Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Yet again without explaining your argument or the posistion, The article refers to it as teh first persian gulf war.

I am delisting it from the Good article, and going to replace much of the article from an encyclopedia within the Public Domain!

The Following is incorrect/impartial.

1. Iran used Sulphur-Mustard from Iraqi stocks, and in 1987 The religious authorities of Iran after the success of the Iraqi army's rout of Iranian forces in Al-faw (possibly a combined chemical/mechanized assault) were quite willing to change on the issue, in 1987 before the wars end Iran was producing Mustard and Chlorine.
2. Before the Ottoman empire Northern Iraq was ruled by the aq konoulu (white sheep) the center of the state was under the Khalifate of Baghdad. The Ottomans themselves respected this for 2 generations before they assumed the role of Sultan/Khalifa.
3. The Iraqi Army volentarily withdrew from Iranian terratory in 1981. This was not done under the barrel of Iranian guns. rather its reason was recognising the Iranian arabs would not support a war of liberation while foreigners were occupying their land. Just as Iraqi kurds refused to fully co-operate with the Iranians against Iraq.
4. The wars goals as stated are open to debate

The_Libo

I have edited the page, I call upon all interested parties to negotiate here.

I do not believe the dispute over the use of the term Persian gulf should spill over into here, as well , No one calls this the first persian gulf war, its called the first gulf war. I mean this hyper sensativity on the part of the Iranics, is very telling. Has anyone visited the GCC (gulf co-operation council) on wiki and is calling them the (p)GCC?

Lastly, there should be a mention of the Algerian Treaty between Iran and Iraq, and The Iranian Inability to breach the Iraqi defenses of Basra before the Iranian salient was eliminated by the Iraqi mechanized assault on al-faw (al-fao)

erm may need reversion, some guys vandalised it

The author of the "comment" just below mine misses the entire point of the article. The article focused on the facts of the war, and then the zealot below starts harping on about muslims and Israel. This isn't a political forum where you state whatever idiotic opinion you have regarding the region- you are meant to discuss the article, and only the article not go off on a ridiculous tangent.

Bias in Article

I am not exactly sure of the rules involved with Wikipedia, but this article is overtly biased against Iraq - it attempts to portray a very negative picture of it, rather than simply report facts as they stand.

That's why it's always wise to source and reference everything stated.--Zereshk 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be prohibited for young adults. You are giving these hard-working teens the WRONG information! They USE your articles for their essays. If you do NOt know what you are tlaking about, it would be better if you keep it in and not go public. Please!! Do it for the CHILDREN!!

Iran Iraq War

The author of the dispute misses the entire point. They should concentrate on the stupidity of the conflict. Estimates ( and only estimates are possible ) put the number of dead and direct casualties at some where between 1 - 1.5 million human lives. If you add this to the list of fellow muslims killed by their own brothers including the Shia's and Kurds killed by Saddam, the endless purges and coups that take place in muslim countries with regularity, this is more than muslims killed by anyone else including the Israelies who are only protecting their own people and land.

All I can say to muslims is WAKE UP! Stop being so blindsided. Israel has the right to the land. Muslim countries put together have more land and God given mineral resource. The only reason why Israel is always picked as a scrapegoat is for the mullahs and the religious teachers to distract their followers form the real nature of Islam : corrupt and filled with lust and greed. Just like their father : SATAN disguised as you know who.

Just to reply to your first point ("The author of the dispute misses the entire point") - Wikipedia is here to give just the facts, with a neutral point of view. It sounds to me like you want us to pass judgement, which we don't do. →Raul654 11:19, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

i hope everyone will please ignore that last comment since it is obviously a bigoted and inappropriate conclusion. a cautious reader will hopefully direct their attention to other sources than the prejudiced meanderings of an internet contributor.

Just to reply completely, Raul654 is correct, as someone who has spent most of his life researching the Arab Israeli conflict I can say that this page is completely fine. Wikipedia is not a source of opinion on topics, Wikipedia is a source of fact and summary. "The stupidity of the conflict" is not a fact, it is an opinion, if you want to discuss your opinion on the conflict, theres forums everywhere that support this topic of discussion, this site is here to make sure you get the facts straight about the topic your discussing. I would also like to challenge the fact that this page is considered un-neutral. {User: TyraelDargan, 28 May 2004}

I was curious as to why the Iran-Contra Affair is not mentioned in this article. It seems relevent, as the affair was directly related to the war, and assisted Iran in the aquisition of modern weapons. I would consider editing it myself, however my whole IP block is banned, and I cannot.

The first guy talking about "WAKE UP", obviously doesnt have a clue himself. i would just like to remind you that saddam hussain was backed by the americans to invade iran in 1980, because iran was becoming too powerful and israel was becoming threatened as the superpower in the east!!!

The article currently says:

The United States armed and encouraged Hussein to attack Iran over this disputed waterway as a possible way of undermining the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which had eliminated U.S. influence in Iran.

However, the Soviet Union and France were by far the largest providers of arms to Iraq in this period, with the US accounting for a very small fraction by comparison, so it seems a little inaccurate to say that "the United States armed" them. "The Soviet Union armed Iraq" would be a reasonable statement, as they provided the vast bulk of arms, and "France armed Iraq" would be the second-best statement (but still inaccurate). --Delirium 10:37, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC) it was like a toilet

The edits of User:130.88.96.66 are very biased and also removes some important information. Please consider partial reverting. Roozbeh 03:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

The article seems to be missing quite a bit of background information. Ie Iran supporting attempts to overthrow the Iraqi government, and subsequent negotiations of withdrawing their support in exchange for the border change. The ethnic and religious divisions that contributed to dispute. While the ambitions to power are true, it is not even close to the whole story.

---

I served as a commander of a small unit (about 40 soldiers) in Iran-Iraq war from March 1984 to Jan 1986, I also followed the iranian politic and western countries role in Iran-Iraq war, I am also a victim of Iraq chemical warfare towards the end of my military service, I have been living in Canada and the United States for since 1987 and continued following the politics of the world with little or no judgment here what I have to say about this article:

It's fairly accurate with respect to it events and how it happends, infact I felt a great deal of compassion given to Iranians maybe because they were the vicitm of an imposed war but at the same time I don't see much or any comapassion towards inoccent iraqi's who perhaps were force to join the army as much as many number of Iranians in the official soldiers were force to enlist, I was only 18 years old at the time perhaps young and naive in many areas, but despite my fear of our Iraqi enemys in some occasions we were able to communicate through the sound of our machine gun being fired with rhtyme and were able to stablish contact which resulted in cooling off in shooting unless we were force to by our supperior, in that time I realized that the evil Iraqi enemy we all feared our life for are just like ourselves being forced to fight a war just because they had to, maybe I as Iranian could be more patriotic because we were the victim of an imposed war nevertheless I was able to see my opponents face and felt different about possible killing of Iraqi soldiers. I found almost all info on this article to be accurate to my knowledge with seeing a grat deal of compassion for the iranians, as to the international community and the western rold in the war, they all simply tried to cash in and make as much profit and fullfill their political agenda with no respect to human lives and justice, again for them it's all about business and nothing is personal or human hearted, even thier political agenda is business, money and power and more power.

