Anonymouse

Well they claim some words in 598 are mucho importante.

The claims in this blog by the sole person who believes the extended 3 years of war was just says the words that said Iraq had used chemical weapons and UN will send a group to investigate and report back some stuff were mucho importante.  So much so that without those words we couldn't have stopped the war and agreed to ceasefire sooner.

There is no doubt that Iran prolonged the war.  In this blog I wanted to say that if nothing else, Iran prolonged it for at least 3 years based on facts that Iran signed not what others had to say. 

Everything is sacred.

FYI

"I know there were talks of paying billions early on but don't know if they would've actually paid on top of giving all territories back"

There weren't just "talks". The Kuwaitis and Saudis had agreed to pay a substantial portion of the reparation to Iran before the Iranian forces even pull back from Iraq.

By 1361, Saddam did not have much territory to give back to Iran. It was rather the other way around. He offered peace because Iran was advancing well into Iraqi territories.

"but in 1988 imagine him paying money after an 8 year war for the 8 year war."

The peace offer was not in 1988. It was in 1982 (1361). And Saddam wouldn't pay a penny of the reparation money. The Kuwatis and Saudis were the ones who agreed to pay the tab.

It was a win-win situation for all parties involved, specially for the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who died after 1982. But Khomeini rejected the offer. From that point forward, the war indeed became an "imposed war", but imposed by none other than Khomeini himself.

I don't know if Saddam & Co would've actually paid early on

I know there were talks of paying billions early on but don't know if they would've actually paid on top of giving all territories back and no other concessions.  Talk is cheap.

I do know that it is hard to negotiate with someone who says upfront they want it all and pretty much nothing to negotiate.  Until of course they're broke and at the verge of loosing it all.

Couple of words and Islamic Republic and its cronies think they can actually get reparation money.  Saddam is 6 feet under but in 1988 imagine him paying money after an 8 year war for the 8 year war.  It is silly, to say the least, that what Iranians could not achieve in 8 years of war they would achieve after the war.

Everything is sacred.

The bottom line

Khomeini could have ended the war in 1361 when Saddam offered peace and the Kuwaitis and Saudis offered billions of dollars in war reparation to Iran, and there was not a thing any foreign country could have done about it.

And this was before foreign countries began helping Saddam in any significant way.

But Khomeini rejected the peace. This was a demoralizing and disappointing news in the fronts. Even the average Pasdars (excluding the most fanatics) wanted Iran to accept the peace offer.

Had Khomeini accepted the peace offer in 1361, hundreds of thousands of Iranians would not have died in vain in the ensuing six and a half years of war, and the economy would not have suffered hundreds of billions in tangible and intangible damages.

Foreigners profited handsomely in this war, but do not blame the foreigners. Blame only Saddam and Khomeini for their sheer stupidity and irresponsiblity, with Saddam starting the war and Khomeini continuing it.

anonymouse: She is a loon

anonymouse: She is a loon like her mother/hero , Marieh Dabbagh...

Yak! Yak! Yak! Jaleho is Ms. Yak Yak the Laklak!

As I said in the end they signed what was there before as 598 was reaffirmation of 582.  Even if 14 days later UN issued a new revision that was still rejected by Iran at the time, Iran still signed on to it 3 years later.  Again, Khomeini signed the same thing a year later after he lost Fao and Majnoon and after Iran cities were bombed and after more chemical weapons were used.  That's his final legacy.  Deal with it.

I don't care if you support Islamic Republic or Ahmadi!  Noosh joonet!

Keep yaking!

Everything is sacred.

Anonytmouse, you enjoy being a public buffoon?!

After being encouraged to read two pages CAREFYULLY for once, and after all those explanations, you come up with this:

"Read 582 under Decisions on 21 March 1986 it says ... "

Honey, did you miss the fact that Resolution 582 is dated 24 February of 1986?!

I told you also 582  was designed against Iran 14 days after Iran's Feb 10 capture of Faw, calling Iran to get out basically.

