Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

US vs Iran war?

By reading the highly biased messages I get the feeling that this was an US vs Iran war and not an Iraq vs. Iran one. The only precise listing of weapons are US-weapons even though US-weapons have been the smallest armament in this conflict. If noone can give equal details about the 20 times larger sowjet-weapon-deliveries and the still four times bigger french and chinese support then I suggest to filter out ALL details about weapons. Crass Spektakel 13:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This article s crap

And death toll was in 2 million! God I hate wiki.

-G

24.60.104.71 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Americas involvement was beyond supplying Iraq. They went as far as attacking Iranian intrests in oil and other fields.

Totally unacceptable

It is totally unacceptable that this opinion article from 1993 has to be quoted word for word in the section about U.S. support for Iraq. It is also disgustingly inaccurate to entitle the section "U.S. arms transfers to Iraq" when the section speaks of finance and dual-use equipment. CJK 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I'd like to do away with the entire section. It is unfair to focus minute detail on ONE country, which arguably was inconsequential compared to others, just because some people have beef over the Iraq war. CJK 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear CJK:

What was the US Navy doing in the Persian Gulf - were they there on a holiday, or weren't they there to confront Iran?--Johan77 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The section's name can be changed. No problem. The CJR usage is completely acceptable and even necessary however, because a thorough citation puts to rest all doubters that keep wishing to nibble away at the article. The US is the only country supporting Saddam that actually went to war against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. That itself is enough reason to make it to the top of the list. And if it wasnt for American intelligence provided to Saddam, especially during the Al-Fav peninsula siege, Iran would have won the war because Iraq would not have been able to sustain itself for very long without a port connection to the Persian Gulf waters (hence the strategy of Iran).

As for the dual use thing, I dont excatly agree with calling "AB 212 military helicopters equipped for anti-submarine warfare" or "Bell Textron 214 ST military transport helicopters" and "IBM 360 mainframe computers for nuclear weapons research", dual-use technology. Funny thing is that whenever Iran has a truly dual use program, it is immediately branded as a WMD program, even if the IAEA says there's no evidence of a WMD program. Now that is disgusting.

And I personally dont have any "beef over the Iraq war", because it's too late anyway, and I think that taking out Saddam was a good thing. But the screw-the-UN, go-it-alone policies of the US have gotten it into a fiasco mess that it cant get out of anymore, no matter how hard the democrats cry and shout. The hole is now too deep. And ironically, the longer they stay, the worse it gets. What a paradox.--Zereshk 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly displays an anti-American bigotry. There is an emphasis on American "assistance" to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, even though the table of military equipment sold to Iraq WITHIN THIS ARTICLE clearly shows that American military equipment was inconsequential to the point that its not even listed. Only passing mention is made of the billions in military hardware sold by Russia, even though every soldier on both sides was most likely to carry an AK-47 into combat or ride on a Russian-made tank. The picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein should be replaced, or at least supplemented, by pictures of Chirac laughing it up with Saddam in the French nuclear power plant that Chirac sold to Iraq.

The comment that the Iran Iraq War was the only recent use of chemical weapons in combat is wrong. Egypt utilized several types of chemical weapons against Yemenis and Saudis in their war in Yemen. One source out of many is:

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so97hogendoorn

This article is so badly flawed that it should be discarded - it only serves as an anti-American propaganda piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q mech (talk • contribs)

Wrong buddy: If it wasnt for the US support of Saddam, Iran had a fair and highly probable shot of wining the war. Such a thing cannot be said about Russia or France. And even if so, they had a far less detrimnetal role. Neither France nor USSR opened up a second front against Iran in the war.

What the f**k do you mean?!?!?! "Iran had a fair and highly probable shot of winning the war," Iran was lucky that they weren't totally overrun. Q Mech is totally right, US support of Iraq is totally inconsequential compared to that of the Soviet Union or France. France supplied Saddam with the Osirak Nuclear Reactor and modern Fighter Aircraft & for the Soviet Union, if it weren't for their continous Bankrolling of the Iraqi army, the Iraqi armed forces wouldn't even exist.

The chemical warfare of Egypt/Yemen is NOTHING in comparison to what happened in Iran. There is no major comparison you can make and hence the statement is accurate.

I think youre just trying to hide the sorry fact that the US made the mother of all blunders in supporting one of history's most vile dictators. When will people ever learn to accept and take responsibility for past mistakes, and use these lessons to devise a better future and tomorrow, instead of trying to beat a dead horse by supporting past mistakes?--Zereshk 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk: The U.S. naval war with Iran certainly deserves it's own section, and satelite photos can also be mentioned. What I object to though is putting all this extra stuff in as if it is somewhat notable or crucial (Alcolcac giving inconsequential material, the sale of precursors for biological weapons which were never used, computers for a nuclear bomb that was never built, 117 helicopters vs. 224 from the Soviet Union alone). The BNL paragraphs are copied and pasted from its source. That is unacceptable. We DON'T know for sure what the government might have known. And it's an ITALIAN BANK anyway. Furthermore, where is the mention of all the loans Saddam got from other nations (such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia)?

Your interpretation of the motives of Mr. Unpronouncible are mind-boggling, but irrelevant. And I don't think that the U.N. sactioning anything would automatically make all the insurgents give themselves up and establish a democracy.CJK 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

CJK,

Look CJK, Im not here to demonize the US. I love this country like you do. But a responsible parent holds accountable his child when the child does something wrong, instead of supporting and spoiling the child. That way, the child hopefully grows to truly become a model for all to follow.

Im all for adding all the other support that Saddam received from France, the Saudis, USSR, Germany, you name it. You know something about them? Add it! I'll help you! But please dont delete the American support section. Just because the article there goes into detail about the US support of Saddam doesnt mean it's biased againt the US. Let's add to the article until each of those countries that you mentioned has a good similar chunk or section of its own on how they supported Saddam.

But if youre merely trying to sweep what the US did in those years under the rug, and instead focus on the others, then Im not with you there, CJK. It's just not fair.

Now, to answer you segment by segment:

"And it's an ITALIAN BANK anyway."

We can mention this in the article if it's already not there.

"Furthermore, where is the mention of all the loans Saddam got from other nations (such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia)?"

Im all for it, let's add these things. You are right, they are important.

"It is your opinion that U.S. intelligence single-handedly saved Iraq. But what about the Soviet Union/France's military supplies? Or the Germans building chemical weapons facilities? Wouldn't they deserve their own section by that logic?"

Of course they do. Again, I re-iterate: lets add what they did too. The europeans had their fair share in supporting Saddam too.--Zereshk 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it would make the article too bloated... I'll take it upon myself to make some changes that will hopefully castigate all sides proportionately. CJK 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I removed the U.S. section and merged elements of it in a properly summarized version. I deleted reference to U.S. biological precursor sales because they were not used in the war and neither were nuclear weapons. I removed Alcolac and the other guy because it was too insignificant (less than 1% of CW precursors). I reduced BNL to one sentence because the original version was copy/paste. I hid the refs because they don't belong in the middle and are POV (equating U.S. sale of dual use technology to the Holocaust). CJK 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So basically you deleted all those lists of US companies export of chemical weapons and other stuff, to make it suit you POV instead. --Spahbod 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, !@#$ !@#, there was no list in the original version. CJK 21:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't list any goddamn company when it supplies less then 1% of CW, *****. CJK 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But if you insist, I'll add waste more kilobytes to satisfy your agenda. CJK 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all watch your mouth, second !@#$ !@# yourself and ###% ## ###%, third who has an agenda here. Fourth you have deleted most of that section all by yourself and thats totally unacceptable. Fifth i am gonna leave it to you and zereshk. --Spahbod 21:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I added back the two companies which attempted to sell precursors to Iraq. CJK 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I apologize for my attitude, I'm really angry with a variety of things at the moment. CJK 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The section has basically been deleted in its entirety. The article has been largely filtered and almost washed out of any American support for Saddam. I wasnt expecting such a drastic overhaul CJK.

The only way to solve this problem is to actually make a seperate article entitled: U.S. support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and transfer everything to there (including the military involvements). I'll tend to it myself over the weekend, and make corresponding adjustments (proper linking and all) in this article as well.

Spahbod, delsard nasho. We all understand that this is a controversial topic. It's bound to heat up at times. As long as we're all cool, things will progress.--Zereshk 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Iraqi armed forces were largely Soviet equipped before the US became involved.

But this is not evidence that US support was not decisive.

That is like saying that the support that the West gave to the Soviet Union during the Second World War wasn't decisive, because the Red Army had mostly Soviet weapons.

Can everyone see the fallacy?--Johan77 21:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over what should be included

Zereshk, bebakhshida but i dunno about you but i don't say thank you when someone curses at me. If i wasn't staying cool i woulda reverted myself, however he apologized and there is no problem. Also i really hope you leave some of the US support on this article too, because most people who read this article probably wont go to another article just to read about US support. :)--Spahbod 07:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What can I do Sphabod? CJK has been desperately trying to get rid of the American support section for almost a year now. If it's on another page, nobody can then claim that the article is eclipsed by the section on American support. But dont worry. We can still keep a section on this article exclusively on the American support. CJK cant object to that. But the section just wont be as long and detailed as the main article I'll be supplementing to this one.--Zereshk 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is against WP policy for CJK to do what he did. I have reverted his changes, since all he did was delete entire sections of SOURCED information. He has a POV. That is fine. But he cannot unilaterally delete anything. To move that information to a new article is unacceptable - that is called a POV fork against WP policy. Khorshid 21:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not blank it. If you actually looked at the changes you would realize that is was a summarization of a source that was blatantly copied from the source and pasted onto the article. I don't understand why everyone is so upset about that. In addition I added two more things abput U.S. support with regards to helicopters and dual use technology. I don't understand why everyone is upset about that. CJK 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems no one approves this summary of yours. It looks more to me like a mass deletion as well, rather than a "summary".--Zereshk 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please document these specific deletions. CJK 23:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[1].--Zereshk 00:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please state what specific facts were completely removed that involved U.S. support of Iraq that had an impact on the Iran-Iraq War. I'm not trying to be difficult here, though I see I'm failing miserably. CJK 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a good idea to make a new article about US support. However we can't deny the fact that US played the most important part of arming Iraq. Therefore there is no reason why the proof of their actions should only be in a separate article nobody will read. --Spahbod 11:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That is completely untrue. 99.4% of Iraq's major conventional armaments were non-U.S. CJK 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sourced material from an article is against wiki policy as mentioned by zereshk. --Spahbod 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The only sourced facts that were outright removed were the export licenses for biological precursors. Since biological weapons were not used in the war, they have no bearing on this article. CJK 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, my version about Alcolac and Hasaad elaborates more on those companies roles. THe BNL thing is COPIED DIRECTLY OFF OF AN EDITORAILIZATION and has been DIRECTLY PLACED IN THE ARTICLE. That is not encyclopedia-like. A summarization would be fine, but not copy/pasting this BS. CJK 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok look here, like i said before what you are doing is vandalism, you keep deleting sourced material, all material you deleted are sourced. And the original versions of alcolac and hassad are much more clear. If your so concerned about why the US is mentioned more than other countries that sold weapons including chemical weapons, why don't you add stuff about the other countries that sold them instead of deleting the facts about US involvement and support. --Spahbod 18:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not "more clear". Did you read it? Did you notice I added the part about Hassad getting intercepted or that Alcolac sent more than 300 tons to both Iraq (and some to Iran)? I just want a response that actually deals with the substance and not generaliztions. I've explained twice why the export license of bio precursors should not be included. I've explained thrice why BNL is not appropriate in your form. This is really getting tiresome.

I'll make it easy for you. Can you answer these questions?

1. Why do bio-export licenses get mentioned even though they were not used in the Iran-Iraq War?
2. Why is copying and pasting from an editorialization appropriate for the BNL stuff?
3. Why is Donald Rumsfeld singled out?
4. Why are U.S. companies singled out?

CJK 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes i read the Alcolac and Hassad part and again the original is more clear and neutral, your version is a POV of the whole thing.

To answer your questions:

1. It is about US support for Iraq, not about which one of the sold weapons Iraq chose to use.
2. You cut that whole section away, and just left the part that says Italian bank sent $4 billion loans to Iraq, that may have been used for missile development! You worry about copying and pasting here so you censored it all away!
3. I presume you are refering to the only mention of Rumsfeld, and that's the picture showing him shaking hands with Saddam. If you have pictures of other countries government employees shaking hands with Saddam please feel free to add them here, then he wont be singled out no more.
4. Have you even seen this list of US companies selling all kinds of weapons and other material to Iraq during the war, and how many they are compared to other countries: [2]? which is in the article. However again if you have more stuff about other countries involvement, please add them so US companies wouldn't feel so singled out here.

