Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Bad Link

Reference number 57 goes to a faculty "about" page rather than the source itself.

24.165.15.247 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union barely mentioned while America takes massive amount of space

Why is American support for Saddam so emphasized when it is dwarfed literally over 20 times in magnitude in terms of numbers both money and materiel by the Soviet Union and other Communist nations? The Soviet Union's huge material support of Saddam Hussein is dwarfed by quotes about and examination of America's, in comparison, minuscule role, thereby creating the impression that America was actually the main supporter of Saddam Hussein during the war. This is precisely the kind of bias that has led Wikipedia to basically be considered worthless in any official capacity

So, contribute. Participate. Add weight to the unweighted side. or, add neutrality to the overweighted side. Anyway: American involvement seems more complicated than Soviet, since America essentially armed both sides. Maybe it really takes more text to describe, neutrally or otherwise. Lastly: Wikipedia doesn't expect you to use it as any primary, credible resource - but, did you learn anything from the article or not? I hope so and that's what it's really for. 76.247.106.241 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

US Entanglment nice way to say support

Whichever person keeps changing US Support to Iraq to US Entanglment PLEASE STOP Or I will keep checking everyday and change it back to what it should be

Longest war??

The intro refers to the conflict as the longexst conventional war of the 20th century. What are the metrics for that claim? Was the Vietnam confilct not longer than 8 years? How about the European theatre of WWII or the Congo war? The Soviet-Afghan war lasted 9 years. Is this just regional hyperbole (mother of all battles, line of death) or what? L0b0t 12:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First Indochina War - 9 years, Vietnam War - 16 years, Soviet-Afghan War - 9 years, Second Sino-Japanese War - 14 years, Korean War - 57 years and counting. I've removed the claim about the Iran-Iraq war being the longest in the 20th cent. as it is not even in the top 5. L0b0t 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement is from the introduction of Dilip Hiro's book, The Longest War. (Google books has the relevant exerpt here) I don't have any opinion on whether Hiro's conclusion is accurate or helpful, though. TheronJ 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I was actually just getting ready to schlep down the old NYPL and check that book out. Cheers. L0b0t 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do anyway - it's a great book, even if it does tend to give a little too much credence to conspiracy theories. (For example, IIRC Hiro reports the October Surprise conspiracy, which had not been either proven or discredited at that time, as fact.) TheronJ 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check it out. On a side note, I'm about halfway through Anatol Lieven's Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power ISBN 0-300-07398-4. It is AMAZING, well worth a reading if that part of the world is of interest to you. Cheers. L0b0t 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Green Light

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

The claim for Carter's green light has been published by a reliable source, investigative journalist Robert Parry. He has published a direct quotation of an official of the highest rank stating that the green light was given, and this particular assertion (the quote of Haig's memo) has never been contradicted (has it?). Can anyone explain where exactly this piece of information falls short of suitability for inclusion without caveats and weasel words in wikipedia? Asgrrr 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That dam* warmongering Carter. He should be extradited to the Hague to face trial. CJK 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

New article

I created a new article about the disproportionately large section section about international aid. Is there a problem, or is this ROS (revert on sight)? CJK 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with you creating other articles if they are notable enough, but the information you are removing from this article are not unnecessary details or unrelated information, they are concise & important information, required to the informativeness of this article. By the way, you should read WP:VAN, and stop accusing me of vandalism. - Marmoulak 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The sections are far too long and are quite controversial, only somewhat related to the actual fighting (which this article is about). We have a lot of unneeded details about exactly what each nation sent and what certain commentators have to say about it. Thus, we need to reduce it to 1 para military procurement and 1 para WMD procurement, transferring the rest to an alternative article. It would make clear who sent what, but in general terms, with more details in an alternative article. For instance, we don't need the exact number and type of chemical/bio precursors sent and which companies sent them in this article, just that "X country sent mainly _______" and so on. CJK 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV, this article's length isn't too long at all, just compare it to other articles on wars. There are no "unneeded details", everything is directly related to Iran-Iraq war. Foreign aid and foreign intervention is important and required to be focused on because it played an important role in the course of the war. The role of United States, particularly, should be focused on since it was a party of the war and directly changed the course of the war several times. - Marmoulak 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the quote keeps getting removed

None of the statements are substantiated with actual evidence, and where there is it isn't redundant:

Opinions: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”