Koz from Vancouver Canada,

Iranian Chemical Weapons Usage

I am not aware that Iran ever used chemical weapons during this war. If so this use must have been minimal in comparison to the Iraqi use, both against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi (Kurdish) civilians. I am aware that the USA have several times accused both countries, but this appeared to more based on political expediency than on anything else. Could someone please provide evidence for this assertion ? Refdoc 23:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most websites focus mostly on Iraqi usage. Info on Iranian usage is much more sparse and vaguer, ie: [1].

This site, however claims that Iran did use weapons: [2]

It states: "SINCE 1983, IRAN HAS USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS EVERY

YEAR IN ITS WAR WITH IRAN" and "BOTH IRAN AND IRAQ CONTINUE TO EMPLOY CHEMI-

CALS IN PRIMARILY DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS".

So, there is at least some vague web based support for the idea that Iran used chemical weapons, but certainly to a lesser degree than Iraq. However, if you want to make certain, I suggest you check out a library. You really can't trust the web. (Wikipedia excluded ; )

Peregrine981 23:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, as I said I have never ever heard of confirmed allegations. The SIPRI report is probably the most authoriative and also denies confirmation. The US allegations agaisnt Iran were mainly based on Halabja, which in turn is now generally accepted to have been Saddam's work. The allegations against Iraq are well founded and the use was massive. I would suggest altering the reference. I hope I provoke no revert war... :-) Refdoc 08:24, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think we should at least include mention that Iran is alleged to have used chemical weapons until we can prove it one way or the other. I'll try to find something more definitive in the meanwhile.

Peregrine981 12:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are right, and I have tried to put this in. Tell me what you think. I think the distinction must be very clear that Iraq did use chemical weapons confirmedly and on massive scale, while the allegations agaisnt Iran are weak and in all likelihood false.

Refdoc 13:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your addition seems quite appropriate. Consulting several books from the library today, including a report by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, I have found no confirmation of Iranian chemical weapons use. Iraqi use is mentioned repeatedly, and a discussion of Iranian countermeasures is included, but nowhere does it mention Iranian chemical weapons even in a very detailed examination of tactics employed by both sides. The only weakness of these reports is that they were written within a year or 2 of the war's end. For our purposes I think we can conclude Iran never used Chemical weapons.

Peregrine981 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV notice

This article has the 'dispute' message now since several months. There has been very little dispute apart from the bits about the chemical warfare we just slugged out. Could we go and produce a list of points which should be verified/altered/NPOVed or added and get the notice off? Refdoc 14:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will go first :

• Human Wave attacks should be linked to use of poison gas. Iran did a lot of the former attacks. Iraq claimed Human wave attacks justified its use of gas, and the Western world condoned this argument.
• The role of the USA is still underplayed - I am aware that the US AWACS system was heavily involved in supporting Iraqi airforce, but I do not have references
• the use of untrained militia's (Pasdaran/Basiji/child soldiers) on Iranian side should really be part of it (and the role of these in the Human Wave attacks)
• the spiritual role of the war in Iran, which was and is enormous. Refdoc 14:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would say that the article is fairly NPOV, especially considering the elements involved and the possiblity for demonization of Hussein, Iran, or even "the West."

Certainly we could use more information and elaborate on certain points.

• As you mentioned, the American role could use some elaboration. By the end of the war they were supplying a lot of valuable intelligence to Hussein.

• More discussion of what actually happened for 8 years both militarily and socially.

• Perhaps a discussion of the UN's reaction.

Peregrine981 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even looking at the history I can't remember exactly why I put the NPOV message there. The article look OK to me now. Roozbeh 17:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Probably because everything about Iran is currently POV ;-).I will remove the notice then.--Refdoc 17:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have 2 or 3 loose remarks. st i have seen estimates of casualties ranging (far?) over a million for iran only, supposedly irak had huge losses too, i think a thorough structural underestimation of international conflicts fought on arab ground is a colonialist method and crime. Then i have heard at the time of that war, iran had been using some chemical weapons too, the story here seems to deny it but some years ago i tried to uncover who would have shipped such to iran, and i remember it as if there was something (a tradeconnection to be made. otoh i heard the effects of it have been well noticable all through iran.. wich i think could be elaborated. 3rdly i agree very much that the story would be even more clear if the obvious relation of US military goals and UN resolutions was lighted out a bit more. (as to child soldiers and such, seen in the propaganda context one could doubt the value of many such implications)

References for US Sale of Chemical/Biological Weapons?

In particular, the United States, along with its allies (among them Britain, France and Italy), provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities. While I do not doubt the accuracy of this statement, I would like to see a reference cited. Given the current political climate surrounding the US, Iraq and "Weapons of Mass Destruction," this is a rather nontrivial statement to make.

Agreed. The U.S. supplied intelligence, food and credit to Iraq during the war. The weapons were supplied by the Soviets and the French. Ellsworth 21:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just finished writing a whole section on the US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war. I hope it addresses your inquiries.--Zereshk 03:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Human Wave tactics"

I dispute the accuracy of this article. Heres why:

While 2 paragraphs (a whole separate section) go into detail about these so called Human Wave tactics, very little (almost nothing at all) is said about the 100,000 chemical weapons war veterans (see here) Iran sustained during the war. 100000 is not a small number. It puts Iran as the world's top country afflicted by Weapons of Mass Destruction after Japan.

Furthermore, when someone who doesnt know anything about the war comes and reads that human wave tactic thingy, they are bound to pick up an unfair representation of the war. The way those 2 paragraphs are written, it seems as if Iran only sent kids forward for mine sweeping and other lethal operations. Which is not true, because at that junction in time, the soldiers and volunteers in the front lines were going through no less of a treatment. Its not as if they were sending kids in mine fields while the rest waited for the fields to clear up.

The article also makes little mention of the war of the missiles between cities, and the fact that Iran sustained close to 1 MILLION casualties and over $1 Trillion in damages.

Basically, the article ignores the exceptional value of volunteerism exhibited in that war. Some people really believe in Martyrdom. Theyre not brainwashed by Ayatollahs to run into mine fields. There were people from all walks of life volunteering to go into the minefields and front lines knowing of their chances of no return. And the majority of them werent "kids" either.

