Talk:History of Iraq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does this mean? 

"At that time, Assyria riven by a series of bitter civil wars being fought for control of the kingdom after the death of its last great ruler, Ashurbanipal."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.108.222 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment[edit]

Hi, I'm thinking to start moving some of the history content over from the Saddam Article as it's getting pretty big (as has been commented on a lot there) and this article is pretty small. This seems to be agreeable to people there and to the commment below that this article needs more attention. - Pablo Mayrgundter 04:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The absence of any detail between the Hellenic period and the modern is lamentable.--XmarkX 06:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is there no reference to Operation Desert Fox in this article?--Thejabberwock 19:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Infinitely more important than Operation Desert Fox: why no reference at all to an important period of world history, the 'Abbasid caliphate ? It's like describing Italy's history without referring to the Roman Empire ...


The 2003 invasion has ABSOLUTELY NO CITES. AT ALL. Isn't this a big no-no on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.221.243 (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References for the 1941 coup and British invasion of Iraq[edit]

When noting these different regimes, etc., it should be noted the orientations of these government's towards the West and the British. These orientations were very important at the time, and had influence over the Iraqi public's view of the ruler. For example, when Britain invaded and installed the Hashimite monarchy, this monarchy liked the West. This had an impact on the population, was one of the reasons that Iraq joined the Baghdad Pact, and was also one of the reasons that it was later overthrown.

Where does the name Iraq come from?[edit]

The name Iraq is derived from Iraq's Palms, but specificaly the roots of the palm.

the name 'iraq' has origins in an ancient persian word -- i cant remember the details, but it's listed in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition. check 'Iraq'.

In addition to the above Persian word (Ērāk, which is in the article, and means either "lower Iran", or "Heart of Iran"), I have also heard that the ancient city of Uruk is considered a source. Although I have no source to back it up... Hiberniantears 21:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i havent heard that myself, although i would tend to doubt it, since Urūk and `Irāq have different consonantal structures (Q and K are very different and unrelated sounds in semitic languages). granted, the very fact that the name includes both an `Ayin and a Qaf (the first and last letters of the word `irāq in arabic) points away from a persian (indo-european) origin. at the same time, i remember the EI2 article being quite convincing. i dont have it in front of me, but it should be able to resolve this question (or at least present another option!). cheers! Dgl 03:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main article on Iraq says that the name comes from an arabic word meaning "two veins". Celsiana 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add the Bremner, Bird and Fortune reason: something along the lines of The British creating such a mess of the country that they started calling it 'A-Wreck' and this then formed the word Iraq? I suppose it is hardly factual.

I just wish to point out that during medeval times there were two iraqs. "Iraq Ajami" (now south western iran) and "Iraq Arabi" (or iraq proper). However Iraq(Arabi) was not the same iraq as we see today. Iraq was the area north of the marshlands and north of Basra and south of Baghdad or possibly Samarra.

This page needs updating[edit]

As this page ends with current events more attention needs to be paid to keeping up. Also, new developments in the UN Oil-for-Food program need to be mentioned. I don't feel up to major additions.


I just added a couple of things that are related to the Arab revolt. Since there was little about Churchill's role during this crucial event, I felt his name had to be cited concerning the alleged (I'm trying to be objective!:)) use of poison gas on civilians. here's my source.... http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/oct02/middleEast.asp

and don't tell me that the navy is some kind of commie organisation!! LOL

Regarding the meaning of the word, Iraq, there is obviously little agreement. In 2003 my interpreter, an intellectual Iraqi physician, told me that it refers to the color of the earth, which is blacker in the north than in the south. I think he was referring to "richer" soil, although I am not sure. At least in the uSA, we automatically assume dark, loamy soil is more fertile - I could be guilty of mirror-imaging culture. Nevertheless, he made defininte reference to the soil's color in this region, vs. more to the south. Warner Anderson

I agree. This article stops in 2006 and can give the wrong impression that Iraq is caught up in a violent civil war. This does not reflect current conditions in the country. The article stops with events in 2006 and we are already more than half way done with 2009. An update would be highly recommended unless the point of the article is to present a non neutral political point of view. - Robert Canales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.73.142 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV issue?[edit]

Here are a few possible examples of NPOV:

...resorting to aerial bombardment of Iraqi villages before control was established. These operations, in which it is alleged poison gas was used, were led by the future prime minister W.Churchill. -Resorting to could be considered NPOV, and if the allegation is unsubstantiated, why mention it? "Resorting to" might be better removed.

