This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Yet again without explaining your argument or the posistion, The article refers to it as teh first persian gulf war.
I am delisting it from the Good article, and going to replace much of the article from an encyclopedia within the Public Domain!
The Following is incorrect/impartial.
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)
erm 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 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.
This article should be prohibited for young adults. You are giving these hard-working teens the WRONG information! They USE your articles for their essays. If you do NOt know what you are tlaking about, it would be better if you keep it in and not go public. Please!! Do it for the CHILDREN!!
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.
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.
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:
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)
The article seems to be missing quite a bit of background information. Ie Iran supporting attempts to overthrow the Iraqi government, and subsequent negotiations of withdrawing their support in exchange for the border change. The ethnic and religious divisions that contributed to dispute. While the ambitions to power are true, it is not even close to the whole story.
I served as a commander of a small unit (about 40 soldiers) in Iran-Iraq war from March 1984 to Jan 1986, I also followed the iranian politic and western countries role in Iran-Iraq war, I am also a victim of Iraq chemical warfare towards the end of my military service, I have been living in Canada and the United States for since 1987 and continued following the politics of the world with little or no judgment here what I have to say about this article:
It's fairly accurate with respect to it events and how it happends, infact I felt a great deal of compassion given to Iranians maybe because they were the vicitm of an imposed war but at the same time I don't see much or any comapassion towards inoccent iraqi's who perhaps were force to join the army as much as many number of Iranians in the official soldiers were force to enlist, I was only 18 years old at the time perhaps young and naive in many areas, but despite my fear of our Iraqi enemys in some occasions we were able to communicate through the sound of our machine gun being fired with rhtyme and were able to stablish contact which resulted in cooling off in shooting unless we were force to by our supperior, in that time I realized that the evil Iraqi enemy we all feared our life for are just like ourselves being forced to fight a war just because they had to, maybe I as Iranian could be more patriotic because we were the victim of an imposed war nevertheless I was able to see my opponents face and felt different about possible killing of Iraqi soldiers. I found almost all info on this article to be accurate to my knowledge with seeing a grat deal of compassion for the iranians, as to the international community and the western rold in the war, they all simply tried to cash in and make as much profit and fullfill their political agenda with no respect to human lives and justice, again for them it's all about business and nothing is personal or human hearted, even thier political agenda is business, money and power and more power.
Koz from Vancouver Canada,
I am not aware that Iran ever used chemical weapons during this war. If so this use must have been minimal in comparison to the Iraqi use, both against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi (Kurdish) civilians. I am aware that the USA have several times accused both countries, but this appeared to more based on political expediency than on anything else. Could someone please provide evidence for this assertion ? Refdoc 23:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
YEAR IN ITS WAR WITH IRAN" and "BOTH IRAN AND IRAQ CONTINUE TO EMPLOY CHEMI-
CALS IN PRIMARILY DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS".
Peregrine981 23:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, as I said I have never ever heard of confirmed allegations. The SIPRI report is probably the most authoriative and also denies confirmation. The US allegations agaisnt Iran were mainly based on Halabja, which in turn is now generally accepted to have been Saddam's work. The allegations against Iraq are well founded and the use was massive. I would suggest altering the reference. I hope I provoke no revert war... :-) Refdoc 08:24, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Peregrine981 12:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You are right, and I have tried to put this in. Tell me what you think. I think the distinction must be very clear that Iraq did use chemical weapons confirmedly and on massive scale, while the allegations agaisnt Iran are weak and in all likelihood false.
Refdoc 13:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your addition seems quite appropriate. Consulting several books from the library today, including a report by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, I have found no confirmation of Iranian chemical weapons use. Iraqi use is mentioned repeatedly, and a discussion of Iranian countermeasures is included, but nowhere does it mention Iranian chemical weapons even in a very detailed examination of tactics employed by both sides. The only weakness of these reports is that they were written within a year or 2 of the war's end. For our purposes I think we can conclude Iran never used Chemical weapons.