--Spahbod 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1. This is an article about the Iran-Iraq War. That is not relevant to the Iran-Iraq War.
2. I left all the facts in which was that it was an Italian Bank in the U.S. backed up by U.S. loans that acted with the alleged support of the government. The older version doesn't mention missile development.
3. I don't.
4. Yes, and they were almost all technological stuff. I didn't view that specific list, but I went over al ist of 80 companies on Iraqwatch. CJK 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CJK 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see left some areas of my answers open for you to question. On second thoughts please respond to zereshk's answers further down the page. Thank you. --Spahbod 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually scratch that last remark, dunno why i said that! lol. --Spahbod 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

An Argument For Discounting American Support That Won't Work

The Iraqi armed forces were largely Soviet equipped both before and after the US became involved.

But this is not evidence that US support was not decisive.

That is like saying that the support that the West gave to the Soviet Union during the Second World War wasn't decisive, because the Red Army had mostly Soviet weapons.

Can everyone see the fallacy?--Johan77 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The "support" that the West gave to the Soviet Union during the Second World War WASN'T decisive you moron.

-G

No?

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy. For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.[3].

Example: Soviet offensives in the Ukraine: Nov., Dec. 1943 the battle of Kiev[4], where the Soviets conducted two successive offensives just a month apart. January-February 1944 - the same Soviet forces trap and nearly destroy the German 8th Army at Cherkassy[5]. In March-April 1944 entrapment of the Germans in the Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket.[6]. i.e. mobility afforded by those American trucks.

Look at these pictures of the Soviet's firing Katyushas from American made Studebaker trucks.[7]

Also, the Soviet victory at Kursk might have owed something to intelligence gathered by the Lucy ring[8].

Ironically, the same sort of Americans who argue that American support for Saddam wasn't decisive in the Iran-Iraq war, argue the opposite about American support for the Soviet Union during the Second World War.

68.35.20.8 05:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its one thing to make statements like the above, but it would be better if you provided a source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to know? Soviet tank production for the Second World War[9]

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks.

[10]

Not to mention the Western Allies involvement in supplying the Soviet Union with intelligence which could be useful against the Germans.[11]

So reducing Western support for the Soviet Union to simply an arms supply is simplistic and inaccurate - the same can be said about the West's support of Iraq.--Johan77 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixing links and references

All,

I just finished properly fixing all links and references to a standardized format. Please do not revert. Make your changes on top of what I have done, and add links according to the new format I have used. If there are broken links, instead of deleting them, replace a substitute. Thanks.--Zereshk 03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding TDC's deletion of much of the article

I just want to say i hope you realize that most of your changes will be reverted. --Spahbod 03:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discuss

I've already discussed this above, it's your turn. CJK 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes so did i. Zereshk already cut of most of the US support and put it in another article. Like i said put your suggestions here with source, if you continue i will call in an admin to take care of this. --Spahbod ☼ 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

Your reverts are infuriating me. I'm going to explain once more why the changes are justified:

1. Rumsfeld: This time I just MOVED Rumsfeld and added more information.

1. Bio-weapons: As I said before, they were not utilized in the war. Plus, if they were to be included they would not be under the "Chemical Weapons" section.

1. Haddad and Alcolac: I added info which you deleted.

1. Ted Koppel: Ted Koppel's opinion is IRRELEVANT unless he presents SPECIFIC FACTS and not generalizations.

1. BNL: Again, none of the factual content removed, just summarized. Plus, I added figures from other nations which were deleted.

1. Military Tech: You removed the Wisconsin Project assessment.

CJK 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We been through this several times, both me and zereshk did prove to you that the original edit regarding these are better and more reliable sourced:

1. Haddad and Alcolac - Already discussed
2. Bio-weapons - same as above, but go ahead and move it to the WMD section of the article if you like but just as it is.
3. BNL - same as above

This time you changed the rumsfeld caption to read something about 2 months after hizbollah bombed!! --Spahbod ☼ 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess we have no grounds for further debate. I will continue to revert this disinformation/lack of information/copy-paste information/irrelevant informartion.

Biological weapons were not used in the Iran-Iraq war. This would be like putting in information about U.S. nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War article. I added (sourced) information about how the Haddad stuff was seized by Customs and Alcolac supplied 300 tons and also supplied Iran. Your information with regards to that is unsourced. It is unacceptable that BNL is copy/paste... plus why do we care that the Financial Times gave continuous coverage? My version includes that $5 billion was granted by BNL which was backed up by the U.S. government and it funded missile stuff. As for Rumsfeld, if we're dragging in Iraq's WMD use into the caption then we might as well drag in Iran's terrorism. CJK 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, look dude, this exact conversation have been going on forever. You keep saying those things and we keep answering you why, afterwards you state the very same thing just like we never answered you. It seems clear that you do not want to stop until all your suggestions are put to action. Like i mentioned before Zereshk already cut out most of the US section, and i see no reason to change this into POV article, all facts are there.

If they seem harsh its because the actions of US, Germany, UK and many other countries were very much so. You don't sell chemical weapons to a maniac like Saddam, let him kill 100,000 Iranians including civilians with it, and tens of thousands of civilian kurds including children as you can see in the images. Then try to wipe out all traces of those crimes against humanity. --Spahbod ☼ 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk didn't cut out anything, he just redistributed the exact same information in accordance with my new format.

I DEMAND an apology for that second para you wrote. Why can't you respond to my f*cking comments intelligently instead of bringing up this irrelevant bullsh*t? CJK 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, from 5 star curses to just 1 star, thats great. How many times do we have to explain why the article is the way it is and is backed with sources. As i mentioned before you seem to completely ignore our explanations and repeat your own demands. --Spahbod ☼ 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I want you to respond to my points above or else don't revert. Thank you. Funny enough, you complain that I should add more material but when I do it gets removed. CJK 00:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, a talk page isn't supposed to have an overlord whose word is unchallengable. Its for reasonable debate. That means that someone might have a problem with your take and respond, then you are supposed to counter-respond until we reach an agreement. CJK 00:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Respond to your points? lol, like i mentioned twice before, we already did respond to your points over and over again: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran-Iraq_War&oldid=64950823}. Your 4 questions, and mine and zereshk's each 4 answers. You seem to have forgotten about that, and want new explanation.

And yes of course the talk pages are as you put it for debating. However it is the sources that have the last word, not the users. Everything here is sourced, however if you have something else (not refering to your former repeated suggestions) to add, please put your suggestions in the talk page first so we can discuss them. --Spahbod ☼ 02:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And then I responded to those and you remained silent.. but I'm not going to play your little game. You know very well that the issue is not with sourcing, but in the relevance and manner in which it is presented. Yet you refuse to acknowledge my points, but have the arrogance to revert my edits. CJK 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I remained silent because zeresh was already responding to you. My little game? actually it is your little game, you keep deleting sourced material and still make demands! On top of that you keep cursing: I have the arrogance to revert? lol. Like i mentioned before if you have something new to add to the article then please show it here with the source to back it up. Goodbye, --Spahbod ☼ 20:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to remove stuff that is misleading. I don't have to show anything to you. CJK 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol!, You don't have the right to remove sourced material. --Spahbod ☼ 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, this could be a lot easier if you cease your blatant dishonesty. CJK 23:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you need any more convincing evidence that the U.S. was not Iraq's primary backer, see User:CJK/Iraq. CJK 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks alot for cursing.

Only becasue they sold more weapons does not necessary mean they were Iraq's primary backer. US sold themost chemical weapons then germany. US also did alot of other stuff, like providing them with sattelite information, training them, and yes even waging war with Iran itself. They destroyed half the Iranian Navy and shot down civilian plane...--Spahbod ☼ 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And would you mind stop reverting, please revert it back yourself, and like i proposed before, if you have other material regarding germany's part for instance, please do add them to the article. --Spahbod ☼ 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your user page User:CJK/Iraq, you can't prove US was innocent by showing statistics my friend. --Spahbod ☼ 00:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

inicent, or innocent? The POV issue with the article is that although the US was a minor supplier, as all sources indicate, and even though the US was a minot finacial contributor 4-5%, it has a disproportionate ammmount of coverage in the article. That is why the tag is there, and that is why the tag is going to stay. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i meant to say innocent. You mean minor or minot? ammmount or ammount? finacial or financial? lol jk. Financial contribution or the ammount of weapons sold does not change the fact that US was the number one backer of Iraq, for all the reasons i mentioned above. Furthermore all sources are there, and again if you have something on other countries then please do contribute. --Spahbod ☼ 03:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Finan

So basically, you will continue to maintain this fiction regardless of the facts I present. Thanks for clearing that up. CJK 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, what fiction, dude i am tired of this as you call it little game. I said before, if you have something else to add then by all means add them, but don't go deleting material to make US look less involved. --Spahbod ☼ 01:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about U.S. support to Iraq, its about the Iran-Iraq War. If a specific action of support had no effect on the war then it belongs elsewhere. CJK 02:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Iran-Iraq war, but from some encyclopedias I've read and now chekcing these sources presented by Spahbod and Zareshk I think that destroying two Iranian ships and providing with both logistical and intelligence support and even more with the greatest ammount of chemical weapons does assist a country. Besides, you can see USA's open support to Iraq in the declarations made by president Reagan and on the visit by Rumsfeld to Iraq for example. If that's not to back up a country... then what is it? And, I wonder, how can such a back up be not influential to the war? 201.129.240.39 13:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Bias

This article is clearly hijacked by someone who's anti-US and pro-Iran. Why not create a separate page about the US involvement in this war, and the role of Donald Rumsfeld in particular? Why not write an entire new article about the use of chemical and biological weapons by Iraq? At the moment, this article is completely useless because of the NPOV tag (which should not be removed), the blatantly obvious bias and the reverting war that's going on. No one will trust anything that's written here right now, which is a shame because there's a lot of good, unbiased stuff in there as well. Iknik 08:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Creating a parallel page in hardly the solution. Let's find words that represent both sides and reflect the controversial views, which are real and belong in this article. Williamborg (Bill) 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting materials which have citations

I will report those who are vandalizing this page. You cannot delete texts which are referenced.

Before anyone makes any changes, they must DISCUSS the case before doing so. It should explained why the change is being made and references have to be cited.

Thank You (Opader 02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

The Great Alibi - or Why Saddam Was Really OK to Shake Hands With

I think its pretty obvious that the Americans are embarassed about this. Just look at the amount of explaining they are trying to do.

Nothing is a more obvious suggestion of guilt than a need to be right all the time.

In 2003, Americans said that being diplomatic with Saddam is wrong, and he needs to be invaded.

But during the 1980's, diplomacy with him was OK, and he didn't need to be invaded.

Why don't Americans simply admit their mistake?--Johan77 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Because in the 80s he was fighting Iran and wasn't hostile to the West. Its that simple. You can argue that it was wrong, but don't turn it into something its not. CJK 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Politics force us to sometimes tolerate and deal with strange fellows. I do agree that our government has turned a blind eye (sometimes) on less than acceptable regimes because of our own interests. Sometimes is unavoidable...even though in the end we may end up paying a heavy price in the future (think of our support for the Taliban / Muhjadeen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...and obviously our possible support for the Iraqui regime during the Iran - Irak war)

vandalism is getting out of hand.

referenced materials are being deleted without explanation, this have to stop. I think the article should be protected for the moment. (Opader 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." A content dispute with edit war is not vandalism. TomTheHand 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but OBVIOUSLY deleting referenced material without explanation is not good-faith editing but VANDALISM.(Opader 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

No, I'm sorry. The anon gave his explanation: he feels the material is POV, and so he is editing in good faith by removing it. I am not arguing that his removals were good, or even that they are in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but simply that they're not vandalism. TomTheHand 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Corret me if i am wrong, but doesnt POV only apply to materials which are author's opinion or speculation. The materials that are being removed are sourced facts not opinions or speculations.

I forgot to mention that one of the edits that is being made is resizing Iranian flag and making it smaller than the iraqi flag, which itself indicates that these edits are vandalism rather than good-faith imporvment. (Opader 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

Once again, I'm not trying to argue that the anon is right in what he's doing, but he is not vandalizing the article and it's wrong to accuse him of such. You scream "vandalism" whenever anyone disagrees with you. In reference to the flag issue, I would like to note that you are resizing the Iranian flag to make it larger than the Iraqi flag. The Iranian flag has a 4:7 aspect ratio compared to the 2:3 (or 4:6) aspect ratio of the Iraqi flag; he is making them match in width, while you are making them match in height.

You are having a content dispute, and you (both of you) are making no attempts to resolve it. You're just edit warring back and forth. However, neither of you is vandalizing; you're both making the article into a mess in good faith. Step back a minute and look at yourselves. Do you honestly believe the other editor is intentionally trying to make the article worse? If so, go have a beer and come back later, because you've completely lost your senses of perspective and empathy. If not, then quit these ridiculous vandalism accusations and work out your content dispute. TomTheHand 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Size of flags

I'd like to propose a compromise on the flag size issue. The issue at hand is that the two flags use different aspect ratios; the Iranian flag is longer.

One person or group is setting the flags to the same width of 100 pixels. This makes the Iraqi flag taller than the Iranian flag, with surface area of ~6700 pixels for the Iraqi flag compared to ~5700 pixels for the Iranian flag.

