Talk:Arms-to-Iraq affair

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arms-to-Iraq affair article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Iraq Low‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Past Political Scandals and Controversies (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Past Political Scandals and ControversiesWikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and ControversiesTemplate:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and ControversiesPast Political Scandals and Controversies articles

Matrix Churchill

There is currently no entry in Wikipedia for Matrix Churchill; my attempt to follow a link to this company re-directed me straight back to Arms-to-Iraq. I am therefore adding some information on Matrix Churchill to this entry, as it should shed some further light on the issue of arms sales from Britain to Iraq. abdullahazzam

Merge Merge Merge

Merge fever sometimes gets out of hand. . . 'Supergun affair' redirects here, but there's no mention of it here, and it does, in fact, warrant a separate article. What happens to that old redirect (which is actually about a notorious (and noteworthy) incident regarding a Canadian selling a supergun to Saddam Hussein, so I can't understand why that fascinating incident is buried in this related, but distinct topic) when this merges into 'British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war' ? This is getting seriously out of hand here, people. Sigma-6 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Iraq supergun' in fact has its own article, at Project Babylon. 'Supergun affair' should redirect there, if it doesn't already. Robofish (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT MERGE!! THIS ARTICLE IS ON BRITAINS ILLEGAL ARMS DEALS, Seperate from the usual arms deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.88.195 (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should merge this article into the wider and bigger British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war article. Imad marie (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And redirect this page. Agree. ~ smb 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As elsewhere, (Placeholder name) support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war seems to be the logical place for this information. Merger will consolidate the different pages which we can then improve. — eon, 20:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Imad marie (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree it should be merged. This was a UK political scandal with fallout that makes it an event in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.128 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. On the one hand, they could advantageously be treated as different subjects - British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war focussing on the support itself, and Arms-to-Iraq on the uncovering of that support and the political fallout. On the other hand it may be better, at least for the time being, to merge them, and perhaps demerge at a later date when there has been more progress. However I'm not enthusiastic about British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war as it stands, it's a bit of a mess; something of a list turned into an article. So I don't mind either way as long as these two articles (plus Scott Report) are worked on, in conjunction. Merger, if only temporarily, might help. Rd232 ^talk 05:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - on the one hand, the articles have considerable crossover, and this article's content is mostly already covered in that one. On the other hand, the name is slightly misleading - the controversial arms sales continued after the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Also, it could be argued the scandal was notable in its own right. I do think it should be merged somewhere, but perhaps merging with Scott Report would be better? Robofish (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This article supposed to be seperate because it is not only related to Iraq, but related to Iran and Britani too. While Armed Iraq is a bout only one state that will be hard to find other subjects in it. Alborztv (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This was a major UK political scandal, a significant event in its own right. Rwendland (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - for the reasons given by the two prior opposers above. I don't even understand why it has been redirected. It is UK business and political history with a wider impact on affairs than merely Iraq. Sitush (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - for the reasons given by the prior opposers,namely that it is primarily a UK political story with a profound impact on British opinion. The (Thatcher) Governments actions and attitudes were indicitave, not so much of ACTIVE SUPPORT for Iraq, as a deep scepticism & cynicism about Arms embargoes and morality in International relationships generally (sometimes explicitly stated as "if we don't sell, somebody else will". The whole story (the affair and the later Scott inquiry) showed up both the abuse of power and the resilience of Democratic procedures, in a way that is perhaps comparable to the 'IranGate'affair in the US. It deserves to stand on its own, albeit linked to related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.50.59 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I find the very idea that this is merely a sideshow to the Iraq war to be trivialising an important event in British legal and political history. The article, as it stands, is inadequate as it really does not say much about the matter it purports to relate to - it does not even list the names of the people involved (neither politicians, such as Michael Heseltine, nor the names of the directors involved, nor the role of the intelligence officer who testified under oath in the trial, nor the impact any of this had on the lives of the directors). It is also not clear that the purpose of the exports was actually to provide genuine advantage to Iraq, or simply to provide cover for espionage, but it did show that different government departments were not talking to each other, and seemed to have opposing policies on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.112.106 (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arms-to-Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]