Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The infobox most everyone seems to want

Okay, here’s the infobox belligerent listing that everyone wants – according to the “justifications” used in the arguments above. Of course, those arguments were only in support of their favorite POV, but it’s only fair to take them to their logical, fair and balanced conclusion. To summarize, each main belligerent’s listing includes: 1) itself; 2) countries whose shipping was attacked or threatened by the other main belligerent (by aircraft, ships, gunboats, armed speedboats, cruise missiles, mines, etc.); 3) countries that supplied arms, funds, intelligence support, or WMD-related materiel to that belligerent; and 4) non-nation state volunteer groups fighting in support of it; and 5) international organizations monitoring ceasefires or otherwise acting as observers (with military personnel). I’m sure I’ve missed a few, but every country listed below has been fact-checked per the stated rationales; none are included by mistake under one or the other.

Iran-Iraq War
Iranian soldier with gas mask in the battlefield
Date 22 September 1980–20 August 1988 Location Persian Gulf, Iranian-Iraqi border Result Stalemate; Strategic Iraqi failure; Tactical Iranian failure Territorial changes status quo ante bellum
Belligerents
Iran United States Do Israel Libya North Korea PRC Syria USSR Argentina Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Ethiopia France India Italy Japan Kuwait Nicaragua Netherlands Pakistan Poland Portugal Saudi Arabia South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom Yugoslavia Kurdistan UNIIMOG	Iraq United States USSR PRC Egypt France Kuwait Saudi Arabia United Kingdom Austria Belgium Brazil Canada Czechoslovakia Denmark East Germany West Germany Greece Hungary India Italy Jordan Liberia Netherlands Panama Poland Portugal Romania Singapore South Africa Spain Switzerland United Arab Emirates Yugoslavia People's Mujahedin of Iran Arab volunteers from different Arab countries UNIIMOG

This is how ridiculous all this pointedness gets: A long, tedious list of mostly peripheral “players” – and one in which Israel ends up appearing as an “ally” of Iran. Imagine that. Feel blessed that I cut this variant infobox off at the list of "participants" and didn't make an attempt to add all the respective heads of state, foreign ministers, military chiefs, and respective armed forces. The purpose of the infobox is to briefly provide an “at-a-glance” summary of major facts. It is inherently incapable of dealing with nuances – those are to be addressed in the article itself. Reductio ad absurdum? Yes, but that's what it would take to satisfy all the stated justifications for who should be included, if taken to its logical (and fairly balanced) conclusion. So, how about we let the infobox be what it’s supposed to be and focus on developing a better article, which is what really matters. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would substitute this for the current one, you're a braver man than I, Gunga Din.

Mark, you have given me an idea, which is probably far too NPOV for consideration. I wonder if each of the five categories you mention (well, maybe not the principal belligerents) might logically link to a related article(s) with a standardized title. For example, if the infobox refers to the "Foo-Bar War", the first set of articles could be:

• countries whose shipping was attacked or threatened by the other main belligerent (by aircraft, ships, gunboats, armed speedboats, cruise missiles, mines, etc.). I'm not sure, however, if those should be separate "Attacked by Foo", "Attacked by Bar", "Deliberately attacked by Foo and Bar", randomly attacked by either Foo or Bar" (e.g., drifting mines in international waters, begging the question of what comprises international waters in littorals).
• countries that supplied arms, funds, intelligence support, or WMD-related materiel to that belligerent;
• non-nation state volunteer groups fighting in support of it;
• international organizations

This still doesn't cleanly handle situations like the US being in combat with both Iran and Iraq; the WWII sides of Finland, the USSR, and Italy; whether the WWII Haganah counts in any category since it was non-national; constructs such as Vichy or Manchukuo in WWII or the Warsaw Pact.

Let's see...where would humanitarian NGOs fit? The Korean War infobox covers "medical only", yet, depending on the war, the primary belligerents might well give purely triage-based care to people, not worrying about their nationality. Now, "care" gets into interesting issues; some WWII US medical people told me that a young SS man had raised hell in the postoperative ward, until they told him that unless he shut up, they'd transfuse him with Jewish blood. Friends serving in Iraq have described major confrontations, sometimes with sidearms drawn, when a US surgeon decided an insurgent had a higher surgical priority.

Returning to the categories, there might be a logical matrix that could be developed for mostly bipolar wars, but I don't know how I'd set them up for something as multipolar as Balkan or Iraqi civil wars.

The best summary of all this came from the "foreign correspondent" of a small US TV station, a hairspray addict who, in a ratings war, was sent to a war zone. His unforgettable opening line -- and I am not making this up was "The former Yugoslavia is becoming balkanized!"

Is there anything we can do with these observations?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Askari Mark,

Excellent work, I vote for your new box! Seriously. However you might want to add some sub-categories i.e. a column A for Iran and a column B for Iraq and a column C for Both. Also Korean War's box had subcategories for UN and Medical.