Peregrine981 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article has the 'dispute' message now since several months. There has been very little dispute apart from the bits about the chemical warfare we just slugged out. Could we go and produce a list of points which should be verified/altered/NPOVed or added and get the notice off? Refdoc 14:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I will go first :
Peregrine981 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Even looking at the history I can't remember exactly why I put the NPOV message there. The article look OK to me now. Roozbeh 17:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have 2 or 3 loose remarks. st i have seen estimates of casualties ranging (far?) over a million for iran only, supposedly irak had huge losses too, i think a thorough structural underestimation of international conflicts fought on arab ground is a colonialist method and crime. Then i have heard at the time of that war, iran had been using some chemical weapons too, the story here seems to deny it but some years ago i tried to uncover who would have shipped such to iran, and i remember it as if there was something (a tradeconnection to be made. otoh i heard the effects of it have been well noticable all through iran.. wich i think could be elaborated. 3rdly i agree very much that the story would be even more clear if the obvious relation of US military goals and UN resolutions was lighted out a bit more. (as to child soldiers and such, seen in the propaganda context one could doubt the value of many such implications)
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)
I just finished writing a whole section on the US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war. I hope it addresses your inquiries.-- Zereshk 03:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I dispute the accuracy of this article. Heres why:
While 2 paragraphs (a whole separate section) go into detail about these so called Human Wave tactics, very little (almost nothing at all) is said about the 100,000 chemical weapons war veterans (see here) Iran sustained during the war. 100000 is not a small number. It puts Iran as the world's top country afflicted by Weapons of Mass Destruction after Japan.
Furthermore, when someone who doesnt know anything about the war comes and reads that human wave tactic thingy, they are bound to pick up an unfair representation of the war. The way those 2 paragraphs are written, it seems as if Iran only sent kids forward for mine sweeping and other lethal operations. Which is not true, because at that junction in time, the soldiers and volunteers in the front lines were going through no less of a treatment. Its not as if they were sending kids in mine fields while the rest waited for the fields to clear up.
The article also makes little mention of the war of the missiles between cities, and the fact that Iran sustained close to 1 MILLION casualties and over $1 Trillion in damages.
Basically, the article ignores the exceptional value of volunteerism exhibited in that war. Some people really believe in Martyrdom. Theyre not brainwashed by Ayatollahs to run into mine fields. There were people from all walks of life volunteering to go into the minefields and front lines knowing of their chances of no return. And the majority of them werent "kids" either.
Please somebody fix the incorrect proportions.-- Zereshk 04:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
66.133.180.21 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The "Common Dreams" article our anon friend is calling as biased and unauthoritative, is actually a reprint of a New York Times article.-- Zereshk 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
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 have a question from our learned Western friends, who seem to know so much about things they have probably never seen:
Where and when were human wave tactics employed? Let's have specifics - i.e. dates, times and places, as well as figures and names of units and commanders.
If anyone really knows that human wave tactics were typical of the war, they should be able to answer these questions without any problem. Johan77 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
My objections have not been answered. Therefore the dispute tag stays on this page.
To be specific,,,
I have a problem with the statement:
9 years old. That sounds like Radio Mojahedin propaganda.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Unless backed with evidence, it should be taken down or modified.
Now, as for the statement:
I strongly doubt that to be a reliable source. Consider what this Mr. Cringely says in this article of his:
I mean...that is the most stupid thing Ive ever heard...Take a Taxi to the front like it's 5th Ave. and Broadway.
An American journalist gets an assignment from Penthouse magazine to go up to the war front in Iran to report on how Iranians kill their 9 year olds?
In a Taxi?
In 1986 (1365)?
I DONT THINK SO.
-- Zereshk 08:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have met at the time many Iranians (students abroad) who reported themselves similar things (human wave attacks and children being used), none related to the Mujahedin, most abhorring them, but obviously I cannot give names nor indicate any sources and for all I know these people might themselves have been confused by rumours instead of really knowing the truth. I also remember from Isfahan airport arrival's hall some display about one "martyr" or other, and the pictures did AFAIK show kids amongst the troups of basiji. Now this s a good few years back and I might be wrong in my recollections. If the display is still up any of you Iranian guys can check it probably when traveling next to Isfahan...