The Kurds in the north, wavering between adherence to the new Turkish state of Kemal Atatürk and the newly created Iraqi state, were lured by a British promise of autonomy within Iraq, a promise that was broken as soon as their incorporation was a fact. -Wavering implies they have no loyalties, also being lured, and broken promises by the British.

The British designated Iraq as a kingdom and placed the country under the rule of Emir Faisal ibn Husayn, leader of the so-called Arab Revolt against the Ottoman sultan... -So-called is a very loaded phrase, indicating it did not deserve the title, a statement of quality. "Sometimes refered to as" might be a better description.

Chased by the French out of Syria, of which he had been proclaimed king, -Deposed or exiled is less loaded.

Feisal obtained the throne of Iraq by the influence of T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) and Miss Getrude Bell, a romatically inclined English writer who lived in Baghdad, during a conference in Cairo, presided by the British minister of Colonial Affairs, Winston Churchill. Although the monarch was elected and proclaimed King by plebiscite in 1921, boycotted by the shi'ite majority, full independence was not achieved until 1932 -This implies that It was the work of only three people that brought Feisal to the monarchy. Also, why is the shi'ite protest mentioned?

Kurds had caused trouble earlier, insisting on their promised autonomy, and had never accepted the monarchy. -Implication that the kurds "cause trouble."

Qassem backed down, and in October 1963, Iraq recognised the sovereignty and borders of Kuwait. -A better way to describe it may be capitulated, but this may still be assigning a value to the action. Withdrew is also a possibility.

Barzani and the Kurds who had begun a rebellion in 1961 were still causing problems in 1969 and the government had to deal with it. -Again, the kurds are described as causing trouble. Rebellion, insurrection and other political adjectives may be more acceptable.

As a result, Iraq experienced fast economic growth and at the end of the 1970s it was possible for Iraqis on a teacher's salary, to take holidays in Europe. -A strange description, implying opulence?

During the 1970s, border disputes with Iran and Kuwait caused many problems. Kuwait's refusal to allow Iraq to build an harbour in the Shatt al-Arab delta strengthened Iraq's belief that the conservative powers in the region were trying to control the Persian Gulf. Iran's occupation of numerous islands in the Strait of Hormuz didn't help alter Iraq's fears. -"caused many problems" may be better written as "strained relations between." "didn't help alter Iraq's fears" seems to say that the blame should not be lain at Iraq's feet. "Increased tensions" could be better.

In retrospect, the 1970s can be seen as a highpoint in Iraq's modern history. A new, young, technocratic elite was governing the country, the fast growing economy brought stability and many Arabs outside Iraq considered it an example. However, the following decade would not be so good. -The phrase "is considered by many" if there is evidence of such, can replace "can be seen." The next decade "not being so good" is also a judgement call.

During the 1970s, border disputes with Iran and Kuwait caused many problems. Kuwait's refusal to allow Iraq to build an harbour in the Shatt al-Arab delta strengthened Iraq's belief that the conservative powers in the region were trying to control the Persian Gulf. Iran's occupation of numerous islands in the Strait of Hormuz didn't help alter Iraq's fears. -"caused many problems" may be better written as "strained relations between." "didn't help alter Iraq's fears" seems to say that the blame should not be lain at Iraq's feet. "Increased tensions" could be better.

but the action was internationally condemned as aggressive. However, in hind sight, following the Persian Gulf War this action might be viewed a prescient intervention, to prevent Iraq from developing a nuclear military capability - a capability which would have most likely deterred the UN intervention in defence of Kuwait. -Conjecture and accusations of Israel when no blame should be laid.

April Glaspie informed Saddam that the United States had no interest in Iraq/Kuwait border disputes. -Again casting America in a negative light.

one hundred and forty thousand tons of munitions had showered down on the country, the equivalent of 7 Hiroshima bombs. Probably as many as 100,000 Iraqi soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians were killed. -This does not mention American forces killed, and the exaggeration of the nuclear bombs could be a generalization made of most wars, if all munitions were added together.