Facts: the evidence that I inserted clearly shows that other countries gave much more financing than occured during the BNL scandal. The intelligence is already included in a different section. The military help has already been documented in the preceding paragraph and it is laughable that 100 helicopters built Saddam's Iraq into an aggressive power. The money is included in a different space. The dual technology is covered, as are chemicals and weapons. So the quote adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to this article. CJK 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The dual technology, indirect support and most importantly intelligence support isn't included in the document, it only contains the recorded arms transfer to Iraq. After the Iranian forces pushed Iraqi forces back to Iraq, the U.S. intelligence support for Iraq went as far as planning the strategies for the Iraqi army. Nevertheless what brings U.S. to the spotlight is its direct involvement in the war. U.S. directly destroyed half of Iran's navy and sank Iran's oil platforms. It is not your place to decide what "adds to this article", please keep your POV out of the article. - Marmoulak 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the document, I'm talking about the article in general. The quote adds nothing to the article because everything mention is already covered. I did not change anything about Iran's navy being destroyed. CJK 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

additional source

This source should be used in the article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17053.htm

Highly informative.--Zereshk 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Radio broadcasts: exclusively or extensively?

Soon Iraqi radio stations began exclusively broadcasting into "Arabistan",

I can't figure out a reading of 'exclusively' which makes sense there: surely they were still broadcasting into Iraq proper. My best guess is, this was supposed to be 'extensively', but I'm not sure enough to just go ahead and change it yet. Jtl 00:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

The table on the top right corner of this article says Iran has an estimated 500,000 casualties. Later on in the article, at 'Aftermath', there is a sourced line saying an estimated 1 million casualties. Which one is true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.92.191.24 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Biased article..

Iran used chemical weapons as well.

neither as both are extremely inflated 131.94.132.21 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What moron reverted my edits. 1. this casualties figure is ludicrous by lumping together injured and dead??? are you fucking stupid. This is NEVER done in any war. Why don't you revert the death toll in WW II to "250 mio." wounded/dead. Idiot.

2. This separation between "soldiers" & "milita" is also nonsensical (apart from the fact that it messes up the tab of the respective weapons strengths). Militia is soldier. --85.176.241.116 10:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Militamen are not soldiers in a regular army. They aren't soldiers for this purpose. The various casualty figures may include regular army/combatants/civilians/whatever the hell, and are mostly guesstimates. John Nevard 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

T-80? BMP-3?

Iraq didn’t have T-80s or BMP-3s. And they sure as heck didn’t have T-90s (BMP-3 and T-90 weren’t even made yet at the time). That ORBAT on the page is way off as a result.

24.168.4.147 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Extremely Biased Article

This article is written purely from an Iranian perspective.

It is not worth reading as it is pure propoaganda, and below standard.

Absolute garbage! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.207.206 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

This is completely true. This article needs to be dramatically changed from the current Iranian standpoint to create a non-biased view which should be supported by Wikipedia. I am still new to editing but more experienced wikipedists would do well to flag this page for substantial editing. --Suresh Nat 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am no Iranian and I think this article is fairly objective. Americans must apologize to Iranian people for this war. Their roles in this war are pure evil.

No argument => no problem. It's too easy to say :"This article is written purely from an Iranian perspective." without saying why. I'm not iranian, I'm not irakian, and I think that this article is fairly objective too. 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Mrpouetpouet

Military operations missing

To be honest, I am an avid Wikipedian. I have seen, and edited, huge swaths of articles on this website. I have always been impressed by the fact that major, and even relatively minor ways, have been dealt with so throughly. However, in my opinion, for such a major war, this is the worst article I have ever seen

Did Operation Dawn 8 not happen?! It was perhaps the single greatest Iranian success since they expelled the Iraqi invaders from their country. It almost cut off Iraq's access to the sea, seperating the country from its main Gulf port, and it was this act that forced Saddam to approach the war with a greater deal of conviction, and ultimately led to his decision to initiate the 'Tanker War'.

Also, has the deployment of Iraqi forces after their withdrawl from Iran be mentioned? After their withdrawl, Iraq managed to deploy four corps for deployment as static defence along the internation border.

What about the Iraqi operation that allowed the Iraqis to re-capture the Foa Peninsula, after its loss in Operation Dawn 8.

What about the Iraq counter-offensives in the fall of 1988, which actually brought the Iraqis back INTO Iranian territory, specifically in the region of Deholran.

What about the order-of-battle for Operation Karbala 5?

What about the ordinary experiences of the boy soldiers who volunterred to fight in the Basij, or the men who fought in the Pasdaran?

So much is missing, and it needs to be sorted out!

(EasyPeasy21 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

---

Other things that I can think of are (but don't have specific references for):

1. Use (or non-use) of Iranian F-14s 2. The scuttling of ships in the Shatt Al-Arab 3. Saddam's alleged use of the maritime border treaty as justification for the war (read this in an article regarding the Iranian kidnapping of UK Naval personnel earlier this year.) Koyar 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links?