The other person or group is setting the Iranian flag to 115 pixels wide to make the heights approximately the same. This makes the Iranian flag both significantly wider and slightly taller than the Iraqi flag. The surface areas are ~6700 pixels for the Iraqi flag compared to ~7600 pixels for the Iranian flag.

I have done the math to find dimensions for the flags which will make their surface areas equal. I am going to set the Iranian flag's width to 108 pixels, which will result in the Iranian flag being slightly wider but slightly less tall than the Iraqi flag. Their surface areas will be almost exactly the same, with less than 5 pixels difference. If anyone changes this, I ask that they have an extremely good reason for wanting one flag to be bigger than the other; I am making them the same size. TomTheHand 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, your edits made Iranian flag looks smaller than the Iraqi, it was fine before, please don't do that again. --Spahbod ☼ 10:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits make the Iranian flag bigger than the Iraqi flag; my edits make them the same size. Do not change it without explaining why the Iranian flag should be larger. TomTheHand 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Its the other way around, your edits make Iraqi flag look bigger. Do not change without explaining why the Iraqi flag should be bigger for some reason. --Spahbod ☼ 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not the other way around. My edits make the two flags the exact same size, while you're making the Iranian flag 13% larger. Do the math. TomTheHand 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll do the math for you. You're making the Iranian flag 115 pixels wide by ~66 pixels tall, or about 7600 pixels total, compared to the Iraqi flag, which is 100 pixels wide by ~67 pixels tall, or about 6700 pixels total. I am making the Iranian flag 108 pixels wide by ~62 pixels tall, or about 6700 pixels total. I am making them the same size; you are making the Iranian flag larger. TomTheHand 13:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The pixels does not matter, what matters is that your change makes the iranian flag smaller, anyone can see that, i suggest you stop doing that. --Spahbod ☼ 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've explained, I've made the two flags have the exact same surface area. Why is this not a good, fair way to resolve the flag size issue? I'm not sure how you can say "the pixels does not matter." They are the only things that possibly could matter here. TomTheHand 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, i am not trying to make the iranian flag look bigger, and as you saw yourself am really not interested in revert wars, i suggest we get a second opinion. --Spahbod ☼ 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you make the Iranian flag as tall as the Iraqi flag, it will be significantly bigger, because the Iranian flag is a longer design. The Iranian flag should be less tall but longer than the Iraqi flag. Making the Iranian flag 108 pixels wide makes them exactly the same size. TomTheHand 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to my eyes, and probably most others. --Spahbod ☼ 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly your eyes don't matter; get a pen and paper and do some math to come up with a fair and equal solution rather than relying on something so biased. I can show logical reasoning why the Iranian flag should be 108 pixels wide; all you're saying is "I don't like it." TomTheHand 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, i am not saying i don't like it, i am saying even tho the pixel size is the same in your version, the iranian flag simply looks smaller. I don't need a pen or do math to see that, where is the logic in making the flag smaller than the other because the numbers tells us so? --Spahbod ☼ 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The flags are the same size. I don't care how they look to you and I won't tolerate you making Iran's flag larger than Iraq's. TomTheHand 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

CJK, i know your the IP who is reverting and calling it Spahbod's "bs". Aside from the fact that you are reverting sourced material and using sockpuppet, could you at least not swear? lol, thanks --Spahbod ☼ 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

keep the neutrality, no apologetic statements by politicians please!

May I remind everyone that this article have to be neutral and apologetic speculations by politicians from either side or their supportes have no place here. United states aided Iraq in this war to protect its own interests, its very simple. Now Some people are trying to put apologetic speculations by politicians and dance around the truth and destroy the neutrality of this article, but may I remind them that this is Wikipedia and it is about the truth, uncensored and unbiased, if you dont like it, you can start reading thousands of other biased websites that are around the web but not Wikipedia please. (64.231.199.31 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

TDC and I are editing the article to more accurately quote the cited source. Your version quotes the source in a biased fashion; you cannot quote it out of context and only take bits and pieces that make the US look bad. TomTheHand 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be more specific. Here is a web link to the article in question: [12]

And here is the paragraph you reverted to:

The United States was not concerned with Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against Iranians at that time. According to a report by the New York Times, "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose".

The above paragraph does not accurately reflect what the source says. You cannot quote Lang as saying that Iraq's use of chemical weapons was "not a matter of deep strategic concern" without also giving the context and noting that he says they "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians." TomTheHand 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well US DID DO something bad and you are actually trying to conceal this and make US look good whereas US didn't do anything good, it helped an invader regime that used chemical weapons. Lang clearly said that "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" and "We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" and that is what happened and what US ACTUALLY DID. Now we come to why did US help Iraq?, and the speculations start: "with that Iran breaking through and spreading the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Another DIA official noted that after "having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran, the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy." These are all speculations, "if iran had gone..", these events didnt actually happen, and was not gonna happen Iran clearly stated that only thing it wants is for Iraq to compensate for the damage they caused. These apologetic statements have no place in this article. By your logic, statements by iranian officials bashing US and speculating about the role of US in this war can also be put. May I remind you again that this article is about what really happened not what some offical thought gonna happen. (64.231.199.31 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

If you're going to include a paragraph about the US's stance on the use of chemical weapons in the war, you need to describe it accurately and completely and include the reasons for the stance. The source says that the US accepted the use of chemical weapons on military targets, but opposed their use on civilian targets, and they did so because they were worried that Iran would defeat Iraq and cause other nations to establish governments hostile to the US. This is not apologetic; it's quite selfish. However, simply stating "the US was fine with Iraq using all the gas it wanted" is incorrect and is a deceptive use of the source.

You call the background information speculation. Of course it's speculation, but it's what the US actually believed would happen and so it's important to include when describing their stance. It doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it doesn't matter that according to Iran it wouldn't happen. It's what the US thought would happen, and that's why the US acted the way it did, according to the source you're quoting. TomTheHand 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And now I see that you've reverted again, with the summary "rv, unexplained removals." Never mind that my edits were additions, not removals. Never mind that I've explained my edits both here and in my edit summaries. I've reverted you three times today, so I'm not able to do it any more, but hopefully TDC will return to deal with your deceptive use of the source. TomTheHand 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, This article has no place for politican's lies. I have a hard time believing that they didnt know Iraq was using chemical weapons on civilian population with all their satelites that were watching all over middle east. This sounds Like a big juicy LIE. besides as I said before no speculation allowed, speculations that manipulate the reader destroy the neutrality of the article. We can only quote them about what they ACTUALLY DID to confirm that they accept the obvious truth and the truth is they helped the invader because they didnt want Iran to win to protect their own interests, as simple as that.(64.231.199.31 21:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

If the article "has no place for politician's lies," as you said, then remove the entire paragraph instead of misquoting the article. You're already quoting the gentleman in question. If you're going to quote him, I insist that you quote him completely. You're wrong about "no speculation allowed," and I'm not sure where you came up with such an idea. The reasons why the US supported Iraq are important.

Frankly we're saying the same thing. The US didn't want Iran's Islamic revolution to gain support in other nations in the Middle East. That's called protecting their interests; I'm simply naming the interest they're protecting specifically. TomTheHand 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you try reading my post first before accusing me of anything? as I said before "We can only quote them about what they ACTUALLY DID to confirm that they accept the obvious truth..." . and you are not saying the same thing, what you are inserting is apologetic propaganda, your paragraph reads: "They were more concerned with that Iran breaking through and spreading the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Another DIA official noted that after "having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran, the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy." basically what they are speculating is that Iran was actually trying to expand its territories and conquer the whole middle east whereas that is not what Iran wanted Iran clearly said that the only thing they wanted was compensation for the damages they had sustained and removal of saddam hussain from power with Iraq remaining a sovereign nation with a different regime. By the way most part of your paragraph is not a quote by LANG but some other DIA official(69.197.208.3 21:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

That's right. They speculated that Iran was actually trying to expand its territories. Whether they were right or wrong, they did speculate that and that's why they acted the way they did. It doesn't matter what Iran actually wanted. What matters, when discussing the US policy, is what the US thought Iran wanted, and what the US thought would happen if Iran won. We have to quote them on what they did, and why they did it. You're providing incomplete, deceptive information; you cannot quote a source out of context. You must say what that source actually says. Otherwise, you cannot cite that source.

You're correct that some of the information in my paragraph is not from Lang but from another DIA official. I'm not sure what your point is, though. You also said "We can only quote them about what they ACTUALLY DID to confirm that they accept the obvious truth..." That's wrong. We must quote the source's entire message, not just a tiny piece that you take out of context. I'm finished with this discussion; you're simply wrong in your understanding of how to use sources on Wikipedia. TomTheHand 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No you are wrong and you are trying to conceal the uglieness of US goverment's actions. manipulative and apologetic speculations have no place in a neutral article. US policy at the time was not the quotes you are trying to insert. these statements were made years later, so saying "that's why they acted the way they did" is utterly false, in 1982 Iran clearly stated what it wants: "demanding reparation payments and an end to Saddam's rule and that he be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity." Now to conclude this discussion and avoid later edit wars I am going to suggest a paragraph which contains the whole quote by colonel Lang and is not manipulative:

The United States was not concerned with Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against Iranians at that time. According to Col. Walter Lang, "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" and "We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". He also claimed that the United states was not aware of use of chemical weapons against civilans, "The Defense Intelligence Agency would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival."

(69.197.208.3 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

This paragraph doesn't seem to be an accurate summary of the source, and it doesn't contribute much to the article anyway. According to other sections the article, other countries contributed more to the war in terms of supplies and chemical weapons; why is the US singled out for not being "concerned"? Jonearles 04:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• *Sigh*, when will americans learn to take responsibility for their past actions and learn from their mistakes instead of denying them. First, I take it you didnt even bother reading through the whole debate, second, the paragraph is not a summary of the report but as mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, quotes from colonel Lang (no apologetic speculations allowed!). And US is singled out since US had the biggest impact on this war as a third party because first, It was the only country that directly got involved and attacked Iranian navy and airforce, and second, the intelligence informatiom given to Iraq by US changed the course of the war and if it wasnt for US Iran would have most likely won the war. (Opader 05:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

That is complete and utter Bullshit and you know it you Al-Qaeda loving motherfucker.

Ok, I agree with you that the US does deserve to be singled out here. However, I still have issues with saying "The United States was not concerned with Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against Iranians at that time." You could probably say the US was not as concerned as they should have been, but I think the word "concerned" is too loaded and doesn't add much to the article. It is worth pointing out that the US acted hypocritically, but I don't think it is accurate to imply that nobody in the US cared about Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran. Jonearles 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

US= US government not people. But to make it more clear and neutral, I suggest changing the sentence to: Apparently US government was not concerned with Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against Iranian forces at that time. (Opader 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

That's equally deceptive. The entire sentence should be removed and the reader should be allowed to interpret Colonel Lang's statement themselves. He says "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern." That means that the use of chemical weapons on military targets would not affect his organization's strategy. Interpreting it in the way you suggest is both highly biased and incorrect. TomTheHand 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, what part of "was not concerned" is deceptive? United states helped Iraq during the war, Did it not?. United states knew that Iraq was using, chemical weapons, Did it not? If united states was really concerned with Iraq using chemical weapons, it wouldn't have helped Iraq, it wouldn't have attacked Iranian navy, it would have blamed Iraq at the time(not decades later when it suits their agenda), instead of meeting with Saddam and telling him he is doing a good job. As a matter of fact, not only they weren't concerned with Iraq using chemical weapons, but also they probably were happy about it and recommended it. But since I respect the neutrality of the article, I am not going to use a word like "recommend" here and I expect you to do the same (respect article's neutrality), Instead of denying the heinous acts of US government in the past and accusing me of being deceptive. (Opader 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

Your opinions on the actions of the US, Iraq, and Iran are irrelevant. What matters is that the source you quote does not say what you say it does. The source states that Iraq's use of gas on the battlefield did not affect the US's strategy. You cannot extend that statement and make assumptions about how "they probably were happy about it and recommended it." That's original research, which is forbidden here on Wikipedia. You can only give information that's in the source. TomTheHand 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, My opinions are irrelevant, but the paragraph I am proposing is not my opinion but common sense. statements like "Iraq invaded Iran", "land conflict regressed into stalemate" are not quotes but common sense. Someone attacks an unarmed person with a knife, you help the one that is using a knife, obviously you approve of him using a knife or you are not concerned with that matter, its common sense, human logic. Now, either we use the word "approved" or "was not concerned", again not my opinion but common sense. (67.70.8.125 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

Your "common sense" is also irrelevant. You cannot make leaps and logical assumptions, no matter how much sense they make to you. You can only report what sources literally say. Anything else is original research. TomTheHand 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, the wording should be different from the links that are provided, Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes from other sources, the wording is chosen by the editor. The disputed paragraph doesnt say, according to NYT but according to colonel Lang. And again you are wrong that is not my opinion but common sense, it makes sense to everyone not just me. either united states was concerned or was not concerned, according to its action it was not concerned as simple as that. (Opader 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)).