WRT journalist, taxi and frontline - never underestimate the guts, improvisation skills and luck a good journalist might have and employ. Also a good "fare" might well convince an adventourous taxi drive to go where otrhers would not go. Refdoc 13:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
§I'm taking the NPOV tag off. I'm satisfied.-- Zereshk 03:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
I think, Peregrine, you just now seriously misunderstand NPOV - this does not mean that Wikipedia can not state bald facts if they are well documented and without reasonable doubt. Iraq's role in starting this war is beyond such doubt. There a re a lot of things one can blame Iran for and particular its current government, but starting this war is not one of them. This is a bit like insisting it is POV that WWII is started by Germany and NPOV would demand that both Poland and Germany get a reasonable share of the blame. Bullshit, obviously. The war was started by Germany and only (very few very stupid) revisionists will try to claim otherwise.
Iran is not exactly everyone's best loved child just now, so it has a rougher time defending itself against unjust claims, but we at Wikipedia should not really try and play these games. A proper start would be Iraq started the war by attacking Khuzestan... Later then we can (and do) discuss the various contributing factors, and surely we will then also have a good look at the various claims re borders, support of hostile guerilla in the other country etc etc. But not in the first line where the plain fact that Iraqi soldiers crossed the border on suchandsuch a day in order to capture Khuzestan can (and should) be stated without qualifying comment. If you do have any serious divergent information, ok, this debate can be re-opened. But not before Refdoc 22:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
We can shuffle around parts of the article, but I dont think it would be balanced to take out any part of it. Otherwise we must also put the blame on the allies and Jews for agitating Hitler to start WW2.-- Zereshk 16:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am struggling with having the picture of Babylon vs Elam there. It serves no real purpose apart from stating the obvious - Human history is long and violent enough to have most pieces of ground fought over many times in the past and potentialy in the future too. We would not add the Roman Germanic wars to the discussion of WW2's origins (Germany against the civilised world...) Refdoc 13:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the somewhat backhanded compliment, Zereshk :-), I did 'get' it, but I also saw that you intended a teensy bit of POV pushing....I think my argument stands. Refdoc 20:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with "Antecedents..." Or what about even "Pre-war situation" to remove any hint of inevitability? Clearly the war was a matter of choice (for Saddam Hussein). Refdoc 21:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reasons for reverting back from User:David.Monniaux's changes:
In contrast to the normal wiki style, the captions on this page are wrapped in <center> tags, making them double-boxed. Why?
However the role the United States played during these years has not been so visible. How ridiculous is this? We have other articles dealing with the open and blatant support of Iraq by the USA - e.g reflagging of oil transporst, presence of US navy in teh gulf, support of Iraq with AWACS and satellite feeds - allthis is very well known. Why suddenly "less visible"? Refdoc 01:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
I'll add it as a reference.-- Zereshk 23:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
I took out the reference to the "paradise key". As far as I know, this is an unfortunate misguided error of translation. If anyone knows of a reliable source for this claim, feel free to reinstate the sentence with a reference to the source. However, this is what I know about the actual root of the error:
Many Iranian soldiers carried with them prayer books called "Mafaatih-ol-Jinaan" (literally, "keys to the gardens" or "keys to paradise"). This is an extremely popular prayer book with a fairly comprehensive listing of Shi'a Islamic prayers. It can be found in almost every religious household in Iran. There are small pocket versions which some people carry, and these were very popular with soldiers during the war.
There is another problem with the claims about a phyical "key": This kind of literal symbolism is very rare in Iranian Shi'a culture. Paradise has no "physical" gates as such, and hence needs to "physical" keys as such. The mystical, metaphoric meaning of "prayer" as "key" makes much more sense (particularly since there is already a compendium of prayers by that name, and since soldiers did carry these books with them during battle).
