Talk:Iran–Iraq War

Bad Link

Reference number 57 goes to a faculty "about" page rather than the source itself.

24.165.15.247 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union barely mentioned while America takes massive amount of space

Why is American support for Saddam so emphasized when it is dwarfed literally over 20 times in magnitude in terms of numbers both money and materiel by the Soviet Union and other Communist nations? The Soviet Union's huge material support of Saddam Hussein is dwarfed by quotes about and examination of America's, in comparison, minuscule role, thereby creating the impression that America was actually the main supporter of Saddam Hussein during the war. This is precisely the kind of bias that has led Wikipedia to basically be considered worthless in any official capacity

So, contribute. Participate. Add weight to the unweighted side. or, add neutrality to the overweighted side. Anyway: American involvement seems more complicated than Soviet, since America essentially armed both sides. Maybe it really takes more text to describe, neutrally or otherwise. Lastly: Wikipedia doesn't expect you to use it as any primary, credible resource - but, did you learn anything from the article or not? I hope so and that's what it's really for. 76.247.106.241 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

US Entanglment nice way to say support

Whichever person keeps changing US Support to Iraq to US Entanglment PLEASE STOP Or I will keep checking everyday and change it back to what it should be

Longest war??

The intro refers to the conflict as the longexst conventional war of the 20th century. What are the metrics for that claim? Was the Vietnam confilct not longer than 8 years? How about the European theatre of WWII or the Congo war? The Soviet-Afghan war lasted 9 years. Is this just regional hyperbole (mother of all battles, line of death) or what? L0b0t 12:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First Indochina War - 9 years, Vietnam War - 16 years, Soviet-Afghan War - 9 years, Second Sino-Japanese War - 14 years, Korean War - 57 years and counting. I've removed the claim about the Iran-Iraq war being the longest in the 20th cent. as it is not even in the top 5. L0b0t 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Korean war is 57 years and counting"...talk about stretching it

The statement is from the introduction of Dilip Hiro's book, The Longest War. (Google books has the relevant exerpt here) I don't have any opinion on whether Hiro's conclusion is accurate or helpful, though. TheronJ 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I was actually just getting ready to schlep down the old NYPL and check that book out. Cheers. L0b0t 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do anyway - it's a great book, even if it does tend to give a little too much credence to conspiracy theories. (For example, IIRC Hiro reports the October Surprise conspiracy, which had not been either proven or discredited at that time, as fact.) TheronJ 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check it out. On a side note, I'm about halfway through Anatol Lieven's Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power ISBN 0-300-07398-4. It is AMAZING, well worth a reading if that part of the world is of interest to you. Cheers. L0b0t 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Green Light

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

The claim for Carter's green light has been published by a reliable source, investigative journalist Robert Parry. He has published a direct quotation of an official of the highest rank stating that the green light was given, and this particular assertion (the quote of Haig's memo) has never been contradicted (has it?). Can anyone explain where exactly this piece of information falls short of suitability for inclusion without caveats and weasel words in wikipedia? Asgrrr 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That dam* warmongering Carter. He should be extradited to the Hague to face trial. CJK 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

New article

I created a new article about the disproportionately large section section about international aid. Is there a problem, or is this ROS (revert on sight)? CJK 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with you creating other articles if they are notable enough, but the information you are removing from this article are not unnecessary details or unrelated information, they are concise & important information, required to the informativeness of this article. By the way, you should read WP:VAN, and stop accusing me of vandalism. - Marmoulak 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The sections are far too long and are quite controversial, only somewhat related to the actual fighting (which this article is about). We have a lot of unneeded details about exactly what each nation sent and what certain commentators have to say about it. Thus, we need to reduce it to 1 para military procurement and 1 para WMD procurement, transferring the rest to an alternative article. It would make clear who sent what, but in general terms, with more details in an alternative article. For instance, we don't need the exact number and type of chemical/bio precursors sent and which companies sent them in this article, just that "X country sent mainly _______" and so on. CJK 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV, this article's length isn't too long at all, just compare it to other articles on wars. There are no "unneeded details", everything is directly related to Iran-Iraq war. Foreign aid and foreign intervention is important and required to be focused on because it played an important role in the course of the war. The role of United States, particularly, should be focused on since it was a party of the war and directly changed the course of the war several times. - Marmoulak 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the quote keeps getting removed