We don't have to quote the source verbatim, of course, so I should not have said "literally." However, we cannot say anything that is not found in a source. Go read WP:V and WP:NOR. You need to get a better handle on Wikipedia policies. Your "common sense" has no place in an encyclopedia article. TomTheHand 20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, thats what I am saying, not my original research but verified by US actions that are recorded. US simply was not concerned with Iraq using chemical weapons. US was not concerned because it sided with Iraq and supported Iraq During the whole conflict while the government of united states knew very well that iraq was using chemical weapons against military as well as civilan targets. Reagan's government even authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses. This verifies that not only they were not concerned but also they were encouraging it. Again not my original research common sense, verified by History. (67.70.8.125 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

Again, all of your interpretation is irrelevant; the only thing that matters here is what the source says. The source does not say "the US was not concerned." You are interpreting the source to mean something that isn't actually said. You cannot do that. I am replacing it with a paragraph that properly reflects the source; I don't understand why you are against this. I have informed you of the applicable Wikipedia policies and how the paragraph you're inserting violates them. I will not continue to go back and forth with you on this; there is nothing left to discuss. TomTheHand 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not my interpretation again, but actual history. your persistent in denying the obvious truth verified by recorded History is astonishing. (67.70.8.125 23:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

sprotect

I've semi-protected this, due to anon edit warring. Discuss... William M. Connolley 08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in the vast size of this talk page but the soldier numbers don't add up, it says that there were 100 000 troops on either side but the the death rate is 400-600 000, perhaps it meant 1 million troops per side?

I've updated the troop and militia numbers to try and solve this problem. I also tried to add the civilian cas. Hopefully, these are a little better, but the sources on this are pretty vague.Publicus 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Another odious lie found on Wiki

U.S. was also responsible for indirect transfer of arms to Iraq and Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.

This is a lie see,

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_75-05.pdf/download

According to the source above, during the relevant time period and using the relevant weapons, Egypt sent SA-342K/L Gazelle's (French), BM-21's (Russian), D-30's (Russian), M-46's (Russian), Sakr-36 122mm's (directly Egyptian), and T-55's (Russian). There is no basis in reality for calling these "U.S. weapons".

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia aren't even on the list for this time period!

Furthermore, the Reagan administration can't "allow" nations to export their own weapons when they are already in their possession.

I rest my case. CJK 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• You throw insults and accusations at others. You delete sourced material without any explanation to push your own POV. I will report you next time you behave like this. (Marmoulak 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

No need to get angry, I'm open to suggestions. BTW, I have explained all of my edits if you look over this page. CJK 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would really help if you would make your changes one at a time, explain them in an edit summary, and allow time for a response to each one. When you extensively revise the article it tends to get reverted on sight. TomTheHand 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's not anger, It's Wikipedia's regulations, and if you continue behaving like this you will be blocked. You removed sourced material with no explaination, absolutly nothing and the source you have given has nothing to do with the fact that "the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons. Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq" (Marmoulak 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)).

So we are to take Mark Phythian's word (as he is the prime source for this statement) as opposed to more concrete and less biased data from globalsecurity.org? Why? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the information is compiled by one Nathaniel Hurd, and as such does not qualify as WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• So, let me get this right, Any source that contains something negative about united states is unreliable and fabricated!. Quit making excuses, it looks you didnt even bother checking the phythian source, before dismissing it, he does not make things up, He cites officals. (Marmoulak 17:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

We have one source of unknown notoriety and reliability saying one thing, and we have SEVERAL sources of known reliabilityu and notoriety saying the exact opposite. Which do we choose? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What several sources???. You have not posted any source to refute the disputed matter, not even ONE. You have only posted a document regarding DIRECT transfer of arms to Iraq which we already had and is mentined in the article. But the trasfer of arms from italy and saudi arabia to Iraq was because of U.S. not directly by U.S.. "the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons. Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq". (Marmoulak 22:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

Lang and the DIA

If Col Lang's quote is going to be used, it cannot be used selectively to support a position that Lang does not publicly take. Either Lang is quoted in his full context, or he is not quoted at all. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• All of the Lang's quotes, in NYT report has been included in this paragraph:

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"

For God's sake, READ the sources before dismissing them.(Marmoulak 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

Umm, I did, thats why I knew it to be horse manure. Who ever put it in the article in the first place obviously copied it from a secondary use as the date was not correct. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[13]. Oh, now NYT is 'hourse manure'! Great, you have proven once again that, in YOUR biased opinion, any source that critisizes U.S. is in your own words 'hourse manure'. But, unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is neutral and relys on facts not biased POV. (Marmoulak 18:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

No the Times article is what it is, but whats horse shit is the attempt to twist Lang's comments into a sentiment that he cleary does not support. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I will List all the quotes that colonel Lang made in NYT report:

"CIA officials were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose"

"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern"

"Defense Intelligence Agency would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"

All are included in the paragraph. Now, these quotes might be 'hourse manure' in your opinion but your opinion is not important here, in Wikipedia original material buy users is not allowed(Marmoulak 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

I dont see how that can be as Lang's comments about a feared breakthrough the Fao peninsula is not in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before. Please read the whole talk page before making any changes. First, "fear of breakthrough the Fao peninsula" was not a Lang quote (apparently you havent read the source yet). Second someone whose name is not given in the article says something about this matter, but that is just apologetic speculation. Iran, in 1982, clearly said that they only want compensation for the damages they have sustained and an end to Saddam presidency. (Marmoulak 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

What part of the following statement FROM THE ARTICLE do you not understand:

"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I am talking about this paragraph that you put in the article: Lang said, "“having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran, the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy”". Apparently you are not even aware of you own edits and just edit whatever is not your POV randomly. The quote mentioned is not by Lang. Check the source again and READ the whole thing for god's sake. And about the other snetence, as I said before if you look at the discussions earlier, it is said that apologetic speculations that have evidence are not allowed. Iran. as it clearly stated in 1982, did not intend to expand its territories or attack Kuwait or saudi arabia. Iran stated in 1982 that it wants compensation and an end to rule of Saddam. (Marmoulak 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

19:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lang's quote is what it is. Reagan's admin certainly did not shun Saddam after poison gas was used. Common sense says it must not have been that big a deal to them. The quote is historical, adds context, and should stay. Abe Froman 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gary Sick

Gary Sick is not a WP:RS. All material refrenced to him has been removed and replaced with material from sources that do conform to WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

just because gary sick, critisizes some of the united states policies doesnt make him a "fraud", a "liar" or unreliable.

Gary G. Sick (1935-) is an author, executive director of the Gulf/2000 Project, and Adjunct Professor of International Affairs at the School of International & Public Affairs at Columbia University.

Sick served on the staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. He also served as principal White House aide for Persian Gulf affairs from 1976-1981.

Sick is a retired captain in the US Navy and former Deputy Director for International Affairs at the Ford Foundation. He holds a PhD from Columbia University in political science.

GREAT, According to you anyone that critisizes united states foriegn policies is a 'liar' and a 'fraud', and any source that contains critism of U.S. is 'hourse manure', what an unpenetrable logic, it's a shame that wikipedia doesnt abide by your logic!!!. (Marmoulak 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

The Pellitiere ( Army War College ) report seems to be easily tossed aside here. Human Rights Watch has very little credibilty from what I read. Comparing the two reports, I see little reason to choose Joost's, his research - other than a trip - seems to have found no evidence that he can show. Unless you can show that Pellitiere wanted to piss off his bosses at the time, there seems to be little reason to question him - I am sure he has not made anywhere near as much money as he could have by kissing up.

Re: above comment:

Isn't it the case that Pellitiere read a memo (that was prepared by someone else)?

So why is he even a legitimate source? The discussion should really be about the memo, and who authored it - not Pellitiere.

If the issue is: "It came from the CIA, or State Department, so it must be true", the problems with that assumption are so obvious they don't need explaining.Johan77 17:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal?

Can someone explain this sentence in the WMD section? "The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust, released a list of U.S. companies and their exports to Iraq." I left it alone, but it seems to be missing information connecting it to the article.-csloat 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs maps

This page needs maps. There should be at least one showing the location of the initial invasion forces. Alcuin 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Iran's Use of Chemical Weapons

Wikipedia is about verification no truth. Whatever you may personaly beleive about the veracity of these charges, thats too bad because the Center for Defense and International Security Studies and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are definately reliable sources and many times more credible than Gary Sick. End of story. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is not me who is trying to insert my own personal believe in the article, it's You who is inserting your own POV in this article as you have done before on numerous occasions. Let us compare the disputed paragraphs:

The original paragraph:

The Defense Intelligence Agency also accused Iran of using chemical weapons. These allegations however, have been disputed. Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for Human Rights Watch between 1992-1994, conducted a two year study, including a field investigation in Iraq, capturing Iraqi government documents in the process. According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of Chemical Weapons use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence". Gary Sick and Lawrence Potter call the allegations against Iran "mere assertions" and state: "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit [of using chemical weapons] was ever presented".

The allegations accusing Iran of using chemical weapons in Iran-Iraq war were brought up by united states, ironically, united states was ally of Iraq during the war and helped Iraq build its chemical arsenal. While U.S. administration condemned Iraq use of chemical weapons in public they helped Iraq build and use its chemical weapons in practice. After it became clear to the public that Iraq indeed used chemical weapons extensively against both military and civilan targets and U.S. administration helped them do so, DIA accused Iran of using chemical weapons to render U.S. actions less horrible and divert the public attention from U.S. crimes. Of course these are all my POVs and I respect the neutrality of the article thats is why I haven't put any of the above lines in the article. The allegations made by DIA against Iran lacked any substantial evidence that is why United Nations did not condemed Iran for use of chemical weapons and the majority of sources only mention Iraqi use of chemical weapons. The original paragraph contains the allegations made by DIA against Iran. Since the allegations are highly disputed, the paragraph also quotes reliable sources that have disputed the allegations made by DIA. This paragraph does not contain POV and is purely facts and citations.

Now, lets take a look at the paragraph you want to insert:

Allegations first surfaced by the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iran used chemical weapons later on in the war were later confirmed by a variety of sources. Ccording to the Centre for Defense and International Security Studies and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Iran’s use of chemical weapons occurred late in the war, and not as extensively or successfully as Iraq. At first, Iran began using chemical stockpiles, primarily sulfur mustard agents captured from Iraqi stockpiles, but later began to manufacture their own supplies. These allegations have been disputed by Gary Sick and Lawrence Potter who call the allegations against Iran "mere assertions" and state: "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit [of using chemical weapons] was ever presented". Joost Hiltermann claims that while the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of Chemical Weapons use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence".

The bolded statement is purely POV. The references given at the end of second line have no value, because they are not quoted in the previous line AND I read the CDISS which only provides a minimal description of the events and has based its assumptions regarding Iran use of chemical weapons on allegations made by DIA which is already stated, the other source doesnt have any link to the artile but I suspect as CDISS has based its assumptions on DIA allegations. Basically the paragraph says, the allegations made by DIA are confirmed by DIA!!!, which sounds absurd. The structure of the paragraph is also messed up, Great job!!. - Marmoulak 05:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it will be nice for you to be banned from this article for a day for your 3RR, perhaps then you will know that you cannot monopolize it. Secondly, the DIA’s claim is supported, as referenced in the article, by the Centre for Defense and International Security Studies and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists both relatively apolitical organizations unlike the ass clown of a hack Gary Sick. You cannot removed a sourced piece of material just because you don’t like it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This argument is getting nowhere because you dont even read the sources you insert and you constantly put your POV in the article without listening to my reasoning. If you had actually read the CDISS source you would know that its reference is DIA. Your second source is just a brief list of events with no details and no actual investigation behind it (I couldn't find any reference but it's logical to think that its reference is also DIA). Nevertheless even if the sources you put, had achieved their data by investigating the matter (note that they did not) still the sentence, Allegations first surfaced by the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iran used chemical weapons later on in the war were later confirmed by a variety of sources. is POV because there are several sources that say otherwise. And the fact that you called Gary Sick 'the ass clown of a hack' indicates that you are a troll rather that a contributer. - Marmoulak 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution of 1979

I started reading this article and was more and more surprised that there was no mention of the Iran Revolution of 1979, only a year before the start of the war. The background section is goes all the way to 1980 without referring to the revolution. Then, a good way into the article, it suddenly says The aftermath of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was central to the conflict. There should be a mention of this a bit earlier in the text, probably in the lead section. Maybe the background section could be restructured a bit as well – maybe using subsections. I might give it a try but I'm not very familiar with the subject. Piet | Talk 07:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Weapons of mass destruction

Is this section only in the article because of the current Gulf War? Why is this information not simply under "armament and support" where it belongs? Piet | Talk 07:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

About cultural bias

Dear friends,

I am a Frenchman trying to gather information on the Iran-Irak War. The first half of the article covers the subject of the background of the war. There is a very brief outline of the operations and forces. And a very long discussion on the rôle of the US, the evil in Saddam, weapons of mass destruction, ...

