Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 1

message: I am not exactly sure of the rules involved with Wikipedia, but this article is overtly biased against Iraq - it attempts to portray a very negative picture of it, rather than simply report facts as they stand.
:That's why it's always wise to source and reference everything stated.--Zereshk 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in Article 

message: The author of the dispute misses the entire point. They should concentrate on the stupidity of the conflict. Estimates ( and only estimates are possible ) put the number of dead and direct casualties at some where between 1 - 1.5 million human lives. If you add this to the list of fellow muslims killed by their own brothers including the Shia's and Kurds killed by Saddam, the endless purges and coups that take place in muslim countries with regularity, this is more than muslims killed by anyone else including the Israelies who are only protecting their own people and land. 
All I can say to muslims is WAKE UP! Stop being so blindsided. Israel has the right to the land. Muslim countries put together have more land and God given mineral resource. The only reason why Israel is always picked as a scrapegoat is for the mullahs and the religious teachers to distract their followers form the real nature of Islam : corrupt and filled with lust and greed. Just like their father : SATAN disguised as you know who.
: Just to reply to your first point ("The author of the dispute misses the entire point") - Wikipedia is here to give just the facts, with a neutral point of view. It sounds to me like you want us to pass judgement, which we don't do. →Raul654 11:19, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
i hope everyone will please ignore that last comment since it is obviously a bigoted and inappropriate conclusion.  a cautious reader will hopefully direct their attention to other sources than the prejudiced meanderings of an internet contributor.
: Just to reply completely, Raul654 is correct, as someone who has spent most of his life researching the Arab Israeli conflict I can say that this page is completely fine. Wikipedia is not a source of opinion on topics, Wikipedia is a source of fact and summary. "The stupidity of the conflict" is not a fact, it is an opinion, if you want to discuss your opinion on the conflict, theres forums everywhere that support this topic of discussion, this site is here to make sure you get the facts straight about the topic your discussing. I would also like to challenge the fact that this page is considered un-neutral. {User: TyraelDargan, 28 May 2004}
I was curious as to why the Iran-Contra Affair is not mentioned in this article. It seems relevent, as the affair was directly related to the war, and assisted Iran in the aquisition of modern weapons. I would consider editing it myself, however my whole IP block is banned, and I cannot.
The first guy talking about "WAKE UP", obviously doesnt have a clue himself. i would just like to remind you that saddam hussain was backed by the americans to invade iran in 1980, because iran was becoming too powerful and israel was becoming threatened as the superpower in the east!!!
The article currently says:
:The United States armed and encouraged Hussein to attack Iran over this disputed waterway as a possible way of undermining the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which had eliminated U.S. influence in Iran.
However, the Soviet Union and France were by far the largest providers of arms to Iraq in this period, with the US accounting for a very small fraction by comparison, so it seems a little inaccurate to say that "the United States armed" them.  "The Soviet Union armed Iraq" would be a reasonable statement, as they provided the vast bulk of arms, and "France armed Iraq" would be the second-best statement (but still inaccurate).  --Delirium 10:37, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
it was like a toilet
The edits of User:130.88.96.66 are very biased and also removes some important information. Please consider partial reverting. Roozbeh 03:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran Iraq War 

message: In particular, the United States, along with its allies (among them Britain, France and Italy), provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities.  While I do not doubt the accuracy of this statement, I would like to see a reference cited.  Given the current political climate surrounding the US, Iraq and "Weapons of Mass Destruction," this is a rather nontrivial statement to make.
Agreed. The U.S. supplied intelligence, food and credit to Iraq during the war. The weapons were supplied by the Soviets and the French. Ellsworth 21:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for US Sale of Chemical/Biological Weapons? 

message: As the author of the section on Human Wave attaks, I can assure you that there was no intentional misrepresentation of the facts. I like your point about Iran suffering the second largest attack ever from weapons of mass distruction under the Iran-Iraq war, and feel that inclusion of a section pertaining to that subject would make the article more balanced.
Your implication that Basij volunteers were engaged in an honourable activity that is acceptable in many parts of the world is wrong. Tens of thousands were, from accounts on both sides, lead by a tactically inept leadership to their slaughter. The same criticisms have also been rightly levelled at the costly human wave attacks of the British (volunteer) army under WW1. This is absurd, sickening, and something that the vast majority of people from all cultures find abhorrent.
With reference to the use of children in human wave attacks under the Iran-Iraq war. This is true, and that fact should be recognised for the sake of all those that died. Again, when compared with the ages of European soldiers on the front line during WW1 (officially as young as 14 and sometimes younger), this cannot be seen as anti Iranian propaganda.
::I think heres what we can do to resolve the issue:
::1. Add a section specifically about the Chemical warfare aspect of the Iran-Iraq war.
::2. That the military leadership was inept, I agree. However we are shining a misleading spotlight on the problem. Maybe we can clarify it up by saying something like "one of the many consequences of the inept leadershiop was the human wave tactic...". The way the text is written now, it seems as if the HWT was the axis or major method of Iran reacting to the Iraqi aggression. It was more than that. There WERE 14 year olds. But they werent all just 14 year olds either. The vast majority of our volunteer E'zams (from Isfahan where I lived for a while) were made up of college students and unemployed high school graduates. I myself served in the Basij during the war when I was 15. The way it's written now, it sounds as if there were only 14 year olds wasting away at the front lines. We had 65 year olds volunteering too.--Zereshk 15:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed on one point, disagreed on two 