None of the statements are substantiated with actual evidence, and where there is it isn't redundant:

Opinions: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”

Facts: the evidence that I inserted clearly shows that other countries gave much more financing than occured during the BNL scandal. The intelligence is already included in a different section. The military help has already been documented in the preceding paragraph and it is laughable that 100 helicopters built Saddam's Iraq into an aggressive power. The money is included in a different space. The dual technology is covered, as are chemicals and weapons. So the quote adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to this article. CJK 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The dual technology, indirect support and most importantly intelligence support isn't included in the document, it only contains the recorded arms transfer to Iraq. After the Iranian forces pushed Iraqi forces back to Iraq, the U.S. intelligence support for Iraq went as far as planning the strategies for the Iraqi army. Nevertheless what brings U.S. to the spotlight is its direct involvement in the war. U.S. directly destroyed half of Iran's navy and sank Iran's oil platforms. It is not your place to decide what "adds to this article", please keep your POV out of the article. - Marmoulak 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the document, I'm talking about the article in general. The quote adds nothing to the article because everything mention is already covered. I did not change anything about Iran's navy being destroyed. CJK 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemical warfare

"Chemical weapons had not previously been widely used in any major war since the Second Italo-Abyssinian War." Chemical weapons were used in the 1957 war between Egypt and Saudi Arabian, with massive causalties, including civilians. I read this in the book "Six Days of War" (about the Six-Day War).--Tdkehoe 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct statement would be that "Nerve agents had not previously been used..." However, I do not know what specific agents were used in the Italo-Abyssinian war or 1957 war (nerve, blood, blister?). The use of Tabun by Iraq was as far as I am aware the first use of nerve agents in a major war. Koyar 01:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

additional source

This source should be used in the article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17053.htm

Highly informative.--Zereshk 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Radio broadcasts: exclusively or extensively?

Soon Iraqi radio stations began exclusively broadcasting into "Arabistan",

I can't figure out a reading of 'exclusively' which makes sense there: surely they were still broadcasting into Iraq proper. My best guess is, this was supposed to be 'extensively', but I'm not sure enough to just go ahead and change it yet. Jtl 00:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

The table on the top right corner of this article says Iran has an estimated 500,000 casualties. Later on in the article, at 'Aftermath', there is a sourced line saying an estimated 1 million casualties. Which one is true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.92.191.24 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Biased article..

Iran used chemical weapons as well.

neither as both are extremely inflated 131.94.132.21 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

T-80? BMP-3?

Iraq didn’t have T-80s or BMP-3s. And they sure as heck didn’t have T-90s (BMP-3 and T-90 weren’t even made yet at the time). That ORBAT on the page is way off as a result.

24.168.4.147 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Extremely Biased Article

This article is written purely from an Iranian perspective.

It is not worth reading as it is pure propoaganda, and below standard.

Absolute garbage! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.207.206 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

This is completely true. This article needs to be dramatically changed from the current Iranian standpoint to create a non-biased view which should be supported by Wikipedia. I am still new to editing but more experienced wikipedists would do well to flag this page for substantial editing. --Suresh Nat 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am no Iranian and I think this article is fairly objective. Americans must apologize to Iranian people for this war. Their roles in this war are pure evil.