To look at the list of external links, you would think this is an article about how Iraq got its weapons, not about the Iran-Iraq war. Almost every link is accusing the West of arming Saddam. The whole article is very heavy in this direction too, and rather light on actual information about the battles.

(User:Anonymous 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, they're not really accusing (since there is no denial that the West was supporting Saddam in his war against Iran); but I do see your point. The external links need to take the user to areas which relate directly to the military actions and consequences of the Iran-Iraq War.

(EasyPeasy21 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

How Iraq got its weapons is very pertinent to the Iran-Iraq war. Had it not been for Iraq's constant supply of weapons from abroad, Iran would have defeated Iraq in its invasion of Iran. The links to actual battles are given inside the article itself. Some are not yet written. But there is ample of information about the war and various events that took place during it. I think the article is OK.--Zereshk 03:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure the information is pertinent. But the article is so dispoportionately heavy in this direction, especially when it comes to chemical weapons, which weren't actually used very much in the war. It would be like an article on WWII talking 80% about the atomic bombs on Japan. Pertinent info, but how about some more discussion on the actual fighting. I am also tempted to remove many of the external links (I will at least remove the broken ones). Too many of them refer to the same information.

(User:Anonymous 12:43, 01 June 2007 (UTC))

especially when it comes to chemical weapons, which weren't actually used very much in the war. Chemical weapons in te Iran-Iraq war are not at all like the bombs on Japan. It wasn't a long bloody war and in the end Saddam threw a few chemical bombs to make an end to it. In this war chemical weapons were extremeley important, in almost every battle Iraq used the chemicla weapons, if it wasn't for them they would have been beaten quite easily. After the invasion of Iran had failed and Iran was invading Iraq Saddam used them every time, either it worked and he stopped the Iranians or he killed loads but his troops were beaten anyway. It was due to chemical weapons that Iraq was eventually able to beat Iran in the central front. The Honorable Kermanshahi 21:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Zbigniew Brzezinski, non-information

The following passage represents non-information to my mind, and I am going to remove it shortly unless someone can demonstrate how it refers to pertinent information.

"However, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor (United States) does not support this assertion." Asgrrr 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has reinserted this passage. I would like to know why, before I remove it again. Asgrrr 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, unless someone objects, I intend to move the whole section ending in the above paragraph to the chapter "After the Islamic revolution"; it is out of context as it is. Asgrrr 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this deletion by 194.144.81.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which appeared like vandalism to me before I saw your comment here. In the future, please provide reasons for removals in the edit summary. That said, I don't see how "[it] represents non-information to my mind" is a valid reason for deleting an apparently well referenced information. — Sebastian 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason goes to pertinence. The passage has no discernible pertinence. It describes what appears to be a non-event "does not support"; if there's something more to this reference than meets the eye (as I already asked for a month ago), it would be useful to get that information to the talk page and then perhaps tighten up the passage a bit. Asgrrr 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop glorifying this infernal War between Iran-Iraq.

Dear Iranians and Iraqis:

I just do not understand why people in one or another way glorify this WAR. The political development in the region goes back to the era of The Ottoman Empire and Safavid Rulers in Persia. Both the Ottomans and Safavids were partly monguls, relatives and leathal rivals to each other and did not belong to the countries they ruled. Glorifying a historical problem of this magnitude should never occur in this article. This infernal war was neither an Iranian or a Iraqi war.

Shameless Iranian-slanted Biases

One author employs an unbalanced use of quotes which glorifies Iran and vilifies Iraq, exemplified in the quote: "The UN Secretary General report dated 9 December 1991 (S/23273) explicitly cites 'Iraq's aggression against Iran' in starting the war and breaching International security and peace.[7]" Use of this particular quote does not provide insight to the topic of the article nor has the author provided elaboration to explain disapproval of the international community. Many quotes similar to this are presented alone as "evidence" that portrays Iraq as a villian and enables the author to rationalize Iran's subsequent retaliation in Iraq. Various statements like these, within this article do not show an unbiased or neutral stance on the topic. Moreover, they present an argument with the omitted thesis: "Iraq's invasion of Iran was motivated by economic greed, and Iranian response was justified and righteous."

