Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

"Declared War"

Apparantly the VA's position here: VA benefits info is the following

Gulf War The "Gulf War" began on August 2, 1990. Since an end of the conflict has not been declared by Congress, everyone who has been on active duty since it began may qualify as wartime veterans, regardless of duty assignment, when seeking VA benefits.

I know it annoys a few who consider this a US war of aggression on Iraq, but the fact is the first Gulf War never ended and OIF was a resumption in hostilities due to Saddam failing to meet cease fire conditions that apparantly still continues today. Batvette (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So the VA doesn't consider Gulf War (1990) to be over? I know Congress is a little slow to the punch, but c'mon. So does Congress have to vote to "end hostilities" for the official end of the first Gulf War? Never heard of this before. Publicus 19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact you are calling it the FIRST gulf war shows you aren't getting the point. For official purposes the war never ended, its hostilities were postponed by cease fire, the conflict continued with patrols by allied aircraft enforcing the no fly zone. The "second gulf war" as many would call it was merely an end to the cease fire. I know it may not make sense to us but that is irrelevant, we need to determine the parameters as the gov't sets them. I provided a reliable source to a gov't entity claiming this, need I point out why whether you have heard of this or not is not a prerequisite for its legitimacy?Batvette (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Chill, Batvette--wasn't trying to criticize. Just saying that I had never heard the Gulf War 1990 was not over officially according to the VA. So what are you trying to say, that the beginning date to the "Iraq war" should really be 1990? Just trying to understand this. Thanks. Publicus 01:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's probably relevant to point out that what we're calling "the Iraq war" doesn't exist as such in any official terminology on any government documents we'd look to reference for any determination of start/stop dates. Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and lesser offensives such as Operation Desert Fox aren't really WARS in the traditional sense, and did you see the part in the VA page about Congress? I think that's going to be the pivotal issue in light of the constitution. Batvette (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Final concensus on is the war over or not

Again, this is about verifiability, not consensus. V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's check all of the facts now that have been gathered here on this talk page. This is a rundown for an administrator or a neutral editor to see what the situation is and make a decision.

In other words, lets re-frame the argument so that it best favors your desired outcome. V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

1. After a vote in which editors stated if they see the war over or not, with evidence to their point, the result was that 9-3 consider the war is still very much on.

It is still about verifiability and there have been citations addend since. V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

2. At the moment only five editors are still in a edit war over this issue, of which four (including myself) state that the war is not over. Only one editor is still pushing that the war is over, editor V-7. A neutral editor suggested that the issue be discussed and a compromise solution be reached. This is not possible, since a compromise solution was put forward to editor V-7 however he has refused at every turn for a compromise. For the compromise solution for which all other editors are, except him, see point 8.

I haven't seen a "compromise", what I have seen is arguments that are synthesis and original research or non sequitur. Please stop presuming that you speak for the other editors on this page as well, despite your having canvassed them via their talk pages. V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

3. A majority of editors have put forth a large number of points and references that confirm the war is not over, user V-7's only reference that the war is over is the US governments point of view that the war is over for them. The Iraqi government which is also a large beligerent in this conflict has made no such statement.

No, opinions have been ventured. I am still waiting for references with the WP:WEIGHT and Wikipedia:Verifiability that supersede the ones provided. Otherwise calling it ongoing is Wikipedia:NOR. These are the supposed guidelines that give Wikipedia legitimacy. Dispense with these and you can post whatever you want. Indeed, It would release a lot of people from going around and undoing vandalism or correcting spelling mistakes because the whole encyclopedia would be whatever anyone wanted to post. V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

4. User V-7 has constantly pushed his point of view that the war has ended because the last major member of the invading coalition (the US) who started the war has declared combat operations over. User V-7 is totaly disregarding the fact that Iraqi security forces are still fighting an insurgency who just this week killed almost 150 people in Baghdad alone. V-7 point of view is that the Iraqi security forces don't count as a beligerent in this war because they were not part of the invading force. This is an irrational point of view since those forces joined the Coalition troops in fighting the war just two months after the invasion, thus becoming part of the war. Also, it should be noted that some of the current heads of these new government forces were commanders in the Kurdish militia who WAS part of the invasion force in 2003 and captured the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, thus they were there from the start.

Thanks again for accusing me of bad faith, it never gets old. The Iraqi government was fighting insurgents before the invasion. If the start date of the "Iraq war" is March 20, 2003, the beginning of the invasion then "the Iraq war" refers to the invasion and occupation of the country of Iraq by the coalition forces. To state that the war is continuing because x amount of people were murdered in acts of terrorism in Iraq is a non sequitur argument.I am not disregarding the Iraqi security forces are fighting anti-government insurgents. They were however doing so before the invasion (as you yourself point out with the Kurds). And thanks again for calling my insistence that you provide some verifiable references "irrational". Your tone from start to finish has been belligerent. The supposed fact that there are Kurds in the government is another non sequitur. If anything it means that victory has been achieved.V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

5. V-7's references that the US consideres combat operations over are verified, however even if the US doesn't consider itself part of this conflict anymore the Iraqi government is still fighting it. V-7 has pushed the notion that a war is only a war if it's between two sovereign states, thus if the US is no longer involved in a conflict in Iraq than there is no war in Iraq. Again this is an irrational point of view because we all know that wars are not just between two countries but can be between a government of one country and a homegrown insurgency, which is the case here. V-7 has also attempted to push a point of view that the Iraqi government isn't at war with any insurgency but with only terrorists. In that case all of the people killed by the coalition since 2003 have been just terrorists. It should be noted that the Iraqi government is issuing monthly death tolls and in them they clearly define those people as insurgents. Also, if V-7 is claiming that if the president of the US says combat operations are over, than we should put an end date for the war as May 1, 2003 since Bush said even back than that combat operations were over....what do you call than the last 7 years?

"V-7's references that the US consideres combat operations over are verified" Thank you for stipulating that. Noting the fact that the State department has stated that they were ending the war on the 19th would be swell too. I have not pushed the notion that war is only war if it is between 2 sovereign states Nor have I stated that "the Iraqi government isn't at war with any insurgency but with only terrorists". Re-framing someone else's argument and attributing to them positions which they have not advocated is not the way to get to truth. George Bush reversed himself on the May 1, 2003 date. Barack Obama, the State Department, and the Department of defense have yet to do so this time around as far as I know. When they do you will have a verifiable reference that supersedes the ones posted. V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

6. V-7 claims the US is not involved in combat with the insurgents and they are not attacking any coalition forces, editors have presented references in which it is confirmed that US forces are still being attacked and are still fighting, even still using air strikes.

Again, thank you for attributing things to me that I have not written. And again, there has been combat after the accepted end date of most wars. That does not signify that the coalition is still in a state of war.V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

7. Comparison - there is a precedent for this situation, the Vietnam war, we had the US leave Vietnam in 1973 but the war itself was not declared over than but in 1975 beacuse the South Vietnam government was still fighting.

The comparison to the Vietnam war works in my favor because Vietnam went on to fight Cambodia and China as a direct result of the American involvement there. Vietnam was a co-belligerent (as were the Cambodians and Chinese) however we do not regard the "end date" of the Vietnam war to be sometime in the late 1970s, nor do we regard the beginning to be in the early '50s because the Vietnamese were fighting the French, a country that was receiving American weaponry. V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

8. The compromise solution - this proposition has been accepted by many, again except V-7, the solution is to break down the dates of the war into three phases: Invasion phase March 20, 2003 - May 1, 2003; Coalition counter-insurgency phase May 2, 2003 - August 31, 2010; Iraqi government counter-insurgency September 1, 2010 - present. Note when I proposed to come back to this topic user V-7 deleted my sentance from the discussion page. It was up to this point that I had good faith in V7's attempts to contribute however now after this I have decided that this would be a good time for a neutral editor or an administrator to make a rulling.