No argument => no problem. It's too easy to say :"This article is written purely from an Iranian perspective." without saying why. I'm not iranian, I'm not irakian, and I think that this article is fairly objective too. 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Mrpouetpouet

Military operations missing

To be honest, I am an avid Wikipedian. I have seen, and edited, huge swaths of articles on this website. I have always been impressed by the fact that major, and even relatively minor ways, have been dealt with so throughly. However, in my opinion, for such a major war, this is the worst article I have ever seen

Did Operation Dawn 8 not happen?! It was perhaps the single greatest Iranian success since they expelled the Iraqi invaders from their country. It almost cut off Iraq's access to the sea, seperating the country from its main Gulf port, and it was this act that forced Saddam to approach the war with a greater deal of conviction, and ultimately led to his decision to initiate the 'Tanker War'.

Also, has the deployment of Iraqi forces after their withdrawl from Iran be mentioned? After their withdrawl, Iraq managed to deploy four corps for deployment as static defence along the internation border.

What about the Iraqi operation that allowed the Iraqis to re-capture the Foa Peninsula, after its loss in Operation Dawn 8.

What about the Iraq counter-offensives in the fall of 1988, which actually brought the Iraqis back INTO Iranian territory, specifically in the region of Deholran.

What about the order-of-battle for Operation Karbala 5?

What about the ordinary experiences of the boy soldiers who volunterred to fight in the Basij, or the men who fought in the Pasdaran?

So much is missing, and it needs to be sorted out!

(EasyPeasy21 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

---

Other things that I can think of are (but don't have specific references for):

1. Use (or non-use) of Iranian F-14s 2. The scuttling of ships in the Shatt Al-Arab 3. Saddam's alleged use of the maritime border treaty as justification for the war (read this in an article regarding the Iranian kidnapping of UK Naval personnel earlier this year.) Koyar 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links?

To look at the list of external links, you would think this is an article about how Iraq got its weapons, not about the Iran-Iraq war. Almost every link is accusing the West of arming Saddam. The whole article is very heavy in this direction too, and rather light on actual information about the battles.

(User:Anonymous 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, they're not really accusing (since there is no denial that the West was supporting Saddam in his war against Iran); but I do see your point. The external links need to take the user to areas which relate directly to the military actions and consequences of the Iran-Iraq War.

(EasyPeasy21 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

How Iraq got its weapons is very pertinent to the Iran-Iraq war. Had it not been for Iraq's constant supply of weapons from abroad, Iran would have defeated Iraq in its invasion of Iran. The links to actual battles are given inside the article itself. Some are not yet written. But there is ample of information about the war and various events that took place during it. I think the article is OK.--Zereshk 03:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure the information is pertinent. But the article is so dispoportionately heavy in this direction, especially when it comes to chemical weapons, which weren't actually used very much in the war. It would be like an article on WWII talking 80% about the atomic bombs on Japan. Pertinent info, but how about some more discussion on the actual fighting. I am also tempted to remove many of the external links (I will at least remove the broken ones). Too many of them refer to the same information.

(User:Anonymous 12:43, 01 June 2007 (UTC))

especially when it comes to chemical weapons, which weren't actually used very much in the war. Chemical weapons in te Iran-Iraq war are not at all like the bombs on Japan. It wasn't a long bloody war and in the end Saddam threw a few chemical bombs to make an end to it. In this war chemical weapons were extremeley important, in almost every battle Iraq used the chemicla weapons, if it wasn't for them they would have been beaten quite easily. After the invasion of Iran had failed and Iran was invading Iraq Saddam used them every time, either it worked and he stopped the Iranians or he killed loads but his troops were beaten anyway. It was due to chemical weapons that Iraq was eventually able to beat Iran in the central front. The Honorable Kermanshahi 21:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Zbigniew Brzezinski, non-information

The following passage represents non-information to my mind, and I am going to remove it shortly unless someone can demonstrate how it refers to pertinent information.