There is not a simple picture for the relations between Iran and Israel, by the way. There is at leaast one half-way decent book on the subject. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Failure to be able to draw a picture of the relations between Iran and Israel, if you were provided with a canvas Klein bottle, shows a lack of imagination. You are, I trust, familiar with the fable of the frog and the scorpion, following Middle Eastern politics. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. I don't think non-country actors should be excluded from infoboxes (i.e. smaller groups and not-quite-states and would-be-states and non-state actors like Al Queda), because the state lines in the Middle East were drawn by the British at the turn of the century, reflect British priorities, and do not necessarily reflect the prior 5,000 years of history in the region. You are more likely to get a clear picture of the parties in an action if you present them as they present themselves, as long as their participation is material.
2. If not an infobox then I would love to see a section with a table that lists for each country which "side" it was on -- which is simplified in the sense that there is roughly one governmnet in Iran and one in Iraq during the 1980-1988 time period -- one, the other or both or neither -- and what contributions were made in terms of men, materiel, intelligence, political support or whatever. I take the joke infobox above literally in the sense that he claimed that all of the listed countries had an involvement. This fact alone is very interesting and very important and very educational and it really does people a service to convey the idea that wars do not happen in isolation. For example, China, Iran and Israel all contributed to the Soviet-Afghanistan war in covert ways. The uninformed view would be that it was just Russians and Afghanis. It's always better to convey the whole community view. Diagrams might help in some cases, for example like this one.
3. Re US, Israel and Iran: Some of their conflict is for real and some of it is like this. It is important to distinguish posturing while commercial and political relations continue to take place in one form or another, and actual bullets flying in the air.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think it's a bit tasteless to use your arguments to support your point, but what it strikes me that what you have just described are reasons why the current infobox structure about wars is seeming, to a number of editors, to confuse rather than simplify. You may well be making a point, however, that additional infobox templates may be a useful direction. You've written some perfectly reasonable comments about why certain things should appear somewhere, and perhaps in a different infobox. Mark, others, and myself, I believe, see the problem as trying to force the existing infobox to do things it was not intended to do.

For example, you make a very reasonable point that non-national powers often define groups more meaningfully than do arbitrary boundaries set by the Ottomans, British, etc. Would you consider a new infobox (or table) specifically for non-national actors? You know more than I do about setting up templates and tables, but the non-national box might well have a flag and a group name, but information other than "side". For example, I think it would be important to have a column that defines how the group defines itself, by whatever combination of religious, ideological, ethnic and similar factors. When the group has external supporters (on the level of sanctuary and direct military support (including individual training), or at least ready-to-use weapons), those should be identified, with the understanding that such relationships may change over time. Again subject to change and perhaps better wikilinked to a text note, is alliances with national and non-national groups within the area of operations.

I'll need to study the diagrams to which you have linked, and I'd appreciate advice on how they might be used in the Wiki markup language, or need to be built with a graphics tool. Your point is well taken that there is a difference among those that shoot bullets on behalf of a side or group, those that supply bullets and advice with intent to use them in the specific conflict, and those that generically supply weapons (and perhaps have cut off supplies).

In agreeing with you that wars are complex, I might suggest supplementary boxes, of whatever type, for actors that changed affiliation during a conflict, or had support withdrawn. Good examples of the first might be Finland, Italy, and the Soviet Union during WWII, and affiliation variously with the Tripartite Pact or the Eastern Front. Good examples of the latter might be the Kurds who had US Army Special Forces support cut off in the Iran-Iraq war, or the indigenous guerillas in Indochina that either had French GCMA support cut off (or the indigenes and their GCMA detachment) were cut off completely by the French)

Are the shadows lengthening, or is there a light of consensus on the horizon? Is the dawn here? Days of old have vanished, tone and tint. They have gone glimmering through the dreams of things that were. Their memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tears, and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. We listen vainly, but with thirsty ears, for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll. In our dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I give up. Actors don't stay in fixed states of opposition long enough to define a war. So how do we talk about wars?

These specifications of diagrams end up turning into a formal representation language for states of conflict. This is an interesting topic but is definitely OR and none of us have a grant for this so....I surrender.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you mean "surrender" in a cooperative sense. What several of us argue is really not tied to Iran-Iraq, but to some editors' desire to force certain things into the one infobox format that exists. I contend that a reasonable solution does not need a formal representation language, but some general guidance on the pupose (and limitations) of infobox(es), with perhaps some additional ones. For the more problematic information, a Wikitable would give more space for more complex issues.

In some cases, it may mean that a modern war can be described reasonably only with a set of articles starting with the "main" war (e.g., Iran-Iraq), or, in the more general case of actors Foo and Bar. As we have been discussing on MILHIST, it is then very reasonable to have a 2 or 4 articles about external actors that variously supported Foo or Bar, or engaged in combat with Foo or Bar or both. MILHIST is willing to write some guidelines for this, emphasizing that boxes and tables are indexes and supplements, not the primary place of exploring relationships. It is not the intent of MILHIST to make these guidelines specific to Iran-Iraq, but only to use Iran-Iraq examples when they illuminate. In like manner, there might be Afghan, Indochina, or WWII examples,

It would also be the intent to have balanced articles about external support. For example, there are two articles about US support to Iraq, yet the second paragraph of U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war states "Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany." I believe it is fair to say that the MILHIST consensus is that a more appropriate title is External Support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, and to combine Iraq-gate (Gulf War and Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 with the former -- or to have two articles, one on combat-related support and one on supplies and training/advice. In like manner, there needs to be an External Support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, but the closest existing article is Iran-Contra Affair.

Think of one reason to have symmetrical articles about the major parties: a country might embargo weapons to both sides in a conflict, or supply both sides. Given that Iran had very significant Russian, British, and US weapons, and Iraq had (exclusive of WMD) extensive French and Russian weapons, having US-centric articles on support is needlessly POV.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK so we need timelines, tables and diagrams.

One conflict that got some nice timelines is Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). This kind of detail is rather exhausting though. Also the timeline seems to be separate from the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which has it's own timeline.

To accurately visualize the changing relationships between parties over time would require a series of state diagrams and tables.