Your snarky posts and messages to other editors pretty much dispel the notion that you were acting in good faith here. I inadvertently deleted, apologized for and restored the text where you "proposed to come back to this topic". I don't have any problem in breaking up the dates of the wars into phases, indeed, there already are articles for 2003 invasion of Iraq and Post-invasion Iraq. I have indicated several times on this page that I would not have a problem with that, it doesn't address the conflict here though. If you want to add another page to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Post-invasion Iraq called Post war Iraq I would be amenable to that. V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not just an American war but an Iraqi one also.Diefgross (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


To state that I deleted your "proposal" or any of your words is an outright lie and simple enough to prove so by going through the edit history. Not that you will because that would mean research, like the kind that you still haven't done to find some citation that is verifiable to back your claim that the war is ongoing. I'll answer the rest of your attempt to reframe my argument this evening. V7-sport (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My statement, right here [1], was removed from the talk page. I vote for the proposal that was given in the past. Separate the dates of the war into three phases,... How do you explain this?Diefgross (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actualy no need for an explanation, as seen by this [2], you yourself removed both my and XavierGreen's sentences from the main discussion page of the article.Diefgross (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I apologize, I did not intentionally remove your post and will restore it. V7-sport (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who originally proposed the three phase notation, so I'm obviously happy for that to be implemented, but seriously Diefgross, most of what you said above, while it might makes sense if this was just any old debating forum, is complete nonsense from a Wikipedia process/neutrality/original research standpoint. I think most people have given up arguing with the 'it's not over' crowd here because they must have realised by now, that there is no one event/source/development/criteria that the 'not over' camp will actually accept that they are waiting for which will show the war has ended, to their satisfaction. I can only look with amusement at all the mutually exclusive evidence being offered up above to show it is ongoing though. What for example happens when the Iraqi govt. declares the war is over, but US troops are still in country. Or what happens when the US troop numbers fall to an insignificant amount, and the Iraqi's still say nothing. Or what happens when the Iraqi gov.t says' it's over, yet people carry on dying. It's just a constant stream of tedious contradictory nonsense, that cannot compete with the simple facts of the matter. Chuck in all the appeal to emotion crap about 'dying Americans', and seriously, it's a complete waste of time from an intellectual standpoint. It long ago reached TL;DR territory for most people long ago I'm sure. MickMacNee (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A war is over when all sides stop fighting, which hasn't happened, simple as that. Low level skirmishes can be excluded as part of a war as the example of the German Nazi Werewolf group, however the thing going on in Iraq at the moment is everything except a low-level terrorist action.Diefgross (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"A war is over when all sides stop fighting," The coalition went to war against the government of Saddam Hussein and he as stopped fighting. The United States, the last coalition member to be occupying Iraq has pulled its combat troops out, declared combat to be concluded the war to be ended. As you stipulate, "Low level skirmishes can be excluded as part of a war" which would be exactly what the "battle of palm grove" (involving "4 or 5 insurgents) would be. Attacks on Catholic Churches, as stipulated, are not war but terrorism. What you are insisting on is a complete end to violence and terrorism, which do not in themselves constitute a state of war. V7-sport (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call using attack aircraft low-level in the battle of the Palm grooves, the government of Sadam Hussein was transformed into the insurgency and the Sadam loyalists are still fighting (if the aim of the war to topple his government was achieved than the war ended in 2003), the Iraqi government is the last combatant on the Coalition side that is still active not the US and the violence and terrorism you are talking about has been the whole war from 2004-2010, even per Obama and Bush, thus they constitute a state of war (if they don't, per you than again the war ended in 2003 not now).Diefgross (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
"four or five insurgents"... And you have no idea what faction they represent or what their motivation was because they ran away. "Even per Obama"? You are pretty selective in hearing what he has to say. V7-sport (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all it is absolutely inappropiate to lock down the entry completely. Secondly, there is no need for further wrong Iraq entries, all unnecessary entries should be deleted. Thirdly, the Iraq war is still full ongoing. War against Iraq, Iraqi Civil War other claims otherwise are just ludicrous.--Iluvwiki1 (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. Not only do we have to deal with the same arguments being made over and over and over and over on this talk page, now we have to deal with people simply copying and pasting their comments in multiple sections. This post doesn't even bloody make sense in this section for fucks sake! MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Iluvwiki1, repeating your posts like that is disruptive and disrespectful to other editors, and shows you haven't taken on board the advice you were given earlier. Please don't do it again.
Diefgross, your summary above was helpful, thank you, although obviously I read it in the context of the rest of the page. It still seems to me that there is at least one fundamental stumbling block that need to be overcome - namely, the provision of reliable sources that say the war isn't over. I appreciate that you are saying (if I've understood you correctly) that if people are still fighting the war can't be over. This might seem to be common sense, but Wikipedia rests on verifiability. Editorial policy generally trumps consensus on Wikipedia (unless consensus is to change that policy, which in the case of verifiability would require a serious shift in the site's position as it's part of our five pillars).
As an admin I can't adjudicate content. However, various dispute resolution avenues are open if you can't reach a policy-based consensus here. You can see WP:DR for some ideas, but please bear in mind that (1) policy - ie verifiability - trumps everything else, and (2) that refusing a reasonable compromise (such as, possibly, the three-phase suggestion) will likely be taken as evidence that one side or the other is more interested in "winning" the debate and enforcing their own perspective rather than in doing what's best for the article within Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. EyeSerenetalk 13:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the dozens of sources the majority of editors have provided on the numerous incidents of violence that are continuing in Iraq every day is evidence enough that the war is still on. Plus here is a reference where the US Defence secretary himself says that the US is open to continuing the Iraq War past 2011 [3], cann't get more official than that. The source antiwar.com clearly states that the 50,000 non-combat troops are still engaged in combat. The source/site is well known and verifiabl and has been praised by many all over the world, including US politicians and other news organisations one of which, the Washington Post, stated that Antiwar is a thoughtful, well-organized site and the New York times said they are strikingly successful.Diefgross (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that antiwar.com is not considered reliable due to its biased nature. Blatantly biased, non-mainstream sources are never considered reliable. Furthermore, neither the Washington Post or New York Times statements reinforces that the site is reliable. Swarm X 09:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
They are not biased, they tell the truth as it is striped from the cover of propaganda, if someone doesn't like it tough for them. Both the Washington Post and the New York Press said that the site is, again, a thoughtful, well-organized site and strikingly successful (sources [4][5]). I don't think they would say that if they thought the site is unreliable.....Actualy I don't care anymore, I will just sit now and watch what happens in this discussion. If the people who have bought the US propaganda that the war is over win so be it, it's their problem and it will only hurt them. I am only glad they are a minority (and I am not talking about just here on Wikipedia). I thought Wikipedia was about neutrality, I guess anyones point of view can be pushed.Diefgross (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I just say that the debat over weather the Iraq war is over should be removed from the debate of weather it was right or weather is is an american victory or not.--24.184.97.77 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess that the editors who believe that the war is "over" (even though there are only a few of them) got there way even though there is no direct proof to support their argument and there were more editors who believe that the war is "not over" (myself included). I agree that this whole thing is getting very ridiculous.

