Talk:Iraq War/Archive 24

Iraq War/Archive 24
Location	{{{place}}}
Belligerents
	Iraq; Peshmerga; Awakening Councils; Multi-National Force – Iraq; United States (2003–11); United Kingdom (2003–11);

Iraq War/Archive 24
Location	{{{place}}}
Belligerents
	United States; Iraq; Peshmerga; Awakening Councils; Withdrawn forces:; United Kingdom (2003–11);

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

→

Indian views about Iraq war

Needs to be qualified. The Poll was conducted in urban centers only and is not representative of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.242.246 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not over

Obama's act of formally ending combat operations was virtually the entire basis of the notion that the war is over. Despite this, Obama has publicly stated, multiple times, that the war is "coming to an end" or something similar, most notably in the State of the Union and during the Super Bowl XLV pregame interview, in both instances broadcast to millions of people. If Obama considers the war "coming to an end", he obviously does not his ending of combat operations an end to the war. The notion of "the end of combat operations" equaling "the end of the war" is thus, obviously, rendered completely and utterly obsolete. I think it should immediately be changed to reflect its ongoing status. Swarm ^X 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support This has been debated several previous times and most editors agreed that the war was not over, however, the notion was at the time among other editors that the war ended (which is not the case). I hope now since Obama himself is saying the war is coming to an end would reflect the situation properly.Diefgross (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of consensus, you are going to need to find reliable sources that have the weight of the executive branch and the state department that directly and specifically state that the war is ongoing. At this point, with 7 months of relative quiet since the announcement that the war was over it's a bit absurd to be pushing for it to be ongoing. V7-sport (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I have no doubt that if Obama said it was 'over', the editors insisting it 'isn't over' would find something else to show it 'wasn't over'. These claims are simply tendentious. If you want people to take your claims seriously, then please show that you have the first idea what event/situation/declaration would infact mark this war as being 'over', and in addition, show that reliable sources put any weight behind your personal theories. Because Wikipedia isn't you personal platform to dissemintate your opinions as if they were fact. MickMacNee (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As with all wars of this type this will end with a whimper rather than a bang, as the fighting gradually draws down and declines, compairing this to insurgencess succeding wars (like WWII, the civil war, vietmam) is incorrect becouse these were of a much smaller scale and were after a sudden major reduction in fighting with a formal decloration of an end or serrendor. The current fighting is a smothe contiution from the leval of prious fighting and so is cearly still the war, we will be able to tell when the war ends after the violaence shivals belowe some difined point, the Best one is the UN defined 1000 battle deaths per yaer. Anything below that would be defined as civil strife.--J intela (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I also keep hearing (sometimes half jokingly) that we are now in "3 Wars" after the invasion of Libya, well if we aren't still at war with Iraq then how can the number be 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with V7 that "This isn't a matter of consensus". The article was wrongly changed to declare the war over just because "combat operations" ended, even though the war is still considered to be ongoing by the president, the media and society. Casualty reports in the media are still reporting casualties of the "Iraq War". No one in government has stated the war is over. And few media sources even ventured to say "war over" in August. Swarm ^X 01:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You stated that " No one in government has stated the war is over", well yes, the president and the state department did.You have to find reliable sources with the weight of those entities to declare it ongoing. You didn't post any sources at all. This has been up there for 6 and a half months. V7-sport (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"the president and the state department did"

Source? Actually, it doesn't matter. Those quotes would have been supplanted by his more recent quotes that describe the war as "coming to a close".

"This has been up there for 6 and a half months."

Your point? It was listed as ongoing for seven years. Swarm ^X 01:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources are up there, still, from 6 and a half months ago when we last did this. (Now in the archives.)V7-sport (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Combat operations" were declared over. We took this as "war is over"; I even favored changing it. It wasn't that bad of a decision at the time. However, since we made that decision, things have changed. We couldn't have predicted the president would later do this, but it happened. The most recent sources support that the societal view of the war is "ongoing". On January 25, Obama described the war as "coming to an end".[1][2] He said the same thing on February 6 (I can probably dig up the video if you feel strongly about watching that speech). It's an interesting situation, no doubt, and it's not a case of "who can source what". We just need to be clueful and adapt, rather than saying "we already decided it, don't bring it up again". I also want to apologize for my last comment; it wasn't constructive or civil. Swarm ^X 03:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm, no worries, but I do genuinely appreciate the consideration.

Whelp, Obama stated “"As a candidate for this office, I pledged I would end this war. As president, that is what I am doing," pertaining to his oval office speech where he said “ tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended.” “Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest — it is in our own.” “And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq.. ” yada yada yada… And "The bottom line is this: The war is ending. Like any sovereign, independent nation, Iraq is free to chart its own course.

We had the state department guy (the one that was just fired) state the war was over. It’s now supposedly statistically safer to be an American soldier in Iraq then it is to be an American living in many US cities…

I wasn’t trying be rude, (sorry if it came across that way) It just seemed settled. The thing is, we aren’t going to get a declaration of victory or a ticker tape parade, that speech was supposed to be it. I could probably dig into it more and find more citations if you wish. V7-sport (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Iran Involvement

The article seems to downplay the involvement of the Iranian government, if not denying it altogether. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/02/iranian_sniper_rifle.php Is one of many references from credible sources if you google ".50 caliber" "sniper rifle" and "iran" in any combination. Also google Iranian UAV's shot down, or Iranian agents in Iraq. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53495 Also, I'm not sure how much credibility you give to wikileaks, or how often you reference them (considering how often their site is down), but you can find many sources referencing wikileaks regarding Iranian involvement. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23iran.html I understand that the phrase "Although some military intelligence analysts have concluded there is no concrete evidence..." without any sort of reference is probably just a way to cover your bases, like the words "believed", "appeared", and so on, but if you say "some military analysts" should you cite that? In addition, this statement under "Tensions with Iran": "The Bush administration and coalition leaders began to publicly state that Iran was supplying weapons, particularly EFP devices, to Iraqi insurgents and militias although to date have failed to provide any proof for these allegations." I understand that the task force responsible found very little conclusive evidence on the EFP's, but when you group the EFP's with "weapons" and then state that there is no evidence, it makes the incorrect assertion that there is no evidence for either. Unless I'm just reading it wrong. Lmk8541 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Date

Under "Date" in the box on the right, it is falsely stated that the war lasted 7 years and 166 days when in fact it was 7 years and 164 days. It seems like the person calculating it calculated the total number of days, and then subtracted 7*365. The person forgot to count for leap years when subtracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.150.191 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

March 20 2010 to August 31 2010 =(31-19)+30+31+30+31+31=165 days, so 7 years and 165 days

March 20, 2003 to March 19, 2010 = 7 years = 5*365+2*366 = 2557 days. so 2557+165=2722 days QuentinUK (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Faulty edit

"His presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory."

The above sentence, which is in section 1.3 -- "Preparations for Iraq War," is grammatically incorrect.

[5/20/11, 11:31pm pacific standard time] _________________________________________

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.88.168 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed QuentinUK (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

Cited article behind a paywall

"The Iraq War or War in Iraq, also referred to as the Second Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom,[49]"

The first citation in the main text is behind a paywall. Couldn't another source be found for this information? QuentinUK (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Democratic election"

This should be removed.Iraqi elections were marked by widespread fraud and by the fact that over 500 people were not allowed to run in the elections due to "ties with the baath party".

By the way,this whole article is amazingly bias and unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.140.63.52 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What's with the photo?

Seriously. About 2/5's of the way down, an American soldier stands in front of a picture of Jesus, while the light shines in.

Are you people trying to make this a holy war? Absolutely biased and offensive, and if you want a neutral article it should be removed immediately.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.14.183 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The image in question is the intriguing File:US Soldier in Iraq.jpg (currently in the 2007: U.S. troop surge section) which purports to show "A U.S. Soldier from the Nemesis troop, 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment clears a house after one of the regiment's Stryker vehicles gets hit by an improvised explosive device, October 18, 2007, Baghdad, Iraq." A large Jesus poster is hung on the wall behind the soldier. Christianity in Iraq states that 3% of the Iraqi population is Christian, so it is not as surprising as it first seems, and perhaps was chosen to illustrate that point (although the caption makes no mention of the poster, and even calling it a christian home would be WP:OR). It was added to the article back on 10 October 2009 in this edit by 74.131.159.45. -- 110.49.234.141 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the image is propagandist, but an image of a single soldier standing in a room does nothing to illustrate the section it was in, which is about the troop surge. Additionally, a caption talking about things going on out of shot isn't helpful. Since it's only decorative, I have removed it.(Hohum ^@) 19:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was a good photo and the idea that it had some kind of propaganda value is a bit absured. V7-sport (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if it's "intriguing," as an Iraqi living in Canada, I could see how the picture could offend many Iraqi's and Muslim's abroad. I'm not an "extremist" as you may call me, but the picture in questions puts a religious twist on the entire page, and I am thankful that it is now removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.14.183 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, full stop. the idea that this may offend you because it may contain elements of a different religion is something you need to get over. V7-sport (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This image isn't relevant to the section it is in, and adds no value. IQinn (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll move it to the relevant section where it will add value then. V7-sport (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And that section is? And why does this images add value there? You better wait until you have consensus for that. IQinn (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It actually does belong in the 2007 troop surge section, it shows that Soldiers had clear houses and is the only such photo in 2007. Since the troop surge was the turning point of the insurgency it's an important photo. Therefore relevant, therefore valuable. V7-sport (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The photo shows a soldier together with the image of Jesus. I think you refer to the image description. This description is completely unsourced. And how does this photo illustrates that there was a turning point? Because Jesus appeared? The war turned because Jesus appeared? How is the is this image connected to the surge? Where is the connection between the topic of the section the turning point and surge? In my view your explanation does not make sense and the image does not help the readers understanding of the topic of this section. Or how does it? Has this image ever been published in secondary sources? In connection with the surge? IQinn (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said that was Jesus? So that's your issue with it? You think the photo in the background is Jesus and as a muslim you take umbrage, right? Have a look at Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED.V7-sport (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

False. Did you completely read what is said. IQinn (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I did, I am also familiar with you, so what was "false" about what I wrote? Simply writing "false" isn't a rebuttal. V7-sport (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:IMAGE "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken."... And the photo says nothing about Jesus. V7-sport (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would carefully read other editors comments and it would be helpful if you would answer the relevant questions. So please re-read my comment and answer the relevant questions. Thank you.

"False" is the answer to you question "You think the photo in the background is Jesus and as a muslim you take umbrage, right?" IQinn (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, answers to your questions.
"The photo shows a soldier together with the image of Jesus"
Where does it say that is Jesus?
I think you refer to the image description. This description is completely unsourced.'
Wrong, it's sourced to a combat photographer who served in Iraq who was good enough to renounce the rights to the photo. Per WP:IMAGE "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken."...
And how does this photo illustrates that there was a turning point?
It would be helpful if you would carefully read other editors comments.
Because Jesus appeared? The war turned because Jesus appeared?
Are you trying to be clever? Where does it say that is Jesus?
How is the is this image connected to the surge?
It is of a soldier clearing a house during the surge.
Where is the connection between the topic of the section the turning point and surge?
It is of a soldier clearing a house during the surge. Got it yet?
In my view your explanation does not make sense...
It would be helpful if you would carefully read other editors comments.
and the image does not help the readers understanding of the topic of this section. Or how does it?
It's the only photo of a Soldier clearing a house during the surge. It illustrates that there was combat that was brought about as a result of the Surge.
Has this image ever been published in secondary sources?
Per WP:IMAGE "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken."...V7-sport (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Be assured that when i ask a question i add a Question mark to it (?).

Well there are quite a number of people in this discussion alone who think that this image look like a image of Jesus. You are free to your own opinion but you seems to be in the minority.

WP:IMAGE Generally we assume good faith but there is not much in the image that would support all the claims that have been made. Just one point more not to use it.

"It illustrates that there was combat that was brought about as a result of the Surge." The image does not show combat.

This image i put here does and it is already part of this section.

There are many reason not to include this image and there is almost no reason to do so. What does the image of a soldier standing in front of a image that looks like Jesus add to the understanding of the 2007 Surge. In my opinion. "Nothing". We have other images as well that are better suited. After carefully reading your answers and weighing all arguments i oppose inclusion of this image as many other editors have already done. There is no consensus for inclusion. IQinn (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So your questions get answered but mine don't. It's obvious you are opposing the inclusion because you think that there is a photo of Jesus in the background. The other editor who opposed it, (70.71.14.183) said such a depiction would be "offensive". Isn't that bigoted? Especially since there is no indication that it is actually Jesus and even if it were it would only be irrelevant to the meaning of the photo? And yes, house clearing definitely IS combat and yes, it's important for people to know the insurgency was fought house to house, especially in Baghdad where this photo took place.V7-sport (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

An Iraqi woman looks on as U.S. soldiers search the courtyard of her house in Ameriyah, Iraq. Searching houses for weapons is a common counter-insurgency technique used in Iraq.

Please stop misinterpreting "It's obvious you are opposing the inclusion because you think that there is a photo of Jesus in the background." That is false.

The numerous reasons that i have given are in my replies. And there are other editors who opposed and removed the image for the same reasons i stated.

And there is already an image in this section that shows that the fight also took place in peoples houses and there are others available. I added one of them here to the discussion. There is no reason nor consensus for inclusion for the image with the "Jesus" image in the back for the reasons that i and other editors have given. You might stop beating a death horse. IQinn (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well no, your replies have been refuted and that you are tossing out other photos from the same period means that you acknowledge the section is lacking. The only explanation left is that you have something against Jesus. (even though that hasn't been identified as such and is irrelevant to the meaning of the photo) The house to house photo isn't in the surge section or from the same period, so you are wrong. The reason the other editor gave for exclusion was bigoted and invalid per Wiki policy. If you agree with that reasoning it's your problem. There is no consensus for exclusion. Consensus seems to be one of those words/phrases you don't understand, like "ad hominem" and "death horse". V7-sport (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My arguments have not been refuted and you have given no valid reason for inclusion and yes this image is in the "2007: U.S. troop surge" section and it comes from that period. You also seems to have forgotten other editors like Hohum who removed the image for the same reason. I hope you do not start edit warring again. I would not suggest that. I think you are clearly in the minority in this discussion here. Please do accept consensus or suggest a conflict resolution process. Or better Stop beating a dead horse. WP:DEADHORSE IQinn (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your argument, it started with:

This image isn't relevant to the section it is in, and adds no value.

I rebutted by stating that this was a part of the surge section, this shows US soldiers clearing out insurgents house to house in Baghdad where most of the surge fighting took place. Then you moved on to:

"The photo shows a soldier together with the image of Jesus."

And I rebutted by saying that the photo could be of anyone and it was irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't censored. (I can't help but be amused that you have gone out of your way to post every graphic image of every grubby insurgent that got himself splattered yet you object to a photo because it may have a likeness of Jesus in the background.) You wrote:

The image does not show combat.

And you re wrong, house clearing is combat and this is the only photo that shows it in Baghdad during the surge. Then, ignoring the explanations you fell back on:

What does the image of a soldier standing in front of a image that looks like Jesus add to the understanding of the 2007 Surge.[sic] (Forgetting that you wrote "Be assured that when i[sic] ask a question i[sic] add a Question mark to it")

So we are back to the whole alleged Jesus thing. Censoring a photo because you don't like other religions is ignorant and against wikipedia policy. V7-sport (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are beating a dead horse. WP:DEADHORSE. The image adds little to no value and yes "Jesus" in the background is disturbing. On the other site we have alternatives so there weighing the pros and cons i oppose inclusion as many other people in this discussion have done as well. How about you start a RFC? How about that? IQinn (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide when the horse is dead and too bad if you are disturbed. You have added graphic photos of dead insurgents to the encyclopedia. (not that I find that disturbing) The idea that you would be "disturbed" by this is a laugh. The alternatives are from different times and places and are unacceptable. The Baghdad surge is where the Iraqi insurgency was finally defeated and it should have a photo of the house clearings that went on there. I suppose we could take it to mediation, but aren't you embarrassed that you are whining that you are "disturbed" about this? (And that your first reaction was to deny it, LOL.) V7-sport (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you embarrassed to write such comments? Must be very late in your time zone. So you want to open a RFC or another form of dispute resolution? IQinn (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, It's late. We can do mediation tomorrow if you wish. Great how you continue to try to rope me into these things.V7-sport (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You can open a WP:RFC on your own. If you wish another form of mediation let me know. IQinn (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just going to add this to the list of your bad faith efforts here. From the outright misrepresentation of sources to censorship because you find an image that may or may not be non muslim "disturbing". Hopefully one day the blocks will stick. V7-sport (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is up to you to start conflict resolution or not but i guess your last comment or one more of that kind could make your block stick forever. Have a look at WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:ETIQ. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, have a look at WP:YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY TRY TO READ THE LINKS THAT YOU MINDLESSLY POST and WP:FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO PESTER.V7-sport (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stay civil and do not shout. IQinn (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When you are advocating for censoring an image because it may (MAY or may NOT) have a representation of a non islamic religious figure you aren't in a position to be lecturing about anything civil.V7-sport (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have never advocated that and it does not change the fact that your last replies are problematic under WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:ETIQ. I have suggested dispute resolution and you reply with that kind of comments. Well... IQinn (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You never advocated that? So you are fine with restoring the image? No one is buying the whole victim trip by the way, all that anyone has to do is look at your previous edits and block log.V7-sport (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No i am not. The reason for removal have been stated and discussed above. Looking at my previous edits and block log will tell us if your comments are civil? Nope to look at your comments you made here in this discussion will tell as if these comments were uncivil according to WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU andWP:ETIQ. Re-reading them again i have no doubt about it. IQinn (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And when your reasons were addressed it came down to you being "disturbed" by the image of (supposedly) Jesus. Now you are playing the smarmy victim card. Look, do you have an intelligent rebuttal or are you just going to post the same templates over and over like a parrot?V7-sport (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All arguments have been discussed and they are given above. No need to repeat them here. Stop beating a death horse. WP:DEADHORSE IQinn (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed,, the arguments have been refuted. The only thing you have fallen back on is that you find the image "disturbing" because it is allegedly of Jesus. Ironic when you have uploaded this, and this and plastered every photo of a dead jihadi that you can get your hands on on the encyclopedia. Nice value system that you display in your choice of what you find "disturbing". V7-sport (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope my arguments have not been refuted and i have never said that i personally find the image disturbing in the way you describe here. The fact is i never said that. The reasons for the removal are given above by me and at least two other editors and there is no need to repeat them here and there have been discussed and there is no consensus for removal. You are the vast minority with your view. Once again do agree to conflict resolution as WP:RFC as i have suggested to you multiple times or stop beating a death horse. WP:DEADHORSE Nothing more to say your. IQinn (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So did someone hack into your account and write "and yes "Jesus" in the background is disturbing"? Guess you are "mischaracterizing" again. It's not enough of an issue to go to mediation, I just find it interesting how you backpedal, weasel, wikihound play victim and mischaracterize in order to pester me and yet you aren't man enough to stand by your obvious intentions.V7-sport (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Jusus in the background is disturbing" is obvious not "you find the image "disturbing" or "I find the image disturbing".

Ever checked a dictionary?

dis·turb (d-stûrb) tr.v. dis·turbed, dis·turb·ing, dis·turbs 1. To break up or destroy the tranquillity or settled state of: "Subterranean fires and deep unrest disturb the whole area" (Rachel Carson). 2. To trouble emotionally or mentally; upset. 3. a. To interfere with; interrupt: noise that disturbed my sleep. b. To intrude on; inconvenience: Constant calls disturbed her work. 4. To put out of order; disarrange.

Well i have bold the relevant meaning for you. I never find the image "disturbing" in the sense you describe. IQinn (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WELL GEE, You did post it after all. Guess you don't know what you are writing at any given moment. Last I checked, you being disturbed wasn't a valid reason for censoring wikipedia. Also, last I checked I didn't have to give a rats ass if you were "disturbed" even by WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU andWP:ETIQ. You have been, in my opinion, an apologist for islamists even to the point to where you were dragged into an ANI by another editor for trying to call flushing Bin Laden an "extra judicial killing". Now you are censoring a photo because a supposed, completely tangental depiction of what may or may not be Jesus "disturbs" you. (one wonders why you live in the west instead of someplace where such things are forbidden). Even by WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU andWP:ETIQ I can point out tat isn't Wiki policy and what's wrong with that mentality.V7-sport (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean you are convinced i am "an apologist for islamists" :)) and that gives you the right to personally attack me and to ignore WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU andWP:ETIQ. Well... Nothing more to say here. Good luck. IQinn (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant what I wrote (which was more nuanced then your characterization): You haven't acted in good faith on issues relating to this and that's not just my opinion. Like I wrote before, this is just another example to add to the list.V7-sport (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that is your problem if you can not Wikipedia:Assume good faith then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. This discussion once again is a good example of that, combined with comments you made here that just break WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU andWP:ETIQ. Good luck IQinn (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And once again, playing the victim while you WP:STALK and edit war isn't going to do anything for you other then to waste my time. V7-sport (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is impossible for you to accept anything else on Wikipedia that does not meet your strong POV. Once again you are playing the victim and you are attacking me with false accusations to take the attention away from the fact that you came back to this discussion not to seek conflict resolution as i have suggested multiple times but instead to leave uncivil comments that break WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU andWP:ETIQ and to keep beating a dead horse. WP:DEADHORSE IQinn (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep parroting the same thing. Getting the last word doesn't mean you had something to say. V7-sport (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, seems to be that you are "parroting" the same thing. Instead of telling us something interesting. IQinn (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Referring to yourself as "us" is a sign of schizophrenia.V7-sport (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

:)) Well obviously i refer with us to the community. Well and you are welcome to find someone out of the community who thinks that your last comments were interesting or did they help US in OUR goal to build an encyclopedia? I have suggested multiple times conflict resolution but you just came back and left uncivil comments and you keep beating a dead horse WP:DEADHORSE to a point where it becomes disruptive to the work WE do here. Best. IQinn (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So censoring Wikipedia because you find images of Christ disturbing s helping the" community"... It doesn't even help your cause. Considering the sheer volume of ANI's you have had launched against you for pulling this kind of thing I don't think the "community" is going to miss you.V7-sport (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you want to discuss? Or what kind of conflict resolution do you suggest? Or what do you want? IQinn (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The image in question is decorative and does nothing to illustrate the troop surge; a soldier looking up a flight of stairs doesn't even properly illustrate clearing a house. It clearly isn't censorship - it's just irrelevant and decorative. Additionally, please obey WP:CIVIL. (Hohum ^@) 18:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a well composed photo that was literally up for years. The reason why it was objected to was: "Are you people trying to make this a holy war? Absolutely biased and offensive," and "[it] could offend many Iraqi's and Muslim's" as well as "and yes "Jesus" in the background is disturbing." So yes, clearly censorship and I disagree with the removal and object to the stated and obvious motivations behind it.V7-sport (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just clearly said why I object to it, and it wasn't that. (Hohum ^@) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama Bin Laden

The evening of Sunday April 5th, 2011, it has been confirmed by the U.S Government that Osama Bin Laden was killed by a Military Operation at a Mansion in Pakistan. I would like to request an edit of the article to include this content. Please see the following sources. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676 http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.dead/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler 14 420 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Iraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.130.247 (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Abu Ghraib 39.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Abu Ghraib 39.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 15 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Improvements in public security?