"However, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor (United States) does not support this assertion." Asgrrr 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has reinserted this passage. I would like to know why, before I remove it again. Asgrrr 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, unless someone objects, I intend to move the whole section ending in the above paragraph to the chapter "After the Islamic revolution"; it is out of context as it is. Asgrrr 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this deletion by 194.144.81.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which appeared like vandalism to me before I saw your comment here. In the future, please provide reasons for removals in the edit summary. That said, I don't see how "[it] represents non-information to my mind" is a valid reason for deleting an apparently well referenced information. — Sebastian 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason goes to pertinence. The passage has no discernible pertinence. It describes what appears to be a non-event "does not support"; if there's something more to this reference than meets the eye (as I already asked for a month ago), it would be useful to get that information to the talk page and then perhaps tighten up the passage a bit. Asgrrr 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop glorifying this infernal War between Iran-Iraq.

Dear Iranians and Iraqis:

I just do not understand why people in one or another way glorify this WAR. The political development in the region goes back to the era of The Ottoman Empire and Safavid Rulers in Persia. Both the Ottomans and Safavids were partly monguls, relatives and leathal rivals to each other and did not belong to the countries they ruled. Glorifying a historical problem of this magnitude should never occur in this article. This infernal war was neither an Iranian or a Iraqi war.

Shameless Iranian-slanted Biases

One author employs an unbalanced use of quotes which glorifies Iran and vilifies Iraq, exemplified in the quote: "The UN Secretary General report dated 9 December 1991 (S/23273) explicitly cites 'Iraq's aggression against Iran' in starting the war and breaching International security and peace.[7]" Use of this particular quote does not provide insight to the topic of the article nor has the author provided elaboration to explain disapproval of the international community. Many quotes similar to this are presented alone as "evidence" that portrays Iraq as a villian and enables the author to rationalize Iran's subsequent retaliation in Iraq. Various statements like these, within this article do not show an unbiased or neutral stance on the topic. Moreover, they present an argument with the omitted thesis: "Iraq's invasion of Iran was motivated by economic greed, and Iranian response was justified and righteous."

"The UN Secretary General report dated 9 December 1991 (S/23273) explicitly cites 'Iraq's aggression against Iran' in starting the war and breaching International security and peace. [7]"...This statement brings no insight??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.211.138 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To those who see the article as biased

Why don't you try fixing it, with you know, facts. Currently everything seems well cited, so unless there is any real weight behind your complaints, they just seem a bit discriminatory. Everything seems pretty black and white; Iraq invaded a long standing enemy Iran after they were weakened by internal turmoil, they used chemical weapons, and the world in cold war arms dealer mode happened to like to support Iraq. The west because Iran had pissed them off by toppling a pro western government, and the Soviets wanted to woo the Arabs into their bloc, the Arabs because they hate the Persians, and everyone else to just make a quick buck. Actually, things aren't that much different today, as far as alliances go. Also, there is no evidence whatsoever of Iran using any chemical or biological weapons, as some insinuate here, while Iraq's use has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

The longest 'conventional' war of the 20th century

I have added this to the beginning of the article:

Many have also considered it to be the Longest Conventional War of the 20th Century as there was a book written by historian Dilip Hiro with the same title, however this is strongly disputed among historians. It is also regarded in much of the West as one of the Forgotten Wars of the 20th Century.

I don't think it was the longest war altogether but it was the longest conventional war of the 20th century as there was no guerilla activity which later escalated into a full war. This was a pure conventional war from start to finish.

Many wars of the 20th century have started off by guerilla activity and skirmishes then escalates into an all out war. Yes the vietnam war was longer but if you were to take out the time period of guerilla activity it was just a few months shorter than the Iran Iraq War.

All activity before march 65 and after january 73 is not considered conventional but more guerilla type warfare.

• Vietnam conventional war: March 65 (operation rolling thunder) to January of 73 (suspension of war against north vietnam by president nixon) = 94 months of conventional warfare.

• Iran Iraq War conventional: September 80' to August 88' = 95 months. Beats vietnam conventionally by just one month!