I can't imagine who has the time to get into all this detail, and the Afghanistan example above shows that unless all the pieces are integrated properly, you get a redundant and hard to navigate mess. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The only way I see people having time to do it is some agreement on division of labor in doing it. Not doing it won't produce meaningful articles, and will probably produce even more wasted time with people arguing about bias. I have a beard, but that doesn't mean I can't use Occam's Razor, or, if necessary, establish Occam's Barbershop. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you need a mechanical Turk, but it didn't help this guy. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's your alternative? Continuing the arguments about bias and the difficulty of navigation? Suggesting some things are too complex for the Wikipedia paradigm? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The evolution of these relationships is very complex to visualize. To do a perfect job you may need something like this. Past a certain point, it starts to look like work! Erxnmedia (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning this as criticism of you, it appears that there is no way to deal with this sort of complexity within Wikipedia, as long as there are people that have intense POV and perceive things that don't agree with their particular preconceptions as attacks. Nothing wrong with that; I'm mostly considering the utility of Wikipedia. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well when all is said and done about technology and writing style and organization, the U.S. was a player in the Iran-Iraq War. Do you suppose that contributed the total of 1 million dead? Did it make a difference in the end in terms of how much control Iran now has over Iraqi politics? Who knows but I guess it's not worth 1,000 lines of discussion over whether or not to plant a flag in an infobox. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet much of the arguing was about whether to have a flag in an infobox at all, and, if so, where. I agree that is irrelevant to the main issue, but that is where the chief edit wars are taking place.

As far as the questions "do you suppose", I have my own opinions, but I am not a WP:RS. If you believe you can source substantive answers to those questions, I suggest you WP:BB and do so. I'd have to say that Iraq was most responsible for 1 million dead, as it started the war. Of course, that's just OR.

One of my points, however, is that there were other significant external players beside the US. I expect to see those other players discussed, not exclusively the US. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I am in favor of listing all participants, in text or with whatever degree of visualization people prefer, together with the roles, goals, contributions, attachments and the materiality of their participation. All expressed as a function of time, of course.

However, as in the Iraq War, the reason the U.S. tends to get focussed on is because the U.S. is usually the 800-pound gorilla in the room. In the "Coalition of the Willing" (or "Billing" in some cases), one good graphic would be a bar chart showing the size of each nation's participation measured in boots on the ground. Then animate that bar chart over 7 years to see who is material and who is not in that picture.

As to whether the Iranians bear 100% responsibility for being willing to engage in bare-knuckle trench warfare with 1 million men and boys brandishing tinfoil passports to the 72 virgins: Did they have a choice? And if the U.S. wasn't punishing them by giving material support to Iraq, would the numbers have been smaller?

It doesn't matter any more in the sense that the dead are buried. However it does matter in regards to interpreting the motivations and beliefs of the Iranians. No one should think blindly about "Islamofascism" and scary mullahs and the like without visiting the graveyards and considering the alternatives from the point of view of their real options. Also considering that they were getting screwed by the British for their oil and then hassled when they took it back, for the last 50 years, people should really cut them some slack. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what "cutting slack" means with respect to Wikipedia editing. Further, I don't understand why you are responding to my comment about responsibility that referred to IraQ -- the one with the Q -- being responsible for starting the war, not the one with the N. I don't expect George W. Bush to get it straight regarding four-letter geographic areas starting with I, and will not be surprised to see him invade Iowa, but I thought you would respond to what I actually said.

Have I ever used the term "Islamofascism"? Yes, I am aware of the British screwing, but apparently you only want to discuss an 800 pound gorilla, as opposed to some other substantia Great Apes. If the gorilla throws less bananas than a very active orangutan, I see no reason not to discuss all of them. You speak of British screwing, which is appropriate. The bulk of WMD precursors and equipment going to Iraq (the one with the Q) came from France and Russia. Cultures are far easier to get than industrial-grade fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, lyophilizers, etc.

Did the US, for example, screw the Kurds? Unquestionably! You will forgive me, however, when I see British tanks arrayed against Soviet ones, or the KARI air defense network coming from the reverse spelling of French "Irak" (also known as the one with the Q), if I see additional apes about. I simply want to see accurate coverage of all the primates, of all weights and activity levels. "Cutting slack" is meaningless in terms of objective research about the primary participants, where IraQ was the primary aggressor. CAPT Rogers of the Vincennes, IMHO, should have been court-martialed for what the lawyers call "depraved indifference to human life", and, as far as understanding his systems, what one TV character calls "felony stupid". An assortment of US policymakers aggravated the situation, but Iran-Contra involved the one with the N, not the Q, and also flaunted Congressional restrictions on CIA activities. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclusionist. Let's stop yakking and get them all in there, big gorilla and small ones too. I would redact the above discussion into a list because I think it's all there, but someone might yell at me for copying talk page into article. Erxnmedia (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

This thread has unfortunately become something of a forum discussion, so less get back to brass tacks. There are at hand a text and an infobox. The point of my sarcastic example of an infobox is to demonstrate the preferability of restricting inclusionism to the text – where context and nuances can be appropriately addressed – and not in the infobox, which lacks context or nuance. Take away my summary of the rationales for the countries included and the list makes no sense; it just begs for clarification – not least because the “super-list” abrogates any sense of weight. That’s simply and fundamentally not what an infobox is for. Furthermore, the ‘Belligerents’ section is not intended to capture all of the “combatants”, “participants” or “players”. To do so would produce in the end an infobox much longer than this long article itself. Regarding the addition of a third column to the infobox, this has been attempted before and actually expands the width of the infobox to fully half the page width – and the consensus on it was that it was hideous.

My (and others’) proposals regarding the dispute at hand are as follows:

1. For this article’s infobox, the belligerents be restricted to Iran and Iraq.
2. An article on the Tanker War be created; there the belligerents would be Iran and Iraq on the one side, and the US, USSR, et al on the other. The topic would be addressed summary-style in “Iran-Iraq War”.
3. Expanding on a good recommendation made by a WP:MILHIST member, the articles “U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war”, “Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990”, and “Iraq-gate (Gulf War)” should be merged into an article “Foreign involvement in the Iran-Iraq War”. In that way, the topic could be addressed summary-style in this article, but developed in a more extensive fashion in a single, coherent, independent article. IMHO, this would allow for a much better explanation of the changing players (and sides) who were involved in various ways supporting either or both countries.