In this article's "Location Status" there is a entry that claims Iraq has seen "improvements in public security." I think this is inaccurate and misleading. How have there been "improvements"? The Iraq War continues. Violence, bombings and assassinations still occur daily. Baghdad and other cities remain some of the most dangerous areas on earth. I suppose public security has "improved" since the even darker days of 2006---but this article should make that clear, rather than making a broad sweeping claim that there have been overall "improvements in public security" that the war has somehow brought about---when the opposite is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Peters, Katherine McIntire. "Dirty Work." Government Executive. October 1, 2003.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

American victory?

I think one can now safely say that the US won the war in Iraq. The Baath regime was toppled, Saddam was executed, a new government was elected, and the islamic insurgency has been mostly quelled. Iraq is now a major US ally. What do you think? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Things are not this simple. There is much dispute over wheather the US succesfully installed a democracy, since the new government is becoming more and more authoritarian, candidates were banned from recent elections, there have been fraud claims during all 3 elections and many human rights violations have taken place. Also Iraq's status as a US ally (leave alone major US ally) is questionable, due to the strong ties to Iran of many leading Shi'a and Kurdish figures and the growth increasing influence of Muqtada al-Sadr's political party. Also the insurgency is far from quelled, although it's not as deadly as it was around 2006-2007, with at least 4,000 civilians, 900 security forces killed this year it is still one of the most deadly insurgencies on earth.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Dans popped

Since when did stopping all insurgency (of which there will always be) and installing democracy become a prerequisite for officially winning a war, when the government upon whom one declared war has been toppled? By those standards, you'd have to more than double the official length of pretty much any war you can think of. The vast majority of wars in history had nothing to with democracy. And the fact that politicians who are anti-American are growing in influence there? I understand Pakistani and Indian politicians have never liked each other much - does this constitute a 64 year war? And the little I know of the region which is now Afghanistan, the Afghan War has been going on with brief periods of quasi-peace for the last few thousand years. Coincidental that it suits both hawks and doves to exaggerate the length of the war and include every car-bomb and street-fight (see below). I'm not saying the violence isn't terrible, but there's an important technical point here, so today's media don't mislead future historians.

American victory or not, the war would still be going on for many years after the U.S occupation ends on December 31 2011.

Is this a joke? In order for a "victory" to have occurred, one side needs to have actually achieved its stated goals in the process of the conflict. Since the stated goals of the occupation forces were murky at best (changing over time from the establishment of a healthy and functional democracy to the prevention of civil war to the containment of that civil war to the establishment of a pseudo-democratic yet stable regime to just being able to achieve enough stability to allow coalition forces to withdraw) and misleading or outright lies at worst (elimination of nonexistent weapons programs), how can any neutral article say that "victory" was achieved by the occupation in Iraq? That's not even touching on the fact that the war in Iraq is still going on. Fifty thousand American troops, and an unknown number of contractor/mercenaries, are still fighting, killing, and dying there, regardless of being relabeled as "non-combat forces" by the Pentagon's public relation's arm. How can a war be declared as "won" if it hasn't even ended? Fumoses (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Any long term endeavor will ultimately fall victim to ratchet effect, and plans inevitably change as the situation does, but the intent remains. The US was very clear about their goals at the start of the war, the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime after the violation of UNSC resolution 1441. While you may debate your perceived reasoning for an invasion the fact remains that the US documented their goals, stated them publicly, and accomplished them after a swift invasion. With the regime dismantled, the army dissolved, and weapons inspectors free to begin their search for WMDs, the US was very much "Mission Accomplished". Had we left after that there would be no doubt that the US and UNSC forces were victorious. Unfortunately some people felt that we had a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to national security, to help rebuild the country that we had just dismantled. In 2005 the US officially declared their new mission in Iraq, which was to establish a democratic ally in the middle east capable of fighting its own terrorists for us. In 2007 the UNSC reiterated this by declaring their goals as "A unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror". Since the definition of "democracy" seems to be subjective with you people, and because the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is thrown around too often, I guess we will never know if the US accomplished it's mission in establishing a democratic ally. By your definition the US doesn't even have a true democracy. Compare this to Vietnam however, where we withdrew forces before we could even eliminate the conventional forces, that was a very clear defeat. How is this anything like a war where we decimated the conventional enemy force and established a government to fight a diminishing terrorist threat in the region? Lmk8541 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I am pleased to see this article no longer has an arbitrary end date, but leaves the issue uncertain, emphasising that the ORIGINAL conflict is over, and was won by the US-led allies. When people hear the idea put forward that in any historical sense the ORIGINAL (2003) Iraq War is over, and that what is happening now is a different war or sectarian insurgency (comparable more to the similarly violent drug war in Mexico than a formal state-on-state war), against quite different enemies in quite different circumstances, they get very cross: "Is this a joke?! Are you a moron! Of course it's not over! A war is not won until every single person against one side is totally squished and everyone is dancing hand in hand round a rainbow! Duh!" This has never been considered the case before - quite frankly it's a tad idealistic, self-righteous, and only popped up after the Vietnam War. By this standard the war will never end (so the one side can continue moaning forever, and the other side can use it as an excuse for removing civil liberties). I'm not denying the awful facts on the ground, but why can't the all-powerful media split it into the Iraq War (2003) and the Iraq Insurgency or maybe Second Iraq War (2003 - present)? That would simply make more sense, whatever your moral position on the war. In 2003, the US, UK, etc. declared war on the Baathist government of Iraq, toppled them, and captured Saddam Hussein. (First) war over. Then there was insurgency by completely separate groups who had been opposed to both sides.

Back in the day historians were (often) clearer about what constituted a war and when wars ended. Since declaration of war has become less formal, and sensationalist media and political spin have taken over, people are a bit fuzzier about these matters - I note that the opposite happened in Libya because it suited the media - even though the country was already split in two even geographically and had two armed forces killing each other's members en masse (this is known as a 'civil war'), the media didn't want to call it a 'civil war' for ages (the more positive term 'popular uprising' was in vogue in the news).

The Korean War (since neither government has been toppled) has even more claim to be ongoing (people are still being killed). Many other wars in history would be much longer, and this Iraq War ought to be combined with the Gulf War and Clinton's bombing, so I could hereby arrogantly declare its dates to be 1991-2607 (the year the media might finally admit the war is over, if they ever do). In fact, Iraq has been a pretty violent place (on and off) since the 3rd millennium BC, so how about combining it with everything from the Akkadian and Gutian invasions of Sumer, the neo-Babylonian invasion of Assyria, the Roman-Persian wars, the Abbasid Revolution and World War II? Different people fighting in different ways about different things, but apparently that doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.103 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The war will never be 'over' for certain people as long as they find it convenient. Jarwulf (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good god is all this a waste of text. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't decide when to post "Coalition victory"; we'll only do so when this is backed by a multitude of sources, which, as far as I know, isn't the case. Swarm ^{u | t} 15:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Iraq war is not over yet

The claim that the war (as opposed to just one particular phase of it) officially ended on August 31, 2010 is inaccurate and wrong.

