[Gallery] Iran - Iraq war

[Aryan Nation]

And now today the mulla regime is trying to have good relations with Iraq.
Pathetic traitors. This mullah regime has no backbone.

If Iraq attacked Iran even in shah's time, half of Iraq would probably belong to Iran today and the other half chemical bombed.
I spit on the Islamic regime.

 

[Doritos11]

And now today the mulla regime is trying to have good relations with Iraq.
Pathetic traitors. This mullah regime has no backbone.

If Iraq attacked Iran even in shah's time, half of Iraq would probably belong to Iran today and the other half chemical bombed.
I spit on the Islamic regime.

You mean you want to annex it now..

 

[Aryan Nation]

You mean you want to annex it now..

You had it easy and still have it easy with the mullah regime kid. They are a bigger threat to Iran than all other country's combined. People act like Iran was some sort of aggressor when Iran was attacked and did not use chemical weapons for 'moral' reasons. These Islamic nutcases will not last in Iran forever.

I never said about annexing Iraq now, I said during shahs time if Iraq attacked Iran.

 

[Doritos11]

You had it easy and still have it easy with the mullah regime kid. They are a bigger threat to Iran than all other country's combined. People act like Iran was some sort of aggressor when Iran was attacked and did not use chemical weapons for 'moral' reasons. These Islamic nutcases will not last in Iran forever.

I never said about annexing Iraq now, I said during shahs time if Iraq attacked Iran.

If Iraq attacked while the Shah was in power it would be part of the NATO-Soviet war since Iran was a major NATO ally while Iraq was on the Soviet side, the 2 superpowers would fund both countries with money and equipment.
Iran had a stronger military during the Shah and the beginning of the war, NATO equipment is better, the F14 is superior to any Migs and Mirages Iraq had, not to mention Iran was on its way purchasing 300 F16s.
So the fact that Iran was stronger during then has more to do with superior NATO equipment over Soviet equipment.

About the Chemical weapons thing, since most battles were in the southern lowlands of Khuzestan and Iraq where mainly Shias live, if Iran decided to use chemical weapons they would target a lot of shias damaging the image of the Islamic regime and what it stands for. This would cause more harm then military advancement to them.

 

[The SiLent crY]

If Iraq attacked while the Shah was in power it would be part of the NATO-Soviet war since Iran was a major NATO ally while Iraq was on the Soviet side, the 2 superpowers would fund both countries with money and equipment.
Iran had a stronger military during the Shah and the beginning of the war, NATO equipment is better, the F14 is superior to any Migs and Mirages Iraq had, not to mention Iran was on its way purchasing 300 F16s.
So the fact that Iran was stronger during then has more to do with superior NATO equipment over Soviet equipment.

About the Chemical weapons thing, since most battles were in the southern lowlands of Khuzestan and Iraq where mainly Shias live, if Iran decided to use chemical weapons they would target a lot of shias damaging the image of the Islamic regime and what it stands for. This would cause more harm then military advancement to them.

Hi . Thanks for sharing the pictures .

I don't agree with your last paragraph . Iran never attacked civilians in this war .

There was a documentary a few years ago about our Air force missions in Iraq , The commander said they never let the pilots to attack civilians in the war and some of their missions were cancelled because there were regular people around targets .

 

[Aryan Nation]

If Iraq attacked while the Shah was in power it would be part of the NATO-Soviet war since Iran was a major NATO ally while Iraq was on the Soviet side, the 2 superpowers would fund both countries with money and equipment.
Iran had a stronger military during the Shah and the beginning of the war, NATO equipment is better, the F14 is superior to any Migs and Mirages Iraq had, not to mention Iran was on its way purchasing 300 F16s.
So the fact that Iran was stronger during then has more to do with superior NATO equipment over Soviet equipment.

About the Chemical weapons thing, since most battles were in the southern lowlands of Khuzestan and Iraq where mainly Shias live, if Iran decided to use chemical weapons they would target a lot of shias damaging the image of the Islamic regime and what it stands for. This would cause more harm then military advancement to them.

