which is a lie. It is a lie, because at least a few of the G.I.’s who were critical of the war have rolled over and deeply criticized Chris Hedges and Laila Al Arian for publishing “the Other War” -- because they misused their testimonies, quoted them out of context, AND deliberately creating a falsehood by editing around the intended meaning of statements.

One of the smaller / shortest replies to The Nation, blasting them for misusing a testimony;

“07/27/2007 @ 12:45am I, too, was a contributor to this piece. I respect the position of the other contributors and don't deny that in war bad things do happen. But in an effort to disclose all truths the below should also be known to readers. I was personally outraged, appalled and horrified while reading this article and not due to the alleged findings...the alleged truths that this article supposedly uncovered. I was in complete disbelief at how inaccurately my statements were portrayed and how conveniently they were selected to support the thesis of the authors. I suspect that I'm not the only veteran of the fifty interviewed who shares these sentiments. I'm sickened and ashamed to be, in any way, associated with this article. Megan O’Connor, Venice CA”

Chris Heges and Laila Al Arian visited the most extreme anti-war groups they could find to scrape up this pile. They did not just poll the VFW or any normal assembly of veterans for opinions (although they did “contact them” to create the illusion that they had.)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/veteran

The creditability of “The Nation” (and WIKIPEDIA) is diminshed to publish this article co-written or written by Laila Al Arian. Her activist ties with her fathers terrorism trials in Florida most certainly removed any chance that she reported objectively in Iraq. Particularly since he will be deported over his activities. Laila Al-Arian is the daughter of former University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian. Sami Al-Arian pleaded guilty to conspiracy "to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad”. In short, he plead out, under numerous charges of funding and assisting terrorist groups. Chris Hedges, in journalistic fashion, defended Sami Al-Arian through it all. Even amidst a huge background of involvement. According to former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus, “It is a matter of record that an organization known as the Baraka group laundered the money to the skyjackers of Sept. 11. Sami Al-Arian incorporated Baraka in the state of Florida, which was dissolved on Sept. 28, 2001.”

Will Someone with a Moderate – Normal – Neutral Point of View Please Speak Up? Bwebb00 (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That URL on the BBC you give specifically says their fairness audit didn't find evidence of any institutional bias, even though a few of the people they interviewed said they were biased. That's what you would expect of any news organization, there are always going to be a few people that think it's biased. The independent reviewers saw that for what it was, a minority view that couldn't be justified by the data. So that link directly contradicts your own argument.

As for The Nation, it seems you selectively picked one from several letters that were about evenly matched from soldier interviewees concerning whether the piece was accurate and they were accurately represented in it: http://www.thenation.com/bletters/20070730/hedges

And trying to impinge someone's motives for their family member's crime is not the way we do things here. Maybe I would have been convinced if you hadn't cherry-picked one letter that said what you wanted to say out of several that were fairly evenly split. Boowah59 (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth WOULDNT I cherry pick the one letter, when you hand-pick plenty of biased media to support your POV here. The Nation’s “The Other War” banks on these anecdotal war-crime accusations, and yet their evidence testimony has been utterly refuted by one (or two) of these interviewees. Why wouldn’t I just quote her? It is clearly NOT out of context. Not only did one or two interviewees protest them for distorting testimony, the fifty or so anecdotal reports do not find fact. No conclusive investigation has dragged this out into the light, that the US routinely plants weaponry on dead Iraqis – yet Wikipedia cites it as “proof” at the bottom of the page. Why? Because some extremist-Anti-War site said it to be so? --(The Nation). 50 opinions is also a miniscule fraction of opinion, considering and that more than a million US troops and civilian contractors have worked in, or fought in the Iraq war (and they heavily polled Anti-War groups to get those "testimonies".

“The Other War” author Laila Al-Arian and her co-author, Chris Hedges – are both radical anti-war journalists. It IS relevant, for me to mention that she was an ACTIVIST in defending her father, which certianly effects her judgement (if not her MOTIVES) for reporting fairly. Her father’s PIJ extremist Jihadist involvement is a pretty scary chapter (if you actually research it objectively).... prompting me to wonder why it is that so many Leftists here, ignore this altogether and support that quote from “The Other War” on front page. Bwebb00 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Hedges is "radical"? Says who? Sure, he's anti-war, but you aren't going to find any pro-war reporters doing inquiries into human rights abuses, so naturally all those articles are going to be by at least non-pro-war sources.