Iran naturally rejected resolution 582 and what it included re. chemical weapons which is the following, not what YOU WROTE:

2. Also deplores the escalation of the conflict, especially territorial incursions, the bombing of purely civilian centers, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict, in particular the use of chemical weapons contrary to the obligations under the 1925 Protocol.

What you wrote was the notes after Iran rejected 582, insisted again for the fact finding mission about use of chemical weapons and initiation of war, and what the mission prepared which was finally reflected in the Re. 598.

I am done with you. Someone else please help her if she needs more questions.

Read 582 yourself. I've read and put it up for you to nag!

Read 582 under Decisions on 21 March 1986 it says ... "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces, "

Your technique is what I titled this blog, "highly advanced negotiation techniques".  Blame me, blame UN, blame the documents, except to blame where it should be.

Khomeini agreed to 598 one year later.  There is no 698, 798 or later resolution.  I know one year is nothing to you but it doesn't make it any less relevant and important.

I also provided links for other points in the blog but you keep yaking. In the end you may want to talk about reparation and a whole bunch of hooey but the facts and dates remain as they are.  Keep yaking!

Everything is sacred.

IRI groupie wants us to forget what IRI leaders said and did

Ali Sayyad Shirazi, chief-of-staff of IRI forces during the war said: "We will continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem". Numerous IRI operations during the war were called Operation Karbala 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. The IRI still has a Qods Force.

Emam-e Aziz cared about UN Resolutions as much as he cared for economics ("for donkeys") and for the human rights of the tens of thousands of Iranians who his regime executed.

Anonymouse are you pretending not to understand?!

or you are serious that you really don't understand that after years that Iran insisted that UN should send a mission to verify Iran's claim of Iraq usisng the chemecal weapons, UN refusing to do that or refusing to accpet that Iraq has used chemical weapons against Iran, after I gave you the link to then-secret-documents showing precisely that, and after I asked you to comapre the 598 UN resolution with the previous ones.....you still can not see that fianlly ONLY in 1987 UN agreed to that part of Iran's demands? I will try to help you understand this one LAST time by copying relevant parts, and will boldface it too, but you try to help yourself by opening that brain of yours if at all possible:

Decison (this is from 598)

On January 1987, after....{OK, follow that to the end of that first section of first page}   ...The members....have considered the report of the mission of specialists dispatched by Secretary-General to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict (27-Official record of Sec Council...)

"Deeply dismayed by the unanimous coclusions of the specialists that there has been repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces by Iraqi forces, that civilians in Iran aslo have been injured by chemical weapons, and that Iraqi military personnel have sustained injuries from chemical warfare agents, they again strongly condemn the repeated use of chemical weapons in open violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 in which the use of chemical weapons in war is clearly prohibited.

....Now roll down to second page to read the legally binding statement which under UN  articles 39 and 40 DEMANDS action:

Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter,

1. Demands that..... {you should be able to read what follows, OK}

Now go to numbers 6 and 7of 598  which FINALLY reflects Iran's second demand for initiation of war which is the legal pre-requisite for future war reparations. This substitutes the earlier Resolution 582's asinine fisrt statement, after EMPHASIZING "the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force" {this is since it happens 14 days after Iran captured Faw, and all of a sudden the UN remembered that you shouldn't be bad and capture land by force, of course it was kosher when Iraq was inside Iran!}

This is what was in 582:

1. DEPLORES the INITIAL ACTS which gave rise to conflict ....

Finally in 598 not only Iran's request for a fact finding mission on chemical weapons was granted and the results accepted, but Iran's demand for initiator and future war reparation is reflected here:

6. (this is in second page) Requests the Secretary-General.....an impartial body with inquiring into responsibility for the conflict and and to report to the council as soon as possible..

7. Recognizing the magnitutde of the damage inflicted during the conflict.....{am I safe to assume that you can read the rest of paragraph without my typing it?}

Now, I am sure instaed of a simple "thank you" for clarifying this for you, you will continue to shoot your mouth of with irrelevant BS!! Before doing so, go and see if you can find what I wrote above in 582 or 588!! Like you found out alreay, it is only TWO DAMN PAGES, READ THEM!!