Is there something like a consensus for this approach? Askari Mark (Talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletes by CreazySuit

The fact that the war "brought neither reparations nor change in borders" and that the slogan of the Islamic Republic was "War, war until victory!" ("Jang, jang ta piruzi") are neither "half-truths" nor "urban legends". The source for the quote is the The book, The Soul of Iran, Molavi, Afshin, Norton, (2005) is by an Iranian who has traveled extensively in the Midlde East, and South Asia and is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in the US who has professor. The book has praise from Karen Armstrong and John Esposito. If you continue to do delete, I will have to do what ever it takes to block you. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's sensational editorializing, POV of Afshin Molavi who is a lobbyist of Council on Foreign Relations, and not a historian. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence to you have that Afshin Molavi is anything but a reputable source? Do you deny "War, war until victory!" ("Jang, jang ta piruzi") was the slogan of the Islamic Republic during the war,or most of the war?

Here is a brief bio of Molavi:

Afshin Molavi is the author of Persian Pilgrimages: Journeys Across Iran, which was nominated for the Thomas Cook literary travel book of the year.

A former Dubai-based correspondent for the Reuters news agency and a regular contributor to The Washington Post from Iran, Mr. Molavi has covered the Middle East and Washington for a wide range of international publications.

in Iran, Mr. Molavi holds an M.A. from the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Middle East History and International Economics. He has also worked at the International Finance Corporation, the private sector development arm of the World Bank.--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It was one of many slogans that the soldiers chanted, not an official policy as you're trying have us believe. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a Request for Mediation? The diffs between BoogaLouie and CreazySuit are fairly subtle and somebody needs to sort this out. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead summary of Results of the war

In support of the line that the war "brought neither reparations nor change in borders" here is a quote:

it was a war that resolved nothing, and changed very little. ... Neither regime was toppled by the war, and none of the issues underlying it were settled. (from Fred Halliday's review of The Iran-Iraq War: The Politics of Aggression, edited by Farhagn Rajaee in International History Review 16 February 1994 p.217 --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section

See Line 697 in this link for what CreazySuit was deleting in the Aftermath section.

See if you find "sensational editorializing" or cleanup to make the section more concise and readable (my edits are the version on the left). ---BoogaLouie (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

War, War, Until Victory

Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah p.295 gives "War, War, Until Victory" as the war slogan of the Islamic Republic --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're now citing Amir Taheri who is infamous for making up stories, like his "Yellow Badges for Iranian Jews" story which discredited him as a source. Thank you for proving my point that is nothing but sensational POV. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The slogan also appears on p. 328 of The Iranians by Sandra MacKay, Plume, 1998

By now the government's slogan of `war, war until victory` was turning the conflict with Iraq into the revolution's most enduring legacy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a quote or document from the Iranian government saying `war, war until victory` is the official state policy? If you don't, then please stop trying to editorialize and sensationalize the article with questionable soundbites, taken from opinionated tendentious books/editorials written by people like Amir Taheri who have a reputation of making up stories. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this slogan sensationalizes the article or not; however I grew up in Iran during the war and as far as I remember this slogan was repeated by every government organization during the war, most commonly by the state TV during every news report on war. there was even an official song made based on it.

So we have three different books noting the slogan "War, war until victory!" ("Jang, jang ta piruzi") during the war - The Iranians by Sandra MacKay, p.328, Molavi, Afshin, The Soul of Iran Norton, (2005), p.152, The Spirit of Allah by Amir Taheri, p.295 - plus the testimony of Ghlobe above. It's not as though there is any doubt the Islamic Republic talked about achieving victory after driving Iraq out of Iranian soil. So what wikipedia policy requires a document from the Iranian government saying `war, war until victory` is "the official state policy"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All you do is cherry-picking sources written by notoriously unreliable authors like Amir Taheri who have been caught lying, yet you have failed to provide a direct quote from an Iranian official to verify this claim. And besides the issue of verifiability, what's the purpose of putting this one slogan in the lead of the page in such sensational manner, when there were hundreds of such slogans on both side? By your logic, we could also say "Iraq attacked Iran following the slogan that God should have not created Persians, Jews, and flies", and that can be sourced too, with much more authoritative sources than anything you have brought forward for your favorite slogan. My point is that this is a Encyclopedia, not an editorial, so the lead should be written in an Encyclopedic manner, as neutral as possible, without any selective sound-bites and urban myths which are only meant for sensationalizing. --CreazySuit (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia policy that requires a quote from a government document or official for a slogan like this? Might it just be that the slogan's presence in primary sources is rare, as the IRI would rather forget about it? The Baathists did print a book about how "God should have not created Persians, Jews, and flies", but do you have any evidence that that was a slogan of the war? what evidence do you have that any of the authors I've quoted (besides Taheri who may be) were "notoriously unreliable"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is mentioning the slogan War, War, Until Victory, appropriate in the lead?

Here is a quote from a book on the Iran-Iraq war (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991,) on the issue of the Islamic Republic's goals for the war:

In short, the goals for the war varied
"The combatants continually raised and lowered their military and political objectives in the light of their performance on the battlefield. ...
In the case of Tehran: "Starting with the basic defensive objective of expelling the invading Iraqis, it went on to demand the removal of President Saddam Hussein's regime. The exact nature of this requirement varied from wholesale replacement of the Ba'athist state with an Islamic one to the mere resignation of Saddam Hussein from the presidency. Following Tehran's victory in Fao early in 1986, (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991, p.254)

• the Iranian `maximalists` visualized liberating the Shi'a holy shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala, and installing an Islamic regime in Baghdad, as a steppingstone to freeing Jerusalem from Zionist control. (p.254)

"The maximalists, to be found mainly in the Revolutionary Guards Corps" (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991, p.177)

• In contrast the `minimalists` limited their objectives to toppling Saddam Husein, getting an inquiry commission appointed to determine war guilt and receiving substantial war reparations from the aggressor and its Arab allies." (p.254) Page 177 says the same thing, plus: "Rafsanjani was a minimalist" According to him "Iran would not press for war compensation if the post-Saddam Hussein governmetn proved to be `Islamic` even if it were backed by America - just as the Saudi regime was." (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991, p.177)

My point - the goals varied but at the least they included the overthrow of Saddam. So whether they were good or bad, wise or foolish, these goals for the war were ambitious, not defensive ones, and very much reflected by a slogan such as War, War, Until Victory --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC).