I am not very interested in having that that debate here, although I understand it is very sensitive in the context of US home politics. I was expecting a real informative text worth of an encyclopedia. Maybe 10% of the subject could be alloted to the US involvement (how about the Soviet, French, ... involvement?).

If Wkipedia is just a forum for US internal debate, I am not interested. Maybe this shows the limit of the wiki concept.

Marc.

Dear Marc,

I think you are a bit harsh on the wiki-concept here. I do however agree that the attention to the US-involvement is out of proportion. To correct this by adding more information on other relevant issues would make a million-word article. Deleting and abbreviating is not accepted by a lot of people so I have no solution. Pukkie 14:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cf. my remark just above, we can't handle this subject from an American point of view. "Not accepted by a lot of people" is no excuse, they will have to be convinced then. Piet | Talk 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The attention given to U.S. involvement is well deserved and actually not enough. This war was a not Iran vs. Iraq but Iran vs. allied army of Iraq & U.S.. U.S. had an undeclared but fullscale naval war against Iran in which it destroyed half of Iranian navy. Many of the military operations of Iraq were actually planned by U.S. generals. If it wasn't for United States the war would have ended in 1982 with removal of Saddam's regime from power. The involvment of USSR, France, Germany & etc is not comparable to that of U.S., these countries weren't a party of the war, and the main reason they were supplying Iraq was not for strategic interests but for the money they were getting in return. U.S. involvement on the other hand was to preserve and expand its dominiation in the region. To make it brief, U.S. needs to be pointed out because it changed the course of the war and caused the the war to last 8 years instead of 2. I have noticed that some American users constantly try to erase the sourced material regarding the U.S. involvment in this article or object to the amount of attention given to this matter, but these people often do so without reading the sources that are included in this article. This article is actually very well sourced and I am sure much of the edit wars can be prevented if everyone first inform themselves about this war by reading the given sources. Deleting (and 'abbreviating') is not accepable not because of 'a lot of people', but because wikipedia is not a place for original research or biased POV materials, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and it has rules. You can't delete piece of sourced information because you dont like it!. - Marmoulak 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

The question is one of a balanced presentation of material, as it has always been. This will never be acomplished unitill the Perisan Junat that currently "owns" this article is dealt with. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And of course, there are those who you cant really have a rational discussion with because they dont respect the sources that are aganst their POV. These kind of people have the ability to disregard the obvious truth just because it doesnt match their biased opinion. They often resort to name calling and personal insults in a debate and their initial good-faith edits will often degenerate into vandalism. - Marmoulak 04:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Ever woneder whu this article was rejected as an FA? No, of course you wouldnt. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK, I surrender. Please keep going on. Just to mention that a French magazine has just published a 20 page report on that war, with a second part to come. Of course, it doesn't have all the nice information you convey, which is a shame. On the other hand, there are many pictures, maps and drawings. References : "Iran-Irak" by Laurent Tirone, in "Batailles et Blindés" n°15 July-Aug 2006 ISSN 1765-0828 website : http://www.batailles-blindes.com/. Bye bye ! P.S. I am also a great fan of Kayyam.

Question

In Iran-Iraq war, did Iran use chemical weapons against Iraq?

War between armed forces

The opening sentence is absurd. Have you ever heard of some nation's armed forces declaring war against some other nation's armed forces? Wars are waged by countries (nations, governments etc), which employ armed forces, not by armed forces themselves.

Jimmy Carter

The assertion that Jimmy Carter caused the war to begin is fallacious on its face and should stay removed from a neutral article. All of those sources can't prove he did and say so but you folks left that part out. I see why. Just saying something doesn't make it so becaus eit appears in a book of opinion like The Longest War.Marky48 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article that implies Jimmy Carter "caused" the war but jimmy carter did actually encourage the invasion. If you read the sources you would know that the information regarding jimmy carter is not the author's opinion and the author is just reporting. Journalist Robert Parry reported that in a secret 1981 memo, Secretary of State Al Haig noted, "It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd." Fahd was Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and is now king. - Marmoulak 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

I did not read any such concrete assertion. Parry had no such memo. Your burden is to produce it. I'd say this article has been ruined by a renegade Iranian running roughshod over it before and still is in the foxhole. Back off. I'm on the history task force and you've already caused this article to fail reputable credit. Marky48 03:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh!, personal attacks, how typical. Fortunately, in Wikipedia personal attacks are not welcomed, here we value rational arguements and reliable sources. It seems to me that you disregard any source that doesnt support you biased POV. Read the sources that are presented in this article, it is a very well referenced article and I hope you learn something about the history of this war. here is the source for the paragraph that I put earlier about the statement by Secretary of State Al Haig. http://www.finalcall.com/perspectives/iraq_us10-01-2002.htm - Marmoulak 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

Final Call is not a neutral source and neither is Parry. Haig claims to have seen this memo but where is it? And of course he would have no bone to pick with Carter either would he? Right. Naturally we took the side of Iraq then. That should be no surprise but you're hanging too much on this assertion. It's presneted as the straw than broke the camrel's back and without it nothing would happen except tea and Hookahs. That's a false impression and NOT NPOV. Where is the memo? Without a link to the memo this fails. Revert. Touch it again and I'll report it to the committee. You can bank on that. Marky48 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to explain the story as written by Parry: "according to Haig's information, Saudi Prince Fahd (now King Fahd) claimed that President Carter, apparently hoping to strengthen the U.S. hand in the Middle East and desperate to pressure Iran over the stalled hostage talks, gave clearance to Saddam's invasion of Iran. If true, Jimmy Carter, the peacemaker, had encouraged a war." If!

"Haig's written report contained no other details about the "green light," and Haig declined my request for an interview about the Talking Points." This is why the best you're going to get here is alleged if that much. Give it up. If is a big word in the search for truth. You're a cultural partisan as others have said. This much is proven.Marky48 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, what a mess. I'm of the opinion that it's an interesting assertion, but one better placed within the context of the "Background" section rather than in the lead. Parry's a significant enough person that his allegation—even if wrong—can probably be legitimately mentioned as part of the general discussion of the US role in these events; but to put it into the first paragraph would be unduly emphasizing something that's relatively poorly sourced, and doesn't seem to enjoy the support of a substantial proportion of historians working on this field. (If it is something espoused by many other sources, of course, that would be a different case.) Kirill Lokshin 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Kirill I agree but who will stop the Iranians here from keeping the thing in the lead as the Great Explainer? I'm about to go into revert violation so I can't do it. It's going to take authority here to do that. For them it's a tag team. Purely partisan and POV. I read the talking points but no one has the memo itself. I say send this thing into remediation.Marky48 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Iranians have special interest in this article since it is an important part of modern history of Iran, as I am sure American members of Wikipedia have certain interests in american related articles and have them on their watchlist. I am not doing any partisan work neither I am tag teaming with other Iranians, We are all working under rules of Wikipedia, and thus far you have been the one to violate them. Apparently, anything that doesnt match you POV is allegation and fabrication but anything that supports your biased POV suddenly becomes fact, you lable parry as biased and call Haig's statements, allegations and yet you use a source like turks.us as a reliable source!!. Your edits are simply unencyclopedic and associated with fiction rather than fact. We have Haig saying “It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd", Parry's report confirming it and King fahd saying that Carter encouraged the war versus an unknown news site named turks.us!!. By the way, the role of U.S. in this war was important enough for it to be included in the first paragraph - Marmoulak 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

No it isn't and it will be relocated. As it stands it carries the caveat allegedly. That's hardly a slam dunk. It's innuendo in all those sources. Turks.us simply mirrored the fact that this allegation was an assertion and thus not proven despite what Haig claimed. He ran like a scalded cat from saying anything else or elaborating too. You don't seem to know a proven source from an allegation. I suggest you learn the difference.Marky48 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have personally corresponded with both Parry and Carter's National Security Advisor...and I have tried numerous times to contact Carter directly...even on talk show's he specifically tells his hosts he will NOT TAKE ANY CALL ABOUT IRAN. First of all Carter HAS NEVER DENIED "pushing" Saddam to invade Iran. And Zbig too will at best indirectly refer to it - but will NOT provide a direct answer. Parry has seen the memo - and was provided unprecedented access to records (both as a reporter for Frontline, investigating this subject and subsequently through consortium news). Marky48, short of an affidavit from Parry, what else would convince you of this memo? These things naturally are 50+ year state secrets. And what will it take to corner Carter to directly ask him the question? Interestingly, they are NOT allowing any reporters to interview Saddam and spill the beans on Carter ... and by the way Bush senior too (who pushed Saddam to invade Kuwait, after Kuwait allowed Russian Navy ships to dock in its harbor to 'protect' Kuwait ...not so long before Iraq's invasion). Saddam will probably be killed before he has a chance to spill all this out. The tragedy of all this is that US politicians are incredibly capable at deluding the US public and keeping this stuff hidden...and there are suckers like you that will give up everything including your integrity to defend the undefendable. The situation in Iraq today is a direct result of Carter's "push" many years ago ... and by the way many hundreds of thousands of innocent folks have died as a result. The images and impact are horrendous. For God's sake have some decency ... My experience that Americans are the most decent people on the planet - and given real exposure to these facts Carter would never be allowed to show his face outside of Plains.

Is the U.S. a "combatant"

Apparently, there is some disagreement about whether the U.S. was an actual combatant in this war. Since this is the first time I have ever heard that the U.S. level of involvement was that of a combatant, it would be interesting to hear people's thoughts on this and also some references that support placing the U.S. in the infobox along with Iran and Iraq. Personally, all the various sources I have read have never raised the level of the U.S. involvement to that of a combatant. There was U.S. military action in the Persian Gulf, especially during the "Tanker War" period, and the U.S. did support Iraq with supplies--however such involvement does not place the U.S. into the thick of combat. Publicus 13:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history on this and it here's its guidelines on this. "The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles." Publicus 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. was most certainly not a combatant, nor was the U.S.S.R., although both nations supplied the combatants at various times. L0b0t 14:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In general, any parties whose militaries took part in the war are listed as combatants. In this case, though, it's more of an organizational question: is the US-Iran combat that occurred during this period considered "part of" the Iran-Iraq War (in which case the US should be listed, probably on the same side as Iraq), or a different conflict that merely occurred at the same time (in which case the US should not be listed here, but only on the articles for that specific conflict)? Kirill Lokshin 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been my understanding that the U.S. was in the region to keep the sea lanes open. Any combat with Iran was incidental and not connected to the Iraqi invasion. L0b0t 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The USA was a combatant. It not only supplied Iraq with weaponry, money, encouragement, backing at the UN, satellite imagery, etc... but it also helped Iraq and the Arab states supporting it ship their oil while at the same time depriving Iran of the same right. Secondly, it destroyed all of Iran's navy, ofcourse, they sited a different reason then the actuality of it, which was to help Iraq. Iraq was the one that even bombed a US destroyer, yet the US did nothing. When you are a super power, you dont need to declare war or justify your actions for anything, you just do it. The USA was a combatant, this is undeniable.Khosrow II 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if they are a combatant—which is a question open to interpretation insofar as the US actions against Iran may or may not be considered part of this particular war—the US is most certainly not a third "side" to the war (which would imply that they fought against both Iran and Iraq). If they're to be listed, they would presumably be in the same column as Iraq itself. Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That is just NOT TRUE, you said it yourself Iraq and Arab states. Ships from all countries in the region except Iran were allowed to flag their vessels with the U.S. flag so they could pass safely through an international navigable waterway that Iran was busy mining. The U.S. also provided the bulk of the weapons that Iran used (left over from the Shah's days). Iran was not allowed to flag its ships with the U.S. flag because of the revolution and the hostage taking, not because we teamed up with Iraq. The U.S. hasn't declared war on anyone since WWII, so that is an irrelevant argument. L0b0t 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, the lack of a formal declaration of war isn't really all that meaningful in this regard; the US has certainly been a combatant in conflicts that weren't "officially" wars (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, etc.), so the real question is whether it actually participated in the military action, not what the legal status of the action was. Kirill Lokshin 16:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Read these article: [14][15][16] it explains everything. Just wondeirng, what are your political beliefs? Conservative Republicans? I need to know in order to see where to go next with this debate. I could go on and on with sources. Non of the Arab states were neutral except Syria. They just declared neutrality, just like the US, but were all on Iraq's side, helping militariy, training, funding, protecting, etc.. Iraq.Khosrow II 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I've read the article and it DOES NOT support your claim. Yes the U.S. has been heavily involved in the region ever since the Suez crisis. I don't think anyone here is debating that. The issue however is wether or not the U.S. was a combatant in the Iran-Iraq conflict. They were not. The combat that the U.S. had with Iran was based soley on the Iranian's blocking of the sea lanes. Did this have an unintended benefit for Iraq? Maybe, but that's not why the U.S. did it. As Kirill Lokshin stated above, even if the U.S. was a combatant, the combatant3 tag is not the place to put the U.S.. One may as well say that Iran tried to sink a U.S. Navy ship by atacking it with an airliner. The facts are correct but the interpretation is way off base. L0b0t 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources clearly state the USA's motives. Also, whether the USA declared it officially or not, they were a combatant.Khosrow II 17:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So by your logic the U.S. is also a combatant in the Six-Day War because Israel attacked the USS Liberty. L0b0t 17:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the editing is biased by Iranian players so self-interested any Internet rumor counts as a source even when the reporters all say "If True." There are ways of deciding this and will be employed at once. This article is going to dispute review. Have a nice day.Marky48 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now it appears pretty clear that we've at least agreed that

• The U.S. should not be listed in the "combatant3" field, since regardless of the level of US involvement--the involvement was not as Kirill Lokshin has stated "a distinct third side" to the conflict.
• If the U.S. is a combatant then the U.S. should be listed in either the Iran or the Iraq column--and Khosrow II believes it should be the Iraq column.