message: I hate to stir up trouble again, but it seems to me that placing a passage, explicitely blaming Iraq for the war, in the first few lines of the article is contrary to POV policy. I have no problem with the source, or necessarily the claim, but it doesn't seem to be a balanced way to write a "neutral" article. It will give any reader the impression that Iraq did, for a fact, "cause" the war. We are not supposed be moral arbiters or presenting conclusions here. We should be presenting facts in a neutral way, that allows people to form their own conclusions. (As best we can) 
The UN and the author cited, may well be impeccable sources, and most people may agree with them. But I know for a fact that some people do not agree, and their opinions should not be subordinated in this article. I propose that we move the lines in question to a later portion of the article, not the introduction, or at the very least include a counter claim. Thanks, Peregrine981 08:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
:There is actually no debate regarding the fact that the first military offense was by Iraqi side, no matter what the reasons or origins could be. I think that we can reword the phrase and shorten it to just include the UN report and add the other reference and a broader discussion about UN's opinion on who began the war on beginning paragraph of The war section. It's not uncommon to indicate the first one who invades in the introduction paragraph. See Winter War or Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). --Pouya 21:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with stating bald facts, such as "Iraq invaded Iran on September 22 1980." This is fairly well agreed upon. However, I believe that opening the article by citing a report saying that "'Iraq's aggression against Iran' in starting the war and breaching International security and peace is explicitly stated," is not very balanced. The use of the words "aggression" and "breaching international security" in association only with Iraq is misleading, giving the impression that Iraq invaded Iran totally without provocation. Pro-Iraqi sources claim that the Iraqi action was "pre-emptive" countering Iranian "aggression," as they were trying to promote unrest within Iraq. Iraqis could well claim that this was a violation of international security as well. I am not trying to be anti-Iranian here, I simply think that we should be open to many different perspectives on this war. We should not simply accept the UN's word as truth.
Peregrine981 04:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
I would be happy with a starting sentence like the one you provided. Refdoc 09:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN assigns blame 

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

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

message: How much truth is there to the claim, added in the most recent edit, that Iran opened peace negotiations because of a threat of war from the US? It is an important point, so I think it should be supported or omitted. Peregrine981 03:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether or not that happened.--Zereshk 03:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US threat of war

message: there isnt anything in this article about POW (Prisoners of War) abuse!
some of them didnt even get sent back to Iran after the war! US invasion of Iraq uncovered the bones of some of the POWs not sent back to Iran. Chormang 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agree.--Zereshk 03:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POWs 

message: :It has often been suggested that the bombing by Arab terrorists of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie was a direct retaliation for the shooting down of Iran Air 655.
I removed the above comments by User:86.137.98.213. Is it a valid comment? If it is, please add it back, but if it's not, please keep it here. --KJ 08:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's an absurd comment. International consensus implicates Libya, not Iran in the Lockerbie case. - choster 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Shouldn't there be a List of successful Iraqi operations during the war in order to keep this neutral?
-- Greaser 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should. I couldnt find any. We'll certainly add it, if we do find it.--Zereshk 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of successful Iranian operations during the war 

message: I recall the war being referred to as the "War of Persian Aggression" in Iraq, although I do not have a citation as yet. If anyone can confirm this, please add it in the opening paragraph.
:I would certainly beleive it. An Iraqi classmate of mine once told me. It seems they are totally unaware of the invasion Saddam commenced in 1980, not to mention that it was even recognized by the UN. Under dictatorships, certain info is always kept away from people.--Zereshk 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names for the Conflict 

message: The UN Secretary General report dated 9 December 1981 (S/23273) explicitly states "Iraq's aggression against Iran" in starting the war and breaching International security and peace
Wasn´t that in 1991? ~~ Al1976 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.--Zereshk 02:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN-Resultion 

message: No mentioning of Saddam wanted despritly wanting to end the war beginning in 1984 because he knew he was on the lossing side, while Khoimeni declined a cease-fire and wanted to continue the war. Why no mentioning? This is a important part Chaldean 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read item#2 of this article. It answers your question.--Zereshk 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No mentioning?

message: "U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots."
Yet the page this links to for Operation Praying Mantis says the helicopter was recovered and showed no signed of battle damage ... I'm not sure this should say "shot down" ...
Polaris75 01:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theyre obviously using different sources. We have to trace down and see who used what source for writing the respected passages.--Zereshk 00:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Factual Issue?