I have seen arguments that the Bathist book "Persians, Jews, Flies" inspired Saddam's aggression toward Iran. As for Iran's goals in the war, Iran's demands about the removal Saddam are already covered in the article, and the sentence "Iran went on offensive" is sufficient enough for the lead, without the need of selective cheesy sound-bites which make the article look and sound like a cheap piece of yellow journalism, instead of an encyclopedia entry it should be. Also, when you're attributing something to an individual or government, a direct quote is always needed. The Iranian soldiers chanted a lot of things, they also chanted "Karbala, we're coming", but that doesn't mean that the annexing of Karbala was an official policy.--CreazySuit (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"arguments" that the Bathist book "inspired agression" are not quite in the same league as a slogan quoted by three different books and one editor! "cheap piece of yellow journalism" is your POV. It sound to me like War, War, Until Victory is a straightforward expression of what the IRI regime wanted, though different forces defined victory differently. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute

The [Requests_for_mediation] is "backlogged with requests". Therefore I'll set aside my hope to include the War, War, Until Victory slogan in the lead for the time being and work on less controversial stuff. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've cleanup the aftermath section to make it more readable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

The war can be divided into four stages according to one author (Dilip Hiro),

• September 1980 to March 1981: Iraq advance into Iran
• March 1981 to mid-March 1982: Stalemate
• mid-March 1982 to end of June 1982: Iraq retreat from Iran
• July 1982 to ceasefire in 1988: Iran on the offensive attempting to overthrow Saddam (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991, p.87) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, things weren't as simple as that, it was way more complicated than that. But what exactly do you mean? Which part of the page is this proposal meant for? I don't see why this is necessary, The article already divides the war in a more detailed and logical manner. However, we can add "attempting to overthrow Saddam" after "Iran went on offensive" in the lead, as long as by the same token we add "attempting to annex Iran's oil- rich Khuzistan region" (Britannica) after "Iraq invaded Iran".--CreazySuit (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding some more dates

I'll go along with your idea for lead change.

As for "The article already divides the war in a more detailed and logical manner,"

yes, the sections

• September 1980: Iraqi invasion,
• The invasion stalls,
• Iraq retreats but the war continues,
• Iranian offensive, blunders, and hardening of Iraqi resolve,

seem to cover that, except that there aren't many dates given. So I propose to work some dates in. e.g.

change

The Iraqi invasion soon encountered unexpected resistance, however. to

The Iraqi invasion soon encountered unexpected resistance, however, and around March 1981 it stalled.

change

"By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the areas lost to Iraq earlier in the war."

to

"For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and Iraqi forces began to retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the areas lost to Iraq earlier in the war." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More change

"For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and Iraqi forces were forced retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered almost all the areas lost to Iraq earlier in the war." --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for resolving the participant-related issues

Okay, I’ve looked at the “Summary of material participants” section that Erxnmedia added, and frankly it doesn’t work – on many, many levels. It provides no useful information; it goes against WP’s guidelines for lists; it is unsightly as a list; it doesn’t provide what it purports to provide; no consensus was ever established over what to do about non-belligerent participants – and this simply “reloads” the same unresolved POV issues that generated all this contentious debate; it comprises original research; it is unsourceable (since it is dependent upon my satirical rendition of an “alternative” approach infobox); and there is not even a proposed definition of “material participants” – which is not intuitively obvious and is even less useful (and prospectively more controversial) than “combatant” or “belligerent”. I could add more, but I think the point is clear. Accordingly, I have removed the section.

Instead, I would encourage the establishment of a consensus over the original infobox-related issue before trying to reproduce it in the body of the article. Let’s get the unfinished work done first; how that sorts out will affect how the matter gets addressed in the text of this and related articles. Accordingly, I will reiterate the standing – and as yet undiscussed – proposal for resolving the dispute at hand:

1. For this article’s infobox, the belligerents be restricted to Iran and Iraq.
2. An article on the Tanker War be created; there the belligerents would be Iran and Iraq on the one side, and the US, USSR, et al on the other. The topic would be addressed summary-style in “Iran-Iraq War”.
3. Expanding on a good recommendation made by a WP:MILHIST member, the articles “U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war”, “Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990”, and “Iraq-gate (Gulf War)” should be merged into an article “Foreign involvement in the Iran-Iraq War”. In that way, the topic could be addressed summary-style in this article, but developed in a more extensive fashion in a single, coherent, independent article. IMHO, this would allow for a much better explanation of the changing players (and sides) who were involved in various ways supporting either or both countries.

Is there something like a consensus for this approach? Please keep discussion direct and to the point and take “rabbit trail” discussions to a separate thread or an involved editor’s talk page. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support 1 & 2, impartial over 3 Ryan4314 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an experiment it was interesting because people went to the trouble to move US from "both sides" to "Iraq" while forgetting Iran-Contra Affair which was during the same time period and transferred U.S. arms to Iran.

I think anything which doesn't sort out the material participants is POV. My definition of material participants was contained in the first sentence: it could be political support, weapons, medical support, training, troops. Support is support, it's not rocket science what it means to provide support to something.