Edit request

{{editprotected}} In the infobox, "US combat operations concluded" should say "Foreign combat operations concluded", due to the fact that 39 countries other than the United States have conducted combat operations in Iraq at some point in the war. Swarm X 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No longer protected. Our allies are not foreigners. At least not to them. And are their operations really concluded?Marcus Qwertyus 01:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Our allies are not foreigners in Iraq? The Americans, as well as the entire coalition were foreigners to Iraq. And, considering every other nation other than the US has completely withdrawn from Iraq, yes their combat operations are really concluded...where are you coming from? Swarm X 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you actually reverted it? Silly me, I actually thought common sense was permitted on Wikipedia. Let me lay out a simple argument for you:
  1. Many foreign countries conducted combat operations in Iraq.
  2. All of these countries concluded combat operations in Iraq before the United States did.
  3. The United States has concluded combat operations in Iraq.
  4. Since all other foreign countries concluded combat operations before the US, and the US has concluded combat operations, all foreign countries, including the US, have concluded combat operations.
  5. Therefore, all foreign combat operations are concluded.
Swarm X 09:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Casualties non-hostile and hostile

Can someone add under coalition deaths the hostile and non-hostile deaths... It is important to have the total number of US and Coalition forces killed during the war but i believe it is also important to add how they were killed...If they were killed resulting from hostile fire or non-hostile incidents... The total number of Hostile deaths in the OIF for Coalition countries is 3,743 http://icasualties.org/Iraq/ByMonth.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.148.248 (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This typically isnt included in the infobox, just lump casualties are generally listed. Though i dont see any problem with listing it in the body of the article if its not already there.XavierGreen (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone also find information on how many us civilians got killed in iraq? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

New compromise attempt

Check the status for a new attempt at a compromise. For now, I'm leaving the date alone--although I would like V7Sport and others to consider changing it to August 31 or September 1, which is the actual end of the "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Publicus 22:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, It somehow got changed during the fracas from the 19th from the 31st and I didn't want to be the one to open the can of worms again.V7-sport (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
And Swarm, I like your idea about the "foreign combat ops concluded" so let's try that one and see . Publicus 22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Citation still needed. No WP:Synthesis or OR please. Marcus Qwertyus 17:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Citation for what? That foreign combat ops are concluded or that internal conflict is ongoing? V7Sport has the refs for the foreign combat ops concluded, and I've been adding the various bombings/attacks for the internal conflict sidein the 2010 section.Publicus 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I would very much like to see the refs for the foreign combat operations concluded. Marcus Qwertyus 17:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Please, explain where you're coming from. I laid it out clearly above. Are you disputing the fact that all foreign combat operations are concluded? I think your viewpoint is far too US-centric. The US was not the only foreign country in Iraq. Who's still conducting combat operations in Iraq other than the US? Honestly, your argument is vague. If you want to argue this, do it in the section above, otherwise, I'm going to change "US" to "foreign". Or would you dispute the fact that 39 countries other than the US participated in the Iraq war? Swarm X 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't know how much of a compromise this is, since we are now in "Operation New Dawn" which is the next Phase of the Iraq War, but I have pretty much gotten passed that as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user 76.98..., however I also agree with Publicus. If in the results section it stays as the main result that an internal conflict is still ongoing I would not object anymore to the date being August 31 (end date of Iraqi freedom).Diefgross (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not find a reliable source that says the "internal conflict still ongoing" or the like? V7-sport (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
"Internal conflict ongoing" is the same thing as "conflict ongoing". I don't see how this solves anything, and it certainly shouldn't be listed as the definitive result of the war. Swarm X 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Swarm. V7-sport (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The War is no more over now than it was on May 1, 2003 (which was the end of Phase 1 in my opinion), August 31, 2010 was simply the end of Phase 2 of the War and we are now in Phase 3 of the War (Assist and Advise) when that ends the War will be "over" (provided a new phase does not begin) but not before. I like the idea of listing 3 Phases in the info box but the end date should be Present since the War as a whole is still on going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The source for the internal conflict ongoing is hundreds of security incidents reported each month, and please don't call them just terrorist actions because in that case the whole war was one big terrorist action. User 76....I am for the breakdown into three phases but user V7 doesn't accept that compromise proposal just as he has not accepted any other compromise solution. In any case I think this is the best way to go about this, the War is over faction gets their end date that affirms the war is over and the War is not over faction gets the affirmation that there is still an internal conflict between former Sadam loyalists and the current Shia government which can not be denied. This is a win-win for everyone so settle people.Diefgross (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It no longer says "Internal conflict ongoing", and I very much like the current wording. Swarm X 22:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
And still, Diefgross is attributing things to me that I haven't written. Maybe you would be happier over at your antiwar site where everyone agrees with you then someplace where people are trying to impart some encyclopedic value. V7-sport (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not it is decided that the war is over or not, at the very least the infobox should include in the results section that Operation New Dawn has begun. I think and hope we can all agree to that.XavierGreen (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't attributed anything to you and antiwar is not my site where everyone agrees with me it's just they are telling the real truth which you cann't accept. Anyhow, most people agree here on Wikipedia with me that the war is over so enough said. But enough with the fighting V7, on to pressing matters. An anonymous user, user 69,122...put up in the results section another result that I belive can work if the other side here can accept it. He put U.S.combat operations and occupation concluded, Iraqi Security Forces take control of the country, Ongoing Low-level Insurgency. Somebody reverted him and deleted it, however I think this can work also. The war is over faction has to come to terms with the fact that the US is gone but there is still an insurgency in Iraq. The US didn't defeat them totaly, they left that job to the Iraqi government. So we have to point out in the results section that there is still a live and kicking insurgency in the country, regardless if the US has mostly left the country or not. Delete the Internal conflict ongoing part but leave Ongoing Low-level Insurgency.Diefgross (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the war done or what is going on

Let's try to figure this out, please add your thoughts with sources below. Publicus 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Date

August 19, 2010

August 31, 2010

I know the last US "combat" units left this day, but the technical end of Op Iraqi Freedom is Aug 31, so I'm not sure why Aug 19 is used since it was the announcement date. [[User:|Publicus]] 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Present

While Obama has said combat for the US is over, that's not true. Here's some reasons.