Ao Jan: thank you...I'm glad

Ao Jan: thank you...I'm glad there are freedom fighters like you continuing to expose the truth about the IRI.

Being an idiot doesn't require a degree or horns and tail!

Amir and AO there is a lot of huffing and puffing bull crap that they feed the world and by now are world renowned!  Specially now since Obama reversed course on Bush and actually sat down to talk with them.  Yet as I said in the blog they are negotiating with them sorry ass selves and think people buy their crap like they do.

It used to be that they were so much the butt of jokes of so many things over the years that people like myself gave up and let them be and fool themselves more while we just watched.  Some whose job is Iranian comedy never gave up and used them as the gift that keeps giving! 

They don't want to admit what they signed and when they signed!  It's like the current sub-prime mortgage crisis that some people want to re-negotiate what they've already signed!

They blame the media and UN when they don't like something but cling to them like leaches when they like something else.

Everything is sacred.

Vildemose and Anonymouse

Vildemose: sorry to hear about your loss.  With the exception of the few wine drinking, out of touch ideologues who sit in the evil "West" and defend a murderous regime, most Iranians have been hurt one way or the other by this evil regime.

Anonymouse: The reason why you see the anti-Iranian, dead-ender, IRR trash harassing you here is because you have touched a very sensitive nerve here.  There have been a few things that have been a more important gravy train to for the survival or the IRR than the Iraq war.  That war not only allowed the IRR to use it as a rallying dry to wrap itself in the "defense of the nation" flag, it also allowed it to consolidate power under the guise of national security.  Lastly, it gave the IRR the propaganda opportunity to portray itself as a "victim", when, in fact, by its own actions, it was making victims out of the Iranian people.    

There is no denying the fact that Khomeini had a perfect opportunity to stop the slaughter of Iranians at least three years before it agreed to the cease fire.  And the reason why these anti-Iranian agents foam at the mouth every time you mention it is precisely because it is a fact.   

So, don't take it personally. This is their M.O.  They yell, scream and resort to intellectual (and physical) "chagookeshi" whenever they are confronted with facts. 

Revisionist history, IRI style

Numerous statements from Khomeini and his commanders (e.g.Sayyad Shirazi) made it clear that the IRI would not accept any end to the war with Iraq that left the Iraqi leadership in place. Indeed, IRI's declared goal was to "liberate" Karbala first and from there to march to Qods. Shirazi said: "We will continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem". Khomeini called the war a blessing. After drinking the poisoned chalice in 1988, IRI's official propaganda started vomiting up the Imposed War gibberish. Much like their Orwellian regime, IRI groupies think that these facts can be sent down the Memory Hole (to get a better understanding of the IRI, I would start off by reading Orwell's 1984).

Bolding paragraphs doesn't

Bolding paragraphs doesn't make them any more important. Certainly because you say so doesn't make it so.

LOL, she's always ranting and raving in bold...

What's the matter afraid the Iranian "youth" may get it "wrong"?

Jaleho 13 "other" resolutions are not being discussed here and I've made all the points in the blog itself. 

You're just parroting and have nothing of substance to say. Bolding paragraphs doesn't make them any more important. Certainly because you say so doesn't make it so.

As I said, 598 was a reaffirmation of 582 and Khomeini agreed to 598 one year later.  You can debate with yourself. 

Everything is sacred.

Anonymouse, while you practice reading

please also read the first comment I wrotre which prompted you to answer, clearly WITHOUT READING IT FIRST! The link at the end, from natinal archives, give you a good understanding of details about the war, its timelines and promisses that Saddam got from the west and the times he would supposedly get the extra help that came to him. Don't limit yourself to documents listed there while you're at the archives, you can easily check many related to Iran-Iraq war. These particular documents are the ones that was collected and released later to justify Iraq invasion, still they are a MINIMUM, and extremely helpful for understanding US role in that war for uninterested people like yourself:

From Sep 1980 that Iraq attcked Iran until the final Resolution 598 of 1987, which Iran finally accepted, none of the UNSC resolution either accepted Iraq as the aggressor who initiated the war, nor the party who used chemical weapons (the 2 condictions that Iran requested repeatedly from UN).