Save the irony for some other forum and if you delete something, replace it with something with more information in it, not less.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be rocket science, but "support is support" ignores a considerable body of customary international law, and, I must agree, is original research. It is original to state you experimented with Wikipedia editors. reactions, but I would not call it research or good faith. If you were to hypothesize, I would have hoped that you would, at least, state your criteria, such as the ongoing work at http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/control.html, or the various WMD treaties. Sometimes, apparent weapon supply needs to be analyzed in depth; that Nation A uses weapons from Nation B against Nation C does not imply Nation A is hostile to Nation C. This has been a confusing and controversial situation, for example, with Israel's use of US manufactured weapons in Lebanon, when the weapons were used in violation of the terms of the sale agreement. Nation D might reverse-engineer spare parts for Nation B equipment, and allow Nation A to give the impression it is supported by Nation B. Another kind of complex situation arose when France gave Britain information on the electronic controls of Exocet missiles used by Argentina.

With respect to international law and custom, direct medical support, or the provision of medical supplies, is widely accepted as consistent with neutrality. Dual-use industrial supplies are problematic, especially when they do not fall under specific treaties such as the Chemical or Biological Weapons Conventions. Direct weapons sales often have a fictional End User Certificate. Some of your categories, such as "political support", can be interpreted to mean virtually anything. It is not at all unprecedented for one country to praise the leader of another while simultaneously destabilizing that leader's control. There are times when a nation deliberately keeps support narrowly defined, as in the "quarantine" during the Cuban Missile Crisis, intended to stabilize without going to blockade, defined as an act of war.

To respond to Askari Mark, I support 1 and 2. #3 has promise but probably should have a rough draft or outline. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

With respect to Lebanon, I don't think the people on the receiving end of the missiles would care to spend the time to read the end-user certificate. If they see USA anywhere on the casings, they're going to think USA. It is really counting angels on the head of a pin to decline responsibility for an armament based on an fig leaf like an end-user certificate. In my mind (call this "original research" if you have to, but, trust me, no "research" has been required for this thought!), if you sell arms to both sides, you're playing both ends against the middle, and you should be listed on both sides of the equation.

I'm in favor of option #3. Also I would otherwise rename the "US Support for Iraq" article to be "US Support for Iraq and Iran" and include the Iran-Contra arms transfer as it occurred during the same timeframe. Once the Iranians had our missiles in hand, it is specious to say that that offered no increase in their general military preparedness.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand. After the Israelis started using some area-effect heavy cluster munitions against rocket firing sites in civilian areas, I called, at TPMcafe, for a cutoff of all US military aid to Israel. One of the reasons I have been harsh about their weapons use is exactly because they were largely US, and I knew their capabilities and US doctrine for their use. When rockets are fired at a US base in Iraq, if artillery counterfire is used, with accurate location of the firing site from radars and other sensors of which the Israelis have most, the particular cannon and shells have a much more local effect without much problem of unexploded bomblets. Further, in areas where it is possible -- and this might not have been possible in Lebanon -- the preferred technique is to ambush, capturing where possible, using helicopter and vehicle-borne patrols that the counter-artillery radar directs to the firing site.

But, as far as OR, while what you say is inherently reasonable, it still needs to be reliably sourced. In the specific conflict we are discussing, I can't immediately think of anything used by the Iraqis that were finished weapons stamped "made in USA". If you have specific examples, I would be interested. Clearly, as a result of the arms-for-hostages swap, the Iranians used TOW and HAWK missiles stamped "made in USA". Your "US Support for Iraq and Iran" is not inherently unfair, but I prefer "foreign support", given, for example, that the production equipment for chemical and biological warfare, and a good deal of the chemical precursors, came from several countries other than the US. I don't hesitate to criticize irrational decisions of the US, but in this specific case, it was one of many countries providing support, none of which was a make-or-break.

In the tanker war, the direct involvement of the US was clear, but, as you mentioned, also of other countries. It might be nitpicking, but I prefer "naval war" to "tanker war", since one of the issues was the Iranian release of floating mines into international waters, and some of the US retaliation was against offshore oil platforms -- some of which were not producing but being used as military staging areas.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing with each other. A lot of the infobox arguing is about where to put US i.e. in camp A or camp B and people are pushing very hard to have US in a single camp. Having a single article about US on Iraq side is very POV, much less POV and much more instructive is to gather up and clearly present all of the threads of material support from all state and non-state actors -- however you want to define material support, irrespective of international law: I am talking about common sense here, i.e. what group A does to give group B the ability to actually kill people in group C, not what is legally attributable in the transaction between A and B and what is legally inadmissible according to some random definition: In our own actions in Gitmo etc. we have long since put a big distance as a nation between international accords like the Geneva Convention and what it is we are willing to do in practice, so in general I think we should go by a practical, common sense definition of support and not a legalistic one. Also note that in the field of terrorism, non-state actors have come to include charities, banks and influential families (e.g. Al-Saud), so I would take a wide view of what non-state actors to include.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We are in partial agreement. Irrespective of common sense, I am talking about international law and not "common sense", the latter being a rare commodity, especially in the Bush Administration. Simply said, if there is international law or precedent on a topic, and you decide to apply some other subjective criterion, you are using the legal theory of tu quoque (freely translated as "you did it too!").

Tu quoque was generally rejected, as a defense, by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg. There was one specific exception, when Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz sent a statement stating that US submarines, under his command, did not do anything that Grossadmiral Karl Doenitz's submarines did not also do.

Citing the IMT as precedent is problematic. It wasn't convened by treaty and thus did not set formal precedent; the UN General Assembly but not the Security Council accepted the Nuremberg Principles, an acceptance of no legal weight. It clearly was victors' justice and did not address what I believe to be major war crimes on the part of several Allied powers. Nevertheless, abandoning formal treaties, precedent such as Nuremberg, and even the context of Just War Theory, in favor of a subjective and culturally dependent definition of "common sense" is something I will not accept.