  • Special Forces - There are still Special Forces units conducting combat missions and planning on being there for years (about 4,500 of them, see [6]).Publicus 15:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Battle of the Palm Grove US aircraft engaged in combat, so obviously they are still doing combat missions. Publicus 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 50,000 US troops still remain throughout Iraq. Regardless of what the PR mission may be--advise and assist, they are combat troops--the Vietnam war is a classic example of a "war" going on with US advisor troops. Publicus 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Per the Vietnam example the United States legally considers the war to have started in 1955 when the first advisors arrived, despite the fact that Combat teams were not in the country until much much later.XavierGreen (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is over but "Operation New Dawn" is still going on which is a part of the US-Involvement in the "Iraq War" so it should be listed as Present. I believe that Combat Is Over but Assist and Advise is still on-going and thus part of the War as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The Iraqi government still issues monthly death tolls. In them they refer to their enemies not as terrorists but as insurgents, please check this reference [7]. In that case the Iraqi government admits there is still an insurgency in the country. If there is an insurgency there is a conflict/war. You wanted proof they are at war with themselves? Also, again the Americans were not the only beligerent in this war, there is the other side, the insurgents, and they are still fighting. Also, your statement that the US was the last active combatant from the invasion is incorrect. When the US invaded they took with them several hundred Iraqi fighters who were mostly exiles from Iraq who returned to topple Sadam Husein. Those fighters were the founders of the new Iraqi government and the new Iraqi security forces. Not to mention the Kurdish peshmerga fighters who were actualy the ones wo liberated the whole of the north of Iraq, including capturing the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk. The Kurds were also very much part of the invasion force. Thus if you want to name a coalition partner as the last active beligerent than the Iraqi government is the last active beligerent.Diefgross (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't access your source, "world-countries.net" but a war and a sovereign state putting down insurgency are not necessarily the same thing. Was the Whiskey rebellion a "war"? While the insurgents may still be fighting, they are not fighting the coalition forces. There were insurgents fighting against Saddam Hussein, Marsh Arabs, Kurds and Shiites funded by Iran, etc before the invasion. The peshmerga are from Iraq and were in the north to begin with, they didn't have to "invade" they are from Iraq. You write: "When the US invaded they took with them several hundred Iraqi fighters who were mostly exiles from Iraq who returned to topple Sadam Husein"... So where is your reference that these specific fighters existed and are still at war? As I stated, there were insurgents in Iraq previous to the invasion. Are we to move the start date of the 2nd Iraq war back to the beginning of the first organized attacks against the Hussein regime? That is pretty much what this would mean, if we want to count any violence against the Iraqi government as "war" then Iraq has been at war for decades. V7-sport (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You are talking legal tehnicality here not reality. There was only one insurgency in Iraq before the US attacked, the Kurds, and they weren't even mainly concentrated on fighting Sadam but they were mainly going after Turky. There were no other insurgents because as far as I know it Sadam killed or imprisoned them all. And yes Iraq has been at war for decades - Iran (stalemate), US (withdaw), Shia insurgents (killed them all), again US (result still unclear). And where did your statement that the insurgents are not fighting the US come from? Who killed the three US soldiers who have been KIA since August 19? And whose plains bombed insurgent positions during the battle of the palm groves? Not attacking coalition forces? What do you call those 50,000 still there? Also, the Kurds were an official part of the invasion forces since they were the ones that took Kirkuk and Mosul, plus the commanders of those fighters that helped the US in the invasion are mostly now in the government and are fighting the insurgency. In any case, combat operations concluded by the US doesn't mean their ally the Iraqis are done which is evident every day. You are talking like the Iraqi government forces were never part of the coalition forces and thus they don't count if they are still fighting, also you make it as if the US was not fighting anybody. Bottom line, I will say what is actualy on everybodies minds here, the Iraqi security forces were allies of the US, the insurgents were their enemies, the US passed the ball to the Iraqies and said this is not our war anymore we are done you continue it. Which is what also happened in Vietnam.Diefgross (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"You are talking legal tehnicality here not reality." No, I am talking about verifiability versus synthesis and original research. "There was only one insurgency in Iraq before the US attacked, the Kurds [...]There were no other insurgents because as far as I know it Sadam killed or imprisoned them all. " Saddam took action against the Marsh Arabs and the shiites, who did their best to fight back (insurgency) with aid from Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively. "Bottom line, I will say what is actualy on everybodies minds here" Did you take a survey? "the Iraqi security forces were allies of the US, the insurgents were their enemies, the US passed the ball to the Iraqies and said this is not our war anymore we are done you continue it" Or we could have concluded the objectives that were set out for the coalition and returned the country to a legitimate government. Either way, the USA, the last member of the invading coalition who started what is known as" the Iraq war" has declared it's remaining troops to be non combatants and the war to have ended.V7-sport (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

-----Re Publicus-------
  • "While Obama has said combat for the US is over, that's not true." ----In nearly every war there has been violence after the date that it has been declared over. The battle of new Orleans, battle of Palmito Ranch, as well as engagements with and terrorist actions by the Werwolf Nazi dead-enders to name just a very few. Yet the end date of the war isn't changed to accommodate them. The "battle of palm grove" NPR stated; "only four or five insurgents were fighting in the Battle of the Palm Grove." doesn't really qualify as a continuation of hostilities between sovereign states. Again, 4 or 5 insurgents.
    • The two examples you provide are in regards to formally declared wars against soveriegn states. The Iraq war is not such a conflict, it is an undeclared war against a non state actor. In both the instances you have mentioned above the conflicts were ended via peace treaty in the first instance and in the second capitulation. In the case of the Iraq war, the two of the primary belligerents (Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq) have done neither.
  • "50,000 US troops still remain throughout Iraq." ----Well, there are 52,440 in Germany, are we still at war in Germany?
  • "Regardless of what the PR mission may be" ----Yeah, because the US military is so good at, and care so much about "PR". Even by the article on "the battle of palm grove" Lt. Col. Bob Molinari was stating that his men could have wiped out the "insurgents" in short order "But that's not the mission. The mission is to get them to do it."
-----Re XavierGreen
  • "Per the Vietnam example the United States legally considers the war to have started in 1955 when the first advisors arrived"----By what legal framework is that?

Please let me respectfully reiterate, there are sources that explicitly declare this thing to be done (thank God). If you can find sources with equal or greater WP:WEIGHT then the president, state department and pentagon please post them. But there was violence in Iraq before the invasion and there will be violence in Iraq after. Just as there is in most places that have humans. V7-sport (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    • In response to your question to XavierGreen, I think the legal framework he was talking about was the one where the Pentagon decided from what moment in time they considered servicemen deaths to be part of the Vietnam war and than those deaths should be included on the Wall memorial. The Wall memorials earliest entry is of servicemen killed in 1955, also that year was the year when the US Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established. The DoD officialy declared November 1, 1955 as the start date of the war in 1998. Please read the article Vietnam war here on Wikipedia before asking things like that.Diefgross (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Please read the article Vietnam war here on Wikipedia before asking things like that." I perused the article and couldn't find where the USA declared war on vietnam. Mainly because it didn't. If the DOD works to delineate the start/finish of wars maybe we should take them at their word here. V7-sport (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I vote for the proposal that was given in the past. Separate the dates of the war into three phases, Invasion phase March 20 - May 1, 2003, Coalition counter-insurgency phase May 2, 2003 - August 31, 2010, Government counter-insurgency phase September 1, 2010 - present, and put in the results section that Coalition combat operations are over but add the Iraqi governments are still continuing.Diefgross (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine by me.XavierGreen (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