I have seen it claimed some times that soldiers wore the "keys" around their necks. As far as I know, the only thing the soldiers wore around their necks was their identification plates.
-Doostdar ( 24.147.84.248 06:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC))
The claim is just false. People who make the claim do not even have photographic evidence to back it up - and the war was extensively photographed. Its ridiculous. Johan77
The section pertaining to the "US-Iraqi arms transfers in the war" is extremely POV. It is written based almost solely off of opinion pieces, and focuses a disproportionate amount of attention to technology transfers from the Unite States to Iraq, when realistically the US was a tertiary supplier of Iraq's military industrial infrastructure. TDC 16:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I am an American, and I sought out this article because I understood very little about the Iran-Iraq war. That includes the supposedly "well-known" elements as to which countries were the primary suppliers of help to Iraq and which helped Iran. Because I do not know these things, I came away wishing a bit more had been written about the amount and kind of assistance given by the various countries.
Also, I'd like to point out that when confronted with a long piece that includes separate sections, readers will often skip to parts they are most interested in, and then scroll up or down from there. That being so, I sort of backed into the section on US help to Iraq and so did not start out with the intro section that explains why the focus on the US. Obviously, this is no fault of the writer's, but it is something to remember when doing pieces like these.
I do appreciate the deep look at US involvement in the war, because Americans do not generally understand the extent to which their country supported a regime that killed thousands of people using chemical weapons. Also, the old outrage over US embassy workers being held hostage in Iran after the overthrow of the Shah still colors American attitudes toward Iran and the press has not done enough to balance that. One missed opportunity was during the run-up to the current US occupation of Iraq. During the (fairly minor) press coverage of the irony that the US helped Iraq build up its military strength in the first place, and the strong focus on the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds in Iraq, there was a chance to address the way the US overlooked Iraq's use of the same weapons on Iranians the decade before. But I don't recall it getting much attention. So, I agree that there needs to be some stress on the US role in the Iraq-Iran war -- but would still like to see some additional information about quantity/form of aid that other countries contributed.
LMiller 128.86.158.46 18:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
After reading the article, my first impression was that it was somewhat unbalanced with so much of the content dedicated to US supplied-armament. Sorry Z, but I don't think the key words mentioned here help remedy that problem for readers. For example one could write an article about the Pacific theater of WWII, ignoring the Pearl Harbor incident by saying 'Japan's involvement in starting the hostilities is "well-known"' and then include the largest section being about how the US provoked Japan into war via embargo. Initially, this raised all sorts of questions for me. Aren't people coming to read this article because they don't know? Will the next generation know? The generation after that?
After reading all of the comments in the Talk page, my next impression was that a genuine effort is being made to create a balanced article. I agree a section about armaments supplied by other countries will solve the "well-known" issue I just mentioned, as well as deal with other peoples' complaints about the armament details being too US-detailed.
However, my worry is that with this planned addition I can see this article becoming half about outside-supplied armaments and half-about all the other aspects of the war combined. This is an article about the Iraq-Iran war; half of it shouldn't be dedicated to a list of evidence about foreign suppliers! The US-supplied armaments section is already the largest section in the article. Leaving all that detail in and adding other countries' armament-involvement in equal detail will overpower the rest of the article. My opinion is that it would be more appropriate to have a paragraph summary of all armament contributors and perhaps a paragraph for each of the major contributors. The current links to the cited evidence can follow the US paragraph so that the details can still be accessed by those interested.-- Rathjen 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
I removed the following table as it is curremntly largely in French. I also think a more useful detail would be weaponry sold during the war.
