Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence

Response to Khossrow

"Marky48's criticism of the sources he mentioned are clearly his POV. Its his spin that makes him see it as the way they are."

The "sources" are an obscure professor and a reporter who reported an allegation that he couldn't verify. Alleged is alleged not proven. I don't find the majority of Historians would make the selections he and the other user have or support them. To them every US action was the "Key" event. His so-called evidence is a littany of personal opinion. He claims we are hiding evidence of US involvement, but that is not the case. We've said so. What we are trying to do is put it into context according to the facts. Moreover, he makes original research conclusions about the impact of the US actions such as they are. Both of them have in the talk page debate for which their say is always final. This is what brought us here. In his hands the article is a laundry list of "tit" but no "tat." This is clear bias be it culturally based or otherwise. It looks like some of both to me. Marky48 19:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Those issues you have to talk to Marmoulak about, but what amazes me is that you are trying to downplay US involvement in the Iran Iraq war. The USA was THE major player, this is evident by its actions, everyone else was just suppliers, while the USA was a combatant, informant, and supplier.Khosrow II 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No there's the difference. You "believe" they are by their actions, but the facts tell a different story. The involvement is what it is not what you say it is. Protecting the shipping lanes is not involvement in the way you see it. There's no great puppetmaster here. Just two countries involved in a conflict of their own making, and sides have to be taken in these things according to national interest. Iran wrote their ticket when they kidnapped the embassy and its occupants. You're painting a great propaganda advocacy picture here.Marky48 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Protecting shipping lanes? Are you kidding me? Ok, well let me present everything to you here right now:

If the US was there to protect shipping lanes, why did it not protect Iranian ships?

If the US was there to protect shipping lanes, why did it should down a civilian Iranian Airplane full of civilians, and not think twice about an Iraqi jet which eventually attacked and killed several US sailors? Infact, the USA accepted Iraq's apology and that was the end of it, but what happened to Iran? Iran gets its whole navy destroyed by the USA because their ships were threatened with mines in a war zone!

If the USA was there to protect shipping lanes, why did it pass of satellite and strategic information to Iraq?

If the USA was there to protect shipping lanes, why did it spy for Iraq?

If the USA was there to protect shipping lanes, why did it lie for Iraq when Iraq used chemical weapons? Why did it stop UN action against Iraq? Why did the USA lie and say Iran was also using chemical weapons?

Answer those questions, because evidently, you keep assuming that the USA was not a combatant and that it was neutral, which is false. There were no "neutral" nations at that time. Nations either supported Iraq or Iran. The Arab world was funding Iraq with their oil money, so Iran had every right to attack their oil vessels. Secondly, the USA was helping Iraq, so Iran had every right to mine the Persian Gulf. However, there was nothing Iran could do about the Western world funding Iraq, arming Iraq, and helping Iraq strategically and at the UN. Your POV is so evident that its amazing. Answer the above questions, if you can that is, because, in your opinion, those are all lies.Khosrow II

These are selected incidents compiled by you to support your bias for Iran. Iran is the aggressor here or perhaps you don't see it "that way?" I don't see a source that says the US "destroyed the entire Iranian navy" or "lied about chemical weapons." But you believe it I'm certain. This is your opinion unsubstantiated by isolated incidents out of context in your propaganda piece. Open and shut to you. Tell it to the judges. I'm not interested in you opinion.Marky48 16:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No they are not, these are very straight forward questions. The source was presented to you on the talk page of Iran Iraq war article, for the navy issue, and second, its a well known fact that the USA did lie and say that Iran was also using chemical weapons. You POV is evident, and your right, lets leave it for the judges, it was you who started this discussion anyway and now you have shown your refusal to consider the other sides opinion, which clearly shows your POV.Khosrow II 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"its [sic] a well known fact that the USA did lie and say that Iran was also using chemical weapons." So you're claiming common knowledge? Very suspect. Who said this? I think I know who it is, and if so this agent is widely discredited in the intelligence field. You only listen to biased sources. They have the POV you seek. Even when a "fact" is technically true, the impact takes on meaning greater than it has earned. Cherrypicking is a tried and true propaganda technique. Marky48 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As I thought. Steven Pelletiere This is hardly a mainstream view. In fact it's a dissenting view. I can't say, who had nerve agents, and you can't say "they lied." Iraq used mustard gas mainly, but no one pins popular opinion on this one claim by an opponent of the current Iraq war.

The other source seems to be this one article that outlined the tanker war issue. Nowhere do I read the US, which targeted Iranian ships who did have a history of aggression along with Iraq including neutral ships, as "completely destroying the Iranian Navy" as you claim. Do you actually read the sources? I don't think you do. They just give your the grains of truth from which to launch a hyperbolic diatribe unbecoming NPOV in an encyclopedia. Marky48 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)