The only question still seems to be whether the US was an actual combatant, rather than an "interested party". I've read the links you supplied Khosrow II and they do support the US as a interested party but not really a combatant. In every conflict, there has to be an end-point where we state that certain countries were actually fighting each other and other countries are merely involved to various degrees. As L0b0t has stated, if we include the US (an interested party) then we might as well include all the other Arab countries, the Soviet Union (another interested party), and any other country who had some involvement. I've seen this same issue arise with the Iraq War article where people are adding Iran and Syria to the list of combatants.
So, despite the evidence of US support for Iraq, which I believe to be extensive and despite the Tanker War period when the US and Iran were shooting at each other--I still don't see how those incidents place the US into the level of combatant in this war. This is especially true if we look at the fact that most of the US combat-related activities occurred in the relatively brief portion of the tanker war.
However, I do think the US's involvement is significant and it would be appropriate for an article on the specific US support for Iraq during the war, which I would certainly help with. Publicus 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense to me. It seems some here want the US involved, which nobody is disputing, more than they were, and inflating that role as wih the misleading assertion about Carter.Marky48 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

How about we include a section about the so called "neutral" states in the war and talk about their actions. This is the fairest way and everyone can be happy.Khosrow II 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't think anyone is saying the U.S. was not involved, just that they were not combatants. The role of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. should be discussed in the article. L0b0t 22:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That Carter passage has to be be moved back inot the US invlovement section whereever that is. As Kirill said, it doesn't belong in the lead or that close to it.Marky48 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

From looks of it and the partisan tinkering up until this point this move will be a fight. I don't see a US invlovement section unless the tanker issue is it.Marky48 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

If they were not "combatants", then what were they? Liberators? Aid givers?

It seems that some here want to erase their sad history of how the US is militarily involved in every corner of the world. The US was certainly and indisputably an involved party or "combatant" in the war:

Meriam Webster defines Combatant as: "one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat."[17]. So, let's investigate:

1. Operation Praying Mantis is "one of five American naval engagements cited by United States Naval Academy Prof. Craig L. Symonds in his book Decision at Sea (2005) as being decisive in establishing U.S. naval superiority".
2. The above attack by the U.S. helped pressure Iran to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq later that summer. So the US was indeed an involved party in the war.
3. The information gathered during Operation Eager Glacier became part of an intelligence exchange between U.S. military intelligence services and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.[18]
4. The US was also militarily engaged against Iran in Operation Nimble Archer, Operation Earnest Will, and Operation Prime Chance.
5. And if you still deny that the U.S. was actively involved in the war against Iran, see U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

I'm on the opinion that not only the U.S. was a "combatant", but decisively and agresssively involved in the war against Iran, as was seen during the Iran Air Flight 655 where George Bush Sr. announced:

"I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don't care what the facts are." in reference to the incident. ("PERSPECTIVES", Newsweek, August 15, 1988, p. 15.)

That's military agression at full hubris. The article is too soft. It appeases the U.S.--129.111.68.21 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This thing is increasingly looking like a left-wing rant. Yeah compromise as long as the US is the great puppeteer. It's patently false on its face.Marky48 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, what its looking like is a conservative Republican trying to block out history. I presume you also believe that he reason the USA went to war in Vietnam is because it was attacked right? Thanks for the information anonomous use, greatly appreciated.rKhosrow II 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you mean me I'm a liberal Democrat. Not that's any of your business but I've never voted for any Republican in my life. Moreover, I was actually alive when this was going on.

"USA went to war in Vietnam is because it was attacked right?"

No I don't. They went there because they thought they could stop communism. They couldn't but it's fallen apart on its own most places. That's a good thing. Dictatorships like Iran are a different issue. I was also alive when Kennedy was shot. Show a little respect. Innuendo is enough for extremists on both ends of the political spectrum but for NPOV it fails the bias test. You're mirroring the wingers in that department. It stinks no matter who does it.Marky48 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I listed the U.S. as Combant 2, hoping that will solve the confusion. Storm05 13:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the comments and reading some more on this, I think I made a mistake in my earlier understanding of the "combatant3" tag. Earlier I had thought it would be a bad idea to place the US in the "combatant3" tag because that places them as a combatant within the overall war, which certainly is not the case.
However, it now is clear to me that the US should definitely NOT be in either the Iran column (obviously) or the Iraq column, because the actions of the US fit more into a specific phase of the conflict. To my mind, this means that we could and probably should place the US into the "combatant3" column, along with the Soviet Union (once we figure out their level of involvement and military support) and whoever else was involved.
So here's my idea:

• Add the US to "combatant3" tag with a small note referring to the "Tanker War" period when the US was actually a combatant. It's important for future editing battles to make sure that people see the US wasn't fighting on the ground in Iraq or Iran--they were just involved in a specific limited military role which focused on keeping the sea lanes open.
• Add the Soviet Union to the "combatant3" tag as well since they were also involved in military operations in the "Tanker War".
• Add whoever else (UK maybe?) was involved with this period to "combatant3"

Khosrow II I realize this is what you had originally put in a little while back and I apologize for editing your original idea, I just didn't understand exactly what this "combatant3" tag was all about. Hopefully, this works for everyone. Publicus 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War

Just FYI, a related page is being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

The external links section here has gotten WAY out of hand. Anything being cited as a source needs to be in the references section and everything else needs to get pared down considerably. Please see WP:EL for policy on the subject. Cheers. L0b0t 01:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pure disgrace

This article is being held hostage by extremists who have some sort of agenda against America. Not content that they have a "damning" photo of Donald Rumself shaking hands with Saddam, and factual information about U.S. sales to Iraq, they must censor all information that they disagree with. Because if they don't censor that information, it would reveal that 95.9% of Iraq's external credits did not come from the United States, that 98% of their chemicals did not come from the U.S., that 99.4% of their military supplies did not come from the U.S., and that no U.S. ally mentioned sent U.S. howitzers to Iraq.

The people holding this article hostage should be ashamed of themselves. CJK 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You should post those references in the article. I've not looked at that part as I'm the Carter guy. The damning photo is true. It happened but the context as you say has to be factual. if it isn't see that it is. I didn't see any reference to these figures attributed to the US as much as they want to pin the tail on the US for the war as if there wasn't two other countries involved who were fueding neighbors. Thanks for putting Carter where he belongs in the article.Marky48 00:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was short lived because of these two Iranian zealots. let's just call a biased spade what it is: false cause fallacyville. Carter didn't cause this war. It started between the two countries in the headline. He got creamed in the process. I'll send this thing into arbitration so fast it will make your heads spin around like Linda Blair. Watch me. Marky48 03:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We're going to arbitration.Marky48 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We have been over this once, user: CJK and some others have tried to erase the info regarding U.S. involvement in this article several times before. The reason their attempts have failed is because of the reliable references that are presented for each paragraph. Removal of sourced material repeatedly without having any respect for other users is considered vandalism. You guys should try to learn about past mistakes of your government and condemn them instead of denying them and trying to conceal them, that would be the constructive approach. U.S. involvement in this article cannot be compared to that of USSR or European countries, U.S. was the only country that was directly involved. USSR most of the equipments to Iraq before the war started and it did so for financial reasons. U.S. on the other hand encouraged the war and supported Iraq for stratigic interests and to preserve and expand its domination in the region. U.S. destroyed half of Iranian navy and helped Saddam build WMDs and use them against Iranian and Kurds. U.S. would have done much more, if chemical weapons hadn't stopped Iranian army, Reagan made it clear when he said, "we would do whatever is necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war." If it wasn't for U.S. the war would have ended in 1982 and the lives of tens of thousands would have been saved. - Marmoulak 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Subjective and speculative. You're going to mediation for bias.Marky48 19:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Labeling anything that is against you POV as 'bias' is pretty convenient. Fortunately Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You have to present sources to back your edits. - Marmoulak 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

Presnt your case here: Requests for mediation I don't need anything other than the alleged role in the sources you're banking on. Alleged ain't supported by fact at the encyclopedic level of information. Sign the complaint. Any charges of vandalism will result in an internal investigation in addition to this content one. Count on it kid.Marky48 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an impeccable case here backed by the most reputable sources of information on this war. Thats why previous attempts of CJK and others to remove the data regarding U.S. involvement have failed. I will be more than happy to argue this case and present sources for each piece of information regarding this matter. - Marmoulak 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good sign it and hang on. Your sources don't support your claim. The cause is secondary and minor at best. To you it's the whole game and the keystone. It isn't. The role is real, the magnitude is much less than you want.Marky48 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again stats aren't on your side: Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include: Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons;[59] machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;[60] graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets;[61] West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]

One study lists 207 firms from 21 countries that contributed to Iraq’s non-conventional weapons program during and after the Iran-Iraq war. E.g., West German (86); British (18); Austrian (17); French (16); Italian (12); Swiss (11); and American (18).[64]

DOD

Helped sure, but far from the main player as this list supports. The chemical weapon analysis is good too. And by the way Pythian needs to quote sources we can check. Just saying it and linking his book isn't good enough. Share the data except you can't do original research, but you can quote him. All I see is second hand rumors to date. Marky48 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

U.S. was the only country that directly attacked Iran. By protecting Iraqi oil tankers against Iranian navy it gave Iraq the biggest possible advantage, Iraq always had a could get enough money to buy more weapons. On the other hand Iranian oil tankers were attacked and destroyed while Iranian navy was crippled by U.S. and couldn't properly protect the Iran's oil tankers. U.S. did not directly sold Iraq much equipment but indirectly initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into an aggressive power. Reagan administration frequently permitted and encouraged the supporting Iraq by money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons. It was CIA who gave Iraq intelligence regarding the position of Iranian army, thats how Iraq was able to bombard Iranians constantly with chemical weapons. U.S. was the most important player behind the scene and it was also the only player ,besides the two sides of the war, that was on the scene. - Marmoulak 04:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Horse hockey you're inflating everything due to cultural affiliation. It's obvious to everyone but you. I don't know if you're aware the US and Iran don't exactly agree. This is news how? Iraq fought Iran to a standoff with whatever help the Germans and others gave them. It didn't work out very well for us did it if that's the case? You're biased Iranian looking for revenge. A shill blinded by bias.Marky48 05:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And you still haven't signed. Sign it. Marky48 05:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not a bias Iranian, I don't approve of the Iranian government, I condemn most of their domestic policies along with their foreign policies. I am open to criticism because I think it is constructive unlike denial. I admire U.S. domestic policies and system but I do think that U.S. foreign polices have many times been most exploitive and selfish. You on the other hand seems to be a bias American, and apparently you do whatever it takes to conceal the mistakes of U.S. government. By the way I have a reliable source for whatever I wrote on my previous post. - Marmoulak 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

How dare you bring our nationality into this? Did it ever occur to you that we may be Americans too? For your information, I am just as much if not more American than you are. I find it quite ridiculous that you are trying everything in your power to keep up your evident POV push. This is Wikipedia, not Fox News Encyclopaedia.Khosrow II 05:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And since I'm a Democrat and have had family in America since 1635 I call your assertion that I'm both not as much of an American as you are and have a FOX News agenda ludicrous on its face. Facts are a bitch aren't they? Moreover, long time Americans don't work for the motherland from the safety of America. If ethnicity and national origin supports bias then its an issue. You have a "US is the root of all evil approach" here which is a frequent left-wing view. That's not POV? It's as if these two countries would have just had a tea party had "Carter not started the war and Reagan fueled it" and give the entire European continent and Russia a pass even though they supplied most of the weapons. That's POV.

