Talk:Iraq War

I think you should be more specific about the changes being proposed eg change X to Y or add new [sub]section as follows before/after ... (where the proposed new material follows). The specific changes intended is not presently clear. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be added to the Human Right Abuses section, under "By coalition forces and private contractors", but I would suggest a new subsection within this, entitled "Sexual Violence in Detention and Night Raid Operations". I have also fixed the links to some references from the earlier proposal. The text could be as follows: Title: Sexual Violence in Detention and Night Raid Operations

Proposed Text:

According to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) reports, night raids on private homes created circumstances in which gender-based abuses were repeatedly reported.^[1][2][3][4] In addition, removal or separation of women from male relatives during searches was often linked to allegations of forced nudity, molestation, and physical assault. ^[1][2][3][4] Furthermore, sexual threats were used during raids to instill fear or compel cooperation in efforts to locate suspected insurgents.^[1][2][3][4] Human Rights Watch characterized these practices as contributing to a broader "climate of fear" particularly affecting women's mobility and participation in public life.^[5]

UNAMI and Amnesty International both reported the detention of non-combatant women as a means of pressuring male family members. Women were reportedly held in order to induce husbands, sons, or brothers to surrender to coalition forces.^[1][2][6] Amnesty documented that such detentions frequently involved threats of sexual violence or degrading treatment intended to exploit cultural norms surrounding family honor.^[6] UNAMI described these practices as violations of international humanitarian law.^[1][2]Specifically, Iraqi women held in U.S. custody were subjected to a range of abuses, including rape and sexualized torture, often as a means of extracting information or as a form of collective punishment.^[4]

Human Rights Watch investigations and journalistic reporting also identified sexualized abuse at secret detention facilities operated by specialized units, including Task Force 6-26.^[7][8] At Camp Nama, detainees were reportedly subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, and sexually degrading stress positions during interrogations.^[7][8] Human Rights Watch noted that abuses at these sites were often more severe than those documented at Abu Ghraib but remained less visible due to their classified status and lack of external oversight.^[7][8]

YAC-med-2010 (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Way too much. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the proposed text needs to be summarized significantly more to maybe two or three sentences and added as another bullet point instead of a new subsection. It's definitely too much detail for this section of this article and can be easily summarized further. The Human Right Abuses section and its entries are all quite concise. I would then suggest you add the more detailed version to another article perhaps Human rights in post-invasion Iraq. ~2026-36000-5 (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Change the ecological impact section stating US bombs caused "more than 45 types of plants to become extinct" to remove it. I checked the source linked and it makes no such claim and I could not verify that information anywhere else, not sure where the number came from. I would remove that part of the sentence entirely. Jcalisterclemons (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Cinderella157, regarding this edit of yours, which you justified with We don't need another image cluttering the infobox, please explain and substantiate your rather subjective assessment. You have also changed material that had nothing to do with the images in the infobox, so please fix that. إيان (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Too many images in a small space become a visual distraction. less, not more is better. See MOS:IMAGEREL. As for the other, I see a change to a caption of one other image but I don't see that as an improvement as the former text emphasised the relevance of the image to the text it is supporting. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Much confusion about WMD even though it was widely considered negative/no WMD because there were giant stockpiles of Chemical destruction agents and weapons catches.

This is a well known fact. Their presence in Iraq in Bagdad and surrounding bases was very significant to the war effort. The first thing coalition forces saw were these chemical-weapon stockpiles upon arrival to their respective duty stations.

Chemical and High Yield are WMD as well as any other type by classification of weaponry. The training soldiers receive for deployments into war includes CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and High Yeild Explosives) as The Primary Week Long Class for Deployment. Secondaries are then taught before deployment.

Again, Chemical and High Yield Explosive Catches were spread everywhere in the region in large and other sized catches, especially on Iraqui militia installations that were captured after Operation Shock and Awe. There were also some Biological agent stockpiles found.

No WMD is a Farce. The CIA and FBI Websites conclude they were used. All US troops were told this before deployment to the Iraqui War. ~2026-14352-00 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Care to provide us with a soruce, link or page number? Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Iraqi War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6 § Iraqi War until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)