Purchase of weapons by Iraq between 1970 and 1990 (10Â % of the world market during this period)
Fournissors | Billiard of $ 1985 | % total |
---|---|---|
CCCP | 19,2 | 61 |
France | 5,5 | 18 |
China | 1,7 | 5 |
Brazil | 1,1 | 4 |
Egypte | 1,1 | 4 |
Autres nations | 2,9 | 6 |
Total world | 31,5 | 100,0 |
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)
In addition, I have removed comments that border on vandalism from the "War of the Cities" section. Comments removed: Chemical weapons had not been used in any major war since American use in Vietnam, Afghanistand and Iraq. This was reverted to the previous version: Chemical weapons had not been used in any major war since World War I. -- 156.77.75.126 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
(from the article) And finally, when Hitler was pushed back to his original borderlines late in WW2, did the allies stop there and say:"Okay, we've liberated our lands. Lets not spill more blood?" What makes you think Saddam was any better of an evil creature than Hitler, deserving anything better?
This is from that article and does place it on an ideological level, i mean if this represents the official statements made, it suggests the people in charge wanted to prolong the war, established positions or not.
"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)
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.
The 100 000 - 200 000 kurds killed during the war were Iraqi kurds, whether it was during the Anfal campaign or at another time. Iranian casualty numbers aren't divided into any minorty or ethnicity. I recall young people being sent to the front from all over Iran, not only Azeri. --
Arrrrrr
Was the United States involved in the Iran Iraq war? Storm05 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
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. [6] CJK 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Seeing the images and many other funny comments and lies, it seems this is a propaganda webpage made by iraqis or a member of the trator organization mojahedin, rather than a neutral wikipedia encyclopedia page!
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)
Who gave you the right to reverse my edits, i deleted the funny lie that iraq captured ahvaz in 1988, and put in a link. I also deleted the picture of saddams stamp, because it is offensive to iranians and will make the page look like a propaganda page.
Next time you reverse i will not explain this in discussion page.
This speculation didn't have a source and when I removed it was quickly replaced, and a dubious source [7] was added. I am once again removing this, please do not replace it unless a relible source can be found.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
What was dubious about the source? I am once again reverting, please do not vandalise Darkred 05:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The source is a conspiracy website, it is not considered a reputable and reliable source as per WP:RS. If you revert one more time you will have broke n the 3RR and could be blocked.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The new source you added seems to be a dead link, but seeing that part of the title says somthing about George W. Bush's role in the Iran-contra affair, I can't see it being too different from your previous source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the link, but I don't see much of a difference between the new link and the previous one, so I'm not sure there was a benefit of replacing it, I'm reverting to the previous version once again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling me anti-semitic is a totally uncalled for ad hominem. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
For all I care, I and numerous Iranians are thankful for the help from Israel. Without it, the tyrant Saddam would have won the war.-- Zereshk 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, the only thing european countries supplied iran with was khomeini. The united states supplied iran with only a fragment of what they supplied iraq with. Israel has been the closest and perhaps only ally persia ever had, ever since cyrus the great saved them from the babylonians. Especially since even India and China decided to join the rest of the world in the iran-iraq war and supply iraq with(amongst other weapons), chemical and biological weapons. However i do not share Mr zereshk's POV, that israel saved iran. They helped alot, but iran saved itself with one million casualties, among them 13 year old boys who voluntary swift over iraqi mines to clear the way for iranian troops, and jumped under tanks with grenades in their hands.
Now europe is at it again, if you have been following the news these past years you would clearly see that europe and (especially france this time, because they lost their major free money source: iraq), is once again preparing to supply iran with something, this time with no other than the traitor organization MKO with Maryam Rajavi as future iran's self-proclaimed president! (if you want to read about her go to the history section of that page and read the last revert by me, because someone reverted the propaganda stuff back in) Even tho all i said are proven facts, my POV is my own and i do not speak for zereshk or any other iranian in wikipedia. -- Darkred 04:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
pecher about that remark you did about iranian gratitude, thats only one man speaking, hes not speaking for the rest of us. -- Darkred 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The introduction states 1 million casualties total both sides and prisoner exchange in 2003 15 years after end of war, whereas the Aftermath section states 1.5 million casualties for Iran only and prisoner exchage up to 10 years after conflict.
The Following is incorrect/impartial.
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.