And, again, anyone who has been in combat isn't going to be startled by the accusations. U.S. civilian police plant guns on accidental shooting victims, too, by their own admission. With as many letters to the editor from the interviewees supporting the story as against it, I'm convinced it's fine. It has the ring of truth. I challenge you to find anyone who has been in a major urban combat operation who says it doesn't. Boowah59 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the invasion of Iraq a war crime

In many countrys and pages of wikipedia the war on Iraq was called a crime against peace. Why there is no mentioning in this article about the possible breaking of international law by the US and it's coalition of the willing? Except the small paragraph about "Opposition to invasion"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.136.29 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the allegations have never been substantiated by a tribunal, because the U.S. has a veto on the U.N. Security Council. The perminant members get a way with a lot. Domestically, the invasion and continued efforts have been repeatedly authorized and funded by Congress. Boowah59 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the importance of the fact that it was authorized by the Congress? Even Hitler got his money from somewere. And why do you need something like a "substantiat" from some tribunal? As to say it with Shakespeare: "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". It simply is/was a crime against peace by definition of the international law. Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime. The was no U.N. Security Council OK and there was no war preporations against the USA from the Iraq.

Being authorized by Congress means that it was not illegal under U.S. law. Even if it was illegal under international law (which even some supporters admitted, see Criticism of the Iraq War#Illegality) if there is no effective way to prosecute it, it will not be prosecuted and never declared illegal by a tribunal charged with making such a determination. Boowah59 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War: Results

Iraq War: Results

Preface: Voices here in the discussion area make claims that the Iraq War Wiki is substantially misguided. I would agree for various reasons, but in short, the page is not worthy of wikipedia publication in my view, a position I am willing to substantiate at great length. For now, let us visit a section as a start, and attempt reasoned progress.

Iraq War: Results

The results section lists no fewer than eight "results" of an ongoing conflict.

I find this wholly inappropriate for the following reasons:

1 - The notion of listing the results of an event in progress is logically unsound. One would just as soon list the results of a scientific experiment still in progress.

2 - Total departure from the Results format of the vast bulk of war Wiki's, making the Results entry an aberration in the vast works of the wikipedia.

To substantiate these two grievances, I offer these observations:

Comparison of this entry to all other war entries in the wikipedia, of which there are many dozens, the Iraq war Results entry contains vastly more entries of kinds that simply do not appear in other, better constructed pages.

Example: "Occupation of Iraq" is sloppy, at best. It is hardly a result, unless one is willing to assert that the "occupation" is for all intents and purposes, permanent, which of course is not knowable. It is also a term that has less than clear meaning. If it means only that military forces are to be found in areas that they have successfully entered, then it is merely a natural and obvious observation, and clearly not a "result" any more than wet ground is a result of rain that one should take a special note of.

While the "Execution of Saddam Hussein" is not disputed, it is also rather out of line with the Results of Wars in other Wiki pages. It is less a "Result" than a simple fact that should be included in the body of the work. Also, the execution is more directly the result of Hussein's trial, and not the military conflict itself.

Humanitarian crises are the rule, not the exception, for warfare throughout the ages. One may as well list "Wide distribution of lead" as one of the results of the war, due to arms fire. And once again, Humanitarian crisis simply does not appear as part of the general format of "Results" in war related Wikipedias, making this entry stand out like a sore thumb as grossly non-conformant to other far better works.

Calling the Iraqi insurgency the "result" of the Iraq war, is like calling "complaints" the "result" if issuing homework to students in school. The motivations to take up arms in the aftermath of the formal collapse of any government are far too varied and complex to be casually listed as a "result". Shall we start listing "resistance" as the result of all changes chronicled in the wikipedia?

I shall not bore readers with a continuance of my critiques, but in two specific ways, the Results area is deficient: It pretends to have "results" of an event that is not settled, and secondly, it grossly deviates from the nature, tone, and construction of other war results entries throughout the wikipedia.

For these reasons, the Result portion of the entry should simply read: "Conflict Ongoing", and not to rush history to a premature conclusion. And to deflect those that would claim that this is a disservice to Wikipedia readers, I remind all of an idea contained in the Hippocratic oath for medical practitioners: First do no harm. Listing *incorrect* "results" is more harmful than correctly noting that the event is ongoing, and will certainly, given appropriate time, be properly recorded. Next, as it is a current event, there is no shortage of information regarding long and shot term results and an accumulation of facts (often disputed or changing) that I suggest that current levels of information represent an oversaturation of politically motivated views, quite different from a reasoned, long-view historical entry, which the wikipedia should be. In this, the wiki should adopt a sane and very modest posture, as it waits for history to unfold.