"The UN Secretary General report dated 9 December 1991 (S/23273) explicitly cites 'Iraq's aggression against Iran' in starting the war and breaching International security and peace. [7]"...This statement brings no insight??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.211.138 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To those who see the article as biased

Why don't you try fixing it, with you know, facts. Currently everything seems well cited, so unless there is any real weight behind your complaints, they just seem a bit discriminatory. Everything seems pretty black and white; Iraq invaded a long standing enemy Iran after they were weakened by internal turmoil, they used chemical weapons, and the world in cold war arms dealer mode happened to like to support Iraq. The west because Iran had pissed them off by toppling a pro western government, and the Soviets wanted to woo the Arabs into their bloc, the Arabs because they hate the Persians, and everyone else to just make a quick buck. Actually, things aren't that much different today, as far as alliances go. Also, there is no evidence whatsoever of Iran using any chemical or biological weapons, as some insinuate here, while Iraq's use has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

The longest 'conventional' war of the 20th century

I have added this to the beginning of the article:

Many have also considered it to be the Longest Conventional War of the 20th Century as there was a book written by historian Dilip Hiro with the same title, however this is strongly disputed among historians. It is also regarded in much of the West as one of the Forgotten Wars of the 20th Century.

I don't think it was the longest war altogether but it was the longest conventional war of the 20th century as there was no guerilla activity which later escalated into a full war. This was a pure conventional war from start to finish.

Many wars of the 20th century have started off by guerilla activity and skirmishes then escalates into an all out war. Yes the vietnam war was longer but if you were to take out the time period of guerilla activity it was just a few months shorter than the Iran Iraq War.

All activity before march 65 and after january 73 is not considered conventional but more guerilla type warfare.

• Vietnam conventional war: March 65 (operation rolling thunder) to January of 73 (suspension of war against north vietnam by president nixon) = 94 months of conventional warfare.

• Iran Iraq War conventional: September 80' to August 88' = 95 months. Beats vietnam conventionally by just one month!

People will dispute this, this is why i have added 'this is disputed among historians' in my sentences....And yes it is definetly a forgotten war outside the middle east. Hardly anyone in the west knows much about this war and there hasn't been any films or documentaries about it...much like the korean war in the early 50s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noorkhanuk85 (talk • contribs) 14:24, August 27, 2007 (UTC) noorkhanuk85 15:39, 12 December 2006 (GMT)

Sources

Many, in fact the bulk of info, in this article lacks sources. Some of it appears to be opinionated, and there especially needs to be sources in the intro where many claims are made about who calls the war what. Nichts 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I edited the clearly opinionated phrase "which was clearly a lie" from the following sentence: "The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack, which was clearly a lie." There's no way someone could objectively conclude that the Vincennes did not fear it was under attack. To do so would be to read the commander's mind. Tomzc 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Tomzc

That was a lie according to the declarations of the us soldier who shot. Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilisation - The Conquest of the Middle East; (October 2005) London. The sailor shot because there was a lack of organisation in the ship itself. It was an 100% american error, the Reagan administration lied saying that the boat was under attack. Private investigations clearly demonstrated this fact. Mrpouetpouet 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's supported by Fisk's testimony then. One clarification, however: Does "was clearly a lie" refer to only the claim that the ship was under attack or does it also refer to the claim that the ship was in international waters? Tomzc 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)tomzecat

• You can mention the viewpoints of those who believe it was an intentional attack, but you can't go out and declare that this was the case. Not to mention that there are plenty of sources out there that document this incident but have not yet reached such a conclusion 69.226.229.155 01:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Does "was clearly a lie" refer to only the claim that the ship was under attack or does it also refer to the claim that the ship was in international waters?" Both of them. The ship was in iranian waters according to U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe himself and it wasn't under attack because it was increasing altitude. In fact this is just a human error. The us sailor panicked because its ship was probably performing an anti-iranian operation at that time and shot shot the civil flight. The problem is that the Reagan administration, which was totally anti-iranian, cannot accept the fact that hundreds of innocent people died because of a stupid error of the us navy. Its hate for the iranian regime was so strong they built a fiction story to justify the attack. These justifications (the flight was an army one, the radio of the flight didnt'work, the flight was attacking the ship, etc....) were clearly created as a propaganda against iranian political regime. In consequence the sentence "which was clearly a lie" is justified in this context. However I agree to put it in note, as it's only a 99% certain fact.

"Not to mention that there are plenty of sources out there that document this incident but have not yet reached such a conclusion". Sorry but I cannot agree. American, British, European, and other independant sources from Middle-East agree on that point. Even testimonies of the sailors agree with this POW. We can assume it's the version of the accident, which is the nearest of the truth. (re-read Fisk ^_^) Mrpouetpouet 20:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Iranian aviation deleted?