People will dispute this, this is why i have added 'this is disputed among historians' in my sentences....And yes it is definetly a forgotten war outside the middle east. Hardly anyone in the west knows much about this war and there hasn't been any films or documentaries about it...much like the korean war in the early 50s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noorkhanuk85 (talk • contribs) 14:24, August 27, 2007 (UTC) noorkhanuk85 15:39, 12 December 2006 (GMT)

Sources

Many, in fact the bulk of info, in this article lacks sources. Some of it appears to be opinionated, and there especially needs to be sources in the intro where many claims are made about who calls the war what. Nichts 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I edited the clearly opinionated phrase "which was clearly a lie" from the following sentence: "The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack, which was clearly a lie." There's no way someone could objectively conclude that the Vincennes did not fear it was under attack. To do so would be to read the commander's mind. Tomzc 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Tomzc

That was a lie according to the declarations of the us soldier who shot. Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilisation - The Conquest of the Middle East; (October 2005) London. The sailor shot because there was a lack of organisation in the ship itself. It was an 100% american error, the Reagan administration lied saying that the boat was under attack. Private investigations clearly demonstrated this fact. Mrpouetpouet 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's supported by Fisk's testimony then. One clarification, however: Does "was clearly a lie" refer to only the claim that the ship was under attack or does it also refer to the claim that the ship was in international waters? Tomzc 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)tomzecat

• You can mention the viewpoints of those who believe it was an intentional attack, but you can't go out and declare that this was the case. Not to mention that there are plenty of sources out there that document this incident but have not yet reached such a conclusion 69.226.229.155 01:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Does "was clearly a lie" refer to only the claim that the ship was under attack or does it also refer to the claim that the ship was in international waters?" Both of them. The ship was in iranian waters according to U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe himself and it wasn't under attack because it was increasing altitude. In fact this is just a human error. The us sailor panicked because its ship was probably performing an anti-iranian operation at that time and shot shot the civil flight. The problem is that the Reagan administration, which was totally anti-iranian, cannot accept the fact that hundreds of innocent people died because of a stupid error of the us navy. Its hate for the iranian regime was so strong they built a fiction story to justify the attack. These justifications (the flight was an army one, the radio of the flight didnt'work, the flight was attacking the ship, etc....) were clearly created as a propaganda against iranian political regime. In consequence the sentence "which was clearly a lie" is justified in this context. However I agree to put it in note, as it's only a 99% certain fact.

"Not to mention that there are plenty of sources out there that document this incident but have not yet reached such a conclusion". Sorry but I cannot agree. American, British, European, and other independant sources from Middle-East agree on that point. Even testimonies of the sailors agree with this POW. We can assume it's the version of the accident, which is the nearest of the truth. (re-read Fisk ^_^) Mrpouetpouet 20:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Iranian aviation deleted?

In this article is not mentioned any role for IRIAF. This is not acceptable. IRIAF contribued to repeal iraqui offensive, and this is not said only by Tom Cooper, but also by David Eshel. So this article need to be improved *a lot* in this regard. Both Iraki and Iranians fought a really fierce air war with countless worthing actions and air campaign. I rate this reconstruction *without airforces* simply lacking of this critical informations. I expect that someone starts to write finally stuff about this aspect.--Stefanomencarelli 13:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

=> Iranian Air Force in Iran-Iraq war but I agree an article about Air fights during Iran-Iraq war (exemple) will be useful Mrpouetpouet 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I report here the part deleted, that it explain how and when Iranian and Iraqui airforces and overall armed forces tried to improve. I don't agree, of course, that it was deleted while it is essential to understand the grewth and power of both the countries at those times:

The plans to improve the military forces of Iran were really without comparations for a medium-sized country like Iran was. Among them: over 150F-5s, 220 F-4D/E, 80 F-14, and even 202 AH-1 Cobra. These latter were the most numerous attack helicopter fleet outside superpowers, even if not all were equipped with TOW missiles. They will been used also as air combat machines, expecially against Mi-24 and Gazelles, and even defending themselves by iraki fighters with some success. F-14s were the only export of this powerful fighter. F-4Es were at the time one of the most powerful Phantom fleet in the world, on pair, rougly, with UK, Germany and Israel. Iranian Army had Rapier, M109 and HAWK missiles, but also ZSU-23-4 (rougly une hundred) and BM-21 soviet built, weapons. Tanks were mainly M60 and Chieftain. This latter was the most powerful and heavy among MBTs of the 70s, and remained, despite the weak engine, so until Leopard 2 began. The fleet of around 900 tanks was on pair with British Army, and these tanks were the most modern (often with laser telemeters) sub versions available. Available weapons were over 2000 Mavericks, thousands of AIM-9B/J/Ps and AIM-7Es. The new planning comprised: 160 F-16 Fighting falcons (successors of F-5s), F-15s (there was an order for 53), six Spruance modiphied destroyers, 225 Shir-1 tanks, 1225 shir-2, dozens of Tracked Rapiers, 35mm Eagle self-propelled a/a tanks and many others materials. Some of them became in service in several armies: F-16s ordered were promptly swifted to European airforces, Shir-2 became simply the Challenger tank, and Tracked Rapier were tooke in strenght by British Army. Eagle SPG was deleted, while four destroyer were builth as Kidd class and delivered to US Navy (where they were also known as 'Ayatollah class'). - - Irak was also improving its military effectiveness. After suffered severe blow in 1973 war, when an entire armoured division was sent to help Syria, toghever with MiGs and other military units, and after the clashes happened with Iran, S.Hussein spent much money to build an improved Army and Aviation. Many soviet tanks were buyed, including T-62s and orders for T-72s, not availables for the start of the War. Many MiG-21s, MiG-23 and lathers even powerful MiG-25s were buyed, fullowed by Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters. Because the AT-2 Swatter /Falanga missiles were not so effective and precise, Irak buyed also Gazelles with HOT, just like Syria already done. The mix Mi-24/Gazelle began, after the early years of war, a very lethal one. The logistic was also improved, as the problems in 1973 showed, there was the need of many tank-trailers and spare parts to move an entire Army. Irak was still lagging behind with Iran, but the Islamic revolution in 1979 changed the things. Iranian armed forces, expecially IIAF was depleted by many of the most trained men, accused to be compromised with USA. Many of the aircraft were taken out of service. But this situation worsened the political relations between Irak and Iran, and in summer 1980 some clashes occurred. When Irak decided to attack in large scale Iran, there were already weeks of combat in the southern borded.

I wish that it will added in one form or the other. Those info are available and if needed i can add references and so on. But talk about First Gulf War (the authentic first one, not Desert Storm, mind you, in '80s this was 'The Gulf War', before CNN and so on changed blatalantly that name).

I remark that F-16s were ordered and then used by NATO countries, Challenger and tracked Rapier were taken on strength by UK, Spruance SAM where used as Kidd/Ayatollah (unufficial name) by US Navy as the most powerful destroyer before AEGIS.

Without these and other stuff that war cannot been understood and so i wrote this edit.--Stefanomencarelli 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This article is about the war itself not only about planes. These certainely have an important role in that war but less than gaz for exemple.

If you would have read this article better you'll have saw that your edits wasn't deleted but added to the air force part ! If some sentences were deleted that means that they were to precise for a general article about this war.

=> Feel free to create an article about this specific aspect of the war. Mrpouetpouet 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

UNITED STATES

Could we count the US as a 3rd side combatant? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Honestly this article by any neutral humanbeing can be seen obviously as not only biased but very much unbalanced...you should call it "Iranian view of Iran-Iraq war" because simply I can conclude that this mess was written by an Iranian...Wikipedia is nothing to trust on because people unfortuanetly just modify & create things from their own point of views & to serve their intentions & nation.