Conference centres and shopping and residential areas were hit. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed in the attack on the Al-Amiriyah bomb shelter. Diseases spread through contaminated drinking water because water purification and sewage treatment facilities could not operate without electricity. -Once more casting America as villian, when neither the reconstruction nor the possibility that such attacks were not intended to kill civilians.

According to UN estimates, a million children died during trade embargo, due to malnutrition or lack of medical supplies. 30% of the proceeds were redirected to a war reparations account. -The destruction of children is implied as the result of the embargo only.

The Clinton administration judged an alleged attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush while in Kuwait to be worthy of a military response on 27 June 1993. The Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters in Baghdad was targeted by 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles, launched from US warships in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Three missiles were declared to have missed the target, causing some collateral damage to nearby residential housing and eight civilian deaths. -"Judged to be", "alleged" are both loaded terms, and the collateral damage is always reported as the result, with no report of the fate of the IIS headquarters.

In May 1995 Saddam sacked his half-brother, Wathban, as Interior Minister and in July demoted his notorious and powerful Defense Minister, Ali Hassan al-Majid -"Notorius" gives a sense of menace, and "sacked" is a harsher, more judgemental word than the phrase "removed from office."

it seemed clear that Saddam felt more secure protected by his immediate family members. -Is it possible to deign what Saddam felt? A quote would be more appropriate.

his Minister of Military Industries and a key henchman, -"Henchman" a highly loaded term.

in order to pre-empt any revelations that the defector could make. -Again presuming instead of reporting the facts.

The weakening of the internal position of the government occurred at a time when the external opposition forces were as weak as ever, too divided among themselves to take any effective action. At the same time, France and Russia pushed for an easing of sanctions. US determination to keep up the pressure on Iraq prevailed however. -An implication that the United States was "stacking the deck."

--Devoidgod 30 June 2005 10:07 (UTC)

>>>>>> Britain ....... defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little regard for natural frontiers and traditional tribal and ethnic settlements. <<<<<<<

Scrawl - Elsewhere the article says words to the effect "Modern day Iraq is almost exactly the same as Mesopotamia". (I don't know which of these statements is true).

>>>>>> The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. As a consequence, the new political system suffered a lack of legitimacy. Britain imposed a Hashemite monarchy on Iraq <<<<<<<<<<<<

Scrawl - The "new political system" worked rather well, surviving through 3 generations (+ a regency, making 3 successful handovers) over some 37 years. Monarchies are frequently invited in from outside (there's not been an English monarch since 1485). Although Kings can be subverted and made into puppets, they're resistant to it, far more so than republics. Also, I think Iraq sided with the Nazis, so the government (monarch?) was clearly not a foreign puppet.

>>>>> Britain had to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922. <<<<<<

Scrawl - Britain's policies had never been in effect at this time! Why not say "Elements of the defeated Ottoman Empire, hung on in Iraq and strongly resisted the new mandate authorities for 2 years"?

>>>>>>>>> During the revolt Britain used gas and air attacks on Iraqi villagers. <<<<<<

Scrawl - I'm told there is no evidence for gas attacks by the British on Iraqi villages. The story arose because Churchill wrote in favour of it. It's been picked up by propagandists to incite hatred against the British.

Scrawl = 82.9.87.149 08:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is Blatantly Biased ==

What the author of this article has managed to do is paint a warmongering picture of the U.S. and the United Kingdom, as well as that the war was illegal and is completely hopeless. Here is what I am referring to:

Iraq underwent a questionable Coalition occupation following the ousting of the Ba'ath Party in April.

The political future is uncertain and detailed plans remain to be developed.

A few days after the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the pro-war government of Spain was voted out of office. The War had been deeply unpopular and the incoming Socialist government followed through on its manifesto commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq.I believe thatirq did have womd and hid them

On the heels of the 2004 spring uprising, the troops of the Dominican Republic, Honduran, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Singapore, Thailand, Portugal, Philippines, Bulgaria, Nicaragua and Italy have left or are planning to leave as well.