War or terrorism

Terrorism

War

  • Media coverage - Outside of PR--basically Obama's statement on combat missions--there has not been any change in media coverage. Coverage still refers to it as the "Iraq war." The AP has even issued a statement to that effect (see[8]). Publicus 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Iraqi government - Although the Iraqis still don't have a government, they could have easily issued a statement agreeing with Obama's "end of combat" statement, or something saying the war is over. They have not done so to my knowledge. Publicus 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Level of violence - As seen recently, the violence continues with numerous bombings and hundreds of casualties. True, the conflict level has gone down significantly but that doesn't mean it can't pick right back up again--dragging the US "advise and assist" troops into "combat" again. Publicus 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Insurgency - Most of the war has consisted of terrorist activities, with the very brief exception of the Invasion period and a few pitched battles with various insurgent forces, 1st/2nd Fallujah, Basra, etc. So to call the war over now because there is no formal uniformed forces fighting each other would be silly, that end date would have to be back in May 1, 2003--the last date a US President used as the "end of major combat operations." Publicus 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • "The AP has even issued a statement to that effect" ----The Associated Press does not have the authority to declare war or peace. The Executive branch, the state department and Pentagon have declared it be "concluded" and "over".
    • The Executive branch, the state department and Pentagon dont have the authority to declare the war over on behalf of the other belligerents, namingly the insugrents and the iraqi government.XavierGreen (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
And you don't have the authority to declare that they are in a war when they haven;t declared it themselves. The Iraqi government was battling insurgents before we invaded Iraq. Are you going to incorperate that into the start date of the war? -V7
  • Iraqi government - Although the Iraqis still don't have a government ----The Republic of Iraq is a Parliamentary republic whose members were democratically elected in what international observers called "free and fair" elections.
  • "they could have easily issued a statement agreeing with Obama's "end of combat" statement, or something saying the war is over"---They never said it started, does that mean it never took place? Provide a reference where they explicitly state that the war is continuing.
Ironic that you would chose THAT as your example, North and South Korea ARE technically in a state of war. -V7
Actually legally they are not, there was never a declaration of war by either. You could look all day for it and you wont find it. The two Koreas dont even legally recognize the existance of each other.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well then, you need to get over to the Korean war Wiki page and change the status because they have it listed as going from 25 June 1950—present. LOL, You can't have it both ways! -V7
I never said the two Korea's were not at war, the war did start on 25 June 1950 with a North Korean attack on the south. What did not start the war was a declaration, there never was and still is not a declared war between North Korea and South Korea. You missed or chose to ignore my point entirely, which is that wars do not need to be declared in order to be fought. And you still wont find any source that the Iraq War or Korean War was a declared war.XavierGreen (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've cited the the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002as the defacto decoration, it is in keeping with the war powers act and, as the title states and the courts affirmed, authorized the president to invade Iraq. It's OK to peruse all of this here but I hope that you recognize that it is beside the point. V7-sport (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a distinct difference in International law between engaging in warfare and being in a declared state of war with another power. Something which you don't seem to understand.XavierGreen (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to make the argument pertinent to the current example though. V7-sport (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Level of violence ---Iraq is statistically safer then Columbia, Venezuela, Mexico, South Africa and parts of the USA as well as other parts of the world. Not to say that there isn't violence, but to say the existence of violence equals war doesn't logically follow. There was violence in Iraq before the war, there is terrorism all over the world as there is crime.
How about Christian churches? -V7
A church is a non-military target, so that would be a terrorism yes.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, that was an example that was given, a terrorist act against a Christian church claimed by Al Qaeda. That isn't war between 2 soverign nations, that is terrorism. -V7
But there have been attacks against US and IRaq military personel as well.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, however that does not mean that there is an ongoing state of war. There were attacks on US soldiers in Germany after 1945 for instance. V7-sport (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • True, the conflict level has gone down significantly but that doesn't mean it can't pick right back up again--dragging the US "advise and assist" troops into "combat" again. ----The standard for editing Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability not what might happen.
That doesn't change the fact that the state department has declared the war is ended. Indeed, none of this does. --V7
  • Insurgency - Most of the war has consisted of terrorist activities, ----There have been terrorist activities all over the world. Some of which are in a state of war, some of which are not.
  • "with the very brief exception of the Invasion period and a few pitched battles with various insurgent forces, 1st/2nd Fallujah, Basra, etc." ----Why do we not call terrorism "war" when it happens in Nigeria or Spain or the United Arab Emirates or the Netherlands or the Philippines etc? Are all of those countries in a state of "war"?
    • Those conflicts are all called wars when they are between two military belligerents, for example the conflict in the Phillipines is specifically called a war by various NGOS. I can provide sources if you like.XavierGreen (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide sources that the Philippine government considers itself to be at war in the Philippines? More to the point, can you provide some kind of declaration or proclamation that the Iraqi government considers itself to be at war in Iraq? V7-sport (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Since when do militaries need proclomations to start warfare against each other? No such thing was issued before the Northwest Indian War or the Korean War for example. The Khans didnt issue declarations of war before they set off on their expeditions of conquest.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's just great about the Khans and the Northwest indians, but it doesn't change the fact that you have yet to provide a source that has the weight, reliability and the verifiability to dispute what has been posted. You are trying to claim something on the basis of something else which is original research. We could talk all day abut the Quasi-War or the Soccer war or the whatever war, and I strongly suspect that you could, but that wont change the whole verifiability thing. V7-sport (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just as you cannot verify that the Iraqi army has ceased conducting warfare against the Islmaic state of Iraq.XavierGreen (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well thankfully that isn't at issue. V7-sport (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
It is the issue entirely, if there is warfare going one between two of the combatants then the war is still ongoing.XavierGreen (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I see the distinction you are trying to make and understand the point, however for all practical considerations pertaining to conversation that you and I are engaged in now the joint decoration of 2002 has the same effect. And yes, it's a little bit like debating, and re-debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What is at issue is that stating that "the Iraq war" continues is original research in light of the statements by the DOD, State department and the President unless you can provide some kind of reference that has equal or greater weight which contradicts them. V7-sport (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I can provide a myriad of sources that provide hard evidence that warfare is still ongoing in Iraq. The reality of the issue at hand is that the Executive department declared the war over for political reasons, indeed Operation Iraqi Freedom didnt end until more than a week after they declared the Iraq War over. The real predicament comes with the fact that under US law there actually is and has never been any military operation called the Iraq War. Instead legally the conflict is called Operation Iraqi Freedom, which the administration changed to Operation New Dawn. Legally all funding and appropriations are legislated under the Names of the Operations. When the State Department ended the Iraq War legally they were ending nothing, since legally the Iraq War never existed on paper.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"The reality of the issue at hand is that the Executive department declared the war over for political reasons" It could be said political reasons are why all wars end, or start for that matter. It would also be an opinion though. "The real predicament comes with the fact that under US law there actually is and has never been any military operation called the Iraq War."Come on, honestly. Joint resolution of force, + Doe V. Bush +"War" powers act = defacto state of war. Indeed, unless you are trying to state that this was "illegal"... Look, I actually hacked through that PDF you posted about the differences between a Congressional declaration and a Congressional authorization of force to use the war powers act and in terms of the argument at hand, the differences are irrelevant. "When the State Department ended the Iraq War legally they were ending nothing, since legally the Iraq War never existed on paper."Awesome, reading that just gave me the kind of headache you get from eating ice cream too fast. Outstanding job, you actually inflicted physical pain through the internet. Nice shot. Well if the war never existed I nominate the entire article for speedy deletion. V7-sport (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Legally the Iraq War does not exist on paper and never has, the actual legal name for the conflict in Iraq in US law at the time of the presidents statement was Operation Iraqi Freedom. If you look through the defense appropriations, you will find none for the Iraq War but you will find them every year the conflict has occured for Operation Iraqi Freedom. And that i can prove with sources from Defense Appropriations bills, which the president himself signed. The state departments statement legally was meaningless, since they did not end Operation Iraqi Freedom at the time of the Statement you cite as proving the end of the Iraq WarXavierGreen (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
When the State Department ended the Iraq War... Thanks for acknowledging that.
I disagree with you but what is it that you would like? To change the article to the "Iraq conflict?" You will find the term "Iraq War" was used thousands of times in the House and entered into the congressional record as such. It is on record at the Senate website 5810 times, in such things as reports from the Army corps of Engineers and the VA. It is on record at the state department (846 references to the Iraq War" including this overview of the "Iraq War") as well. The defense department, (The guys who get all those appropriations) used the term "Iraq war" 379 times on their website. The executive office refereed to it as the "Iraq war" throughout the Bush administration as has Obama, most notably as in "responsibly ending the Iraq war" and it is Archived as such. That's thousands of references to the "Iraq war" from the same entities that have called it concluded, ended and brought to a finish. V7-sport (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Elected officials can say whatever they want, the only thing that matters legally is what the law is, and the law clearly states that the military operations in iraq were called Operation Iraqi Freedom until August 31st and then Operation New Dawn after that. A fact well proven in law. Everything congressmen say before the floor is entered into the record, but they are not autocrats. Their words are not law, something im sure your well aware of. Legally the executive departments statement on the 19th is meaningless.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
"Elected officials can say whatever they want," but what really counts is what we want to post on Wiki... the only thing that matters legally is what the law is"..and those VA benefits for the "Iraq war" veterans, etc? "A fact well proven in law." Which law was that? "Their words are not law, something im sure your well aware of." So when you were arguing that that you "never said the two Korea's were not at war" even though in that case there there wasn't a declaration and "since when do militaries need proclomations to start warfare against each other? you were only kidding? Look, the in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was what gave this legality under US law. That was affirmed by the courts with the dismissal of Dow v. Bush. This whole line of argument is exactly, exactly, exactly why Wikipedia insists on verifiability for it's encyclopedic content. Otherwise a clever editor such as yourself could argue it indefinitely and we might as well pull the plug on the project because the case could be made that the date of the beginning of the war was in ancient Sumeria or that Justin Bieber started it for hair oil. Why are you so keen to call this thing never-ending? V7-sport (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The word war has different meanings, it can mean a political status between two polities or it can mean a bout of warfare between two polities (or other groups). The UK and Sweden were legally at war in the early 1800's, yet there was no war (no warfare occured). You are mixing my usage of the term in different contexts for your own convience. As for "Which law was that?" i already stated above, the various defense appropriations bills that paid for the war. And as for your statement about VA benefits, the VA classifies all veterans post 911 as being Gulf War Era II Veterans and veterans from Operation New Dawn are treated exactly the same as Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans with no distinction in status.XavierGreen (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
"The word war has different meanings"So your end-game here seems to be ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Since the "Iraq war" "never existed" when the various entities declared that it had ended their statements were meaningless. Right? Toss in some stuff about the The UK and Sweden in the early 1800's and that is why the war will never end. I have provided you with proof that each of the entities in question have referred to the "thing" that took place in the area known as "Iraq" as the "Iraq war". I would submit to you that you are "mixing [the] usage of the term in different contexts for your own convenience." (...and doing so erroneously because of H.J.RES.114 and in ways that have contradicted your previous statements on the subject). It is a war when it comes to declaring the start.. but not a war when it comes to declaring it finished. Again, this is why Wiki insists on verifiability. The article we are editing is called the "Iraq war" by the way. You haven't answered why it is so important for you to keep this going.V7-sport (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well maybe the article title should be changed back to War in Iraq. Any political scientist knows there are two different definitions for the word war (the political status of war and the physical event of war). The physical conflict is still ongoing, i can provide dozens of news sources providing evidence that warfare still is occuring in Iraq as people already have done on the page. My reason behind continuing the arguement is purely from a historians point of intrest. As the sole proponent of the view that the war is over, it might be better for you to explain your reasons behind your reasoning. In any regard here are some sources that state that combat in Iraq is still ongoing [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. A war ends when one side capitulates or is debellated. Unless you can prove that has happened, ill keep arguing until im blue in the face.XavierGreen (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Well maybe the article title should be changed back to War in Iraq" LOL. Well that would solve everything. "The physical conflict is still ongoing, i can provide dozens of news sources providing evidence that warfare still is occuring in Iraq as people already have done on the page." What has been provided are examples of terrorism in Iraq and a "battle" against 4 or 5 insurgents who's motivations are unknown. "Violence", even politically motivated violence isn't the same thing as "warfare", but you are conflating the 2. Regardless, as as been demonstrated, there has been some degree of violence in most wars after the accepted end date, in some cases for years after the accepted end date. A war ends when one side capitulates or is debellated. Indeed, As I have argued with the SOFA agreement. "Unless you can prove that has happened," Gee, Saddam Hussein being pulled out of his spider hole, his armies retiring from the battle field, a new government being instituted, then legitimized by several nationwide votes, violent death rates lower then the Saddam era and indeed, lower then many major US cities and the SOFA agreement between Iraq and the USA which means that US troops presence has been legitimized by the duly elected Iraqi government. As a someone with a historians point of interest you must have come across examples where wars have concluded having met fewer of the objectives. "ill keep arguing until im blue in the face." I suspect so. V7-sport (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You say the insurgents intentions are unclear, the Islamic State of Iraq's intentions are quite clear they consider themselves to be the legitimet government of Iraq. The Bathists never captitulated, they changed their forces into an insurgent type group, though other insurgent groups also joined the fight against the Coalition at the same time. Though the Bathists may have been largely destroyed several of these other groups continue to fight today namingly the Islamic State of Iraq. Until that insurgent group either ceases fighting or is destroyed the war continues. If you want to call it a civil war thats fine by me because that has what it has become in effect. Militants fighting each other in organized conflict is the very definition of warfare, in fact the first line of the wikipedia definition for war. Any type of organized violance can be considered warfare regardless of the reason the combatants are fighting. Insurgencies are filled with small unit actions, they are the staple of Guerilla warfare.XavierGreen (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
"You say the insurgents intentions are unclear, the Islamic State of Iraq's intentions are quite clear they consider themselves to be the legitimet government of Iraq." You are attempting to bundle a disparate group with different agendas under the umbrella of "insurgent". For instance, a group like al Qaeda wants to establish an Islamic caliphate across the middle east and was not an ally of the baathists. They are the ones racking up the body count at the moment. "Until that insurgent group either ceases fighting or is destroyed the war continues." So there is your standard, reiterated again; ---Until there is no more terrorism, or indeed, violence that is political or even religiously motivated you are going to regard the war ongoing.--- As a historian or even a user of the English language you would have to see that the cessation of "war" isn't a complete cessation of violence. Otherwise there is an ongoing insurgency in the South Bronx. " Any type of organized violance can be considered warfare regardless of the reason the combatants are fighting."So is there a state of war in existence between, say the Crips and the United States? V7-sport (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There very well might be warfare going on in the south bronx, so long as the combatants are organized. Thats where the term gang warfare comes from.XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "So to call the war over now because there is no formal uniformed forces fighting each other would be silly," -----That isn't why one would declare the war to be over though, One would do so because the State Department said it was and the Pentagon and President have stated that it had concluded. V7-sport (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. combat operations concluded (changed to Coalition)