While Iraq was INSIDE Iran, the resolutions like 479 demanded cease fire (that is Iraq borders be defined by the territory captured from Iran) The first time that a demand was made to return to international borders was when Iran actually went INSIDE IRAQ.  

And even in 1986, when Iran captured FAW Island, and it made the west and Arabs worried about Kuwait, US in resolutions 582 and 588 of 1986 refused to accept Iraq as the culprit in initiation or use of the weapons, thus any war reparation to Iran.

Yet, from 1983 US knew that Saddam is using chemical weapons against Iran, (since they partly provided it to him,) but according to the now declassified documents, US policy was to help Iraq defeat Iran regardless of CW treaties,  way before Rumsfeld trip to Baghdad in 1984. You can slook up Reagn's declassified National Security Directive  of March 1982, (NSSM4-82), and april 1984 (NSDD139) to that account.

For US knowledge of Iraqi use of Chemical weapons on Iran, in the following link from the National Security Archives, click on document #24. Read just the douments, not the narratives of the link.

//www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Anon, can you read 4 pages for GOoSSSAKE?!

I am amazed that after I explained the following to you on "nuclear poison" blog, encouraging you to read the actual UN resolutions, and after you actually go and supposedly READ the UN resolutions for a change, you still write a blog like this?! Here's what I wrote in detail for you, do you want me to read line by line those 4 pages for you?!! You seem not to have read ANY UN resolutions to to be so shocked that they refer to the former resolutions, that's a routine, doh!!  Secondly, you completely lack the understanding of the legal nuances in those writings, have someone else help you read if after my reply to you, you still don't understand it:

by Jaleho on Wed Feb 03, 2010 05:52 PM PST

You don't see any difference between the 598 Res. that Iran finally accepted and the 13 other shamelessly unfair resolutions that the whole world was shocked about?!! Good that you were not Iran's negotiator! UN lost its reputation by its shamelss support of Saddam during Iran-Iraq war. Few reminders for you:

The first resolution 479 after Iraq attacked Iran, not only did not recognize Iraq as an aggressor, but asked for a cease fire when Iraq was 110 Km INSIDE IRAN. That is, Iran was to accept losing its land due to Iraqi aggression at the position that Iraq was inside Iran, contrary to the UN charter. Saddam's conditions for accepting the cease fire was: Iran to accept Iraq's absolute sovereignty over "Shat-ol-Arab", and return the islands Tunbs and Abu Musa to Arabs.

14 days after Iran captured Faw in 1986 however, UN for the first time required the return to international borders, because of UN principle of "inadmisibity of acquisition of land by force." That is Resolution 582 that YOU are referring to! The original version which referred to "original aggression" was even changed to " original acts", lest it endanger Iraq in any form or shape. The subsequent Resolution 588 of 1986, even the phrase "original acts" was deleted so that Iraq wouldn't even indirectly get into any trouble, instead Iran was accused of "extending the war" .

From Res. 540 of Oct. 1983 to Res. 582 of Feb. 1986 (27 months and the longest period of no resolutions), there was no resolutions concerning  ceasefire and return to international borders. Resolution 552 was because of complaint of 6 Arab countries AGAINST Iran, regarding freedom of navigation (complaining about Iran's boats danger to Saudis), and did not have requiremnet for ending the war.

The only resolution which indicated clearly that the international community is determined to end the war, that it was binding and as such invoked the  articles 39, and 41 of the UN charter was indeed Res 598, in which the first section "DEMANDS" a negotiated settlement.

It refers to Iraq's REPEATED use of chemical weapons agaisnt Iranians, (Iran's long time demand)

in section6. for the first time UN accepts Iran's request to have a fair party determine the responsibilty of who "initiated" the war, This is a legal requirement for any future war reparations. (which tells you how off a BS are the RUMORS that so and so Arab country was willing to give Iran , god know how many billions of dollars to end the war in 1982!!!) 598 was the only resolution in which the  5 permanent members consulted for months, and made sure that the non-permanent members are on board, and the resolution would be accepted and would have the legal teeth.