I don't contest what is being said, what I don't agree with is how it is being said. There are many differend ways that things can be said. Even though what is said may be true, the object is to depict the truth in a neutral fashion. Roygene 21:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think some parts of the article fail to accurately represent history by being too generous to US intentions. Someone above me said that the line "April Glaspie informed Saddām that the United States had no interest in border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait" cast America in a negative light. This objectively happened, so stating this fact isn't biased. The passage says,"April Glaspie informed Saddām that the United States had no interest in border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait, as was the U.S. government's official tone on the subject at the time. Subsequent events would prove otherwise, however this was said to Saddam in hopes that it would prevent him from attacking." But why would this keep Saddam from attacking? If Saddam were led to believe the US wouldn't use military force to defend Kuwait, he was encouraged to attack. The US clearly and deliberated prodded Saddam to invade. 72.92.11.6 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History has always subjective parts[edit]

From my history lesssons I know that the democratic governed and Comunist governed country tried to increase their influence. That was a kind of competition and every side tried to have countries in the middle orient, asia and south america on its side. The history of Iraq is of course not free of such influence too. To write some (true) aspects offence some people, to leave it out offence some other people. Some aspects take the leaders of their countries to the grave, so that everybody is able only to guess. For History you have to read between the lines and sometimes to combine in a way the author or other people may be disaggree. In some cases the founder of the states tried to set borders so that war is not necessary for basic needs. In this countries it that the water. The (non-salt) water reservoirs of Tuerkye and Iraq are in the middle. If there was a state between which had both parts, it would not take long till both sides occupation attempts. I remembered a remark of Ata Tuerk going into this direction. Second aspect was the increase of religious radicals in this region. The Schah had to leave Iran and Khomeni came. In 1945 when the Kurdish rebellion failed, one leading group fled to the Soviet Union. Of course they have kept in contact so that they were often seen as possible supporters of the Soviet Union. Others believed they are more religious fundamentalists. That could be a reason to be blind on (inhuman) attacks on them or supporting this by encouraging a leader of country to keep them down and further more to attack a fundamentalistic neighbour. You should know, that the winner in the end writes the history - a very old and true phrase.

Now I will be going to a simple test if you are able to surpress your subjective opinion far enough to write about history - where facts are not so clear as in mathematics. If you think my additions are good and the history of Iraq should be changed exactly into that direction, then you will not be more objective than I am. If you think my additions are biased far away from neutrality (lies, or stronger words you will use), then you will not be more objective than I am. If you think my additions are interesting ideas and some actual facts could support or lead to this opinion of somebody although you do not aggree, then you will be able to surpress your subjective opinion enough to write about history topics. If you think my additions give for some historical events an explanation but often other reasons and facts are more decisible, although you aggree, then you will be able to surpress your subjective opinion enough to write about history topics.

Please read from the beginning.

In the end a good history article contains the opinon (represented in facts and interpretations, which they think (or better believe) is correct) of the majority (that`s democracy) without omitting the opinion (represented in facts and interpretations)of the majority of the opposition (that`s the little important difference of democracy to other forms of ruling a country).

I read the article. I do not find the article has a strong tendency. The author has to select if he will not write a thick book. Not everybody aggrees with the selection, that`s democray. Good style would be to add more from the history of Iraq, not deleting parts (then you do selection too). I would do it if knew more from Iraq.

Dieter --138.89.56.7 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with some of the people above -- this article does not strike me as particularly biased in any way. The Shi`i Revolt of 1920 and the comments made by April Gillespie can be found in any academic history of Iraq -- for example, see the works of Peter & Marion Sluglett, Phebe Marr, Yitzhak Nakash, and Toby Dodge. as far as the comments on the 2003 war, if people feel that these areas are not neutral, i suggest either just deleted the section and including a link to the main article on the subject or presenting all views on the war ... Dgl 13:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish aspirations after Ottoman rule[edit]