Just explaining why I have changed the status bullet point "U.S. combat operations concluded" to "Coalition combat operations concluded". Since the US was the last member of the coalition which entered the war to withdraw combat troops it makes sense to then explain the Coalition has withdrawn from combat fully. If reading the infobox, people could have gotten the impression that other coalition members were still fighting. This was reverted once already due to having no source but it is self evident and indisputable that the coalition have finished combat operations (indeed much of the status section relies on self evident facts). G.R. Allison (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to do this many times (using the word 'foreign', but it doesn't matter). Unfortunately, User:Marcus Qwertyus keeps reverting it for some reason. I've tried to explain to him why it should be changed, but he says "I just want a source." This is a matter of wording, it's a common fact and shouldn't be removed because one editor "wants a source". Of course, facts should be supported be sources, but matters of wording to give a neutral perspective shouldn't be prevented from inclusion. Swarm X 07:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, especially considering much of the infobox is unsourced. I have just been warned for "disruptive editing" and "original research" by said user, Marcus Qwertyus. He seems to be refusing to join in the discussion. Coalition combat operations have ended, the US was the last member of the coalition to end them. The withdrawal dates in the article should be proof enough. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now added a source detailing the withdrawal of Multi-National Force Iraq non-US members to complement the withdrawal of the US. The source is from the article 'Multi-National Force Iraq'. The article in itself has many sources illustrating coalition combat ops have ended, especially now that US combat ops have ended (it was the last member to do so and thus makes the statement true). Non-US + US ending combat operations = Coalition forces have ended combat operations. Marcus Qwertyus, rather than send me very patronising "original research" and "disruptive editing" warnings threatening to have me blocked, join in the discussion, this won't go away because you want it to. What about everyone else though, are we agreed this is the right move? G.R. Allison (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Minor issue with no other objections, should be resolved now. Swarm X 06:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I also support G.R. Allison's arguments. Foreign combat ops concluded or Coalition combat ops concluded should be put in the infobox.Diefgross (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Navy are still in Iraq training the Iraqi Navy

More than 100 UK sailors who have been training the Iraqi navy in the southern port of Umm Qasr, will withdraw in May 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11833234) --SuperDan89 (talk) 07:46, 05 December 2010 (UTC)

I had been looking for a ref to support that for a while, it seemed I stopped looking too early. Thanks for the source, it's just been added in to the article infobox! G.R. Allison (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mobile "bioweapons" weather balloon electrolysis trucks?