----

September 2, 2010

Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Army Gen. Ray Odierno sounded the same theme in a made-for-television ceremony to inaugurate Operation New Dawn, as the post-combat phase has been named. The U.S. military, they said, was moving toward an exit after seven years of war

http://www.denverpost.com/war/ci_15968367

----

January 21, 2011

Obama Plans $42 Billion Cut in Iraq and Afghanistan War Costs

The war-spending request will accompany a $553 billion defense base budget for fiscal 2012 ...

The drop from the Pentagon’s fiscal 2011 war-spending request of $159 billion reflects President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce troop levels in the war zones ...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-21/obama-plans-42-billion-cut-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-war-costs.html

----

January 25, 2011:

President Obama, State of Union Address

The Iraq war is 'coming to' an end.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address

----

President Barack Obama says the Iraq war is coming to an end.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/obama-afghanistan-war-to-_n_814042.html

----

February 4, 2011

Pentagon fears Iraq is becoming 'forgotten war''

Iraq is in danger of becoming a "forgotten war," much as Afghanistan was earlier in the decade, according to senior US officials.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0204/Pentagon-fears-Iraq-is-becoming-forgotten-war

----

February 17, 2011

Iraq war: why US military withdrawal might not happen in 2011

The US military is scheduled to leave Iraq in December 2011, ending its involvement in the Iraq war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0217/Iraq-war-why-US-military-withdrawal-might-not-happen-in-2011

----

March 18, 2011:

Eight Years In, End to Iraq War Still Elusive

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/18/eight-years-in-end-to-iraq-war-still-elusive/

----

March 29, 2011

Congressional Research Service:

War Funding to Date

In the tenth year of operations since the 9/11 attacks while troops are being withdrawn in Iraq and

increased in Afghanistan, the cost of war continues to be a major issue including the total amount

appropriated, the amount for each operation, average monthly spending rates, and the scope and

duration of future costs. Information on costs is useful to Congress to assess the FY2010

Supplemental for war costs for the Department of Defense (DOD) and State/USAID, FY2011 war

requests, conduct oversight of past war costs, and consider the longer-term costs implications of

the buildup of troops in Afghanistan and potential problems in the withdrawal of U.S. troops from

Iraq. This report analyzes war funding for the Defense Department and tracks funding for USAID

and VA Medical funding.

Ongoing War Cost Issues

This report is designed to answer frequently asked questions and to provide information that can be used to address some of the major war cost issues that confront the 112th Congress.

In addition to total costs to date for each war and altogether, other questions include:

How and why have war costs for each war changed over time?
What are current and likely future war costs, based on current Administration plans, and how might those costs change under different scenarios?
Will the United States and Iraq continue to follow the Security Agreement requiring final withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and if not, how will costs change?

How accurate are DOD estimates of war costs during the drawdown in Iraq and

buildup in Afghanistan, and what metrics can Congress use to evaluate its

requests?

If Congress also approves the FY2012 war funding request of $132 billion, cumulative war

funding would then reach $1.415 trillion total including: $823 billion for Iraq (63%); $557 billion for Afghanistan (35%);

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

----

April 27, 2011

Pentagon rethinks Iraq pull-out plans

US military planners are discussing keeping thousands of troops in Iraq past the withdrawal deadline of December 31, despite President Barack Obama’s promises to pull out all US forces this year.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/16e5daf2-70f2-11e0-962a-00144feabdc0.html

----

April 27, 2011

Robert Gates' Pentagon Legacy: Unfinished Wars, Unfinished Budget Reform

Gates, who declined to comment for this article, leaves much undone. No clear strategy exists for what likely will be a turbulent period even as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wind down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/robert-gates-pentagon-legacy_n_854437.html

----

May 10, 2011

US military deaths in Iraq war at 4,452 Wednesday, according to Associated Press count

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-military-deaths-in-iraq-war-at-4452-wednesday-according-to-associated-press-count/2011/05/10/AFELrghG_story.html

The AP count is three fewer than the Defense Department’s tally, last updated Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-military-deaths-in-iraq-war-at-4452-wednesday-according-to-associated-press-count/2011/05/10/AFELrghG_story.html

----

May 11, 2011

The Obama administration is evaluating whether to keep troops in Iraq beyond the planned withdrawal date, a decision that would extend an unpopular war that the American public expected to end this year.

... added Gates, acknowledging such a decision will face resistance in Iraq (not to mention in the United States, where just 33 percent of the public now supports the war).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/iraq-withdrawal-2011-delay_n_860188.html

----

May 11, 2011

The Obama administration is on the verge of decisions that will permanently define the Afghanistan and Iraq wars through the 2012 election.

Peace voters will want to hear a clear message: that Obama intends to phase out of two wars and transfer billions to our needs at home.

Along the way, the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq [...] can be ended, [...] the longest and costliest wars in American history.

http://www.thenation.com/article/160616/obama-nears-key-decisions-afghan-strategy

----

May 13, 2011

If Obama keeps American troops in Iraq after this year, he'll be going back on his word and continuing to fight what he once derisively called a "dumb war."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-may-face-tough-decision-as-iraqi-leader-signals-u-s-troops-could-stay-20110512

----

May 18, 2011

U.S. ambassador Dan Simpson:

Why can't we stop our wars? There's no reason for the U.S. to still be fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya

Now we are enmeshed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Iraq, where the war began in 2003, has 48,000 American troops. Afghanistan, which started in 2001, has 100,000.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11138/1147192-374-0.stm

----

May 19, 2011

a senior administration official said on a conference call with reporters:

"... having wound down the Iraq war and continuing to do so, ..."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/obama-offers-his-take-on-arab-spring-and-what-it-means-for-us.html

----

May 19, 2011

Obama decided to deliver a major address on Middle East policy, aides say, because there is a "moment of opportunity" to reset America's relations with the Arab world now that Osama bin Laden is dead the U.S. is winding down the war in Iraq.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Obama+takes+carrot+stick+approach+Arab+Spring+regimes/4806025/story.html

----

May 22, 2011

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned against pulling away from the world and slashing defense spending now that Osama bin Laden is dead and the war in Iraq is winding down.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-22/gates-cautions-against-u-s-temptation-to-slash-defense-spending.html

----

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

The national debt "could develop into a deep crisis for our nation," he said. "At the same time, we face a complex and unpredictable international security environment that includes a major war in Afghanistan, winding up the war in Iraq, revolution throughout the Middle East, new rising powers, nuclear proliferation in Iran and Korea, the continued threat of terrorism, and more."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-22/gates-cautions-against-u-s-temptation-to-slash-defense-spending.html

----

This article should not present an official end date to the war when none exists. Formats (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Two_wars.html

Agreed. Above is another article from September 2010 where Obama says that the U.S. is still fighting two wars. Thus, since many govt. officials say that the Iraq War isn't over yet, it shouldn't be considered over in this article either.

Well there's obviously a war ongoing in Iraq, with more than two thousand casualties anually, and the UN's criteria for a major war is at least one thousand deaths annually. But I think this article should do more to differentiate the three different phases of the war. The war against Saddam's Iraq, the civil war with US occupation and the civil war without US occupation. The ongoing conflict seems to fit the last phase (or is starting to). It would solve how most of this article is far too big too.Machinarium (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

With 50,000 U.S. troops, tens of thousands more private military forces, and thousands of casualties annually, it's obvious that the war is still going on. Unfortunately some are still trying to have the article present an official end date to the war when there isn't one.