Trying to do some weeding in terms of the POV in this article, and I have removed a reference to the Kurds "wavering between Turkey and Iraq" after WWI. I couldn't really make sense of it (were they considering moving accross the border en masse or what?) and I don't think I would have been too impressed if I were Kurdish. However, I do think the Kurdish perspective at this time is a significant missing part of the article, so I thought I'd flag it up for anyone who is able to contribute something --Vjam 12:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS GOES FOR ALL THE COMMENTS I'VE READ ABOVE...NOT JUST THE TOPIC ABOVE: Wow...are you guys for real? Are you using this as a place to post actual history or to post your opinions or your agendas?? Where are some of you getting your info? The media?? Some of the things I'm reading about...I've actually been there and seen it, as my husband and fellow comrades have...and you're way off base. Living and working next to the Sunnis, Shias, and Turks...most of you don't have a clue. Be careful what you state as facts..that's exactly how the media gets the public and the rest of the world up in an uproar..not to mention to not support our government and Soldiers. - a concerned Soldier

I doubt the perspective of American soldiers in Iraq (who are mostly confined to their bases so living and working with Iraqis I find a bit hard to accept) is very usefull when writing an history of Iraq but if you have some points you want to discuss with us feel free. However general observations are not very helpfull so please be specific. Chardon 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are someone who actually knows something that's not in the article, and it's not your own research but has an authoritative source to cite, then put it in. "Support our soldiers" and "support our government" has nothing at all to do with writing a factual article. Besides, since when do we have to support the wrongs of an evil faction within our government, and in what way does "supporting our government" have anything to do with supporting our troops? You are talking about the same government that sent you to fight a war that wasn't declared, on a nation that posed no threat to us, a nation that the govt. knew did not have weapons of mass destruction, that had nothing to do with attacking the US... (Saddam was evil, sure, most of the puppet despots our government installs as dictators are evil.) The government that sent you to face gas attacks without enough functioning gas masks ?... the same government that forbids your mother to send you some body armor from home to replace the armor you didn't get issued?... the same government that says Gulf War syndrome doesn't exist?... the same government that has already allowed some of your returning brothers to be living in poverty and homeless on the street with missing limbs? If you have something to add to the article that's not there, by all means put it in. But don't lecture us about supporting 'our government', when by that government you mean a President who was installed by cronies after a questionable election, who lied about knowing 9/11 was coming, who started the war based on lies about WMD's... I support my troops by not sending them on a snipe hunt and not asking them to fight an endless war for a finite commodity. 68.183.79.162 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (wasn't logged in, but I definitely want credit for that)[reply]



Wonderful rebuttal Pedant: If you have a comment please post as a neutral question rather than an emphatic rant and give either a contrary comment, preferabley backed by citation, or a suggestion that can lead to the formulation of a neutral wiki.

They didn't know what they were doing?[edit]

"The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the aspirations of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north."

Did the person who wrote this is aware of Britian's Divide and conquer stratergy? Britain knew very well what they were doing. Somebody please edit this line. Chaldean 03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These lines don't say Britain wasn't aware of the aspirations of the different groups, they say that they weren't taken into account. You could add an extra sentence to make the difference more clear. Wikipedia can be edited by everyone using a computer and an Internet connection. If you see something you think needs clarification feel free to edit. Chardon 06:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein/Saddam Hussain/Saddām Husayn/consistency?[edit]

Is there an accepted correct transliteration of Sodom Who's-sane's name, or are we just going to use any fonettyck spelling we choose? Our main article is at Saddam Hussein, it seems we should use only that spelling and put alternate spellings in the Saddam Hussein article, but use a consistent spelling in this one as it is distracting to see is spelt different ways... comment? Pedant 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"de facto ruler"..."came to power""[edit]

"In July 1979, Bakr resigned, and his successor, Saddam Hussein, assumed the offices of both President and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. He was the de facto ruler of Iraq for some years before he formally came to power."

I think a little bit more detail would be helpful in this paragraph.Pedant 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should read "had been the de facto ruler"?


Chemical warfare[edit]

Flame and smoke are not commonly considered chemical weapons. white phosphorus is primary an incendiary weapon. It is mainly used because it produces flameing chunks which are hard to put out. While you can of course be poisened by Phosphorus if someone has droped a Phosphorus bomb on you poisening is not going to be your primary concern. For much the same reason things like Napalm and flamethrowers are not considered chemical weapons.Geni 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

→You must have missed the whole Fallujah uproar about the use of phosphor bombs by the US military. According to the Geneva Convention if phosphorus bombs are used to kill people it is a chemical weapon. The use of these bombs by the RAF in Iraq is documented in Iraq: from Sumer to Saddam. Even if the RAF used the bombs only to start a fire, if they accidently killed a Kurd by it they used the phopsphorus bombs as a chemical weapon according to the Convention. Rv back. Chardon 12:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it wasn't impressed. You see the wording of the Geneva Protocol does no such thing. The Chemical Weapons Convention fails to list it. The reason is that it is used for it's physical properties (burning mostly) rather than it's chemical properties (for which it would not be the most logical choice since britian had for more toxic properties availible. So You understanding of what makes a chemical weapon is incorrect hus revert.Geni 14:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you accept that the RAF used phosphorus bombs during their campaign against the Kurds. How about we change the line to: Britain used phosphorus bombs against Kurdish villagers. Most legal experts consider phospherus bombs chemical weapons. I won't rv, waiting for your answer. Chardon 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that most legal experts consider this?Geni 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you accept legal experts consider phosperus bombs chemical weapons. I'll edit the page: Britain used phosphorus bombs against Kurdish villagers. Legal experts consider phospherus bombs chemical weapons. Good night Chardon 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


strawman. I don't accept that. I was just dealing with one claim at a time I am unlikely to adress claims you have not made.Geni 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do you accept? If you want to be understood you better make yourself clear. Jokes and one line responses don´t do it. The position is this: Britain used phosphorus bombs against the Kurds. Phosphorus bombs are chemical weapons to legal experts. Please tell us what you think is wrong with these facts. And no, your personal opinion sbout phosphorus bombs doesn´t count. Chardon 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence suggests that phosphorus bombs are not cheical weapons to the legal experts otherwise they would have been listed in the CWC. Phosphorus bombs use phosphorus for it's physical effects not it's chemical effects. Most explosives are toxic in some doses (people have died from TNT poisening). Are you going to claim they are chemical weapons? You claim all these legal experts but you fail to provide a source.Geni 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPCW. There is also the Italian documentary: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/fosforo.asp. Chardon 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the first fails to support your claim and the second fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources.Geni 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain yourself more. Why does the first source fail to support my claim and why is the second source not reliable. You must really try to be more clear. Chardon 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well the former includes the phrase "in a manner that exploited the toxic or caustic properties" Phosphorus bombs are used as incendury devices in a simular way to napalm. asfor the rest read the link.Geni 15:35, 22 August

2006 (UTC)

The point of course is that the RAF exploited the toxic and caustic properties of phosphorus bombs. Chardon 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
evidences?Geni 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses are getting shorter and shorter. What´s next: a one letter response? It´s a bit difficult to have a discussion with you. Why didn´t you answer me by giving your reasons why you think the RAF used phophorus bombs as smoke bombs. Further, you still haven´t answered why the RAI documentary is not a reliable source. What if I answer this new question and you again dismiss it without giving an explanation? Please express yourself more clearly. If your busy and don´t have time to answer perhaps it´s better for you to stop editing this page till you have the time to explain your ideas. In the meantime I´m reverting again. Chardon 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Standard militry doctrain of the period was to use phosphorus bombs as incendaries (because they are rather difficult to put out. You claimed "the RAF exploited the toxic and caustic properties of phosphorus bombs" provide evidences for this claim or withdraw it. The documentry appears to be self published.Geni 16:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What do you mean 'appears to be self published'. It is self published or it's not. And what does self published mean? I can't find the term on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. There was no standard military doctrine for air warfare at that time. Iraq was a testing ground for the RAF. It was said that the RAF could destroy a Kurdish village in 45 minutes and kill a third of its inhabitants. That sounds pretty caustic to me: http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/birds_of_death/transcript.html (another documentary) Chardon 17:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. Aditionaly I have background in chemistry so statements like "it was said that the RAF could destroy a Kurdish village in 45 minutes and kill a third of its inhabitants. That sounds pretty caustic to me" are not going to impress me. The number killed in no way indicates that the phosphorus bombs were used for their caustic properties (in fact it reduces the chances).Geni 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the direct link. I missed the ´-´ in self-published when I searched for it. Anyway, the documentary was made by professional journalists for a state television station so it is certainly not a self-published source. The OPCW disagrees with you. If you drop a phosphorus bomb on a village and burn a Kurd, the bomb is a chemical weapon. Your background in chemistry is not to the point. We are not discussing how to make a phosphorus bomb but wether the RAF in Iraq used chemical weapons. Chardon 08:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ah burning would not be "in a manner that exploited the toxic or caustic properties of phosphorus". So no the OPCW does not say that.Geni 10:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. The burns are caused by caustic chemicals. If you have a background in chemistry you should know that. rv Chardon 12:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no the burns are caused by the stuff being on fire. Strangely the effects of being hit by burning lumps of phosphorus are rather more significant than the caustic effects. Just as being hit by the explosive force of TNT is generaly more of a problem than it's toxic effects. Phosphorus bombs have a long history of being used as incendiary devices and was used in such a fashion in both world war 2 and the Korean war. Phosphorus is a good incendiary device. It makes a really poor chemical weapon so it isn't used as such.Geni 13:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are saying the same thing: being hit by a phosphorus bomb burns you. My point is that this means that according to the OPCW the phophorus bomb qualifies as a chemical weapon. You say not. The OPCW is a better source then you. Conclusion: the information given in the lines I wrote are correct. Chardon 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
er you relise you just claimed that electricty is a chemical weapon (it can burn)?. The OPCW says that if phosphorus is used for it's caustic properties it is aq chemical weapon. Useing it as an incendiary doesn't qualify since that uses a physical effect (heat) to do the damage.Geni 15:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my English isn´t good enough: What do you call the effects of caustic chemicals on the human body? I think the effect is a burn. When a phosphorus bomb hits a Kurd and the Kurd gets burned by the caustic chemical and dies, was his dead caused by the burns or by the phosphorus bomb? I think the phosphorus bomb. What do you think? Chardon 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
his death will have been caused by being hit by something that was on fire. A bit like napalm.Geni 11:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By something? I asked you if he was killed by the phosphorus bomb. Yes or no? If yes don´t you think that this means that the phosphorus bomb was used as a chemical weapon (the OPCW does think so). If you don´t think so can you give us reasons why you think not. If you don´t think the Kurd was killed by the phosporus bomb can you explain what killed him then? Chardon 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The OPCW thinks you can use phosphorus against people without useing it as a chemical weapon. If I beat someone to death useing a lump of arsnic (tricky I know) I am not useing a chemical waepon. If I used it to poison them then I would be. If I blow you up useing TNT then I am not useing a chemical weapon. IF I poison someone with TNT them I'm useing a chemical weapon. If I deploy an A-bomb agaist someone I'm not useing a chemical weapon. If I use U-235 to give them heavy metal poisening then I'm useing a chemical weapon. It does not matter what hit them. Since it caused it's damage by being on fire rather than through other means it cannot be considered a chemical weapon. Which part of this are you unable to grasp?Geni 01:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No the OPCW does not think you can use phosphorus bombs against people, in any circumstances. In fact if phosphorus boms are used for ´legitimate´ purposes (for example illumination) and a person gets accidently killed according to the OPCW the phosphorus bomb was used as a chemical weapon. But perhaps you have OPCW documentation that says otherwise? Please share it with us. Chardon 08:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus." Thus using White phosphorus as an Incendiary device is not forbidden by the OPCW.Geni 11:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that´s right but ít´s not an answer to my question. It´s not allowed to use phosporus bombs against people (even if the bombs are used as an incendiary device and the deaths accidently). Phosphorus bombs dropped by the RAF on a Kurdish village are certain to cause casualties. If we follow your argumentation any general can drop phosphurus bombs on a city and say: hey i didn´t use the bombs against people but against houses and facturies so it´s alright. Chardon 12:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sure you could do that as long as you used them as incendiaries or smoke markers. It would be strange choice (we have better incendiaries these days) but yes nothing would stop you from doing it. No show me where the CWC has said that you cannot phosporus bombs against people.Geni 12:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information is in my earlier link, the Italian documentary: here is another http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516232&mode=thread&tid=25 Chardon 09:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and Lt. Col. Steve Boylan goes through and knocks out every one of their claims. Don't you think it odd that you are haveing to scratch around on the edge rather than have big BBC headlines say "US uses chemical weapons"? Now where does the CWC say that you cannot use phosporus bombs against people? Come on that would be a major announcement so it must be writen down somewhere.Geni 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phosphorous isn't a caustic chemical, it just burns really hot. It would be the same as calling wood a chemical weapon because it causes burns when ignited. Also, the OPCW says phosphorous can be used, provided it is used to burn people instead of poisoning people. (I guess if you really wanted to you could poison someone with WP, but it wouldn't be very effective.) Basically, if WP is a chemical weapon then everything is a chemical weapon. Napalm causes burns, it must be a chemical weapon. Bullets are propelled by nitrocellulose, they must be chemical weapons. Tanks are put out suffocating carbon dioxide so they must also be chemical weapons. Really, it's ridiculous. WP is nasty stuff, but it's not a chemical weapon. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Lt. Col a reliable source according to the wiki guidelines? Anyway, i´m no legal expert so I´m not going to try to build a case why phosphorus bombs are chemical weapons. The fact that the OPCW thinks that pb used against people makes them chemical weapons should be enough. It´s unlikely that the organisation charged with the implimentation of the CWC would say something that would contradict the treaty. I can give you a quote from wthe wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons
Under this Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion).
With my imperfect legal knowledge I think this the reason why the OPCW thinks that the use of pb against people makes it a chemical weapon (pb short for phosphorus bomb) Chardon 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop makeing false claims about what the OPCW thinks. Purposes that are not prohibited includes useing it as an incendiary.Geni 15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What false claims? It´s clear from the documentation that the OPCW does not allow the use of pb against people. Perhaps you can tell us where the OPCW says that the use of pb against people is allowed Chardon 14:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article so needs to be rewritten[edit]