Where is the information on the trucks which were said by the CIA to be mobile bioweapons fermentation chambers but turned out to be hydrogen electrolysis generators for weather balloons? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Found it: [12] Should it be in the article? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems like it would be a good addition to the "Alleged weapons of mass destruction" section or perhaps the section on unconventional weapons in the "Preparations for Iraq war" section. Kaldari (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledge:Philippine Contingent and support

Who ever is maintaining or holding this article please acknowledge even in the smallest way the support and the numbers of soldiers brought in by the philippine military for medical and security purposes on the bases, thanks.Manager0916 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

alleged weapons of mass destruction (first 2 paragraphs)

The first 2 paragraphs in section "alleged weapons of mass destruction" do not deal with the topic of wmd allegations and should be removed or moved elsewhere.Sasha best (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitive victory?

At what stage do we consider the insugency completely broken, and are thus able to list this war as an allied victory? Obviously there will never be a military or other victory for the opposing force, and surely the war cannot assume a state of permanent stasis in the category of 'low level combat ops ongoing.' I mean, the occasional ad hoc bombing may kill a few dozen people or less but such acts are the last gasp of a dying insurgency, which will eventually peter out to such a degree that it can be considered a civilian rather than a military issue. In my opinion, this has already happened. Will the wikipedia hive mind take the lead in declaring the war won for america and iraq, or will it wait for public opinion to eventually hold it in common consensus that there has been a definitive victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.197.227 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"At what stage do we consider the insugency completely broken, and are thus able to list this war as an allied victory?" When reliable sources say it is. (Hohum @) 01:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

When did the war end? This is something I have a problem with. In alphabetical order, many of those AGAINST like to say the war lasted for years after Saddam's downfall so they can complain that it's gone on too long and is therefore an unmitigated disaster ("It's Vietnam again!"), and many of those FOR the war like to say the same thing because this gave the US and UK government a wonderful excuse to restrict civil liberties: "We're at war, you know. We've all got to make sacrifices." The reason given is that the war could not be over until troops all pulled out and all insurgents were crushed, but this is a VERY recent redefinition of 'war'. The allies kept troops in Germany long after the usually accepted end of World War II. The Northern US kept troops stationed to maintain peace in the South long after the official end of the American Civil War, and there was plenty of insurgent activity (the Ku Klux Klan, for example). But this activity was not part of a formal war - it was crime, and not by the same institutions on which war was declared. The US declared war on the Communist North Vietnamese government, fought them formally for 10 years, and lost. The US-led coalition declared war on the Baathist Iraqi government, toppled them within a month, after this there was (is) a long period violent insurgency by all sorts of other groups. By historians' definitions of war for centuries, except for some grey areas much greyer than this, the war was nevertheless over within a month. The rest was crime-fighting. When else in history has such a stringent definition of victory been used? Wikipedia is far more formal with wars over a hundred years ago, and doesn't apply the same standard. Split it up into more than one war if you wish, but there is a formal distinction here which both sides of the sensationalist media have chosen to ignore, for different reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.52 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aware there have been episodes of great civil strife and other general conflicts in history called 'wars', but these have not been logged as such officially, whereas even over the last several years, this one is... are the Taxi War, or everyday life for policemen in the more crime-ridden areas of some of the world's major cities, officially considered wars? Usually not, since they do not meet the diplomatic and political criteria, even if there is an even higher death rate.

Refugees

Shouldn't there be some mention about the refugee crisis in Iraq since this remains a serious problem dispite all the talk of the war being 'over'. There is a link in this article to another main page but that ariticle is pretty general on the refugee issue. There should be some mention about it in this article and more focus on the situation after the 2003 war and more up to date information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation

Citation 157 - Torture at Abu Ghraib link is broken. Fixed link: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.51.107 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've swapped the links. Thanks for pointing out this error. Dawnseeker2000 19:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Facts about AQ and Iraq Linkage and WMDs

The conventional wisdom is to believe the 9/11 commission and omit the many facts that exist for an Iraq and AQ connection. However below are a few examples of this evidence:

Blair testified again in front of the Iraq Inquiry about the linkage between Al Qaeda (AQ) and Iraq pre the Iraq war. Here is the direct quotes: "There was no sense that AQ would mount a full-scale operation in Iraq after the removal of Saddam. In retrospect as I said in my evidence, the intelligence that al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian AQ leader, had been in Baghdad in May 2002 should perhaps have been given more weight. But actually most of the British authorities were at pains to separate Saddam from AQ in 2002 not to link them." Blair urges them to look at the intelligence reports, specifically in 2005 and 2006 also, for this linkage. Despite the much held belief that there was no link between Iraq and AQ, the facts state otherwise. http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/110121.aspx http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/100129.aspx (http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/)

More evidence continues to abound. "The Clinton Administration's legal indictment in Federal Court against bin Laden in 1998 claimed, ``Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Here is a summary article of more of these concepts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

As for WMD:

Here is a Wired Magazine article that nicely details the WMDs (chemical WMDs) that were continually found. From the Wikileaks documents. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ "An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

if this Wikipedia article and similar others on WP are going to discuss these aspects, then they need to include real facts, and not simply ideology.

Thanks Makia G Systems12 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone still believe Blair? AQ members visited a lot of countries so that tells us nothing. The Iraqi government had no knowledge that any "remnants" remained so they cant be linked to the "rational". The WMD found were also degraded. Some of the remnant chemicals the insurgency found and actually used turned out to be completely harmless because of their age. Use of chemicals by insurgents is no more notable than when they use swimming pool chemicals. Your links are a lot of maybes rather than facts and basically the hawks are still clutching at straws.Wayne (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

casus belli

I think that the box at the beginning (the one that contains information about the war, i don't know if it has an specific name) should have "casus belli" information between "location" and "status"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.41.168 (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

US War crimes:

Somehow I am missing a mention about the war crimes plotted by the US-Army like this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmbnUB5if_g 93.221.232.117 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses

I understand that many of the people who write here are probably against the war and use the human rights abuse section to list all the bad things that the American military has done. But something that should be added to that is all the American soldiers who have been taken prisoner, killed, tortured, mutilated, etc. Damn right that's a human rights abuse. I don't know much about it myself or I would write, but anyone else who does, please do so.

PFC Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.68 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There are probably much more iraq civilians muredered by US-Army soldiers then US-Army soldiers murdered by iraqis. The numbers are already mentioned and there is an own article with this information here. So there is not really a need to insert more information before inserting the war crimes against the iraqis and other civilians. 93.221.231.88 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Weapons inspectors

It is very disturbing that (a) the article doesn't seem to remotely recognize that over 20 million Iraqis were liberated from a dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own citizens and attacked two neighboring countries, and (b) most appalling, nowhere is it mentioned that Saddam Hussein threw out UN weapons inspectors, which was the immediate predicate for the war. There is merely an antiseptic discussion of the UN resolution and inspections without mention of the reason for the initiation of the war. This article no doubt raises emotions, but it is seriously unbalanced and tremendously demands improvement. It reflects the easy "anything is better than war" point of view. No. Living in the exhausting and endless terror of a dictatorship (or living near one) is worse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.150.113 (talk)

Do you have a reliable source that says the inspectors were expelled by Iraq, rather than withdrawn? (Hohum @) 20:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq War and Turkey-PKK Conflict