I believe in the return of a framework of international law, rather than reducing it to the lowest common denominator. Guantanamo is wrong and cannot be used as precedent.

I agree about a broad view of non-state actors. Unfortunately, they are not well handled by current international law. My personal opinion would be a starting point would be in treaties on the Law of the Sea, starting with the annex on privateering in the Treaty of Paris of 1856. A reasonable principle would be Hostis humani generis, "enemy of mankind", as used against pirates and slavers.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard, we gave arms to both sides. No Latin required. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if that is true, in the literal meaning of arms, I am not going to agree with your undefined "common sense". Tu quoque is the worst side of slippery slope, being used by assorted countries to become terrorists in fighting terrorism.

Now, for my information, what specific arms did the US give or sell to Iraq? Not industrial or medical supplies. Not information. Certainly not the weapons provided to Kurds fighting Saddam, while the US still backed them. Arms, in the sense that they directly blow up people or equipment, such as the TOW and HAWK missiles provided to the Iranians in the Contra deal. There may have been some, and I'm open to sourced information. Most Iraqi weaponry, however, was Soviet or French.

Direct combat, as in the Tanker War or whatever one may call it, is not the conventional way to provide arms; they usually are not shipped at high supersonic speed. The very different action at sea is yet another reason to have separate articles about largely separate conflicts. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

According to NY Times,

• August 20, 1984. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
• September 14, 1984. 408 more TOWs
• November 24, 1984. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
• February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
• February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
• May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
• Aug 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
• Oct 28, 1986. 500 TOWs

They really liked the TOWs, not so much the Hawks. Do you think they needed more than 2,000 TOWs for target practice or do you think they might have lobbed one or two at the Eye-rack-ees? Erxnmedia (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. I was asking about US weaponry being provided to the Iraqis, not the Iranians. The sarcasm isn't helpful, nor is failing to understand the purpose of the HAWK and why it might not have been used extensively. I fully expect, however, that BGM-71 tube launched, optically tracked, wire guided (TOW) missiles were fired, by the Iranians, against Iraqi armored vehicle. Anti-armor engagements were far more common in that war than surface-to-air defense. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been talking all along about the issue of U.S. supplying arms to both sides of the conflict, and why that makes the U.S. a belligerent on both sides (or some variation on a fair-weather friend, however you want to define belligerent). This is the grand and much debated infobox question. The loudest people want to keep the U.S. and all other parties except Iran and Iraq out of the Iran-Iraq war, regardless of their level and nature of participation. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"the loudest people" is your value judgment and hardly assumes good faith. Indeed, it is attacking the people rather than the argument. It is a valid professional writing style, in texts or encyclopedias, to keep the critical points most visible, but to supplement them in narrative. An infobox is much like a chapter review box in a textbook, which does not replace the chapter.

The war is called the "Iran-Iraq War", not "World War 2.5". The Sino-Japanese war had other participants and certainly suppliers, but the key belligerents were China and Japan. The Franco-Prussian war was principally between France and Prussia. The American Civil War, regardless of how much cotton was sold to Britain, was principally a war between the Union and the Confederacy.

There is a style called "inclusionist", but I find, most often, that its use results in a confusing overload of data. Good encyclopedic writing organizes without original synthesis, and one of the characteristics of organization is recognizing the minimum but necessary elements to include in summaries, introductions, subordinate sections, and sub-articles.

Incidentally, it's not how I want to define "belligerent". In American politics, it is a time-honored tradition to cite law when law supports you, and cry "common sense" when law does not support you. In the broad sense, the definition comes from the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and even the Kellogg-Briand Accord and the UN Charter. The infobox in question was developed by the Military History Project, which has written guidelines for its use. Develop your own template if you don't even want to discuss it at MILHIST. I suggest, however, you do discuss it there, rather than twist and turn it into epicycles that more or less work for unique circumstances. Frankly, I'd be delighted if all the infoboxes went away, and people actually considered content rather than fighting over the color of the cover of the book Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My technical definition of "loud" is anyone who is bold and uninhibited with the Delete key.

With so many wars out there, I think the Infobox could do a service in summarizing who was at the party, if it were not misleadingly exclusive.

I find it enlightening and educational to see who are the material participants in a war. Note I am using the phrase "material participant" rather than "belligerent" as a sop to your attachment to the Geneva Convention as a dictionary. I don't care who the "Geneva Convention belligerents" are. I care who came to the pot luck and what did they put on the table and who were they eyeing when they got there.

For example in the case of our own Iraq War, as so titled in Wikipedia, irrespective of any other conflict that may have occured in Babylon or Mesopotamia -- the infobox has an interesting list of belligerents that does not include Iran, Syria, Turkey or Kuwait, or any of the neighboring Arab republics which make material contributions which typically result in the death of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi collaborators with the U.S. military.

The infobox which lists only the 2 main parties in the conflict is totally useless because the conflict itself draws other participants with other motivations, and those participants and their motivations may in fact be the center of gravity of the conflict, not the putative dispute between the two main contenders. U.S. interests in the Iran-Iraq war are as much of a center of gravity as any conflict that may have existed between Saddam and the Shiites. So to exclude the U.S. as a material participant (I am not allowed to use the word "belligerent" for legal reasons) is to seriously occlude any understanding of the conflict itself.

I believe my thinking here is in line with our Government's, i.e. to use "material participant" rather than "belligerent" and "enemy combatant" rather than "soldier" makes things so much clearer, don't you think?

Erxnmedia (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I believe that the use of "material participant" makes things any clearer? No. I do not believe any single word or phrase, whether it be material participant or enchanted prince in the form of a frog, is going to help explain a complex relationship. It no longer helps understand than does a sound bite on television "news". But do not feel constrained; I am quite competent to return sallies of sarcasm.