It's filled with POVs and factual errors, it'll be a tough job though.

Not only that, it's the idiot talk of armchair soldiers. If you've ever seen what WP(Willie Peter) does to the human body, you'd feel deeply ashamed of this ego dialogue that's gone on so numbingly long. WP is a chemical reaction that, if it gets on you, will burn clean through your body. It is impossible to extinguish. Labels won't change that. Go back and pick up your soul. You dropped it. ```` 

   There are only 3 categories of Chemical Weapons. Nerve, Blood, and Blister. WP does not fall into any of those categories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.60.45.6 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab tribes in Iraq prior to European colonization[edit]

I think there needs to be a discussion of the turbulence of Iraq/Mesopotamia during the Middle Ages and prior to World War I. The Ottomans, Persians, Mongols, etc., found the Arab tribes practically impossible to control, and they held only limited control outside of Baghdad. History of Iraq

Americans are just the latest power to be stupid enough to try to control Iraq.--146.145.70.200 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq[edit]

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq[edit]

I think we should put more pictures in this article, and show a little more neutrality on the topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.73.113 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix needed in the "Arab conquest and early Islamic period" section[edit]

Could someone take a look at the first sentence in this section? I don't know what it should say. "The first organised leaders were me the new queen of Iraq conflict..." Thank you! Gingerwiki (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Saddam after capture[edit]

The image of Saddam after his capture is very related to the subject and is the only picture for a quite lengthy description. Mashkin (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Saddam after his capture, is an instance of psychological warfare. As a member of WikiProject Iraq who develops articles related to Iraq, I judge that it is not needed. Izzedine (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a legitimate opinion, but it is just yours. I have a different one and the image existed in the article, so it should stay here until the end of the discussion. Not clear why even if it is "an instance of psychological warfare" it does not belong here. What image do you prefer? Mashkin (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the image showing the occupation zones. Izzedine (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dab[edit]

Please could you explain this unexplained mass revert [2]? Izzedine 13:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Iraq[edit]

The time.com article says the cultural history of Iraq stretches back 10k years [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of any "crotch itchers" in this subject, looks like vandalism: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Liberation Act[edit]

In the sentence "The Iraq Liberation Act, fully three years prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks, codified regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government. It was passed 99-0 by the United States Senate", the reference to 9/11 seems odd and irrelevant at best, and an attempt to subtly link 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq at worst. So I've removed that part of the sentence. pomegranate (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change dating system to Common Era[edit]

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system. This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India. If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I see no reason to change per MOS:VAR. Masterhatch (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, as User:Eupnevma brought this up on multiple pages, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Iraq&oldid=1194073378"