In this article is not mentioned any role for IRIAF. This is not acceptable. IRIAF contribued to repeal iraqui offensive, and this is not said only by Tom Cooper, but also by David Eshel. So this article need to be improved *a lot* in this regard. Both Iraki and Iranians fought a really fierce air war with countless worthing actions and air campaign. I rate this reconstruction *without airforces* simply lacking of this critical informations. I expect that someone starts to write finally stuff about this aspect.--Stefanomencarelli 13:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

=> Iranian Air Force in Iran-Iraq war but I agree an article about Air fights during Iran-Iraq war (exemple) will be useful Mrpouetpouet 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I report here the part deleted, that it explain how and when Iranian and Iraqui airforces and overall armed forces tried to improve. I don't agree, of course, that it was deleted while it is essential to understand the grewth and power of both the countries at those times:

The plans to improve the military forces of Iran were really without comparations for a medium-sized country like Iran was. Among them: over 150F-5s, 220 F-4D/E, 80 F-14, and even 202 AH-1 Cobra. These latter were the most numerous attack helicopter fleet outside superpowers, even if not all were equipped with TOW missiles. They will been used also as air combat machines, expecially against Mi-24 and Gazelles, and even defending themselves by iraki fighters with some success. F-14s were the only export of this powerful fighter. F-4Es were at the time one of the most powerful Phantom fleet in the world, on pair, rougly, with UK, Germany and Israel. Iranian Army had Rapier, M109 and HAWK missiles, but also ZSU-23-4 (rougly une hundred) and BM-21 soviet built, weapons. Tanks were mainly M60 and Chieftain. This latter was the most powerful and heavy among MBTs of the 70s, and remained, despite the weak engine, so until Leopard 2 began. The fleet of around 900 tanks was on pair with British Army, and these tanks were the most modern (often with laser telemeters) sub versions available. Available weapons were over 2000 Mavericks, thousands of AIM-9B/J/Ps and AIM-7Es. The new planning comprised: 160 F-16 Fighting falcons (successors of F-5s), F-15s (there was an order for 53), six Spruance modiphied destroyers, 225 Shir-1 tanks, 1225 shir-2, dozens of Tracked Rapiers, 35mm Eagle self-propelled a/a tanks and many others materials. Some of them became in service in several armies: F-16s ordered were promptly swifted to European airforces, Shir-2 became simply the Challenger tank, and Tracked Rapier were tooke in strenght by British Army. Eagle SPG was deleted, while four destroyer were builth as Kidd class and delivered to US Navy (where they were also known as 'Ayatollah class'). - - Irak was also improving its military effectiveness. After suffered severe blow in 1973 war, when an entire armoured division was sent to help Syria, toghever with MiGs and other military units, and after the clashes happened with Iran, S.Hussein spent much money to build an improved Army and Aviation. Many soviet tanks were buyed, including T-62s and orders for T-72s, not availables for the start of the War. Many MiG-21s, MiG-23 and lathers even powerful MiG-25s were buyed, fullowed by Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters. Because the AT-2 Swatter /Falanga missiles were not so effective and precise, Irak buyed also Gazelles with HOT, just like Syria already done. The mix Mi-24/Gazelle began, after the early years of war, a very lethal one. The logistic was also improved, as the problems in 1973 showed, there was the need of many tank-trailers and spare parts to move an entire Army. Irak was still lagging behind with Iran, but the Islamic revolution in 1979 changed the things. Iranian armed forces, expecially IIAF was depleted by many of the most trained men, accused to be compromised with USA. Many of the aircraft were taken out of service. But this situation worsened the political relations between Irak and Iran, and in summer 1980 some clashes occurred. When Irak decided to attack in large scale Iran, there were already weeks of combat in the southern borded.

I wish that it will added in one form or the other. Those info are available and if needed i can add references and so on. But talk about First Gulf War (the authentic first one, not Desert Storm, mind you, in '80s this was 'The Gulf War', before CNN and so on changed blatalantly that name).

I remark that F-16s were ordered and then used by NATO countries, Challenger and tracked Rapier were taken on strength by UK, Spruance SAM where used as Kidd/Ayatollah (unufficial name) by US Navy as the most powerful destroyer before AEGIS.

Without these and other stuff that war cannot been understood and so i wrote this edit.--Stefanomencarelli 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This article is about the war itself not only about planes. These certainely have an important role in that war but less than gaz for exemple.

If you would have read this article better you'll have saw that your edits wasn't deleted but added to the air force part ! If some sentences were deleted that means that they were to precise for a general article about this war.

=> Feel free to create an article about this specific aspect of the war. Mrpouetpouet 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

UNITED STATES

Could we count the US as a 3rd side combatant? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly this article by any neutral humanbeing can be seen obviously as not only biased but very much unbalanced...you should call it "Iranian view of Iran-Iraq war" because simply I can conclude that this mess was written by an Iranian...Wikipedia is nothing to trust on because people unfortuanetly just modify & create things from their own point of views & to serve their intentions & nation.