Diefgross says that "This was discussed numereous previous times. Both the US and Iraq at the time stated that they regard the PKK terrorists and the US military provided the Turks intelligence on the Kurds to help them in the operation, thus they were involved". But, claiming that this argument shows "Turkey-PKK Conflict in Iraq" as classified as part of "Iraq War" is originial research, or synthesis of published material. I want sources that clearly show "Turkey-PKK Conflict in Iraq" is part of Iraq War. Kavas (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree.V7-sport (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You will probably not get that because it is something that is regarded as part of the Iraq war by many in general. The Lebanese civil war was a war that was made up of a dozen conflicts where we had Christian against Muslim, Muslim against Communist, Regular army against Christian, Muslim and Communist, Israeli against Palestinians, Syrians against Israeli, Iranians against Americans, etc, etc. The Iraq war was started as a war between Sadam and the Coalition but in the end it deevolved into a conflict between Americans against Sunnis, Shiites and Al Qaeda, Security forces against Sunnis, Shiites and Al Qaeda, Security forces against Security forces, Shiites against Shiites, Sunnis against Sunnis, Kurds against Sunnis and Shiites. Not every one of those separate conflicts has been stated to be officialy part of the Iraq war but is regarded unofficialy to be part of the Iraq war. In the end the Turks finally jumped into this mess against the Kurds. Before and during the Turkish operation the Coalition and the Iraqi government stated they regard the PKK a terrorist organisation and said that they will deal with them when the time comes as part of the War on terrorism which the Iraq war HAS been officialy stated to be part of. In the end instead they were taken care of by the Turks and it has been confirmed that the US military provided intelligence to the Turks to help them in the operation. In any case the Turkey-PKK conflict has been separated in the infobox as a separate concurrent conflict. This operation has been in this article as part of the Iraq war since it happened three years ago. And nobody had a problem with that. So I think you should probably put forth some sources that state it WASN'T part of the Iraq war if you think it should be removed so you can justify your edit.Diefgross (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
" So I think you should probably put forth some sources that state it WASN'T part of the Iraq war".... Well, that's not the way it works, you need to provide sources for your edits or it's original research. And, while we are at it, you need to stop adding to the casualty figures since the war ended last September.V7-sport (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The only thing I recently did is update the number of wounded non-US soldiers for all of the previous years and the number of dead Sahwa militia casualties for all of the previous years, up to September last year :). Everybody else is updating the number of dead. I guess that's that old problem where only you, one more Wikipedia editor and the White House are thinking the war is over, guess nobody told the rest of the world, especialy the insurgents who are still killing US soldiers from time to time. In any case do what you want with the Turks, I don't care anymore if you want to cover it up like you did with the end date.Diefgross (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for the good faith. V7-sport (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.114.98.130, 22 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Missing/captured (U.S.): 1 should be changed to 11 based on the article referenced immediately following this number (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/pow.mia/index.html) 65.114.98.130 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 19:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

'Third Gulf War'

Does anybody have any reliable, authoritative source that specifically supports the idea that 'Third Gulf War' is a common name for this conflict? Common enough to be included in the opening line for people who presumably wouldn't have registered what the 'Iraq War' or 'Second Gulf War' was? User:8digits is under the mistaken impression that any old term that can be found in a random search result can be dumped in the opener, but this is completely wrong on so many levels. An example of how wrong is this sort of page, which while appearing as a front page Google result for the term, actually uses it to refer to the post-invasion insurgency to the invasion, which it clearly believes is the '2nd Gulf War', and rather more bizarrely, this sort of result, which uses it to refer to the BP Oil rig disaster, again, another front page search result for the term. God knows what else it is used to refer to, but I seriously have my doubts that this page is anywhere near the primary use or even common use of it, but as said, if someone has a source to the contrary, it can go in. Otherwise, no. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this one.
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=16883
I do not think it really matters whether it is common or not in an enclopedia, only if it is used. :Clearly it is used by some.
Note what everyone here decides I will agree with.
8digits (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Using the same reference twice is unconvincing, so is the idea that "Third Gulf War" is anything other than a unusual and confusing term to use. (Hohum @) 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To repeat, I am not looking for a source that uses it, I am looking for a source that says it is a commonly used alternate name. There is a difference. And fwiw, it does matter. Bolding is for common alternate names, names that would be in for a shout as the WP:COMMONNAME infact, not just all the names that have been used at some point by some source. It's really that simple. And removing dubious entries, even when they have a source, is not vandalism. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME refers to titles, not what is in the text.
8digits (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard anyone calling this the "Third Gulf War". Mostly because it makes no sense. V7-sport (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
V7-sport, how does it make sense to call it the "Second Gulf War" when it was the "Third Gulf War"?
8digits (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You need to be more convincing about the relevance of "third gulf war", the WP:BURDEN is with you to do so. (Hohum @) 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Some other online encyclopedia accept the "Third Gulf War" for example

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Third+Gulf+War http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Third+Gulf+War 8digits (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

First, that is 2 pages from just 1 encyclopoedia, not 'some other'. Second, it gets some of its content from Wikipedia. Third, Farlex, the company who run it don't even have an article here, which doesn't really support the idea that it's a source to be respected. Fourth, neither page includes the term as an alternate name, just as a redirect. Fifth, even if it was a respected source, and even if it wasn't a Wikipedia mirror, and even if it did explicitly say 'this is also called the third Gulf war', Wikipedia uses primary and secondary sources to back up claims like this, not other tertiary sources, which is what other encyclopoedias are. Sixth, as happened above, the two non-Wikipedia sources that it did list as sources justifying that redirect, they are contradictory, with one using the term to refer to this war [13], but the other using it to refer to the next, possible wars, while acknowledging that this was was the 2nd Gulf War. [14] MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Images and Iran

Hi, I was wondering why there are so many photos of americans and an absolute lack of photos of killed/injured Iraqis? The vietnam war page has photos of the massacres on its page but the war in iraq page does not. Why are there two photos of the "Mission Accomplished" thing yet no photos from the controversy parts like the "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse" or the "Haditha killings"? Also why is there two sections about Iran that are both about the Karbala provincial headquarters raid? Why not put them together? Shini 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

On your first question: Probably for copyright reasons. Can you find photos of killed or injured Iraqis at Wikimedia Commons? -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The photos are already on other pages like on the pages for "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse" or the "Haditha killings", but they are not on the main war in iraq page at all. Shini 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Title of three different articles

Hi guys, this topic may have been covered already (and I suspect it has many times over to be honest), but don't you think that three articles (2003 invasion of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present, and Iraq war) covering essentially the same topics need to be a little better categorized? I feel as though the articles on the subject of the Second Gulf War need to be treated in the same manner as other articles on wars. There is increasing debate in academia over exactly what the "War in Iraq" was in terms of legal and dictionary definitions. Myself, I am partial to the view that the "war" (properly the Second Gulf War) consisted of the "invasion through fall of Baghdad" 21 days of conventional war, possibly up until the capture of Saddam Hussein afterward if a set date is needed since there wasn't a formal surrender of the Iraqi government. The Occupation of Iraq would then be the 2003-present military conflict in Iraq, as it is very debatable whether this phase of the conflict was an actual war. The Invasion itself is simply the opening part of the conventional war, and should be treated as a battle itself.

While I am not proposing changing the name of the article Iraq War to Second Gulf War (as that is currently not the mainstream name of the conflict), I do think that the three articles I cited contain a LOT of information that bleeds over between each article, essentially making three identical articles on the same subject with a slightly different focus. I think a lot of material needs to be relocated from certain articles to other ones in order to make three separate clearly defined articles about the subjects they entail. Namely that: The "Iraq War" article should focus on the broader conflict (and not necessarily summarize every year in the conflict), or more precisely should focus entirely on the conventional war and the search for Hussein. Secondly, the "Post-invasion Iraq" article should be renamed the "Occupation of Iraq, 2003-present" to more accurately reflect the precise military nature of this phase of the conflict. Very little overlap between these two articles is necessary. The "2003 Invasion of Iraq" article should be treated more as an article about a battle and less as an article about the broad before, during, and after piece. What I'm saying is that the article needs more focus.

The third thing that bugs me are the overly long, complicated, and extraneous introductions to each article, that frankly, repeat many of the things that the other articles say.

tl;dr: these three articles lack focus and proper labeling in their titles and often have the same information repeated, leading to more confusion and less concise articles.

Just some thoughts of mine, please, I'd like to hear some feedback to see if the issue is worth pressing more. Skinfan13 (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_23&oldid=1146349690"