So, again, in the call of moderation and in deferance to Wiki wisdom found in other similar pages, I call for the "Results" secion of the entry to read, simply "Conflict Ongoing" as being fully correct and proper given the current state of affairs.

Ryder Spearmann (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We have several articles about ongoing conflicts with a substantial "Result" in their infobox, e.g., Colombian armed conflict (1964–present) and Internal conflict in Peru. But I agree with you. I will try to replace "Result" with "Status". Boowah59 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for help to correct this at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict#"Result" should be "Status" for ongoing conflicts. Boowah59 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Result" has been changed to "Status" Boowah59 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading statements in the article

This article contains an outright distortion by Sydney Blumenthal. According to him, a CIA asset informed them in September 2002 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. What he failed to mention was that this same asset (Naji Sabri) also said that Saddam "desperately wanted" a nuclear bomb, that "research" was being conducted into BW, and that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. [6] He's also misleading when he claims that it's an exclusive--it was reported in the media back in 2006. Also, the intelligence communisty apparently did not trust him. I will replace his distortion with what the Washington Post said soon, I just wanted to make my rationale clear. CJK (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...No distortion. The article actually is an exclusive as you will notice if you read both the quoted source and the Washington Post. Blumenthal never failed to mention anything. The source used mentions what you claim it doesn't. The only difference is the mention of the chemical weapons and the Post is clear that they had nothing to do with Saddam. Intelligence agencies may not have trusted Sabri but they did validate his claims from other sources. The current source is also more accurate than the earlier Post article on several points. Kudos for coming to talk before mistakenly editing what is an accurate sentence. Wayne (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"The only difference is the mention of the chemical weapons and the Post is clear that they had nothing to do with Saddam." Uh, sorry, did you read the post? It stated that it had nothing to do with the military not Saddam. "He said he had been told Hussein had them dispersed among some of the loyal tribes."

"Intelligence agencies may not have trusted Sabri but they did validate his claims from other sources." What other sources?

Furthermore, your assertion that the current source is more accurate is unwarranted. CJK (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah!

I was looking through the first (in order of appearance in the article) few of CJK's changes, and found, a spelling error ("verifably") and a missing comma ("interests while Bush argued") which are not so bad, but then there's this:

However, it was later discovered that Wilson's report actually strengthened analysts views that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger because they found it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales. (ref: REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ )

That looked suspicious so I read through the ref given, and at the end there is this:

"DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.

"Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue."

The word "strengthened", or any reasonable synonym for this context, does not occur in the source. I would like to ask CJK what sees in the source that justifies the inclusion. Boowah59 (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

With no reply, I guess this was a drive-by POV push. Boowah59 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a closer look. It reads "DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales." "Strengthened" is not specifically mentioned, though the fact that they found it "interesting" undoubtedly signalled that their view was strengthened. However, I will alter the language to satisfy your need for strict reporting. CJK (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I note you reverted wholesale my changes to your additions without discussion; including, for example, putting the chronology in chronological order and a number of cleanups. I did you the courtesy of explaining each and every one of my edits' reasons in edit summaries. You need to explain why you think your changes are neutral, accurate, and for a 150+KB article, not redundant. Please see my edit summaries for my reasons. Boowah59 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly.

1. washington post article says nothing about "September" (just "more than six months before ... March 2003") or not being shared with NIE authors Six months before March 2003 was September 2002. — CJK — continues after insertion below

• More than 6 months before would have been earlier than September. Boowah59 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine, September shall be removed. CJK (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2. these three unnamed sources said that prohibited weapons use was authorized, not that they existed I will change this to indicate their authorization. — CJK — continues after insertion below

• This distorts the fact that they had intelligence from multiple sources saying that they did not possess any CBW, and none saying that they did. Boowah59 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Who are these "multiple sources" claiming that CBW did not exist? CJK (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Naji Sabri and UNSCOM.[7]. Boowah59 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

3. same report says ISD "found no evidence that the UAVs had been designed to deliver biological agent" They didn't have a dispenser system that would deliver it, true. But the current article wording misleadingly suggests that it "consisted of a handful of outdated wingspan drones with no room for more than a camera and video recorder, and no offensive capability" as if CBW adaptability was impossible. — CJK — continues after insertion below