---Very clearly ridiculous including the us as a combatant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.230.31 (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased and Informal..

Brief paragraph sample:

Saddam Hussein, realising [Author knows what Saddam is thinking?] that he had no realistic hope [blatant POV. It was a strategic advantage to retreat. Considering he was financed by the USSR, France, West Germany, China, the USA, etc.. It's unlikely he was "forced" out] of remaining in Iran, ordered his troops to withdraw to the international border between Iran and Iraq. He believed [The author again pretends to understand the mind of Saddam Hussein] that his battered army would only be able to fight knowing that it was fighting for the homeland, and that they could rely upon the static defenses which had been built...However, not only did the Iranians refuse to make peace, but that also increased their demands. [Is this an encyclopedia or a narrative prose?]

Further, I'm an Iranian and even I can see this. Let's make it more neutral. To be fair, Iran was clearly wronged in this war by the entire international community, but this article really takes it overboard and turns it into just a massive sob story. This should be a high profile article to correct, especially because this article, along with the coup of Mossadegh, is the backdrop for much of the modern relations between the USA and Iranians, and the mutual distrust. American involvement should be mentioned, but let's not pretend like Khomeini had positive intentions. --MadarB 01:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A simple thing to start with in this mess(biased article) is the nomenclature...like Iraqis did not call it "Iran-Iraq" war but Iraq-Iran" war & definetly Iraqis did not call it "persian gulf war" which sounds very unrealistic for an Iraqi to name it like this, but rather it was called by "The Gulf war" & after the war against Kuwait, the wars where named (First & Second Gulf Wars) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.158.33 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First Gulf War could be used as an alternative, but it definitely has no place at the top. Simply calling it "The Gulf War" like you said, is clearly inaccurate. If no specification is given, it almost always implies the war with Kuwait. Is there anyone else willing to help fix this article? It sounds almost childish. -MadarB 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick-failed "good article" nomination

According to the quick-fail criteria of the GA nominations process, any article with cleanup banners is to be failed automatically without an in-depth review. VanTucky ^Talk 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Light again

I call upon John Nevard to explain why Robert Parry is not a reliable source. I have reinserted the passage. Asgrrr (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He's a kook with a blog. Not a reliable source, whether or not he wants to relive his days of piggy-backing off unreliable leakers. Read his wikipedia bio, was interested to learn that LaRouche made up the October Surprise conspiracy theory. There are many reasons for Wikipedia to be careful about LaRouche-believers, and so we are. John Nevard (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have uninserted the passage because his website is a critic of the American government which now a days cannot be proven true or false thanks to part of Left/Right lies and deseption. Supergodzilla2090 16:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Parry is a respected investigative journalist, whatever view you wish to take of his website. Asgrrr (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what Parry or you think of him. His blog is not a reliable source. Rather than attempting to start an edit war, you could improve the article by finding citations for actual events. John Nevard (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith.

Robert Parry is a reputable source. The source in question is not a "blog", it is an article written and signed by the journalist Robert Parry. Asgrrr (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's described in his Wikipedia biography as "ConsortiumNews.com... an online ezine dedicated to investigative journalism". Blog's an ugly term, but self-published articles making leaps of faith are uglier. To be honest, I just read the article, having only visited the frontpage of his self-published website before- and promptly realized it was part of his supporting 'evidence' for kicking the old October surprise conspiracy theory dead horse. Definately not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. John Nevard (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Separate article for Western involvement in Iran-Iraq war

It's not really my idea, but this article is forcing it. Someone on this talk page asked if the US should be added as a 3rd party to the conflict, and from reading the article I can see why you would get that impression. Just a couple examples: The Chemical Weapons section is the longest in the entire article, and most of that is geared toward accusing the West of supplying the chemicals. The second largest section is about US involvement. These are larger than other sections describing years of warfare. Also, out of the 49 external links, 38 of them accuse Western nations of arming Iraq. Most add litte to the article, and some are so POV it's ridiculous, like "The West should go on trial with Saddam", or 100,000 "Iranians are victims of chemical weapons, supplied by the West". The Soviets armed Saddam more than anyone else but the article doesn't reflect that either. This is a picture perfect example of wiki's tendency to always focus heavily on Western/US issues, even when other nations are the real subject of the article. I'm going to do some heavy editing soon, and removing many of these external links, but just thought I would solicit some feedback first.BuboTitan (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a legitimate point. However, France and West Germany were notorious for their financing during the war. The USA wasn't a huge financer (this is perhaps the biggest myth), although I believe they did provide Iraq with intelligence and they voted against any UN attempts to punish or acknowledge Saddam's atrocities. The Arab World's role in financing probobly is ignored too much in this article, which seems bizarre, because Saddam's debt to Kuwait was part of what inspired his invasion later on. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