Funny, I've never had trouble understanding the parties involved in wars. I do not, however, limit myself to what will go into an infobox. As far as titles of wars such as "Iraq", tu quoque may well apply if several countries want to use propaganda-oriented titles. There are other cases where the major participants do, in fact, have different names for the war, invoking their own symbols.

Do forgive me for using widely ratified international agreements' definitions of words, and, where appropriate, pointing out the concepts not covered by such agreements. Chastise me with scorpions for the very idea of trying to focus on the core of the legal definitions and then put in the exceptions and qualifications relevant to a specific conflict -- which, alas and alack, will not fit into an infobox.

You raise a number of points about motivations for the Iran-Iraq war, for example, that are not universally accepted among reasonably objective historians. I'm reminded of a work on the American Civil War, which included an interview with Gen. George Pickett, in his later years, with the interviewer inquiring why the South lost the Battle of Gettysburg. The historian offered several suggestions, such as J.E.B. Stuart forgetting his critical scouting & security mission, James Longstreet's lack of enthusiasm for "Pickett's Charge", and technical inadequacies in the Confederate artillery preparation before the charge.

Pickett, not necessarily the brightest bulb in the military chandelier, but an honest and straightforward man, scratched his head before answering. "Why did we lose? Sir, I've always suspected the Yankees had something to do with it."

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

USA Flag added again

I don't think someone who once added comments about "anti-Iranists", the movie 300 and telling Westeners to "take responsibility" all in the same post [1] should be allowed to put the USA flag back up, he's obviously not neutral. He didn't leave an edit summary, when he evidently knows how [2] (which implies a certain level of sneakiness) and on his user page he has comments like "In the West I realised how large is the agression towards Iranian history and identity." If you read a discussion I had with him a couple of months ago here, it is pretty clear he sees this as a mission and negotiation with him is futile. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what is the problem here. Against all the rules of logic you proposed voting/dicusiion and the arguments were largely in favor of adding the USA flag there based on sound arguments. USA violated Iranian territorial integrity, bombed Iranian territory and killed Iranian citizens. This is what we call acts of war. As for anti-Iranianism: I do not see why you have problem with that. That is a reality. Why is Anti/Semitism unacceptable but these American neocons are shamelessly stating the most harsh anti-Iranianists satements? And yes anti-Iranianism is not a neutral thing so reaction against it wont be neutral per definition. USA FLAG should be there otherwise it is RAPE OF HISTORY.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the USA flag should be up there -- on both sides, as we provided 2000+ TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran in the middle of the largely ground-based conflict, and the stated US policy as expressed by a serving CIA officer at the time was have both sides "kick the shit out of each other". So I will put the flag in both places. I hope that will clear matters up once and for all! Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Erxn, you seem committed to dealing only with proposals that affect the infobox, rather than proposals that try for NPOV by having several articles that can deal adequately with things too complex to be simplified to a flag in an infobox. Few military historians will disagree that providing Stinger missiles to the Afghans fighting against the Soviets was decisive. Neither TOW/HAWK missiles provided to Iran, nor various dual-use chemicals provided to Iraq, were decisive.

Did the US have a policy to let the two main sides exhaust one another? In all probability, that is true. The best argument for that, I suspect, is the changing support to the Kurds. Nevertheless, I can only consider it POV to insist:

1. The US is the only power outside the region to be listed. Soviet missiles and French/Soviet aircraft provided to the Iraqis had as much, or more, significance to the main Iran-Iraq conflict than the missiles.
2. Offers to have 2 or 3 thoroughly cross-linked articles that address the issues in more depth than an infobox are consistently ignored. For example, the "Tanker War", with the exception of one Exocet attack by the Iraqis that might have been an accident, clearly involved Iran on one side and the US, Kuwait, and other allies on the other.

No, I don't think this clears up matters once and for all, unless one believes, as your statement about clearing suggests, that the conflict must be reflected in a single article and a single infobox. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A small note Erxnmedia, when you say "we", I am not an American. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha, look at how he (Babakexorramdin) reverted Erxnmedia's edit [3], further proof of his POV push. His says in the summary that as the US attacked Iran it must therefore be it's combatant enemy, but Iraq attacked US (see USS Stark (FFG-31)) meaning (by his logic) that Iraq and US were combatant enemies too, regardless of support. With his way of thinking either US flag should be added to both sides or neither. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard and all the rest of you guys Americans or d'ailleurs,

I favor Howard's proposal of having an article to list all of the third-party participants in the Iran-Iraq War, not just a separate article for U.S.

I was kidding when I said that adding U.S. to both sides would fix the infobox, but not kidding in the sense that if someone sticks U.S. in one side, the history shows U.S. should be in both sides.

I am inclusionist with respect to the infobox and think that anybody who moved arms to either side should be included.

All of this is hashed out ad naseum above but the new Iranian guy has kicked it all off again by throwing U.S. into the info box once again bringing us back into the grand and glorious infobox debate territory.

Also there are two other guys (C-Suit and B-Louie) going into endless debates about a single Iranian war slogan (something like "Onward, beans and bagels, fight fight fight for Palestine" or something like that) that one insists is real and the other insists is invented but I can't for the life of me figure out why either of them considers it worthy of so much debate. Oh yes, the slogan is "We will keep fighting until we win". You'd hope so, don't you think? What else would they say, "We will keep fighting until we stop fighting or whatever"? That would not be a very effective slogan!

Is there some way we can combine the slogan debate and the infobox debate into one huge bonfire of nitpicking?

I'd like that!

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor note again, Babakexorramdin has been here from the start. I think he was the first person to add the flag, back in December 07 when a user called John Nevard opposed him. I saw all the axe grinding and more calls of "Take responsibility for your (your countries?) actions" [4] and stepped in, starting the RFC and here we are now. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)