Please somebody fix the incorrect proportions.--Zereshk 04:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer an authoritive, somewhat unbiased (i.e. [i]not[/i] Common Dreams) source for these claims. Even then I don't see how "voluntary" for use as cannon fodder is of any significance to the article.

66.133.180.21 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Zereshk is an Iranian - that gives Zereshk more authority on the sujbect than someone for example from the United States or Europe.

And It does make a difference to mention that people volunteered from a personal desire - that testimony is important, because it contradicts the claims that people were simply forced to go, or that this was a human rights violation.

I don't know why Westerners need some tour guide to tell them about everything, instead of asking questions from people who had some contact with the subject.--Johan77 09:13, 04 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Common Dreams" article our anon friend is calling as biased and unauthoritative, is actually a reprint of a New York Times article.--Zereshk 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on one point, disagreed on two

As the author of the section on Human Wave attaks, I can assure you that there was no intentional misrepresentation of the facts. I like your point about Iran suffering the second largest attack ever from weapons of mass distruction under the Iran-Iraq war, and feel that inclusion of a section pertaining to that subject would make the article more balanced.

Your implication that Basij volunteers were engaged in an honourable activity that is acceptable in many parts of the world is wrong. Tens of thousands were, from accounts on both sides, lead by a tactically inept leadership to their slaughter. The same criticisms have also been rightly levelled at the costly human wave attacks of the British (volunteer) army under WW1. This is absurd, sickening, and something that the vast majority of people from all cultures find abhorrent.

With reference to the use of children in human wave attacks under the Iran-Iraq war. This is true, and that fact should be recognised for the sake of all those that died. Again, when compared with the ages of European soldiers on the front line during WW1 (officially as young as 14 and sometimes younger), this cannot be seen as anti Iranian propaganda.

I think heres what we can do to resolve the issue:

1. Add a section specifically about the Chemical warfare aspect of the Iran-Iraq war.

2. That the military leadership was inept, I agree. However we are shining a misleading spotlight on the problem. Maybe we can clarify it up by saying something like "one of the many consequences of the inept leadershiop was the human wave tactic...". The way the text is written now, it seems as if the HWT was the axis or major method of Iran reacting to the Iraqi aggression. It was more than that. There WERE 14 year olds. But they werent all just 14 year olds either. The vast majority of our volunteer E'zams (from Isfahan where I lived for a while) were made up of college students and unemployed high school graduates. I myself served in the Basij during the war when I was 15. The way it's written now, it sounds as if there were only 14 year olds wasting away at the front lines. We had 65 year olds volunteering too.--Zereshk 15:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a question from our learned Western friends, who seem to know so much about things they have probably never seen:

Where and when were human wave tactics employed? Let's have specifics - i.e. dates, times and places, as well as figures and names of units and commanders.

If anyone really knows that human wave tactics were typical of the war, they should be able to answer these questions without any problem. Johan77 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This article will stay NPOVed

My objections have not been answered. Therefore the dispute tag stays on this page.

To be specific,,,

I have a problem with the statement:

"Basij volunteers as young as 9 years old were used to sweep over minefields".

9 years old. That sounds like Radio Mojahedin propaganda.

This is a pretty serious accusation. Unless backed with evidence, it should be taken down or modified.

Now, as for the statement:

"However, a seemingly reliable firsthand account recently surfaced at the end of this unrelated article[4](http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041104.html), by the respected technology journalist Robert Cringely."

I strongly doubt that to be a reliable source. Consider what this Mr. Cringely says in this article of his:

"So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack."

I mean...that is the most stupid thing Ive ever heard...Take a Taxi to the front like it's 5th Ave. and Broadway.

An American journalist gets an assignment from Penthouse magazine to go up to the war front in Iran to report on how Iranians kill their 9 year olds?

In a Taxi?

In 1986 (1365)?

I DONT THINK SO.

--Zereshk 08:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have met at the time many Iranians (students abroad) who reported themselves similar things (human wave attacks and children being used), none related to the Mujahedin, most abhorring them, but obviously I cannot give names nor indicate any sources and for all I know these people might themselves have been confused by rumours instead of really knowing the truth. I also remember from Isfahan airport arrival's hall some display about one "martyr" or other, and the pictures did AFAIK show kids amongst the troups of basiji. Now this s a good few years back and I might be wrong in my recollections. If the display is still up any of you Iranian guys can check it probably when traveling next to Isfahan...

WRT journalist, taxi and frontline - never underestimate the guts, improvisation skills and luck a good journalist might have and employ. Also a good "fare" might well convince an adventourous taxi drive to go where otrhers would not go. Refdoc 13:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. Heres a solution:

I'll edit that passage. See what you think. If you agree or dont agree, one way or the other, let me know. You can always revert back to the old passage, if you dont agree. See what you think.

--§Zereshk 05:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

§I'm taking the NPOV tag off. I'm satisfied.--Zereshk 03:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

UN assigns blame

I hate to stir up trouble again, but it seems to me that placing a passage, explicitely blaming Iraq for the war, in the first few lines of the article is contrary to POV policy. I have no problem with the source, or necessarily the claim, but it doesn't seem to be a balanced way to write a "neutral" article. It will give any reader the impression that Iraq did, for a fact, "cause" the war. We are not supposed be moral arbiters or presenting conclusions here. We should be presenting facts in a neutral way, that allows people to form their own conclusions. (As best we can)

The UN and the author cited, may well be impeccable sources, and most people may agree with them. But I know for a fact that some people do not agree, and their opinions should not be subordinated in this article. I propose that we move the lines in question to a later portion of the article, not the introduction, or at the very least include a counter claim. Thanks, Peregrine981 08:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is actually no debate regarding the fact that the first military offense was by Iraqi side, no matter what the reasons or origins could be. I think that we can reword the phrase and shorten it to just include the UN report and add the other reference and a broader discussion about UN's opinion on who began the war on beginning paragraph of The war section. It's not uncommon to indicate the first one who invades in the introduction paragraph. See Winter War or Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). --Pouya 21:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think, Peregrine, you just now seriously misunderstand NPOV - this does not mean that Wikipedia can not state bald facts if they are well documented and without reasonable doubt. Iraq's role in starting this war is beyond such doubt. There a re a lot of things one can blame Iran for and particular its current government, but starting this war is not one of them. This is a bit like insisting it is POV that WWII is started by Germany and NPOV would demand that both Poland and Germany get a reasonable share of the blame. Bullshit, obviously. The war was started by Germany and only (very few very stupid) revisionists will try to claim otherwise.