----

June 14, 2011:

US military deaths in Iraq war at 4,460 Tuesday, according to Associated Press count

The AP count is four fewer than the Defense Department’s tally, last updated Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-military-deaths-in-iraq-war-at-4460-tuesday-according-to-associated-press-count/2011/06/14/AGncHgUH_story.html

----

June 14, 2011:

US military deaths in Iraq war at 4460

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015315910_apusiraqusdeaths.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/us-military-deaths-in-iraq-war-at-4-460-1.2956241

----

February 1, 2011:

Iraq war casualties rise sharply

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0201/breaking13.html

--

June 19, 2011

Gates' tenure defined by 2 wars that outlast him

When Gates retires on June 30, there will be nearly 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and about 100,000 in Afghanistan.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/18/ap/politics/main20072250.shtml

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_681573.html

--

June 19, 2011

The resolution gave the administration until Friday to respond to a series of questions on the mission, including the scope of U.S. military activity, the cost of the mission and its impact on other U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/?story=/news/feature/2011/06/19/ml_libya_26

--

August 19, 2010

Iraq Withdrawal Signals New Phase, But War is Not Over

On Aug. 31, the Obama administration will change the name of the war, known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," to "Operation New Dawn." But it isn't expected to signal and end to the war itself.

"I don't think anybody declared the end of the war as far as I know. There's still fighting ahead," the Pentagon's Morell said today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iraq-war-major-milestone/story?id=11437254&page=2

--

September 3, 2010

AP Issues Standards Memo: 'Combat In Iraq Is Not Over'

Unless there is balancing language, our content should not refer to the end of combat in Iraq, or the end of U.S. military involvement. Nor should it say flat-out (since we can't predict the future) that the United States is at the end of its military role.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/ap-memo-iraq-war_n_705446.html

--

September 6, 2010

'Withdrawing' from the Iraq war doesn't mean it's over

--

the war isn't even close to over. ... the military is quietly acknowledging as much. ... the Pentagon admits "nothing will change." That isn't a paraphrase — it's a direct quote from the Army's chief spokesman in Iraq. It came just before a Colorado Springs Gazette dispatch quoted another military official saying "our mission has not changed."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012804856_sirota07.html

--

September 7, 2010

AP Tells Its Reporters to Avoid Saying the Iraq War Is Over

military officials quietly concede that the "Iraq War is over" spin is just that: spin.

The fact is, the Iraq war continues

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/ap-tells-its-reporters-to_b_707508.html

--

Again, this Wikipedia article should not falsely present an official end date to the war when none exists. Formats (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In order to say that the war is ongoing you are going to need to provide reliable sources WP:RS sources with the weight WP:weight that equal or supersede that of the President and State Department. Policy memos from the AP or editorials from the huffington post don't rise t that level. V7-sport (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying there is no war currently in Iraq? There is constant fighting, check out icasualties [3] Machinarium (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Formats please stop filling the talk page with those quotes, place them between brackets so that it doesn't ruin the layout (thanks). Machinarium (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

95 percent of the most reliable news sources are stating that the war is still not over, as well as the Pentagon. Just because a president, doesn't matter if he is the US president, says one thing it doesn't mean it is true. As far as I know, the US government called the Korean and Vietnam wars police actions while the rest of the world called them wars. If we took only what the US government said as truth than it would seem the US has mostly conducted police actions and peackeeping operations around the world and not wars. In any case, most sources confirm the war is still ongoing, and a majority concencuss has been reached on Wikipedia to that effect (excluding only two editors). Diefgross (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Its sad it took all that just to conclude that the Iraq war isn't over.--J intela (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely; it was a matter of common sense. We were simply relying on the vague notion that the president declared the war "over", a notion which was invalidated by later quotes of his, but we ignored that. Fantastic job with the multitude of sources presented by Formats— that's all we needed, one editor to step up. A travesty that it took us so long to change back. Swarm ^{u | t} 17:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 1 November 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "Iraq had lost $8,800,000,000 in the" to "Iraq had lost $8.8 billion in the" because it differs in format from the rest of the article and because it is misleading in terms of amount, as 8,800,000,000 seems larger than 8.8 billion.

96.228.24.67 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Done CTJF83 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Masonic hoax

This should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes.

The Light Burns (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not without WP:Reliable sources, it shouldn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - December 14, 2011

Today the Iraq War officially was ended by President Obama. I would like to ask someone who is allowed to edit this article to be able to show that the war stopped today, December 14, 2011. Right now it shows the day it started to the present. I'd appreciate if someone could fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebowl99 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The last troops are coming home within days, according to this news article. I would say that when the last troop leaves would be the "official" end of the war. -- Luke (Talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Too American Focus

The vast majority of this article is about interactions with America & Cooalition troops. But the more interesting thing is what is happening in Iraq itself. Who are the various factions and what are their motives and strengths? Most importantly, what really is the end game becoming? A flowering of peace and goodwill, or the rise of Sadam II? Tuntable (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, but only time will tell. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change

to

" in order to reflect the withdrawl of US forces.

138.130.68.60 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done - Restored to roughly the format it was when MNF-I was still active. Swarm ^X 06:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Should this actually be part of the war on terror?

The Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation ran concurrently with the war in Afghanistan, but an argument could be made that this is actually an extension of the Gulf War rather than a separate war in and of itself.

Looking at the timeline, the chain of events took place in an unbroken sequence, from the invasion of Kuwait to Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to the UN sanctions and weapons inspections, to the US and UK enforcement of the No Fly Zone, to repeated military attacks against Iraq in response to various violations by the Hussein regime, to the UN's reinstatement of the weapons inspections, to the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. That, I think, is the chain of events which historians will tie together. It's been well established that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although many people were confused on that point at the time of the 2003 invasion.

I'm not interested in a political debate about whether the 2003 invasion was correct or justified. Rather, I'm interested in looking at the Iraq War within its correct context, and that context leads me to conclude that this is a war which began with the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and will be ending this year with the full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, spanning 21 years and four Presidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Shield_(Gulf_War)#Operation_Desert_Shield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Storm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northern_Watch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Strike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Thunder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbondate (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It probably should be listed as a part of the War on Terror, as the U.S. authorities stated that denying Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists was one of their goals for invading in 2003. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tense of some Iraq-war related articles

Contributors to this article may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Tense of some Iraq-war related articles. Yaris678 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

War of aggression

Now when it is becoming more and more obvious that this invasion was indeed illegal act, not authorised by UN and not supported by majority of states, its quite justifiable to consider listing this war as an act of unjustified aggression to a state because of ideology/resources/political situation/...(yet to be decided). I know that most of us don't like the idea that even first world countries are still capable of such aggression, but, we are wikipedians, we should discuss this neutrally. So, I say this was a war of aggression. Why: justifying with no credible proof, unauthorised by UN and possible profitable gains from occupation(natural resources, greater control of the region).

discuss. Mrwho00tm (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We have two articles on this topic already. Thanks, Swarm ^{u / t} 12:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

History has shown that practically all wars can be considered "wars of aggression" where there is some form of economic gain or potential political advantage...that usually leads to an economic gain. Otherwise, it's not worth "fighting" over, whether it be by combatants or material support. It's not the wikipedians' jobs to pass any form of partial judgement or act as a court. All we do is try to update the facts reported by "reputable" sources as a "neutral" party. Until someone is "convicted" for this "illegal act", there is no justification in saying that it is or not. Now if next year some countries unite and take over the UN and convict the USA and all participants of the invasion of "illegal warring", then you can list all the details. Rasmasyean (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

: Not to mention that there was justification for the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein's sons were buying nuclear materials from Saudi Arabia, among other violations of the embargo on Iraq.--MrEchelon ^{(O.o I'm real bad!)} 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

: Not to mention that there were a lot of weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq. Come on, I know that you wrote this statement in the carnival period, but we have christmas in the meantime. --79.210.174.83 (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Advisors", are we required to be so naive?