This is what you conclude and I know you believe it, but it isn't the job of Wikipedians to analyze and make conclusions based on the allegations of a handful renegade left-wing opinion journalists and professors. And you know maybe taking an embassy hostage had something to do with what involvement we did have? It's not the puppeteering masterplan that you two paint. I see you haven't signed the mediation which is telling. You'll lose. NPOV is why.Marky48 16:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you haven't read the whole article yet. The article certainly doesn't "give the entire European continent and Russia a pass", the amount of arms they sold to Iraq is clearly mentioned and I invite you to add any additional info regarding their support of Iraq to the article that is of course if you have reliable sources to back it up. It seems to me that you can't accept the reality about the role of U.S. in this war thats why you constantly label anything that is about U.S. support of Iraq 'POV', 'bias' or 'left-wing opinion'. You need to step back and read about the history of this war and think about it a little, may be you realize that it is not the article that is biased but it is you whose POV is biased and far from reality. I have noticed that users who usually try to remove the data regarding U.S. support for Iraq, complain about the "little attention" that has been given to role of USSR in comparison to role of U.S., apparently these users lack sufficient studies on the subject, because if they had studied the history of this war they would know that USSR sold most of the weapons to Iraq before the invasion and withdrew its support for Iraq shortly after the invasion. European countries were supporting Iraq solely for financial benefits, the only reason they weren't giving Iran the same amount of arms was that rules of politics dictates that you dont wanna go against the super power of the world and at that time U.S. was supporting Iraq. U.S. was the only country who "would do whatever is necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war". You repeatedly ramble about how bias and POV this article is, but never mention a specific paragraph. It seems that you yourself know how well referenced this article is thats why you talk about anything except for the actual info in this article. The phrase ""Carter not started the war and Reagan fueled it" that complained earlier does not exist through out this article so please specify the exact paragraph that you have a problem with!. I will be more than happy to argue each and every paragraph of this article but I dont see any need for mediation. I dont agree with the issues you have raised, the only issue is removal of referenced material without any rationale and that is against wikipedia rules os there is no need for mediation, you have no case here. - 74.98.42.188 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine the diff to clarify my position on U.S. support during the Reagan era. [19]

1. The image of Donald Rumsfeld was moved from the arms section to the section about U.S. entanglement.

2. Ted Koppel was also moved in a similar way because his (unsourced and probably inaccurate) statements from 1992 deal with U.S. support in general not just arms.

3. I added a link to a source from SIPRI that show major arms transfers to Iraq. These figures contradict the assessment that Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt sent U.S. howitzers and helicopters to Iraq (Joradan sent 4 or so helis but that was it). In addition, I do not believe that the source alleging this is unbiased (just check the title) but I'm willing to leave it if SIPRI is there also.

4. I replaced

By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. The Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee delivered 60 tons of DMMP, a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in so-called Gulf War Syndrome. The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company. The firm was owned by Sahib Abd al-Amir al-Haddad, an Iraqi-born, naturalized American citizen. Recent stories in The New York Times and The Tennessean reported that al-Haddad was arrested in Bulgaria in November 2002 while trying to arrange an arms sale to Iraq. Al-Haddad was charged with conspiring to purchase equipment for the manufacture of a giant Iraqi cannon.

with

In 1984, U.S. Customs at New York's Kennedy Airport stop an order addressed to the Iraqi State Enterprise for Pesticide Production for 74 drums of potassium fluoride, a chemical used in the production of Sarin. The order was places by Al-Haddad Enterprises Incorporates, owned by an individual named Sahib al-Haddad. Alcolac International supplied one mustard-gas precursor to both Iraq and Iran in violation of U.S. export laws for which it was forced to pay a fine. More than 300 tons were sent to Iraq in all, accounting for less than 2% of Iraq's precursor imports.[20] [21] [22][23]

I'd be willing to merge elements if the first para was sourced but it is not.

5. I moved several paras relating to biological weapons in their own independent section rather than wrongly imply they were CW related.

6. I added that total U.S. loans amounted to 4.1% of all Iraq's loans during this time. The figure is gotten by the pie-charts supplied in the link.

What on earth is wrong with this? CJK 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You might have a few legitimate edits on your list but because you submited a mixed range of changes at the same time without any explaination, your edits are bond to be reverted back. Perhaps it would help if you submit your changes one at a time.

1. I have no problem with the moving the picture to U.S. engagement section.

2. Ted Koppel did one of the most extensive investigations on this war, he interviewed several former high ranking officials and eyewitnesses who were involved during the war. For instance in the case of USS Vincennes downing the Iranian airliner, the captain of USS Vincennes claimed that he had recieved a distress call from a Pakistani merchant ship and thats how it had moved to Iranian territory before downing the Iranian airliner. Ted Koppel went as far as interviewing the captain of the Pakistani ship and it turned out that there was no distress signal. Thats how extensive his investigation was, I am guessing you didn't even bother reading his investigation and you are calling his investigastion inaccurate and unsourced just because it doesn't match your POV. The funny thing is that you insert your own POV in the middle of a paragraph and expect to get away with it. Who are you to say that "Ted Koppel cites no statistics to back up this statement." Ted Koppel's investigation speaks for itself, at least read the presented sources before accusing them.

3. The Irony is that you use a general and vague source like SIPRI and call a detailed and well sourced reference like Ted Koppel's investigation 'inaccurate. SIPRI contains a vague and general list of arm transfers, whereas Ted Koppel's extensive investigation is specifically about the Iran Iraq war. Tell me how exactly does SIPRI "demonstrate that only Jordan sold a few U.S. helicopters to Iraq, and no other country stated above sent U.S. howitzers." Phythian clearly cites Murray Waas and Craig Unger as its source.

4. I have no objection to adding the following paragraph.

"U.S. Customs at New York's Kennedy Airport stop an order addressed to the Iraqi State Enterprise for Pesticide Production for 74 drums of potassium fluoride, a chemical used in the production of Sarin. The order was places by Al-Haddad Enterprises Incorporates, owned by an individual named Sahib al-Haddad. "

Erasing the original paragraph is unacceptable and the sentence "accounting for less than 2% of Iraq's precursor imports" is your original research , you cannot put it there (Inserting original research is a gainst Wikipedia rules). www.wisconsinproject.org doesnt present any sources for its claims, seems like a propaganda site.

The following paragraph has been removed without any explaination:

In May of 2003, an extended list of American companies and other countries involvements in Iraq was provided by The Independent (UK). Official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, stated that Bell helicopters that were given to Iraq by U.S. later were used to spray chemical weapons.

5. Other than the following paragraphs which are not particularly about biological weapons I have no objection to this change:

A report by Berlin's Die Tageszeitung in 2002 reported that Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council listed 150 foreign companies that supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program. Twenty-four U.S. firms were involved in exporting arms and materials to Baghdad

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." He added, "the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record."

6. Wikipedia is not a place for original research

(Marmoulak 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

1. I moved Ted, did not remove him. I am not objecting to his info on the USS Vincennes. His other statement is not referenced.

2. You've got to be kidding me. SIPRI is far more vavluable than any innuendo you have cited. Click on the link provided, read the equipment transferred, and tell me where you see U.S. helicopters and howitzers. Furthermore, your denunciation of the Wisconsin Project is comical considering your above resource.

3. The 2% figure is based on 300 tons provided in the sources divided by the 17,602 tons of CW related imports Iraq declared. Math is not original research. Furthermore, the source contradicts the original para which implied the precursors were successfully delivered by Haddad. Since some sources are giving a larger figure, I'll agree to "less than 3%".

4. It is not appropriate to single out American companies, if remove "American" and just reference the companies it would be OK.

5. Divide the U.S. figure by the total in the pie charts. Performing math is not original research.

CJK 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. At the beginning of the paragraph it says "Ted Koppel reported:..". Ted Koppel is concluding his investigation the paragraph is a quote by Ted Koppel and his source is his entire investigation you cant insert your biased POV at the end of the paragraph.

2. SIPRI is, as I said before, just a list. First, there is no guarantee that it has covered all the transfers, second, the phrase you are trying to insert does not exist in SIPRI website but what you have "concluded" from it which is original research. My sources on the other hand are Murray Waas and Craig Unger. Murray Waas is a journalist for Los Angeles Times and New Yorker, and Craig Unger has done the most extensive investigation on relations btw the Saudies and Bush family.

3. As you said it yourself different sources give different figures, calculating the percentage given the fluctuation of numbers from one source to another is not your job, thats not how we do it in Wikipedia. You cannot just omit the role of Alcolac International company. To avoid confusion I suggest using the phrase 'According to' to distinguish btw different accounts given by different sources.

4. You can specify the number of companies from other countries but you cant erase the number regarding American companies.

5. It is, indeed, considered original research. You can't do such things in wikipedia. - 74.98.42.188 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well as the history project leader said:

"Bleh, what a mess. I'm of the opinion that it's an interesting assertion, but one better placed within the context of the "Background" section rather than in the lead. Parry's a significant enough person that his allegation—even if wrong—can probably be legitimately mentioned as part of the general discussion of the US role in these events; but to put it into the first paragraph would be unduly emphasizing something that's relatively poorly sourced, and doesn't seem to enjoy the support of a substantial proportion of historians working on this field. (If it is something espoused by many other sources, of course, that would be a different case.) Kirill Lokshin 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)"

The assertion is in the lead as a major cause of the war. That's wrong which is why I moved it to the US section and rearranged the chronology. It is you three that have no case. And you'll see damn well why too.Marky48 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Phythian clearly cites Murray Waas and Craig Unger as its source."

They are journalists. Who are their sources?

"the only issue is removal of referenced material."

No it wasn't removed only moved after it was clear removal wouldn't work, but neither has this so... You add yet another bad and false list of allegations. That's falty reasoning. And still the opposition hasn't signed the mediation. They don't dare is my guess, but I'll move it on to forced arbitration if they don't.Marky48 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"reinserting sourced information. How much longer are you going to insist that sourced information has no place in this article?"

I didn't remove "sourced" information. I moved it to where it belongs, albeit only allegations and not proven charges. But I see that isn't good enough for POV shills like you. Very well then. Sign the mediation or prepare to be banned from Wikipedia. Your choice.Marky48 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See you court. This is going into forced arbitration.Marky48 05:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no source.

2. State their sources, please. Also, please explain how the Reagan can "let" sovereign nations sell weapons that they alone are in possession of. A number would be nice, too. As the SIPRI thing is more recent than your book, it would be appropriate to point out the contradiction.

3. Fine. We'll say between 300 and 400, which would still be less than 3% in either case.

4. Agreed.

5. It is using numbers in the source to calculate a percentage which is not original research.

I take it you agree with me on Haddad. CJK 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. It is not your job to insert such a judgemnet of Ted Koppel's investigation in the article, the readers can decide for themselves, your judgement is your POV hence it can not be inserted there.

2. My sources have been already presented. SIPRI doesnt contain any info refuting the transfer of arms from saudi arabia to Iraq it just neglects to mention this transfer whereas other sources indicate that there actually have been other transfer of arms . The statement "SIPRI demonstrates that only Jordan sold a few U.S. helicopters to Iraq, and no other country stated above sent U.S. howitzers." is purely your POV and there is no such statement in SIPRI.

5. Neither the total amount of loans given to Iraq by all countries nor the amount of loans given to Iraq by U.S. is a certain number different sources give different numbers. What you did is considered original research by Wikipedia standards.

Marmoulak 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole chemical weapons sections is skewed way out of proportion. Contrary to the descriptions of a US company, which was a small Iraqi front company no example of a Singapore company the largest contributor. From reading this one would get the idea the US was the main supplier of raw materials all stemming over the countryside by two Bell helicpoters. This thing is so biased against the US it's almost beyond rescue. The proportions are hopelessly out of context in relation to the amounts and where the chem and biologicals actually came from.

"By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. The Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee delivered 60 tons of DMMP, a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in so-called Gulf War Syndrome. The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company."

I'm adding this to the arbitration. Marky48 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Again, there is no source

2. You cite a source which is clearly out to get the U.S., so what are the journalists' sources? Or did they make this up?

3. Where are the "different numbers"?

CJK 21:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. That is your POV.

2. Well, they investigated the matter and according to their investigation Reagan's administration secretly allowed the transfer of U.S. made arms to Iraq. This was done without the approval of the congress so I am removing the phrase "U.S. is also resposible for".

3. According to the source you are offering the amount of loans given to Iraq by U.S. between the period of 1980 to 2000 was 12% of the total 1. Iraq was sanctioned after 1990 by U.S. so we can conclude that U.S. gave all the loan to Iraq during Iran Iraq war and that the percentage of the total amount of loan, given to Iraq by U.S. durning Iran Iraq war, was actually much more than 12%. Overal, I dont know how you got your number but it is apparently far from reality.

(Marmoulak 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)).

1. There is no source!!!!

2. And they obviously had to have a source.

3. There are two pie charts, one Paris club and the other non-Paris club. If you added the pie charts together, you would get 4.1%. Furthermore, loans to Iraq did not occur during the sanction period.

CJK 00:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware you're under formal arbitration? reverting only helps my cause because the committee is watching the page. Give em rnough rope and all...Marky48 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The sourse is the investigation by Ted Koppel, and the statement "Ted Koppel cites no statistics to back up this statement." is your POV.

2. They investigated the matter, interviewed officials of different countries and so on.

3. The chart is for the time period of 1980 - 2000, the war happened during 1980 - 1988 hence charts cant be used here. U.S. gave all the loans to Iraq during Iran Iraq war therefore a much higher percentage of the total amount of loan were given to Iraq by U.S. durning Iran Iraq war.