Iran is not exactly everyone's best loved child just now, so it has a rougher time defending itself against unjust claims, but we at Wikipedia should not really try and play these games. A proper start would be Iraq started the war by attacking Khuzestan... Later then we can (and do) discuss the various contributing factors, and surely we will then also have a good look at the various claims re borders, support of hostile guerilla in the other country etc etc. But not in the first line where the plain fact that Iraqi soldiers crossed the border on suchandsuch a day in order to capture Khuzestan can (and should) be stated without qualifying comment. If you do have any serious divergent information, ok, this debate can be re-opened. But not before Refdoc 22:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with stating bald facts, such as "Iraq invaded Iran on September 22 1980." This is fairly well agreed upon. However, I believe that opening the article by citing a report saying that "'Iraq's aggression against Iran' in starting the war and breaching International security and peace is explicitly stated," is not very balanced. The use of the words "aggression" and "breaching international security" in association only with Iraq is misleading, giving the impression that Iraq invaded Iran totally without provocation. Pro-Iraqi sources claim that the Iraqi action was "pre-emptive" countering Iranian "aggression," as they were trying to promote unrest within Iraq. Iraqis could well claim that this was a violation of international security as well. I am not trying to be anti-Iranian here, I simply think that we should be open to many different perspectives on this war. We should not simply accept the UN's word as truth.

Peregrine981 04:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy with a starting sentence like the one you provided. Refdoc 09:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We can shuffle around parts of the article, but I dont think it would be balanced to take out any part of it. Otherwise we must also put the blame on the allies and Jews for agitating Hitler to start WW2.--Zereshk 16:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Origins

I am struggling with having the picture of Babylon vs Elam there. It serves no real purpose apart from stating the obvious - Human history is long and violent enough to have most pieces of ground fought over many times in the past and potentialy in the future too. We would not add the Roman Germanic wars to the discussion of WW2's origins (Germany against the civilised world...) Refdoc 13:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With the picture, I was trying to convey a point that, it seems, was not too obvious:

You see, According to the source posted by Pouya at the bottom of the page, Khuzestan was occupied by Persia in the last 200 years. The source specifically and repeatedly mentions that Khuzestan belonged to Arabs for many centuries, hence justifying Iraq's actions against Iran in the past 50 years.

Hence the source, puts the origins of the blame on Iran, for originating the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq, in their view, was merely taking back the lands Persia had occupied.

The picture was to indisputably demonstrate that Susa (capital of ancient Khuzestan) was not a Mesopotamian province, and was indeed part of Iran from day 1. The quote by Ashurbanipal on the picture's page clearly demonstarted that beyond any doubt. Thus showing that it was the Arabs that occupied Khuzestan, not the other way around.

But then if you failed to see my point, then there's no point in using the picture. So I went ahead and took it off.

Sorry for the confusion. I was just trying to clarify the true "origins" of the war.--Zereshk 20:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the somewhat backhanded compliment, Zereshk :-), I did 'get' it, but I also saw that you intended a teensy bit of POV pushing....I think my argument stands. Refdoc 20:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didnt mean to be backhanded, Refdoc. But at least now you see why historians can get away with writing rubbish nonsense like "Arabistan was occupied by the Persians, changing its name to Khuzestan".

I am not upset. You made me actually smile. Refdoc 21:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's because we fail to mention the true "origins" of this war. And everytime we fail to mention what really happened, it gives the opportunity for revisionists to revise history.

Yes, your argument holds RefDoc. But then again, I dont think we should be using the term "origins" for heading that section. If youre gonna talk about origins, then talk about origins. Perhaps something like "Antecedents of the Iran-Iraq War" would be more suiting as title for the section. Even the reference I talked about mentions the Arab Conquest of Iran, in its "origins" of the war.--Zereshk 21:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with "Antecedents..." Or what about even "Pre-war situation" to remove any hint of inevitability? Clearly the war was a matter of choice (for Saddam Hussein). Refdoc 21:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledged.--Zereshk 21:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for reverting back

Reasons for reverting back from User:David.Monniaux's changes:

1. Factual inaccuracy: Iraq did not oppose Iran "because Iran was a theocratic regime". Iraq had problems with Iran before the theocratic regime, in the Shah's time too. The opposition was a historical Arab vs Ajam (Persian) one.
2. Redundancy: The text already mentions that Iraq was considered the lesser of two evils by the west. Hence no need to repeat that.--Zereshk 07:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are captions centered?

In contrast to the normal wiki style, the captions on this page are wrapped in <center> tags, making them double-boxed. Why?

Removed sentence

However the role the United States played during these years has not been so visible. How ridiculous is this? We have other articles dealing with the open and blatant support of Iraq by the USA - e.g reflagging of oil transporst, presence of US navy in teh gulf, support of Iraq with AWACS and satellite feeds - allthis is very well known. Why suddenly "less visible"? Refdoc 01:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keyword is "visible". 9 out of 10 Americans dont know that the US aided Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. In their view, the US was only there to protect the P-Gulf shipping.

As u can see, one reason it failed to be a feature article, was that it attacks the US, while not mentioning The USSR.

But then again, I have no objection to your objection. Maybe we should rephrase that sentence. I was only trying to be cautious.--Zereshk 23:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the American public any more aware of other nations' support of Iraq? I would guess not. Are the populations of the various other countries any more aware of their own involvement? I for one, not an American citizen, have heard a lot more about American involvement than that of Germany or France. The famous Rumsfeld and Saddam picture comes to mind.

On a seperate issue - why the list of Iranian achievements, without a counterbalancing Iraqi achievements list?

Peregrine981 14:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

1. The point is that Americans will mostly tend to DENY that their country had anything to do with supporting Saddam in the war. Yet they ARE aware of the help the Soviet Union gave to Iraq. Remember that this page currently happens to be the most comprehensive page on the web that covers this issue (military and technological American support of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war). That should be all by itself proof that the American media ignored and continues to ignore this fact. The Rumsfeld-Saddam pic you mentioned is relatively new here in the American public mind (maybe 2 years old), and many Americans still believe the picture is a "liberal forgery" like Dan Rather's case. The media here constantly portrays the government as incapable of making moral errors (moreorless following the Bush policy). Therefore Americans generally do not accept that they supported a regime that openly killed and injured 100,000 people with chemical weapons as recent as the 1980s. This must be changed, because it's a fact.
2. I agree with the last point. I dont have a list of Iraqi successful operations in the war at my disposal. If u find any credible source, we should post it as well. --Zereshk 16:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand the point that you are trying to make, and I do think it is important. I defer to you, as I see that you live in the US, as to what Americans are or are not aware of. However, I do think we should be extremely careful in the wording of such passages in an effort to maintain some form of neutrality, and not seem overly eager to point out the actions of past American governments or the apparent ignorance of the American public.