To force Iran to accept it, the west pumped up Saddam's military might to the degree that later he became troublesome for themselves and they had to remove him! That is, Iran which had held on to Faw and Majnoon islands with 7 billion barrels of oil for negotiations (or just keep like Iraq wanted to do in the beginning of war) was directlty attacked by US navy, the operation "praying mantis" by US basically destroyed Iran's navy, they destroyed Iran's oil platforms, Saddam was given free hand to use missiles and chemical weapons to use agaisnt civilian population in Iran (and Iraq!), and at the very end US even signaled Iran that it would directly enter the air war agaisnt Iran by shooting down the civilian Iran plane.

All these after so many years are common knowledge, you yourself provided a link to UN site, but you don't bother to read it, or the US archives link that I provided which by now has so many of the former secret douments of back then, indicating how US was determined to prevent Iran from winning the war, and finally entered the war directly and militarily, and used UN as its political arm to force Iran. But hey, you can continue to blame Khomeini and Iranians for the war instaed of Saddam and the west! 

PS to Haas: We didn't have to wait for Saddam to attack Kuwait to know that he was just buying time to get stronger to attack again while  waiting for the help that the west had promised him. Right after Iran accepted the US resolution, Saddam which has gotten the military and chemical equipment that he needed, started massive use of chemical weapons, and poured missile to all civilian centers inside Iran. 

Winning the war = getting our territories back + any fallouts

I'm not judging them on how they executed the war but everyone blames them for prologing the war once the players were known and there was a better picture of where the war was going, or not going.

By fallouts I mean anything we could get on top of getting our territories back, which we didn't in the end and agreed to only let UN observers get a report of the damages (for both countries) so it can be put on everyone's back burners. 

It is lunacy to think while Iran is holding American hostages, US would side with Iran and defend their just cause.  Both Iran and Iraq had their allies and Iran's allies were black market arms dealers.

Everything is sacred.

Anon jan,

I read the article. Two things:

1- Rafsanjani by his own account in the same setting (in a speech following the release of the named documents, to defend his legacy) is one of the major factors to prolong the war to an eight-year war which could have been otherwise ended in two years. (obviously he was in search of a major victory to proceed the cease fire).

2- The war was winnable if it was managed better, militarily and politically (in terms of dealing with the US and Israel, in which they lend hands to Iran at the time and Iran accepted the hands but to push them away later as the illusion of a major victory became visible to them).

I still don't call them traitors, rather senseless and unorganized and this is by far much better than the previous traitor and corrupt governments (excluding the Shahs), who gave up big chunks of our land in the previous wars.

Mehraban jaan this regime is nearing its expiration date!

They remind me of the old eastern european countries and how they had a closed iron curtain and curtailed everything.  Soon we'll get rid of their stench that is the result of going past their expiration date! 

Everything is sacred.

Mehraban jan: Thank you

Mehraban jan: Thank you sweetie. You're indeed Kind and mehraban.

Thank you for your equally valuable efforts in providing fresh perspectives and insights on IC.

Anonymouse

IR has so little else to offer that if it puts aside its bellicose stance it will shrivel to nothing.  That is why it acts the way it does.

Vildemouse jaan

I am so sorry about your loss.  May your brother's soul rest in peace.  This regime has been nothing but loss for Iran and Iranians.

I also want to thank you for your tireless effort on this site to defend reason. 

Thank you anonymous jan. I

Thank you anonymous jan. I know I'm not alone. There are hundreds of us and people like Sargord dishonr their sacrifices and use/exploit their memories to manipulate and score cheap political points.

How on earth can they call themselves patriots or muslim is beyond me...

Vildemose and Miswesty

Vildemose I'm sorry for your loss.  I know that you know that your brother died defending his country and it is honorable.  You are right his life could've been spared if it wasn't because of Islamic Republic's prolonging the war.  We should remember them for their sacrifice and honor.