oh come on what is that?? fake artcle i really dont trust wikipedia any more

Bubo, I don't think we should create an article for "Western involvement in Iran-Iraq War", because that would be playing credence to the obvious lack of neutrality in this article. You have my full support in any neutral edits u wanna make, let me know if I can help? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

to the vandalist Anti-Iranianists like John Nevard and copmpany

USA actively supported Saddam. take responsibility. have guts. What you are saying is that no one should speak about the American crimes. Not only Iranair flight 655 and the famous Handshake between the two old buddies Saddam and Rumsfeld, but the USA bombed Iranian islands and oil platform and violated the Iranian territorial waters. This is an obvious act of war. bastaNota bene I am civil and I do not see any reason to assume good faith when you systematically remove (= VANDALISM) any information which shows that USA supported Saddam actively against Iran.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the US, I agree that it fought Iran. It did not do so in coordination with Iraq, and, at one point, the US supported Kurds against Iraq. "Support" of one side does not imply "combat" on its behalfHoward C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

edits by 80.56.163.6

The credibility and civility of this user is clearly obvious from his edit on the Iranian fotball player Ali Karimi. he uses rude language. This only shows his level of hatred and anti-Iranianism and adds to the incredibility of this user. I am amazed why the so-called neutral admins never take action against these anti-Iranianists? Why double standards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Karimi&diff=prev&oldid=180311564

he wrote Champions League]] appearance against Rapid Vienna. !content removed! in Ali Karimi's page, showing his level of civility and credibility.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate, good job on flagging up 80.56.163.6, be patient with the Admins though, if he persists in vandalising they'll get him (I'll keep an eye on him), it's not some anti-Iranian conspiracy they'll probably just haven't spotted him (I didn't!). Also I had to remove his vandalism that you repeated on here, you shouldn't repeat vandalism (that's what he'd want) especially not in bold lol! Just a link to vandalism will do :) Ryan4314 (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

USA actively supported Saddam against Iran.

USA actively supported Saddam. take responsibility. have guts. What you are saying is that no one should speak about the American crimes. Not only Iranair flight 655 and the famous Handshake between the two old buddies Saddam and Rumsfeld, but the USA bombed Iranian islands and oil platform and violated the Iranian territorial waters. This is an obvious act of war. bastaNota bene I am civil and I do not see any reason to assume good faith when you systematically remove any information which shows that USA supported Saddam actively against Iran.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

== Combat. ==

"1. To oppose in battle; fight against."[1]

I suggest you read the article and fully understand it before making further controversial (and wrong) claims. John Nevard (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

see your own dictionary. It shows that the USA was a combatant in Iran-Iraq war exactly because of your own definbition. USA invaded Iranian territory and bombed Iranian territory. In addition brought down a civilian airliner by military instruments. USA was a warring party indeed.

combat

SYLLABICATION: com·bat PRONUNCIATION: km-bt, kmbt VERB: Inflected forms: com·bat·ed or com·bat·ted, com·bat·ing or com·bat·ting, com·bats or com·bats

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To oppose in battle; fight against. 2. To oppose vigorously; struggle against. See synonyms at oppose. INTRANSITIVE VERB: To engage in fighting; contend or struggle. NOUN: (kmbt) Fighting, especially armed battle; strife. See synonyms at conflict. ADJECTIVE: (kmbt)1. Of or relating to combat: flew 50 combat missions. 2. Intended for use or deployment in combat: combat boots; combat troops. ETYMOLOGY: French combattre, from Old French, from Late Latin combattere : Latin com-, com- Latin battere, to beat (alteration of battuere).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Mr. John Nevard provided me with the definition of combat. As an American he assumed that I as a non-Anglo-saxon did not know this. However he forgets some historical facts.

CONTENTS · INDEX · ILLUSTRATIONS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Also if you want to prove me wrong you should lower your anti-Iranianist drive. Anti-Iranianism is as bad as anti-semitism or black hatred or as bad as hating whites. It is in the cathegory of irrational hatred based on ethic background. I do not say that you are doing it consciously but by being controversial and selective on Iranian issues you suggest this. Do not write history because of your assumption. Historical facts are known. And one should respect them even if they are bitter to them. I myself do with regard to Iran. I would not deny the wrong doings of Iranian rulers in hhistory, but it is amazing that the so many ordinary Americans talk good the crimes of their rulers. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate is a mess guys! Calm down for a start, then edit this discussion, I can't see half of it, it's edited so poorly. From what I can gather someone thinks the USA should be on the combatant list...

