User talk:Kermanshahi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Kermanshahi is back
In March I finally had 100 + posts in one month again, I'm fully active on wikipedia again. : ) The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just had my first month Since November 2007 with 200+ posts and it's only the 10th! The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The problem of the Iran-Iraq War infobox
Regretfully, this infobox has been the focus of an enormous amount of edit warring, 3RR's, blocks, and all sorts of things that don't contribute to the quality of the overall article. May I encourage you to contribute your obvious expertise to the main article, and not get stuck on the infobox?
As far as the U.S. flag in the infobox, I have my own opinions, but, rather than fighting them in the infobox, I'm creating detailed sub-articles on many countries that gave support to Iraq, Iran, or both. Doing so is giving me perspective, and also a realization that a given Iraqi transaction might well involve agents, front companies, banks, etc., in 6-8 or more countries. Perhaps a good list of these articles might help some editors realize the Iran-Iraq War was principally between Iran and Iraq, with some level of involvement, such as supply, from easily 30+ countries.
Sincerely, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with anything you said. As a purely practical matter, there are several editors that constantly fight over the infobox, to the exclusion of getting anything else done on the article. For example, the Military History Project is responsible for the infobox template. When people from there have explained the purpose of the fields, etc., it's dismissed as anti-Iranian and attempts to whitewash the US -- and, as an American, I'm the first to say both sides did things that, in hindsight, were idiotic.
- If I could set things up as I wanted, there indeed would be something that either was called US-Iran War, or Tanker War, but not as a subordinate of the Iran-Iraq war. I'm amazed how many people seem more eager to focus on the US than Iraq, or on the US rather than the largest weapons suppliers to Iraq. Unfortunately, there are people that want things to be simpler than they can be. You are not one of them, but I'm only trying to share some experience with things that simply lead to endless arguments. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] About your comment in Egypt page
You wrote "Egypt has always had more good equipment than Israel and their army always seemed stronger but every time they fought a war against Israel they lost ans that is why they say Israel has a stronger army" , in Egypt talk page
- Who said that Egypt lost the war against Israel , did you hear about 6 October War and what happen on it.
- if we lost in the war why whole Sinai is in our hands today.
- finally you r talking like Israelis about the war , Are that because of jealousy going today between Iranian and Egyptian about who is the stronger and dominated in the region 3d vector (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Egypt failed to take the Sanai back with force, so they chose to make peace with Israel, the Isralis got what they wanted and that's that Egypt recognises Israel, made peace with them and now they have good relations. In return you got your desert back (which they had no interests in). Doesn't change the fact that Egypt lost the fightin in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- - First read about sinai "it's not desert"
- - If Egypt failed in taking it by force why would israel leave it for Egypt "please don't talk about peace and UN Resolution ..."
- - Who told u that "ISRAEL HAD NO INTEREST IN SINAI" , they try to talk it twice and until today they r still planning for taking it again
- - Sorry but u r completely ignorant about that case , read about Sinai and Israel instead of wasting my time by your spite of Egyptian 3d vector (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For Israel it is more important to secure their existance than have the Sanai. As you might know, Israel is also prepared to give the Golan heights back to Syria for peace, does this mean Syria defeated them somehow? No. With Egypt it was exactly the same case. Now you can make things to sound as if you won, but in fact the Egyptian military lost the fighting, that's what's important here. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- You r citing with a very strange example which imply your completely ignorant about policies in the world as you say "israel prepare to give Golan heights to Syria" , That will sure increase the seven wonders in the world to become eight wonders!
- Israel invested in that heights for nearly 35 years plus Golan height is very important stratgic area like Sinai ,do you think israel will leave it easily.
- That's really funny , observe what will happend in that case in very near future!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3d vector (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
For Israel it is more important to secure their own existance than to keep an area like that. But now let's get back to topic, how did Egypt exactly win the Yom Kipur War? You ended up letting the Israelis cross the Suez canal and surround your 3rd army forcing Egypt to give up the war which made that Syria had to cancel their offensive. What a great "victorty". The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's right israel want to make anything to save there face on the world , so they decided to do anything "even if it's stupied" to cross to the western bank of the canal.
- According to generals in the Egyptian army also to Gemy carter the USA president , the israel army was surrounding suez city "which include egyptian third army" .
- The second army "which israel failed to defeat it" was surrounding both "the city and the israel army".
- DO YOU THINK if israel can easily go to cairo or defeat the egyptian third army , they will agree for the cease fire!!!!! , please don't talk about USA pressure because as we always see it's useless.
- Saad El Shazley "one of Egyptian army generals" want to destroy the israel army even with great losses in the suez city but Anwar EL Sadat "the Egyptian president" refuse because of pressure from Soviet union who threated Egypt that he will not provide Egypt with military equipment if Egypt do that.
- RESOURCES: http://www.el-shazly.com
- Please if you r jew tell me to stop talking about this case because if u r jew you will never accept the truth anyway 3d vector (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that Egypt started this war, so it wasn't you who forced them into a cease-fire but the other way round. And before you get the wrong idea, I am as anti-Israeli as you are. I don't like Israel and I would have loved to see an Egyptian victory but I'm being fair here, you lost eventhough I don't like it. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- first If Egypt wasn't in power , Would israel accept the cease fire and give the land back to Egypt?!
- Second you said "We lost" , lost WHAT?!!
- We are now controlling every thing in sinai without israel intervention.
- Egyptian living there not israelis.
- We are developing it "building , farming ,...".
- WHERE IS THE LOST HERE?!3d vector (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And Germans are in control of Germany, so does that mean they won WW2? Come on, your arguments are just stupid. You got the Sanai back with negotiations, not with war. Not that Egypt hadn't tried, but they lost the fighting. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- German restore they land in 1990 after 45 years! not after 1 or 2years like Egypt
- About negotiations: there were negotiations before the war started , WHY israel didn't give sinai to Egypt in this negotiations and give it to Egypt after the war?!! , you are strange really!
- Don't take about existence of israel because USA will never let any country enter israel anyway and Egypt were just want to take the occupied land not to invade israel3d vector (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Israel wanted to give the land in return for Egypt recognising Israel and getting proper relations with them. Egypt wanted to just take the land back and stay anti-Israeli. They defeated you so they got their way. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Israel sure that there will be no real peace with it even if all Arab governments recognise it because they know that the arab people hate it and don't believe in it's existence so the expansion for israel has high priority over "claimed" peace.
- As you may know that israel ambitious is to control the area from EL Forat river in iraq to the nile river in Egypt , they write that in they parliament entrance.
- As you may also know there is a bad relation between Israel and Egypt since 1948 to now, so what israel gain when Egypt recognise it.
- They only demand anything in the negotiations to make an illusion that israel didn't completely lose the war , that were by the help of USA pressure on Egypt 3d vector (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't mean anything, Egypts military action failed and so they have lost the war. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cease-fire broken
I saw it. Will edit accordingly. Have my hands full at the moment with the unrest in Lebanon.(Top Gun)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