Midwesty read this article about the discussions Khomeini had with his then general Mohsen Rezaei (last summer's presidential candidate) and others around him and how they were afraid of going from exporting the revolution to loosing the revolution. The nuclear discussion is old but the actual discussions about the war is interesting. 

Everything is sacred.

Gassing the Iraqi troops

About gassing Iraqi troops that Sargord says the resolution says but it didn't happen.  Just like American troops were exposed to side effects of using depleted uranium that they used in desert storm in first Gulf war, I think it is called Gulf syndrome or something like that, Iraqi troops were exposed to chemical weapons that they used.

Like the movie Casualties Of War where Sean Penn raped a Vietnamese girl and then killed her and in his trial he said she was "making noise" that would give away their position to the enemy.  The prosecutor blew a fuse saying; You killed her because she was crying as a result of being raped by YOU!

Anyway, the resolution 598 says:

Deeply dismayed by the unanimous conclusions of the specialists that there has been repeated use of checmical weapons against Iranian forces by Iraqi forces, that civilians in Iran also have been injured by chemical weapons, and that Iraqi military personnel have sustained injuries from chemical warfare agents, they strongly condemn the repeated use of chemical weapons in open violation of Geneva Protocol of 1925 in which the use of chemical weapons in war is clearly prohibited."

So it clearly says Iraq uses chemical weapons against Iran and Iraqi troops have sustained injuries from chemical weapons.  Nowhere in this resolution does it say Iran used chemical weapons, so Iraqi troops is a sad self-injury.

Bottom line Sargord, you can cry to high heaven and no one will buy the story that Iran did not prolong the war, because it did.

As for honoring the Iranian soldiers and the fallen, of course I honor them.  I didn't go to war but all my family cousins my age and younger went to war.  A few affected by chemical weapons and had to be evacuated to the stadium in those days.  I have some hezbollahi cousins who I always talk to and ask about their war stories.  If it wasn't because of them we'd have lost the war and our country and that is a given.  This is about what the Islamic Republic did by prolonging the war and how people like you still want to sweep it under the rug.

Everything is sacred.

Prologing the war

First of all I said the word "prolonging" was used in the resolution and yes I believe it implies that Iran "prolonged" it.  Everybody believes that except some Islamic Republic cronies. It is common knowledge and Islamic Republic's own action by signing the resolution a full year later and 3 years after a similar resolution is proof positive.

Furthermore, the UN resolution 582 says:

The members of the Council reaffirm resolution 582 (1986) of the Security Council and note that the Government of Iraq has expressed its willingness to heed the call for the immediate cessation of hostilities."

Nowhere does it say Government of Iran has expressed willingness to ceasfire.  Thus when they use the word "prolong" it is meant for Iran, not Iraq.

I'll write another note about gassing the Iraqi troops.

Everything is sacred.

IF we had won the war...

we wouldn't had stopped in Baghdad and that could have been the ultimate act of self destruction.

The Iranian scholars have the illusion of "since we are with god, god will be with us every where we go".

Make up you mind Sargord about the last 3 years of the war.

When something goes wrong and it is proven to be wrong you admit the mistake and learn from it, instead of digging in your heel more and in the process make a fool of yourself and your country.

The fact that the war was at least prolonged for 3 extra years is a major mistake that affected millions of people and hundreds of thousands of lives lost.  Besides both the Islamic Republic and its cronies like you, still believe it was possible to achieve their "aim" which was the overthrow of Saddam and your reason is "foreign assistance to the Baathist."

Since Baathists benefited from foreign assistance from the beginning of the war (first 5 years) what on earth makes you think they'd suddenly abandon him?? Are you nuts?  Furthermore, even if there was no foreign assistance, what makes you think Iran could've overthrown Saddam and installed themselves or "kept the peace"?  US with all it's military might did it but did not achieve its aim for the past 7 years and counting.  As I said war is not the solution and Iraqis would not have lived under Iranian occupation after 8 years of war, not to mention the support Arab world would give them (like now).

I'll write another note about resolution 598, prolonging the war and gas attacks on Iraqi troops which you misread like usual.

Everything is sacred.