Firstly we have to put our personal feelings aside, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to post our personal thoughts about other countries. If the subject matter strikes a raw nerve then I suggest you move off to editing another article that doesn't.

The best way to resolve this conflict is not by debate, but by looking at the neutral rules Wikipedia has set. If you look here, under where it says "Combatants", it says "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding."

Now I couldn't care either way, so I give an argument for and agaisnt;

For: US forces engaged in actually fighting with Iran (See: Operation Praying Mantis)

Against: This stands more to confuse reader understanding than improve it 1. This was an 8 year war, the U.S military became involved only at the end, their appearence in the combatant list could lead readers to believe that U.S forces were involved from day one 2. To add the USA because they supported Iraq, would mean you would have to add another 20 countries (see Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990), or you'd be discriminating against the USA.

After some consideration I'm leaning to a for vote, for the reason stated above. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

yes correct. The fact that one country takes actively part in fighting was for me a criteria. I had not counted the indrect support otherwise countries like Sudan were combatants too. the role of Arab countries remain still confusing, while the Arab league actively supported Saddam the voluntary forces took part in the fighting. Only Jordan and Palestine leadership actively encouraged direct envolvement and the number of volunteers from these countries were significant. But As I said USA is of a different order because it took an active military fighting role. You are a wise admin. Maybe the first one I ever really liked in the wikipedia. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm against this. A vote is irrelevant- no serious source is going to support the notion that the US fought beside Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War- a war that focused on disputed territory, which the US took no part in. The US acted incidentally against Iran over their interference in international sea lanes- they did not take a part in the war. John Nevard (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin mate, I'm just a neutral observer. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

First, add my observation that it's quite hard, physically, to read the text. If someone wants to set up a top-level heading for consensus, I'll be happy to comment there as well.

Next, it's more than a yes-no decision. There are at least three conflicts here;

• Iran engaged with Iraq, with the US a cobelligerent coordinating its operations with Iraq. Against
• US engaged with Iran. PRAYING MANTIS, EARNEST WILL, and Airbus. For
• US opposing Iraq: US Army Special Forces assistance to Iraqi Kurds until the US decided to tilt to Iraq For for the time it lasted.

To me, being a belligerent in the Iran-Iraq war means that one's military forces, not arms sellers or advisors, joined with one side against the other. I know of no operations where US forces engaged in combat, coordinated by one side against the other.

Praying Mantis and Earnest Will certainly involved combat between US and Iranian forces, and the Vincennes incident certainly involved a US attack on an Iranian civilian aircraft. If one wanted to call the US a belligerent against Iran in the "US-Iran" conflict, I'd agree, but I don't agree the US was a cobelligerent with Iraq against Iran. There really were two military campaigns going on, one Iraq-Iran and one US-Iran. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. John Nevard (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A problem with the main article

Babakexorramdin seems to believe that the fact that the US armed forces engaged in combat with the Iranian armed forces at various points including during the period in which the Iran-Iraq War was fought by the nations of Iran and Iraq means that the US should be described as a 'combatant' in the Iran-Iraq War article infobox. Some of these combat actions were connected with Iran's attacks on neutral Arab merchant vessels and mining of international sea passages- by this kind of logic other nations, including for example Kuwait, would be included as 'combatants' in the infobox. This obviously makes the article worse. John Nevard (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm yea, I agree as per my Against vote up above, perhaps this would stand more to confuse readers. Remember we should only add USA according to the policy; "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding." Not on the dictionary definition of the word "combatant". I think drawing a consensus may be a good idea, I shall request one at the Military History Project. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I initially wasn't sure if Babakexorramdin understood the meaning of combatant- rather than the relevance of 'combatance' in combat that was not part of the Iran-Iraq War. John Nevard (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember it is not about the meaning of the word combatant, lets stop mentioning it so we can draw the debate away from it. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose adding the US as a combatant. They may have had a few actions against Iran, but it wasn't primarily in support of Iraq, as just being against Iran. As stated above, almost all actions were due to other factors, not the Iran-Iraq war itself. By the reasons stated to include the US, then the infobox would get extremely huge listing all of the other countries who had any level of participation, 'volunteers', financial, weapons, etc., and the casual reader would get easily confused. wbfergus ^Talk 14:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A good point made by User:Hcberkowitz, if we actually added the USA as a combatant after a consensus it would actually constitute as original research. We should let the consensus continue anyway as diffuse hard feelings and let some good ideas flow. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

really what consesus you are pointing to? you mean your "constructive conversation" with John Nevard, above? Please open a RfC for this subject. cheers, --Pejman47 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)