All the news reports say that "advisor" troops will stay behind, along with troops to defend the "embassy". How naive is wikipedia required to be?108.65.0.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

See Marine Security Guard. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"The only US military presence left in Iraq now is 157 soldiers responsible for training at the US embassy, as well as a small contingent of marines protecting the diplomatic mission." BBC. What do you mean by naive? That information should be left in the article. Unless you want to imply that 157 embassy military personnel are troops of war? --Pudeo ' 13:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Name in arabic and curdic

The article mentions a lot of different english names for this conflict, but doesn't state any name in arabic given by the enemy forces. In other war articles WP gives names in different languages in order to give names from all sides involved. Why not in the introduction of this article as well? --217.50.59.45 (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This war is over now :) Here's a newspaper article:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8959558/US-formally-ends-Iraq-war.html

It has been listed as such. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupation not a war

Didn't the war end after the Iraqi army was defeated? I thought the definition of a war was when 2 or more armies fight, not when one country occupies another. For reference, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War which includes the dates of invasion and final day of occupation whilst also explaining when large-scale fighting ended. By this basis the dates would include March 2003-to present with an explanation that Iraq was defeated in April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.43.208 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I AGREE!! There needs to be a discussion about this. There needs to be two clear sides for it be called a "War". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.91.206.172 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Coalition vs insurgents. There...two sides. We done? Learn what a war really is please before starting this kind of discussion. Thank you. Diefgross (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No , not done, that was an insurgancy , not pitched battles between opposing state armies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.28.57 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Coalition vs insurgents aren't two sides. You can't lump the insurgents all in one group because they were never unified, and often fought each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.34.84 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Only one problem with that theory, though: that's exactly what society has done. Swarm ^X 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a lame excuse. I guess society dictates facts these days? "Society," as a whole, are stupid and ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.34.84 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the general view of society is exactly what dictates this matter. If the general societal perception was that this is an "occupation, not a war", then both our sources and our article would undoubtedly reflect this. However, such theoreticals, and this debate, for that matter, are irrelevant because policy-wise, our article reflects reliable sources. Swarm ^X 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

War Over?

Does the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops really constitute the end of this war? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, no. If an arsonist sets a house on fire and walks away, does that fire stop burning the moment he's out of there? Remember that this article said the Iraq War ended in August 2010 not too long ago, but that date changed. This date will probably change too. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the war may be over for the US military but fighting continues with insurgents attacking the Iraqi security forces who were part of the Coalition forces for the last 9 years. Diefgross (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. That is called post iraq war conflict. The Iraq war entitles the USA involvement. USA involvement is over. You can now create a separate article called post iraq war violence. THe Vietnam war ended on 30 April 1945, even though the South Vietnamese military was still active. Sopher99 (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And where does it say that the Iraq war entitles the USA involvement? The war evolved since 2003. In any case the USA involvement still continues in the form of 5,000 US private security advisors and contractors, most of them under contract with the US government and military. And your example of the Vietnam war is actually proof of this war still continuing, because the US military involvement in Vietnam ended with the troop withdrawal in 1973, but the war itself ended in 1975 when the South Vietnam government was defeated and the last of the US advisors fled. Also, read [4] closely what Obama said. He said and I quote After nine years, the war will be over in the next few days "not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. So the president himself confirms its still on. This kind of major change to the article requires a discussion first before making the edit. So please hold on until the situation is more clear. Thank you. Diefgross (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Interjecting your personal opinions into the article is tendentious and disruptive. We work with reliable sources here, the overwhelming majority of which clearly support the claim that the war is over. As of today (not yesterday), the US Secretary of Defense has officially declared the war over. Swarm ^X 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think the "War" is now over "Operation New Dawn" was the last phase of the War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does mean it. Iraq War is not Iraq War without foreign troops. It is Civil war in Iraq or political terrorism / insurgency. See the definition of civil war. --Pudeo ' 22:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Vietnam War ended in 1975, not 1945. Major U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War ended in 1973, although the war continued between North and South Vietnam for two more years, coming to an end in 1975. If foreign involvement constitutes the Iraq War, then the Iraq War is still going on as foreign troops remain in the country as of 15 December 2011. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Who were the major role players of the war? The United States and current Iraqi government. Yes, the combat role for the United States is over, but Iraq itself should determine the date for war is over.

Conflict is ongoing see what happened today: http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/factbox-security-developments-in-iraq-december-16/ Or create new page Iraqi insurgency (2011-present) --93.137.146.59 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what WP:RELIABLE sources say. The US President and members of the US governments are Primary sources, and reflect only the opinion of the US government. For older wars, we would reflect what reliable historians said. This is a current event, so we need to decide what the reliable sources for it are, while avoiding WP:RECENTISM. Reliable independent military and political analysts would probably be the best options. In my opinion, avoid what journalists are saying, they aren't qualified to say if a war is over or not. Hohum (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Several diverse News sources say the war is over. If that is not enough then I guess WWII isn't over, and neither is the US Civil War or the Revolutionary War or the Umma/Lagash War because it is probably possible to find people out in the world who still have a bone to pick for any of these conflicts.Jarwulf (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The last American troops left today Article. Can we say today (December 18) is the end date of the war, since there the multi-national force listed as a belligerent isn't there anymore? Absolutezero273 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources like reliable Historians agree that WWII, US Civil War and Revolutionary War are over. This conflict is recent, so historians haven't written about the end of it yet. News sources simply aren't competent to judge the end of a war. I have already suggested who is competent. Please stop trying to draw your own conclusions from what you think is evidence - that is WP:OR. Hohum (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's based on what several independent sources say. The conflict now is with changed actors and motivations. You're asking for a double standard anyway. Since when does wikipedia wait for historians to write a textbook about everything it posts? The Iraq 'war' could be reduced to Achmed the lone jihadist running a website about waging war against the infidel and some here would still would still want to list it as ongoing. Jarwulf (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Then just label it that the US Forces have called a end to the operation in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articseahorse (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

News sources are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. That doesn't change just because the history textbooks haven't been written yet. Jarwulf is right in that you're asking for a double standard—you're claiming that our using news sources is WP:OR, while trying to prevent us from doing so based on your own personal opinions. Swarm ^X 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything like "wait for historians". Read what I said more carefully - I have even bolded the text. Also try to WP:AGF. Journalists' opinions mean squat regarding the end of wars. News services would be reliable about something like "US forces have withdrawn" as that is simple reporting without interpretation. Deciding a war is over is the domain of military and political analysts. They may say it is - and will likely be giving their expert opinion in reliable sources right now. Hohum (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying, without the belligerents (the multinational force) listed, how could there possibly be a war. That doesn't make sense. Absolutezero273 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to reflect what reliable sources say, not conduct original research and interpretation. Iraq's own army is now continuing where the multinational force left - it's up to reliable sources to decide if this means the war is over or continuing with less belligerents. Hohum (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And they currently all appear to reflect that the war is over. If this changes, then by all means our article will follow. Swarm ^X 19:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The title of the section "endgame" is strange and strikes me as inappropriate. This is not a board game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.96.19 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Endgame" just means "final stage". It doesn't necessarily imply an actual game. But if you have a proposed alternative, by all means share. Swarm ^X 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Title change request

Requesting title change from "Iraq War" to "USA War" or "USA War on Iraq" or "USA War 2003". Thank you.Sherzad (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request denied. Swarm ^X 06:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ali Mussa Daqduq

As Ali Mussa Daqduq has been transferred to Iraqi custody,^[1]^[2] the mention of him being in American custody in the infobox should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.60.111 (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WMD

"Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the possibility of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction" G.W.Bush clearly stated that Iraq had WMD, first he stated that Iraq was part of the 9/11, but that was proven false, can someone correct that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.28.7 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources to support each point? Hohum (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Casualty Count

Coalition casualties are severely out of date and do not reflect the final total. More accurate figures can be located here http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/11/attachments/Lutz%20US%20and%20Coalition%20Casualties.pdf and would strongly reccomend the sidebox underneath the image be updated to reflect this, with all casualties and deaths incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.98.38 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How can i add this image to the article?