• This is very misleading. My pickup truck could be adapted to deliver CBW. Does that mean it should be seized? This is saying something that implies a remote possibility that was never pursued by the Iraqis. Boowah59 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The idea that no offensive capability existed is absurd. By design, CBW delivery was an inherent capability. I could live with a statement that noted that it was not intended for CBW while simultaneously noting the potential application. CJK (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The source says: "no offensive capability." Since essentially any vehicle has such an inherent capability, stating it implies something that didn't happen. Nobody associated with those drones ever planned to put anything more than camera equipment in them; the sources say that, and no sources say otherwise. Boowah59 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

4. About Blix: The stuff about the U.N. is important enough to require it's own section. And that section will have it's own chronological order. It is out of place to put the U.N. stuff in with the authorization section. — CJK — continues after insertion below

• You might have noticed that I didn't remove any of that, I placed it in chronological order, where his January 2003 statements can be compared with his very different March 2003 statements. Boowah59 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You placed it in a section which it did not belong in at all, and you leave the impression that issues were being resolved, when in fact almost no issues had been resolved, as shown by the compendium report. The March remarks can be stated, but not without the proper context. CJK (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The first several sections are a chronology. The section where it doesn't belong is the one where it occurs out of order with all the other paragraphs in those sections. Several issues had been resolved, including access to every single site that the U.S. claimed was out of compliance, and the destruction of several minor violations like rockets a few feet to large. What additional context do you think is needed? Boowah59 (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

5. rm redundancy in intro It is not a redundancy. When I edited this article months ago, the article said that Bush argued it was an imminent threat. I changed it, citing Bush himself who implied that he rejected that notion. It was then changed to "U.S. officials", ignoring Bush. — CJK — continues after insertion below

• Cherry picking that statement is an absurd attempt to push your POV. You could just as easily replace that particular statement with any of these:
  1. "This is about imminent threat." - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  2. "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American." - President Bush, 1/3/03
  3. "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." - President Bush, 11/23/02
  4. "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place." - President Bush, 10/7/02
  5. "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." - President Bush, 10/2/02
• But, you want to include the one quote that suggests, with a rhetorical device, that the threat may not already be imminent. If that direct quote is included in addition to the summary of all administration statements, then one of these quotes above, or the relative number of times that the threat was described in more urgent terms, needs to also be included. To do otherwise would be an unacceptable presentation of just one side of the issue from an outlier, in an attempt to skew readers' perceptions. Boowah59 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in your quotes does Bush describe an "imminent" threat. The reason that the quote is so important is that the whole rationale given about the invasion was about not waiting until the threat was imminent. CJK (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • A summary isn't supposed to say only what one person said in a single speech with a direct quote and leave it at that. His official spokesperson said it was an imminent threat. Several officials spoke on the issue, some in stronger terms. It's absurd to cherry pick the softest quote, and it's just embarrassing to see someone try. What would you say if I wanted to put Bush's "mushroom cloud" statement there instead? Boowah59 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that for a user wanting "neutral, accurate, and for a 150+KB article, not redundant" information, a crank conspiracy theory was added about the destruction of the oil cartel OPEC. This was added in spite of the fact that the very article cited claims the alleged "plan" was scrapped within a month of the invasion. CJK (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that there are two sources given, one of them entirely reputable[8] while Palast's Newsnight program (with multiple high-quality official sources speaking on camera) is attributed to him by name. If the plan was in effect during the build-up, or shows intent before 9/11, it's pertinent. Boowah59 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a crank conspiracy theory that has no particular notability. Even if there was a plan, there is no evidence that it was a primary intent. CJK (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources. If it's crank theory, where are the reliable sources debunking it? I agree that there is no telling what the "primary" intent was, or even if there was one reason more primary than others. I was the one who got the other reasons back in the intro, which for most of this article's history only mentioned suspected WMD and Al-Qaida ties as causes. Boowah59 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New attempt at compromise

OK, I tried to re-word some of the material to address your concerns in my last edit, please respond here if there are any problems. CJK (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded inline above and in section-separate edit summaries to keep the issues together. Reverting fewer parts this time, I think slowly we are reaching a medium. Boowah59 (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of US troops with Iraqi kids

Do we really need those? --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the kids in question are having a house searched by soldiers, just had a family blown up, and was severely injured, makes me think they are not particularly biased. Maybe a graph of the number of M.D.s in Iraq over the years would be good. Boowah59 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of these two: [9], [10]. I don't know what they add to the article. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, those kids are pretty obviously victims of the war, so I don't think the photos are biased. What sort of problem do you have with them? Boowah59 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