message: Why does does article mention under Casualties that incl. 100,000 Kurds died? The whole war was almost fought by South Azeri, yet there is no mention of them? Azeris and Kurds in Iran are considered as Iranians. So if this article states that Kurds died then it should also note that Azeris died to (most were Azeris). Or not mention either sides. Somebody edit this.
:You are right about that. I have a picture of an Azeri Iran-Iraq war cemetery. Give me a few days to find it. Then we will add your request into the article.--Zereshk 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See  --Zereshk 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Kurds? 

message: Was the United States involved in the Iran Iraq war? Storm05 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and No.--Zereshk 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Involvement 

message: The so-called Iraq-gate stuff is backed up by a document (copied word for word) that is 13 years old and doesn't actually prove (sure, it alleges, but no actual proof) that the U.S. government purposefully let BNL give 5 billion dollars to spend on WMDs, and considering no one has raised anything new in 13 years, they probably didn't (though I do realize they screwed up after it was discovered). It records that the companies in Ohio was under the U.S. gov. eye even though it was a British company. Then their still needs to be proof that Alcolac provided the Mustard Gas precursor to Iraq with U.S. gov. knowledge (the links don't work, so I can't tell). And finally the VAST MAJORITY of chemical technology was exported from Europe, not the U.S.  CJK 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. We can use the word "allege" in the text. That's not too big of a deal.--Zereshk 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious issues with U.S. support section

message: In the section on the list of successful Iraqi operations, the last item reads: "capture of Ahvaz".
I dont think that actually happened. They came pretty close to Ahvaz, but the city never fell.
I put a citation tag there until it is verified.--Zereshk 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahvaz?

message: The Following is incorrect/impartial.
#Iran used Sulphur-Mustard from Iraqi stocks, and in 1987 The religious authorities of Iran after the success of the Iraqi army's rout of Iranian forces in Al-faw (possibly a combined chemical/mechanized assault) were quite willing to change on the issue, in 1987 before the wars end Iran was producing Mustard and Chlorine.
#Before the Ottoman empire Northern Iraq was ruled by the aq konoulu (white sheep) the center of the state was under the Khalifate of Baghdad. The Ottomans themselves respected this for 2 generations before they assumed the role of Sultan/Khalifa.
#The Iraqi Army volentarily withdrew from Iranian terratory in 1981. This was not done under the barrel of Iranian guns. rather its reason was recognising the Iranian arabs would not support a war of liberation while foreigners were occupying their land. Just as Iraqi kurds refused to fully co-operate with the Iranians against Iraq.
#The wars goals as stated are open to debate
The_Libo
I have edited the page, I call upon all interested parties to negotiate here.
I do not believe the dispute over the use of the term Persian gulf should spill over into here, as well , No one calls this the first persian gulf war, its called the first gulf war.
I mean this hyper sensativity on the part of the Iranics, is very telling.
Has anyone visited the GCC (gulf co-operation council) on wiki and is calling them the (p)GCC?
Lastly, there should be a mention of the Algerian Treaty between Iran and Iraq, and The Iranian Inability to breach the Iraqi defenses of Basra before the Iranian salient was eliminated by the Iraqi mechanized assault on al-faw (al-fao) term may need reversion, some guys vandalised it.
The author of the "comment" just below mine misses the entire point of the article. The article focused on the facts of the war, and then the zealot below starts harping on about muslims and Israel. This isn't a political forum where you state whatever idiotic opinion you have regarding the region- you are meant to discuss the article, and only the article not go off on a ridiculous tangent.
*I agree that we dont have to use the term "first Gulf War". I thought that term referred to the first war of US vs Iraq (91). Not the Iran-Iraq war.
*I have added material from Gary Sick, Hiltermann, and Potter that clearly state that Iran never used any chemical weapons sgainst Iraq, and that the DIA/CIA reports were false.
*The claim that Iraq "withdrew" from Iran (Khuzestan, Khorramshahr, etc) is completely false. This is because Iraq continued to hold on to Iranian territory, even late in the war. This is well documented. In 1981 specifically, occupied Khorramshahr was liberated by Iran, and is considered the turning point of the war. This has been well documented that the 575 day siege of Khorramshahr by Iraq's army was broken by Iranian forces during operation "Bayt al-Muqqadas". It is officially celebrated as a national holiday in Iran. Perhaps we could say "Iraq withdrew due to the inability to encounter the increasing flux of resistence of Iranian forces." Otherwise, it wasnt a goodwill withdraw, if that's what you mean. See: 
*We do have to add more emphasis on the Algiers accord. I agree with that.--Zereshk 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to agree with Zereshk here, any claim that Iraq voluntarily "withdrew" from Iran is inappropriate historical revisionism, they were beaten back.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion