Talk:Sand War

message: Arre, are you kiding me??. 
* Tindouf and Bechar amputated from Morocco to French Algeria in the 1800s????. You better read again North African history.
* What a source you provide!!! a Polisario site. Do you take the readers for stupid to this level?? 
* The Moroccan sultanate ("Assoltana Almaghribia"): In this I might think you are not Algerian. Never in Moroccan History have I read this terminology. You might have mixed the Turkish sultanate with the Moroccan Kingdom. Though most Moroccan rulers have been called Sultans and Emir Almominin "Commander of the Faithfuls", Morocco has always been called either the Kingdom of Morocco or The Moroccan Empire as the Americans described it in the 1700s.
* "Regions of  ... Algeria payed allegiance to ...": In the name of what would Algerians pay allegiance to the King of Morocco??. Did you know that allegiance is an islamic act "beyaa" of declaring a ruler your leader and you are part of his community??. You would go to jail in Algeria if you say that in public, and what makes it worse, to Morocco. 
* the treaty has been ratified by Morocco in 1991, as a gesture from Hassan II to help strengthen Chadli against the Army.
* Regarding the attitude to WS, the Sand War has had an impact on the party that suffered defeat in it (Algeria) not Morocco. Morocco's attitude towards WS or then Spanish Sahara has not changed from 1956(way before the Sand War, 1963).
* All the stuff about the Polisario, the referendum is already in the dedicated articles, You are only trying again to accomplish your role of militant for the Polisario's lost cause.  
* The GPRA did accept what the Moroccans asked: immediately after independence, the start of nogotiations for the return of the Moroccan territories of Tindouf and Bechar. So saying to negotiate is misleading if you don't continue your sentence.
* So you see, that apart from "arab nationalist" Ben Bella for which I have no stance, al the rest of your edits were baseless, and the version you yourself aknowledged as neutral and correct is restored.--A Jalil 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being so aggressive... I thought you were doing a good job, just had some changes I wanted to make. Plus I don't understand some of your accusations. 
* The 18/1900 was a mistaken key stroke.
* I am not Algerian, and I never claimed to be. Quite the contrary, I regularly seem to have to prove I am not.
* The GPRA under Abbas said yes to negotiations, yes. Then Ben Bella -- who was against the idea from the beginning -- said that, well, enough negotiating, the answer is no. Wasn't that what I wrote? It didn't agree specifically to "returning" the areas, however, even if this may have been implicit. That is what made Ben Bella able to say he wasn't breaking the terms of the deal.
* The Ifrane (or whichever one it was) treaty has not been fully ratified by Morocco, I think it is the parliament that is still pending. That is wholly symbolic, though.
* It is not entirely obvious that Algeria suffered defeat in the Sand War, since there were no border modifications. I think the article as it was before, was correct: Algeria took a blow militarily, but held its ground politically.
* I know there are articles on Western Sahara, I just thought it would be helpful to explain what the dispute is about in two-three lines. Is that militating for Polisario?
* Beyaa: yes, I believe that people in parts of what is now western Algeria paid allegiance to the Moroccan Sultan. That's what I wrote? And that's what you wrote? Sovereignty was normally defined in tribal and personal allegiance in pre-colonial Morocco (esp the outlying/later disputed areas), not by territorial demarcation. How now is this an attack on Moroccan glory -- it's exactly what the kingdom has always argued?
* The Beirouk page was there in the previous version, I didn't add it. What I wrote wasn't contingent on it, but I thought that it was better to leave it in than delete it -- the more sources the better. Arre 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay This is better, but you're simply asserting things without providing any evidence. What makes you think that the territorial claims of Greater Morocco caused the Sand War (and, for the record, I agree with you)? I don't think you understand what the Library of Congress is - it's not a source, it's a repository of sources. Since it is the second largest library in the world, it's not a "joke" at all. What are you talking about? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Yay! This is much better and stress-free. As an aside, I would like to encourage you to sign your posts on these talk pages by typing in four tildes (~~~~) after your posts. As you notice, SineBot keeps signing for you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to Sand War Article

message: I suggest this topic might usefully be integrated into Western Sahara together with Algeria–Morocco relations and this page mad a redirect to that new section? The UN and western Sahara#Baker Plan described there would then make better sense, and also be easier to maintain perhaps?Timpo (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration into Western Sahara article

message: Proposal : defining casualties as "unconfirmed / unknown" on the infobox, with a link to the specific section. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a disservice to our readers. It seems four editors see no problem with the current treatment of casualties in the infobox. Huon (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: sources have to be provided for the support of France and the USA to Morocco.
Actually France supported both sides as you can read below:
le général de Gaulle eut cette réponse décapante : «Il ne faut rien proclamer du tout. Et, d’abord, c’est faux ! Nous aidons les Marocains, en leur fournissant des armes. Nous aidons les Algériens en mettant à leur disposition notre aérodrome de Colomb-Béchar.» Pour être encore plus clair, l’ancien chef de l’Etat français reformule sa pensée sentencieusement : «Par le fait, nous les aidons à s’entretuer. Pourtant, il faut faire comme si nous étions neutres !» 
source: the book 'C’était de Gaulle' by Alain Peyrefitte --196.65.93.163 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: @M.BittonIf Morocco has claims on Algeria, and Algeria can fend off these claims, then that is a clear victory for Algeria. Then why do they change it to Military Stalemate? That can't be a military stalemate if Algeria fends off all attempts, do you know what I mean? Wasserschneider (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been around long enough to know what not to buy. I'm sure you understand perfectly what I mean by that. M.Bitton (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algeria victory 

message: I was looking around in this article for some mention of how it got this name (I have visions of the soldiers on both sides just picking up sand and throwing it at the enemy; it would be nice if this sort of childish behavior was the worst that wars got, but the article of course belies that notion) since sand (especially in the Sahara) isn't that valuable, and there are plenty of other wars that could get this name. So why this one? Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  But how did it get this name?