(Marmoulak 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)).

Again Koppel isn't a source. He's a vector for a source. He has to cite someone's stats since journalists don't create their own out of whole cloth. What are they? You can't identify a source only who a journalist is. I'm a journalist. I cite sources other than myself when reporting. You'e not grasping the concept here. There is Arbitration.Marky48 03:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ted Koppel interviewed with a lot of officials and witnesses, and he is credible enough to be quoted on this article. Murray Waas and Craig Unger wrote the article, In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission, for new yorker and their source was apparently, a classified memo written by William L. Eagleton, the chief of the United States-interests section in Baghdad. - Marmoulak 06:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently? Marky48 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, I'va found the article: But there were other ways of arming Iraq. One such way - transferring arms through third countries - was outlined in a classified memo written by William L. Eagleton, the chief of the United States-interests section in Baghdad, in October, 1983. "We can selectively lift restrictions on third party transfers of U.S.- licensed military equipment to Iraq," he wrote. Even though the stated United States policy toward the Iran-Iraq War remained one of neutrality, and Congress would never have approved such arms transfers, that year the Reagan Administration began secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs, to Iraq. These shipments may very well have violated the Arms Export Control Act. 1

Your sources relying on this article are far left fringe sites. Only original articles should be linked from credible sources. That said regardless of the amount of help provided Iraq it's not against the law to support one side over the other when Iran was openly hostile to the US and started that path of their own volition. I'm part of the military history Wikiproject and so I will not let your biased reportage and allegations stand. It is heavily skewed in favor of a "victimized" Iran. This is a false impression and an appeal to emotion by a partisan. That's not what we do here. It is NPOV. Iran "accidentily" shoots down one of our planes, but we deliberately shot down the airliner? Location or not this is false. I will revert until hell freezes over and someone of authority steps in to stop you. It will happen.Marky48 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is from New Yorker, I just linked to a site that has the article on their database. The source of the statement as mentioned in the article is an official source (classified memo written by William L. Eagleton, the chief of the United States-interests section in Baghdad). It seems that you label any source that is against your POV as "bias" or "left-wing", no matter how reliable and credible it is. Apparently you still haven't read the article and its sources properly because if you had you would know that no american plane was shot down during the war be it accidently or not, it was an american vessel that was attacked by an Iraqi plane not an Iranian plane. If you really want to help to the military history Wikiproject, that you are a part of, you should spend more time reading instead of looking for ways to conceal U.S. past actions. - Marmoulak 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no source to the investigation.

2. Your so-called "evidence" is a proposal by Eagleton. THere is no evidence that his proposal was acted upon.

3. There was no credit to Iraq between 1990 to 2003 due to sanctions.

CJK 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Part of Ted Koppel's investigation is the source.

2. The classified memo outlines the transfers not just the proposal. keep it mind that the article was published in New Yorker and the authors should have had a credible source to back such claim.

3. Exactly, thats why the percentage would be much higher. let me make an example hopefully you will understand. Assume the total amount of loans given to Iraq in the period of 1980-2000 was 100 million $ and 30 million $ of it were given to Iraq in the period of 1980-1988, assume that U.S. gave Iraq 10 million $ in the period of 1980-1988 and nothing after that because of the sanctions, if you calculate the percentage of total loan given to Iraq by U.S. in the period of 1980-2000 it would be 10% but if you calculate the percentage for the period of 1980-1988 it would be 33% which is much higher, do you understand the logic here?. Furthermore this is all original research and cannot be used in wikipedia.

(Marmoulak 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

You need to post things in order not insert them in line where no one can find them. Yes that Iraqi plane was a mistake on my part, but the bias is still rampant and not on my part. You're a relativist sporting an extreme POV. You're POV pusher as you like to call me. It's your selective quoting and magnification of US involvement into the forefront that renders this article slanted. Others have said so but you are an editing bully akin to the last Japanese solder fighting on the island twenty years later. You're going to run everyone off no matter what. Brezinski? NO way in left-wingerville Iran! He get's his source removed in favor of fringe journalists. Well sir, that isn't allowed here. Your editing choices are in arbitration. Do you dare to defend yourself there? Or run roughshod against the consensus on this article? You're outnummbered including the Wikihistory project leader. That doesn't bode well for your future in editing this article. I'll get it protected. Count on it. Marky48 03:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to be more specific and back your claims up by pointing out these "extreme POV" and "bias" you are constantly talking about, all I see is aimless ranting that lack constructiveness. You insult me and my nationality, accuse me, call the article "biased" and "BS" without actually pointing out any actual "problems" in the article. You just sense that the article is "biased" and "BS", well may be just may be it is you who is biased not the article, give it some thought. by the way, I have no problem with recent statement you have inserted, as you can see I haven't reverted it. I searched for the book in the library of my university and it seems that they dont have the book. Could you send the scanned images of the pages mentioned in the reference?. - Marmoulak 06:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your nationality is affect your vision. I'm talking about Carter causing the war as included in YOUR lead. I'm talking about only US companies being profiled when the were the monority of suppliers. I'm talking about far left sources drawing historical conclusions from cherry-picked data. Is that clear enough? I doibt it is frankly. Thre US didn't start this conflict. All politics is local. You can't handle the truth.Marky48 15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I try to be as neutral as possible and act rationaly rather than emotionaly. You ,on the other hand, seem to do a lot of emotional edits.

First, There is not a single line in the article that is "my POV", everything has a source. Second, no where in the article contains information saying that "Carter caused the war". All I see is still aimless complaining, once again I ask you to point out the paragraph or line that you think is "POV" or "bias". The majority of companies involved in the war have been listed in the article, and please by all means, expand the article and add the profile of the companies that have not been listed. Marmoulak 19:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Get it from interlibrary loan then. What kind a college wouldn't have this book? Because he was National Security Advisor not some fringe journalist. Get it yourself.Marky48 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to prove the correctness of your claims. - Marmoulak 19:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically, that's not true. Per WP:V and WP:CITE, it is sufficient if (1) I tell you the page number of Brzezinski's book and (2) I represent the contents of that page correctly. Verifiable sources don't need to be on the internet, they just need to be (1) verifiable, (2) reliable, and (3) identified with sufficiently accuracy to allow an editor to find them. With that clarification, I am happy to send you the scans you requested, as I said below; I just don't want you to misinterpret WP's policy regarding the issue. TheronJ 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Marmoulak,

1. Where is the source?

2. You cite a proposal in the document, not evidence that it was acted upon.

3. I've decided on a different wording.

CJK 03:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The source is Ted Koppel's investigation.

2. According to the secret memo it actually was.

3. Your new insertion reads: "In all, Iraq received $35 billion in loans from the West and between $30 and $40 billion from the Gulf States during the 1980s." This is incorrect the numbers you are inserting (which, by the way, is considered original research) are for the period of 1980 to 2000 not 1980 to 1990.

Marmoulak 03:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

As per the policy I also challenge the Pythian claims. I'd need to see scans of his sources as to why he gets so much ink in the references. He's not well-known by any stretch.Marky48 04:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Provide a link.

2. The memo read "We can selectively lift restrictions on third party transfers of U.S.-licensed military equipment to Iraq". That is not evidence it was carried out.

3. Read the source. It states specifically that $35 billion was given by the West and $30-40 billion by the Gulf states during the 1980s.

CJK 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Koppel report on the Vincennes. The "decoy" term is provided by John Barry a reporter not a government official. That's his descriptor and not official. The operation was to protect the shipping lanes from Iranian attacks on neutral vessels. Why would the Iranians attack a hapless Liberian tanker if it was genuine? Marky48 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on US involvement

I've included a discussion of Zbigniew Brzezinksi's comments regarding initial US reaction to the war here - U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#Initial_U.S._reaction_to_the_Iran-Iraq_War. I'll leave it to you guys to decide what, if anything, of that should be included in the main article.

It's been a while since I've read Hiro's The Longest War, but my gut reaction is that the article is cherry-picking that book for the stuff that makes the US look worse. If I recall correctly, Hiro's general thesis was: (1) at first, the US was primarily concerned that the war would break out into a full regional conflict and/or invite the Soviet Union to intervene, and also attempted to leverage the war to get the hostages out (Brzezinski largely supports this); but (2) after initial Iraqi gains, the Iranians began doing so well that it began to look like a serious possibility that Iran might conquer all or a significant portion of Iraq. At that point, the US began offering Iraq limited arms and intelligence support. Can someone with a copy of Hiro's book confirm that? TheronJ 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, at least read the article and the previous discussions before critisizing it blindly. First U.S. didn't just "offered Iraq limited arms and intelligence support", it directly attacked Iran's navy and destroyed half of it and by protecting Gulf states tankers which carried Iraqi's oil and also supplied Iraq financially it guaranteed Iraq's revenue till the end of the war. Other than supplying Iraq with arms, loans and dual technology it supplied Iraq with intelligence regarding the position if Iranian troops in order to target them with chemical weapons, this was the most crucial support given to Iraq since without it, Iraqis could not have stopped the forwarding Iranian army. In 1982 after Iraq started losing the war, peace was offered to parties of the war but Iran demanded compensation and removal of Saddam from power, Iran clearly stated that it does not want to occupy the Iraqi land. I think most of edit wars could be prevented if only people simply read about the subject trying to "fix" the article. - Marmoulak 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment, Marmoulak -- I'll take a look back at my sources before making any major changes to the article. (I reserve the right to keep offering my 2 cents on the talk pages, however, no matter how ill informed.  ;-P) TheronJ 14:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"but my gut reaction is that the article is cherry-picking that book for the stuff that makes the US look worse."

That's exactly what's going on here from one end to the other.Marky48 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why in hell does 1982 come before 1981? We understand you blame the US for whole thing, that's perfectly clear from your "selections."

"crucial support given to Iraq since without it, Iraqis could not have stopped the forwarding Iranian army."

This clearly your conclusion not supported by anything. You are not a historian as much as you think you are. Who says this besides you?

Didn't like Zbig either I gather? But Haig was sure singing your tune though. I can see why since he refutes the crap you've posted. This BS will end. I assure you of that.Marky48 01:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget, with Gates' nomination to be Secretary of Defense, CSPAN is talking about all the anti-tank weapons the U.S. sold to Iran to stop the Iraqi armored drive because battalions of 12 year old boys chained to one another couldn't cut the mustard. The United States gave support to both sides of this conflict but had NO causal relationship with the conflict itself. The money we gave to the Contras was Iranian money paid to us in exchange for weapons to use against Iraq. L0b0t 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it for neutrality issues present throughout. Since the editing of some is under arbitration and they refuse to make their case there, there's nothing more I can do. My edits have remained so that's as far as I'm going with this. What the arbcom does is out of my hands at this point. Good luck.Marky48 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Marmoulak and Marky48, stop the madness

Marmoulak and Marky48, you are both solid editors, and I don't want to cast blame anywhere, but I strongly enourage you both to take a step back and "start over." From what I can see, you're both advocating for what you see as a neutral point of view in good faith, but you're (understandably) letting your frustration get the better of you at times.

Wikipedia has plenty of dispute resolution mechanisms available, and the verifiable source, reliable source and neutral point of view guidelines actually can resolve most disputes, no matter how bitter. I'd be happy to offer advice of how to resolve this issue if y'all want.

Marmoulak, I will get you scans of the relevant Brzezinski pages when I get a chance to go back to the library. (I will be glad when I don't have to type that name any more). In general, I enourage you both to get some broad history books of the war and the period -- they may not resolve this specific dispute, but maybe you can work together to improve the description of the non-US-related aspects of the war. Thanks, TheronJ 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing master's thesis on this, but this thing is under arbitration and has failed mediation because he wouldn't sign. He was the only one. It is obvious the US involvement no matter how minor is the central focus of this. It should be presented in context not as a smoking gun from third hand sources in many cases. Citing reporters not citing sources isn't good enough.

"Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported." See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View He's consistantly defended the article by drawing his own conclusions as to what is key, important, and what isn't. That's against policy. Marky48 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Policy

TheronJ, thank you for your neutrality. Although I dont agree with the recent edits by Marky48, I am willing to cope with them in order to help reaching a compromise. This kind of edit wars certainly are not constructive and slow down the improvement of the article. I would appreciate it, if you could post the scanned Brzezinski pages. - Marmoulak 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That would a good idea. There are others who have damn near given up because their edits have been killed repeatedly not matter how valid. The ISBN link on the ZB reference takes you to all sources of the book in libraries.Marky48 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification still needed

The Koppel quote is out of place and needs a link. The alleged transfers need to have a better reference than a proposal. If this is not clarified soon I will remove said bias. CJK 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Arms Sales to Iraq 1973-1990

All those who think that the U.S unashamedly propped up Saddams regime (especially Marmoulak) should have a good look at the 'Arms Sales to Iraq 1973-1990' Wikipedia article, which clearly shows that Americas contribution to Saddam's regime was minimal on its own and hugely dwarfed by the contributions by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact(Czechslovakia mainly)