There is no edit button. Why? InnovationCover (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Pope's opposition

Isn't it worth noting that the late Pope John Paul II met with both George W. Bush and Tony Blair to advise them not to invade Iraq in the section under "Opposition to Invasion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflict not over

First of all, saying the War ended on December 15, is incorrect, because although US involvement may be over (which it isn't really, because of all the contractors), the war still continues between Iraqi government and insurgents. Also, the claim that the insurgency is currently "small-scale" is POV, because there is no clear definition for this, and it seems to have only been framed in such words to make the war seem more successful for US, which is POV. In reality, although the violence decreased, the insurgency is by no means small scale and with at least 3,777 deaths this year [5] it is still one of the most violent conflicts on earth. Most ongoing conflicts, which have articles on wikipedia, have nowhere near 3,777 deaths a year, or even in total, and we don't label them as finished.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a conflict, but this article is about the war between Iraq and the coalition forces. We don't say the Seven Days War is ongoing because there is still violence between Israel and pro-Palestenian forces. Czolgolz (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Plus, the current insurgency is not that simple continuation of the Iraq War. There are factions that fight against each other besides the Iraqi government (which in turn is civil war). So besides anti-government insurgency, there is Shia vs. Sunni fighting. Indeed, most of the suicide bombings are against civilians that are of different group. There might be suicide bombers in Iraq in 2020, but that doesn't mean this article should cover the period up to that. --Pudeo ' 14:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, 4000 dead a year is a large scale conflict by UN standards. The comparison with Six Days War is completely false, since not so many people die as a cause of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Czolgolz puts it incredibly well—"violent conflict" (in this case, an insurgency) ≠ "war" necessarily. The continuing of violence alone does not justify the claim that the Iraq War is still ongoing. I can not say it enough (literally, because people have a hearing problem): we work with reliable sources on Wikipedia, and our best bet 100% of the time is to stick firmly to the sources (which is what we're doing). Nothing terribly wrong with discussing it here, but those inclined to do so need to understand that. Swarm ^X 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Journalists opinions are not reliable with regard to the existence of a state of war, imo. Hohum (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kermanshani, the Iraq War is not over, just because US pulled out its troups. The violence goes on. The event of American withdrawal interpretation as the end of war is WP:SYNTH.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of commentators here and there now seem to be opining that the war is not over. However, the vast majority of sources are clearly supporting the notion that the war is over— the ones supplied in the article are just a small sampling (as anyone with a keyboard and a search engine will easily be able to note). Swarm ^X 21:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not opining either way. I'm saying that journalists opinions are not reliable regarding whether the war is ongoing. Politicians are even less reliable. Respected political and/or military analysts *are*. (Hohum ^@) 20:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That a "reliable source" quotes a US politician as saying the war is over, does not mean the war is actually over. As long as there is an ongoing conflict that means the conflict is ongoing. Many conflicts which see only 100 or less casualties a year, or even just one or two bombings a year are classified by wikipedia as "ongoing," meanwhile one of the most violent conflicts on earth labelled here as finished simply because Barack Obama says so? Are we his propaganda site or what? This is a clear double standard. As for who is "reliable," politicians lie, their journalists do, but numbers don't:

Monday 26 December: 14 killed

Baghdad: 7 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Baiji: 1 body. Mussayab: 2 bodies. Al-Sieniya: 1 Sahwa member by gunfire. Baquba: 1 Sahwa member by IED.

December casualties so far: 371 civilians killed.

Sunday 25 December: 17 killed Garma: 6 policemen by gunfire. Arbat: 2 by gunfire. Baquba: 1 body. Falluja: 1 policeman by gunfire. Abu Ghraib: 2 by IED. Baghdad: 1 by AED. Dujail: 1 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 1 Christian by gunfire. Tikrit: 2 by car bomb.

December casualties so far: 357 civilians killed.

Saturday 24 December: 9 killed Baghdad: 2 by IED. Kirkuk: 2 by AED, 2 bodies. Hawija: 2 policemen by IED. Mosul: 1 body.

December casualties so far: 340 civilians killed.

Friday 23 December: 11 killed Baghdad: 5 by IEDs. Mosul: 3 by IEDs. Kirkuk: 1 by AED, 1 body. Gatun: 1 by gunfire.

December casualties so far: 331 civilians killed.

Thursday 22 December: 85 killed Baghdad: 75 killed in several bombings. Baquba: 6 by gunfire. Mosul: 2 by IED, 1 body found. Kirkuk: 1 body.

December casualties so far: 320 civilians killed.

Wednesday 21 December: 6 killed Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Kirkuk: 2 by AED. Abu Ghraib: 1 Sahwa chief by AED. Baghdad: 1 by gunfire.

December casualties so far: 235 civilians killed.

Tuesday 20 December: 4 killed Falluja: 1 killed by bomb inside shop. Baghdad: 1 university lecturer by AED. Mosul: 1 by gunfire. Haswa: 1 by IED.

December casualties so far: 229 civilians killed. Kermanshahi (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It dosent matter since none of these Casulties were American- this article only refers to the American involvement in the War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

^^It doesn't. It refers to the Iraq War. The Vietnam War article doesn't end with end of US intervention either.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case then you could make the case that the "War" started in 1980 with the Iran-Iraq War (possibly even earlier that that) and it has just been one on-going conflict since then (which by your logic is what it should be), there will always be violence in Iraq but this conflict is now over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No you couldn't make that case at all, because the conflict between Saddam Hussein and the government of Iran ended in 1988 with a cease-fire. The conflict between the Iraqi insurgency and the new Iraqi government, installed by the US in 2003, has continued until today, and therefore is still ongoing.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh but there was fighting between those two well before 2003- Just face it, violence will always continue in Iraq but the Iraq War is now Over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The Iraq War is clearly over as the aims of the coalition forces to determine if Saddam Hussein's regime was hiding WMD have concluded and the U.N. resolutions to bring military forces into the country have been resolved. The subsequent occupation of coalition forces resulted from the ousting of Saddam Hussein's regime, as the Iraq War was the strategic removal of the regime's military stance against the U.N. resolutions. The battles between insurgents, therefore, are related to the occupation and not to the Iraq War/U.N. peacekeeping effort of the various coalition nations. The aims of the occupation were to stabilize the country and the region as Iraq moved towards a representative democracy. The war in Iraq was over once the U.N. resolutions were resolved. The occupation should not be included in this Wiki except as a reference, and the insurgent fighting and sectarian violence the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

[1] U.S. hands over last detainee to Iraq

[2] US turns over jailed Hezbollah commander, last US prisoner in Iraq, to Iraqi authorities

[1]

[2]