Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: US vs Iran war?

message: And death toll was in 2 million! God I hate wiki.
-G
24.60.104.71 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article s crap

message: 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)
replies: text: 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..
Example: Soviet offensives in the Ukraine: Nov., Dec. 1943 the battle of Kiev, 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. In March-April 1944 entrapment of the Germans in the Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket.. i.e. mobility afforded by those American trucks.
Look at these pictures of the Soviet's firing Katyushas from American made Studebaker trucks.
Also, the Soviet victory at Kursk might have owed something to intelligence gathered by the Lucy ring.
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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  An Argument For Discounting American Support That Won't Work 

message: 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)
thread_title: Fixing links and references

message: I just want to say i hope you realize that most of your changes will be reverted. --Spahbod 03:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding TDC's deletion of much of the article

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stop deleting materials which have citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Great Alibi - or Why Saddam Was Really OK to Shake Hands With 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Size of flags 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Numbers don't add up. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Another odious lie found on Wiki 

message: 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)
thread_title: Gary Sick

message: 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)
thread_title:  Simon Wiesenthal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs maps 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Iran's Use of Chemical Weapons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Iranian Revolution of 1979 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weapons of mass destruction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: ::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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Jimmy Carter

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Read these article:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I listed the U.S. as Combant 2, hoping that will solve the confusion. Storm05 13:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the U.S. a "combatant" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments on US involvement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marmoulak and Marky48, stop the madness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification still needed