As to the list of Iranian successes, we should make every effort to find Iraqi successes, though I fear they may well be hard to find given the state of the Iraqi government, and the unlikelihood of credible sources listing Iraqi military triumphs since the fall of the Saddam regime. Peregrine981 12:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'm currently reading Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi, which gives extensive first-hand descriptions of life in Tehran during the war. I think it also describes the use of child soldiers. I don't know if there is any reason to work this into the text of the article, but primary sources like this seem to be relevant to the article...perhaps as part of a "further reading" list. AdamRetchless 22:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll add it as a reference.--Zereshk 23:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

US threat of war

How much truth is there to the claim, added in the most recent edit, that Iran opened peace negotiations because of a threat of war from the US? It is an important point, so I think it should be supported or omitted. Peregrine981 03:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not that happened.--Zereshk 03:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paradise Key

I took out the reference to the "paradise key". As far as I know, this is an unfortunate misguided error of translation. If anyone knows of a reliable source for this claim, feel free to reinstate the sentence with a reference to the source. However, this is what I know about the actual root of the error:

Many Iranian soldiers carried with them prayer books called "Mafaatih-ol-Jinaan" (literally, "keys to the gardens" or "keys to paradise"). This is an extremely popular prayer book with a fairly comprehensive listing of Shi'a Islamic prayers. It can be found in almost every religious household in Iran. There are small pocket versions which some people carry, and these were very popular with soldiers during the war.

There is another problem with the claims about a phyical "key": This kind of literal symbolism is very rare in Iranian Shi'a culture. Paradise has no "physical" gates as such, and hence needs to "physical" keys as such. The mystical, metaphoric meaning of "prayer" as "key" makes much more sense (particularly since there is already a compendium of prayers by that name, and since soldiers did carry these books with them during battle).

I have seen it claimed some times that soldiers wore the "keys" around their necks. As far as I know, the only thing the soldiers wore around their necks was their identification plates.

-Doostdar (24.147.84.248 06:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC))

Such keys are documented in the first-hand account, Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi (2002). --Dpr 07:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A resident of Tehran who lived in Iran, only until 1983, then moving to Vienna at the age of 14, is not considered a "first-hand account" witness. There were no physical "keys". I was there during the war too.--Zereshk 01:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, some spoiled rich girl from Tehran was in the war of course, and saw these things - haha!Johan77

The claim is just false. People who make the claim do not even have photographic evidence to back it up - and the war was extensively photographed. Its ridiculous.Johan77

POV in article

The section pertaining to the "US-Iraqi arms transfers in the war" is extremely POV. It is written based almost solely off of opinion pieces, and focuses a disproportionate amount of attention to technology transfers from the Unite States to Iraq, when realistically the US was a tertiary supplier of Iraq's military industrial infrastructure. TDC 16:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The Riegle report, the report to the British parliament, the NSA archives, and reports to the US Senate Banking Committee are not "opinion pieces". That's why the writers of the article have gone to great pains to collect the dozens of documents and links to stop such absurd accusations from being levelled. Moreover, the article clearly states that the US was not a primary or even secondary arms supplier. It was indeed "tertiary", therefore the NPOV tag is unjustified. I even added a sentence to further clarify that.--Zereshk 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The information is present in a way that unduly places all responsibility for the arming of Iraq during the war on the US, when in actuality the US had little to do with it in the grand scheme. If the article "clearly states" that the US was not a primary or even secondary arms supplier, why is 20% of the article dedicated to demonstrating exactly the opposite? TDC 20:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I took out the US from the first sentence. Better now?

Also, as for the 20%, refer to the sentence: "Western support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war has clearly been established. It is no secret that the Soviet Union, West Germany, France, many western companies, and Britain provided military support and even components of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program. The role the United States played in the war against Iran however, although minor in comparison, is not as well known."

Keywords: "...has clearly been established." meaning that we dont need to write about it because everybody knows it.

Keywords: "...is not well known." meaning that we will write a bit more about here in detail because this topic has not been explored as much as the others.

--Zereshk 20:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but "keywords" like "...has clearly been established." and "...is not well known." is POV and not sourced. If the article is in dispute, which it clearly is, then you have no right to remove the POV tag, so leave it up till these issues are resolved. Lastly, Russia alone took over 400,000 CW related casualties during WWI [3], so if you are so damn insistent on including it, at least source it. TDC 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Im not sure what youre disputing, because I left your sentence in the text there. The keywords are not POV, unless you wish to challenge that France, USSR, and The Europeans were the main suppliers of weaponry to Saddam, which is the most widely held view. You just want that POV tag up there because you dont want to admit that the US was helping out a war criminal like Saddam for years. It brings shame, doesnt it.--Zereshk 22:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask yourself this, does the article in its present form, give a disproportional high level of attention to one supplier to Iraq’s military industrial infrastructure, while simultaneously giving a disproportional low amount of attention to other suppliers of Iraq’s military industrial infrastructure? If this is true, this needs to be remedied, either by removing non relevant or marginally relevant information, or adding balancing information. This isn’t Wiki-Jazzerah you know. TDC 15:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That's why we were very careful to insert those keywords in, to balance out the disproportionalities that you say exist. Disproportionality is when everyone believes that the US never helped Saddam, which is what mainsrtream America has been led to believe. That alone necessitates its existence.

Trust me, if this article was "Wiki-Jazeera", it would look VERY different. And besides, many AlJazeera writers nowadays are in fact imports from America and the UK.[4]--Zereshk 17:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, I did not say that. Perhaps you are confusing me with TDC? CJK 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that.--Zereshk 20:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am an American, and I sought out this article because I understood very little about the Iran-Iraq war. That includes the supposedly "well-known" elements as to which countries were the primary suppliers of help to Iraq and which helped Iran. Because I do not know these things, I came away wishing a bit more had been written about the amount and kind of assistance given by the various countries.

Also, I'd like to point out that when confronted with a long piece that includes separate sections, readers will often skip to parts they are most interested in, and then scroll up or down from there. That being so, I sort of backed into the section on US help to Iraq and so did not start out with the intro section that explains why the focus on the US. Obviously, this is no fault of the writer's, but it is something to remember when doing pieces like these.

I do appreciate the deep look at US involvement in the war, because Americans do not generally understand the extent to which their country supported a regime that killed thousands of people using chemical weapons. Also, the old outrage over US embassy workers being held hostage in Iran after the overthrow of the Shah still colors American attitudes toward Iran and the press has not done enough to balance that. One missed opportunity was during the run-up to the current US occupation of Iraq. During the (fairly minor) press coverage of the irony that the US helped Iraq build up its military strength in the first place, and the strong focus on the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds in Iraq, there was a chance to address the way the US overlooked Iraq's use of the same weapons on Iranians the decade before. But I don't recall it getting much attention. So, I agree that there needs to be some stress on the US role in the Iraq-Iran war -- but would still like to see some additional information about quantity/form of aid that other countries contributed.

LMiller 128.86.158.46 18:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I also think we should add such a section to the article.--Zereshk 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

After reading the article, my first impression was that it was somewhat unbalanced with so much of the content dedicated to US supplied-armament. Sorry Z, but I don't think the key words mentioned here help remedy that problem for readers. For example one could write an article about the Pacific theater of WWII, ignoring the Pearl Harbor incident by saying 'Japan's involvement in starting the hostilities is "well-known"' and then include the largest section being about how the US provoked Japan into war via embargo. Initially, this raised all sorts of questions for me. Aren't people coming to read this article because they don't know? Will the next generation know? The generation after that?

After reading all of the comments in the Talk page, my next impression was that a genuine effort is being made to create a balanced article. I agree a section about armaments supplied by other countries will solve the "well-known" issue I just mentioned, as well as deal with other peoples' complaints about the armament details being too US-detailed.

However, my worry is that with this planned addition I can see this article becoming half about outside-supplied armaments and half-about all the other aspects of the war combined. This is an article about the Iraq-Iran war; half of it shouldn't be dedicated to a list of evidence about foreign suppliers! The US-supplied armaments section is already the largest section in the article. Leaving all that detail in and adding other countries' armament-involvement in equal detail will overpower the rest of the article. My opinion is that it would be more appropriate to have a paragraph summary of all armament contributors and perhaps a paragraph for each of the major contributors. The current links to the cited evidence can follow the US paragraph so that the details can still be accessed by those interested.--Rathjen 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we can still expand all the other parts to balance the article. The core of the article was written by several people. That's why these shortcomings are now visible. The writers were uncoordinated.

I dont agree with deleting info to balance the article. The problem with that is that whenever we delete the evidence section from such a touchy topic, the next thing that almost immediatly happens is that someone comes in accusing the article of biasedness and publishing "unsubstantiated" claims or "leftist media hype". We've already had many such claims with the evidence in place. Let alone when we take it out. The entire text will then come under question and erased for seeming to make controversial claims. Right now as it stands, this article is the only page on the entire internet to provide this body of evidence in one place on this topic (the US supporting Iraq against Iran).

I dont know. Perhaps, we should branch off this part into an independent article on its own, and substitute a summary and link here instead?--Zereshk 06:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

POWs

there isnt anything in this article about POW (Prisoners of War) abuse! some of them didnt even get sent back to Iran after the war! US invasion of Iraq uncovered the bones of some of the POWs not sent back to Iran. Chormang 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

agree.--Zereshk 03:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed table

I removed the following table as it is curremntly largely in French. I also think a more useful detail would be weaponry sold during the war.

Purchase of weapons by Iraq between 1970 and 1990 (10 % of the world market during this period)

Fournissors	Billiard of $ 1985	% total
CCCP	19,2	61
France	5,5	18
China	1,7	5
Brazil	1,1	4
Egypte	1,1	4
Autres nations	2,9	6
Total world	31,5	100,0

Removed comments

It has often been suggested that the bombing by Arab terrorists of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie was a direct retaliation for the shooting down of Iran Air 655.

I removed the above comments by User:86.137.98.213. Is it a valid comment? If it is, please add it back, but if it's not, please keep it here. --KJ 08:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's an absurd comment. International consensus implicates Libya, not Iran in the Lockerbie case. - choster 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually - its not absurd at all. Iran was connected to this incident via material support. You can confirm this via two sources...the book "See No Evil" by Robert Baer (an ex CIA agent) and the video "Terror and Tehran", produced by PBS for the program Frontline. --156.77.75.126 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I have removed comments that border on vandalism from the "War of the Cities" section. Comments removed: Chemical weapons had not been used in any major war since American use in Vietnam, Afghanistand and Iraq. This was reverted to the previous version: Chemical weapons had not been used in any major war since World War I. --156.77.75.126 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

List of successful Iranian operations during the war

Shouldn't there be a List of successful Iraqi operations during the war in order to keep this neutral?

-- Greaser 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There should. I couldnt find any. We'll certainly add it, if we do find it.--Zereshk 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Names for the Conflict

I recall the war being referred to as the "War of Persian Aggression" in Iraq, although I do not have a citation as yet. If anyone can confirm this, please add it in the opening paragraph.

I would certainly beleive it. An Iraqi classmate of mine once told me. It seems they are totally unaware of the invasion Saddam commenced in 1980, not to mention that it was even recognized by the UN. Under dictatorships, certain info is always kept away from people.--Zereshk 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

UN-Resultion

The UN Secretary General report dated 9 December 1981 (S/23273) explicitly states "Iraq's aggression against Iran" in starting the war and breaching International security and peace

Wasn´t that in 1991? ~~ Al1976 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--Zereshk 02:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No mentioning?

No mentioning of Saddam wanted despritly wanting to end the war beginning in 1984 because he knew he was on the lossing side, while Khoimeni declined a cease-fire and wanted to continue the war. Why no mentioning? This is a important part Chaldean 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Read item#2 of this article. It answers your question.--Zereshk 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

(from the article) And finally, when Hitler was pushed back to his original borderlines late in WW2, did the allies stop there and say:"Okay, we've liberated our lands. Lets not spill more blood?" What makes you think Saddam was any better of an evil creature than Hitler, deserving anything better?

This is from that article and does place it on an ideological level, i mean if this represents the official statements made, it suggests the people in charge wanted to prolong the war, established positions or not.

Possible Factual Issue?

"U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots."

Yet the page this links to for Operation Praying Mantis says the helicopter was recovered and showed no signed of battle damage ... I'm not sure this should say "shot down" ...

Polaris75 01:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Theyre obviously using different sources. We have to trace down and see who used what source for writing the respected passages.--Zereshk 00:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Kurds?

Why does does article mention under Casualties that incl. 100,000 Kurds died? The whole war was almost fought by South Azeri, yet there is no mention of them? Azeris and Kurds in Iran are considered as Iranians. So if this article states that Kurds died then it should also note that Azeris died to (most were Azeris). Or not mention either sides. Somebody edit this.

You are right about that. I have a picture of an Azeri Iran-Iraq war cemetery. Give me a few days to find it. Then we will add your request into the article.--Zereshk 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The 100 000 - 200 000 kurds killed during the war were Iraqi kurds, whether it was during the Anfal campaign or at another time. Iranian casualty numbers aren't divided into any minorty or ethnicity. I recall young people being sent to the front from all over Iran, not only Azeri. --Arrrrrr

See [5] --Zereshk 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

US Involvement

Was the United States involved in the Iran Iraq war? Storm05 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and No.--Zereshk 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Serious issues with U.S. support section

The so-called Iraq-gate stuff is backed up by a document (copied word for word) that is 13 years old and doesn't actually prove (sure, it alleges, but no actual proof) that the U.S. government purposefully let BNL give 5 billion dollars to spend on WMDs, and considering no one has raised anything new in 13 years, they probably didn't (though I do realize they screwed up after it was discovered). It records that the companies in Ohio was under the U.S. gov. eye even though it was a British company. Then their still needs to be proof that Alcolac provided the Mustard Gas precursor to Iraq with U.S. gov. knowledge (the links don't work, so I can't tell). And finally the VAST MAJORITY of chemical technology was exported from Europe, not the U.S. [6] CJK 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. We can use the word "allege" in the text. That's not too big of a deal.--Zereshk 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no room for lies and propaganda in Wikipedia!

Seeing the images and many other funny comments and lies, it seems this is a propaganda webpage made by iraqis or a member of the trator organization mojahedin, rather than a neutral wikipedia encyclopedia page!

Ahvaz?

In the section on the list of successful Iraqi operations, the last item reads: "capture of Ahvaz".

I dont think that actually happened. They came pretty close to Ahvaz, but the city never fell.

I put a citation tag there until it is verified.--Zereshk 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk

Who gave you the right to reverse my edits, i deleted the funny lie that iraq captured ahvaz in 1988, and put in a link. I also deleted the picture of saddams stamp, because it is offensive to iranians and will make the page look like a propaganda page.

Next time you reverse i will not explain this in discussion page.

Listen here now,

The page does not belong to you or any Iranian. It's a public encyclopedia. So stop the threats and please behave civil. You deleted out 2 entire paragraphs and a KEY sentence without discussion, which is against WP rules. These were documented referenced facts. You just cant delete things because you find them offensive.

The Ahvaz claim has already been erased.

But contrary to you, I find the stamp not only NOT offensive, but in fact very revealing and helpful, because it clearly illustrates Saddam's intentions in relating this war to the 7th century Islamic Conquest of Persia. IOW, he tried casting the war into a racist frame.--Zereshk 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And now you listen here

This page does NOT belong to you either, just because you go edit lots of pages does not mean you can have them as your liking.

This is wikipedia, a neutral encyclopedia, such things as propaganda stamps does not belong in wikipedia, no matter how revealing or helpfull YOU find them.

The ahvaz claim was not erased as you said. In my last edit which i reverted to now, i erased the ahvaz claim, saddams stamp and put in 2 links, even if oyu like that to be that is not against WP rules. Darkred

The official stamp image is directly pertinent to this article and topic. It demonstrates the Baathist view of the war.

Now, you have three choices:

1. 1. Stop trying to delete the stamp, and let all be in peace.
   2. Add an Iranian stamp image next to it, also to show how Iran's govt viewed the war.
   3. Delete the image and commit an act of gross censorship, violating WP guidelines.

If you choose the third option, I will have to call in RfC to have this issue dealt with properly.

The decision is yours now. --Zereshk 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, now whos the one making threats.

Deleting an offencive propaganda stamp is not censorship, thus it does not violate Wikipedia guidelines.

The stamp can have two meanings. yes it does show how saddam viewed the war and may be interesting to some people. But to most people who just want a quick info about the war it shows an incorrect image of the war. Because seeing an image on top of the page, that means iraq sees the war just like the muslim conquest of iran, then below the image the words "persian cowards and dwarfs" and so on, will leave people to think iraq really conquered iran, and will make the page look like an iraqi afterwar memorial page.

Now you also have 3 choices:

1. Let the stamp be deleted, thats the only way all will be in peace

2. Keep reverting and deleting until everything suits you

3. Go ahead and call RfC

Maybe calling RfC is the best way to take care of this dispute

Darkred

The fact that the stamp is propaganda is in fact the whole point of displaying it. The entire war was a propaganda of Saddam for the Arab world.

I think we dont need to judge for people. They are smart enough to realize what is propaganda and what is not. We can even mention this in the image's caption. That should be easy. And furthermore, we can move the image down further on the page.

Agree?--Zereshk 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Darkred 23:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation.--Zereshk 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly selling weapons through Israel?

This speculation didn't have a source and when I removed it was quickly replaced, and a dubious source [7] was added. I am once again removing this, please do not replace it unless a relible source can be found.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What was dubious about the source? I am once again reverting, please do not vandalise Darkred 05:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is a conspiracy website, it is not considered a reputable and reliable source as per WP:RS. If you revert one more time you will have broke n the 3RR and could be blocked.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The new source you added seems to be a dead link, but seeing that part of the title says somthing about George W. Bush's role in the Iran-contra affair, I can't see it being too different from your previous source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the link, but I don't see much of a difference between the new link and the previous one, so I'm not sure there was a benefit of replacing it, I'm reverting to the previous version once again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, it would be good if you actually knew something about what you edit. The reason Israel was selling weapons to Iran was that it feared a victorious Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. At the time of the sales, Iraq seemed to be having the upper hand.--Zereshk 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be irrelevant without a source, unless you can provide a reputable an reliable source for the passage it cannot go in the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the sources you provided state that it wasn't the Israeli government that provided weapons but a rogue businessman who was tried for treason.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been provided, and the sentences are staying.

yes, the Manbar sales were after the war. But the U.S. Congressional Committee report has nothing to do with Manbar.--Zereshk 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've heard something about such sales too, so it may be true that Israel sold weapons directly also. But the source is an activist/conspiracy web site, and we are trying to maintain some quality here. Why use such dubious sources when public reports or professional journalist enquiry should be readily available? -- Heptor _talk 21:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me that Israel would sell weapons to Iran, as Zereshk says, it would make total sense. Nearly everyone besides the two parties had an interest in keeping the conflict stalemated. From a strictly Machiavellian perspective, the Iran-Iraq war was a gift to Arab states (other than Iraq), Israel, and anyone dependent on Persian Gulf oil - in its perverse way, it stabilized the region, and, lo, what happened after it ended?

But come on, "the Dubya Report"?Timothy Usher 22:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

tarpley.net? Zereshk, you seem to have misread something in WP:RS. Pecher ^Talk 22:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see any "tarpley.net" or a "Dubya Report" site link currently on the article anywhere. I replaced those with better sources.--Zereshk 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library or globalsecurity.org do not qualify as reliable sources either. In addition, I'm stunned at the disproportionate attention given to Israel considering its minor role in the arms supply. Israel now occupies probably 60% or so of the section, while its share in the arms supplies was tiny compared to the Soviet Union, for example. Until the problem is rectified, the tag will have to stay. Pecher ^Talk 07:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Is this The New Anti-Semitism? Probably not consciously, but it trickles down. A section on arms supply should include everyone involved (i.e., just about everyone) *in proportion*. As I've stated, nearly everyone besides the combatants had an interest in seeing this conflict continue without a decisive resolution for either party.

This section currently reads as if the ever-tricky Jews and their puppets in Washington were the hidden hand behind the conflict.Timothy Usher 08:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, the itching to highlight Israel is such that even common projects pursued under the Shah are included into the section. Even a minor businessman's sale of dual-use technology years after the war are also there and presented as official sales done by the State of Israel. Pecher ^Talk 09:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling me anti-semitic is a totally uncalled for ad hominem. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

For all I care, I and numerous Iranians are thankful for the help from Israel. Without it, the tyrant Saddam would have won the war.--Zereshk 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call you anti-Semitic. I'm sorry if it came across that way.Timothy Usher 18:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"I and numerous Iranians are thankful for the help from Israel" So, here is the Iranian gratitude. Pecher ^Talk 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Off topic, Pecher. Youre swaying off topic. Im not here to debate anyone. Neither should you. Funny thing is, I dont see you on that article. Could it be youre just here to pick fights with me? hmmm.--Zereshk 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, you may want to read Wikipedia:The world does not revolve around you. Pecher ^Talk 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tim, please restore the pre-war part you deleted. Iran's military was made in the 70s. The technology transferred to Iran from Israel before the war was therefore used in the war against Iraq. The foundations of many industrial/military facilities in Iran were actually laid during the 70s by the Israelis working in Tehran.--Zereshk 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But the way it read made it seem that Israel meant to arm the Revolutionary regime. Also, was Israel really that major a supplier compared to the United States and European countries?

Perhaps bring some text back without such detail. The biggest providers should get the longest and most detailed treatment, in that order. That way it won't read like a passive-aggressive indictment of Israel.Timothy Usher 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only weapons Iran had during the war against Iraq were American built ones. At that time, it had no Russian weapons. Some chinese missiles came in, but almost at the end of the war. Israel was mostly involved in the R&D, training, instrumentation, and installment of the new weapons systems which originated from the US. Israel in fact had numerous technical personnel officially stationed in Tehran up until 1978. Just like the US did.--Zereshk 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, the only thing european countries supplied iran with was khomeini. The united states supplied iran with only a fragment of what they supplied iraq with. Israel has been the closest and perhaps only ally persia ever had, ever since cyrus the great saved them from the babylonians. Especially since even India and China decided to join the rest of the world in the iran-iraq war and supply iraq with(amongst other weapons), chemical and biological weapons. However i do not share Mr zereshk's POV, that israel saved iran. They helped alot, but iran saved itself with one million casualties, among them 13 year old boys who voluntary swift over iraqi mines to clear the way for iranian troops, and jumped under tanks with grenades in their hands.

Now europe is at it again, if you have been following the news these past years you would clearly see that europe and (especially france this time, because they lost their major free money source: iraq), is once again preparing to supply iran with something, this time with no other than the traitor organization MKO with Maryam Rajavi as future iran's self-proclaimed president! (if you want to read about her go to the history section of that page and read the last revert by me, because someone reverted the propaganda stuff back in) Even tho all i said are proven facts, my POV is my own and i do not speak for zereshk or any other iranian in wikipedia. --Darkred 04:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

pecher about that remark you did about iranian gratitude, thats only one man speaking, hes not speaking for the rest of us. --Darkred 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies Introduction vs Aftermath sections

The introduction states 1 million casualties total both sides and prisoner exchange in 2003 15 years after end of war, whereas the Aftermath section states 1.5 million casualties for Iran only and prisoner exchage up to 10 years after conflict.

Discussion

The Following is incorrect/impartial.

1. Iran used Sulphur-Mustard from Iraqi stocks, and in 1987 The religious authorities of Iran after the success of the Iraqi army's rout of Iranian forces in Al-faw (possibly a combined chemical/mechanized assault) were quite willing to change on the issue, in 1987 before the wars end Iran was producing Mustard and Chlorine.
2. Before the Ottoman empire Northern Iraq was ruled by the aq konoulu (white sheep) the center of the state was under the Khalifate of Baghdad. The Ottomans themselves respected this for 2 generations before they assumed the role of Sultan/Khalifa.
3. The Iraqi Army volentarily withdrew from Iranian terratory in 1981. This was not done under the barrel of Iranian guns. rather its reason was recognising the Iranian arabs would not support a war of liberation while foreigners were occupying their land. Just as Iraqi kurds refused to fully co-operate with the Iranians against Iraq.
4. The wars goals as stated are open to debate

The_Libo

I have edited the page, I call upon all interested parties to negotiate here.

I do not believe the dispute over the use of the term Persian gulf should spill over into here, as well , No one calls this the first persian gulf war, its called the first gulf war. I mean this hyper sensativity on the part of the Iranics, is very telling. Has anyone visited the GCC (gulf co-operation council) on wiki and is calling them the (p)GCC?

Lastly, there should be a mention of the Algerian Treaty between Iran and Iraq, and The Iranian Inability to breach the Iraqi defenses of Basra before the Iranian salient was eliminated by the Iraqi mechanized assault on al-faw (al-fao) term may need reversion, some guys vandalised it.

The author of the "comment" just below mine misses the entire point of the article. The article focused on the facts of the war, and then the zealot below starts harping on about muslims and Israel. This isn't a political forum where you state whatever idiotic opinion you have regarding the region- you are meant to discuss the article, and only the article not go off on a ridiculous tangent.

• I agree that we dont have to use the term "first Gulf War". I thought that term referred to the first war of US vs Iraq (91). Not the Iran-Iraq war.
• I have added material from Gary Sick, Hiltermann, and Potter that clearly state that Iran never used any chemical weapons sgainst Iraq, and that the DIA/CIA reports were false.
• The claim that Iraq "withdrew" from Iran (Khuzestan, Khorramshahr, etc) is completely false. This is because Iraq continued to hold on to Iranian territory, even late in the war. This is well documented. In 1981 specifically, occupied Khorramshahr was liberated by Iran, and is considered the turning point of the war. This has been well documented that the 575 day siege of Khorramshahr by Iraq's army was broken by Iranian forces during operation "Bayt al-Muqqadas". It is officially celebrated as a national holiday in Iran. Perhaps we could say "Iraq withdrew due to the inability to encounter the increasing flux of resistence of Iranian forces." Otherwise, it wasnt a goodwill withdraw, if that's what you mean. See: [8]
• We do have to add more emphasis on the Algiers accord. I agree with that.--Zereshk 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Zereshk here, any claim that Iraq voluntarily "withdrew" from Iran is inappropriate historical revisionism, they were beaten back.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)