They're giving the impression that the US military presence in Iraq is primarily a humanitarian mission. While there may be such a side to it too, I feel that including those pictures in the article is about as neutal as putting up pictures with Iraqi children shot dead (which I'd also consider quite unnecessary). --82.183.224.40 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should still keep them thought. SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We tried that first image awhile ago. Good image but it didn't really lend anything to the article. Publicus 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Their used like the topical images we have at the bottom of the article, so if we don't need those pictures then we might as we get the topical images out as well. SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 21:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, we could just have a link in "See also" to all the media/images/etc associated with the war. Publicus 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

need the started in this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.211.48 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think one of these pictures could be kept, but two comes across as unnecessary and does not convey any useful or interesting information Thisglad (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

I just wanted to propose something. The number of 665,000 civilians killed in Iraq that stands in the infobox which has been based on the Lancet survey. First of all. I think we should remove it. Th number is firstly out of date, the number is from June 2006, second it has been discredited and the number has been attacked by Bush and other agencies as overinflated for political reasons. The Iraq Body Count group gives a number of 80,381 - 87,792 killed based on verified reports. I mean c'mon 665,000 dead? There were not that many dead in only 3 years of war in Bosnia and Croatia and that was some WAR. So suggestion to replace the Lancet survey for the Iraq Body Count group number, which is UP TO DATE. Who is in favor of this.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It should say because it was published by a very credible source, disputed by some but debunked by no one Thisglad (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

According to a new study by the World Health Organization, civilian casualties are around 151,000 from March 2003 until June 2006. This slightly higher than the Iraq Body Count study but considerably lower than the oft-criticized Lancet study. The WHO study was also done in conjunction with the Iraq Health Ministry, so it is definitely more authoritative than the other two studies. 72.200.221.133 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I find very credible the WHO number. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the Iraq body count that's irrelevant, and I don't understand why we used it in the article. The IBC project deals only with confirmed deaths, reported by the big media. And we don't know how many deaths there are that are not reported in the media, especially not in the mainly English language media. The Iraq body count project have even expressed this problem themselves:

"We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

I'm glad someone removed it. Also, concerning the accuracy of the Lancet study: [11]. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, remember that the Lancet's study and this new study counts diffrent things. Lancet deals with excessive deaths, WHO with violent deaths. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Think logicly do you realy think that 655,000 Iraqis could be killed in three years of war. That would mean the war is on the scale of World War Three. At least 600 Iraqis would have to be killed each day to come close to that number, and the largest number of Iraqis killed on a regular war day during the most violent periods was at least 250 not more. At least if you will not accept the IBC number, the WHO number (151,000) should replace the Lancet number, because the Lancet number is just ridiculus. It's utter non-sense. In any case the Lancet survey has to go. The Lancet it self said 46 percent of deaths are unknown, that could mean an accident or natural causes. And only war-related deaths should be put in the infobox of this war article.

I think all should be included, you can't dispute the lancet without using original research...simply no one else has access to the resources they had when doing that scientific study Thisglad (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing, Lancet has been disputed, the WHO study has been acknowledged by the UN today and the 151,000 number until June 2006 has been stated as the officialy projected number of deaths of Iraqis, plus the WHO worked with the Iraqi goverment on the number which gives the number even more credibility. And you yourself said that the WHO was recording only violent deaths, those are war-related deaths. And those are the only ones that should be included in the infobox, and not every posible Iraqi that died from a heart attack, in a car crash or who has fallen from a tree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How about people dying from lack of medical supplies, dehydration and starvation because of the war? I'd suppose that the 13 million civilian dead in the Russian civil war article includes the famine tolls. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to start this discussion again? It has been going on on several pages (including this one) for years now. Please read all the comments there, instead of writing them down again. Has anything changed since then, which makes it relevant to open the debate? Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bas van Leeuwen, the difference is a new study by the WHO and Iraq Health Ministry, acknowledged by the UN, has recently been released. This is the most up-to-date and verifiable figure we have. 72.200.221.133 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Up to date but not verifiable as the Iraq Health Ministry is infamous for undercounting. IBC is a joke. A few weeks ago I was reading about four roadside bombings occuring on the same day and later checked to see how IBC reported them. They did not mention two of them (with 30 deaths) at all even though they were reported in a mainstream paper. I also checked to see what damage the recent coalition air strike (Operation Marne Thunderbolt) did and according to the IBC, 20 tons of bombs dropped in a Baghdad suburb killed no one. CNN also recently reported two policemen killed in Baghdad and IBC shows only one killed in Mosel for that day. Whatever you feel about the accuracy of various sources the Lancet and ORB studies are the most reliable to date even if they are an overestimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The debate (in one sense) is now over. The debate here is probably just beginning. See my Lancet Article addition below. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)