Iraq was armed by most of the world and still could not annex khuzestan. You think Iraq would had any chance in a war with shah? Shah would had been much more aggressive and probably nuked Iraq. Israel offered Iran nukes back then. Even if no nukes were used chemical weapons would had been used. Mullah regime did have advanced NATO weapons but did not know how to properly use them. The American were shocked with fact Iran was even flying the Tomcats. So your more 'advanced' theory is irrelevant.

That is why the Islamic regime is a disease. A non Islamic regime would had finished Iraq in a very short period of time. Savak alone could had probably dealt with Iraq in shah's time even though they were not proper military.

This mullah regime has damages Iran more than anyone else. So I don't blame Iraq.

 

[Doritos11]

Hi . Thanks for sharing the pictures .

I don't agree with your last paragraph . Iran never attacked civilians in this war .

There was a documentary a few years ago about our Air force missions in Iraq , The commander said they never let the pilots to attack civilians in the war and some of their missions were cancelled because there were regular people around targets .

I said if Iran would have used chemical weaponry it would mainly have targeted civillians which would eventually ruin the image of the Islamic regime because most of South Iraq is shia.
Did not say that they attacked civillians, its not that Irans intention would be to kill civillians, chemical weapons would have reached civillians anyway, the rivers would even spread it contaminating a lot of people.

 

[Doritos11]

Iraq was armed by most of the world and still could not annex khuzestan. You think Iraq would had any chance in a war with shah? Shah would had been much more aggressive and probably nuked Iraq. Israel offered Iran nukes back then. Even if no nukes were used chemical weapons would had been used. Mullah regime did have advanced NATO weapons but did not know how to properly use them. The American were shocked with fact Iran was even flying the Tomcats. So your more 'advanced' theory is irrelevant.

That is why the Islamic regime is a disease. A non Islamic regime would had finished Iraq in a very short period of time. Savak alone could had probably dealt with Iraq in shah's time even though they were not proper military.

This mullah regime has damages Iran more than anyone else. So I don't blame Iraq.

Nuking Iraq means the radiation goes to Iran, could differ due to the Zagros mountains but it still goes east.

The story of Iraq being armed by the whole world is irrelevant aswell, what does it mean ?
The US and some other weapon suppliers had only 1 thing in mind in this war, bringing both sides on even military power to keep the war going as long as they can. During the start of the war it was Iran that had a superior military, thus the world supplied Iraq ( France, Russia and the US with intelligence / satellite use ).
This kept going, at some points Iran needed help aswell to counter the big number of Iraqi tanks, countries supplied Iran then.
It is easy to see that they supplied both sides with the intention of keeping an arms balance to keep the war going.

 

[kollang]

Friendly fire....friendly fire^^^

 

[Doritos11]

Lmao at the two baboons thanking your comments. Pathetic traitors.

The main point is this mullah regime is a disease and has done more damage to Iran than anybody else.
I just told you the advanced weapon theory is nonsense and you bring it up again? The Americans sabotaged Our airfoce and did not even expect us to be able to fly them. Iraq was being armed before their trusly got the point that Iran is able to maintain the air force.

Finally, Iran should really care about shia being killed? many ****'ted were in Sadams Army fighting Iran LOL.

Actually I only try to reveal the truth of the war.
While what is your point here, your turning this in Iraq vs Iran, how your superior Aryan blood would make you triumph over us anyday and how we are uncivilized.....

What do you not understand about this " Keeping Iraq and Iran in an arms balance to keep the war going = selling weapons = profit ".

Btw I dont like the regime of yours neither of mine.

 

[kollang]

@Doritos11
according to your comment, Iran only got more TOW missile.but in return Iraq received USA Sat images+ F-1s,Mig-23s,Mig-25s,Bell-214ST,french helis,Chemical weapons,T-72s etc.... Not comparable!

However, F-14s should be considered too.

 

[Doritos11]

BTW,according to your comment, Iran only got more TOW missile.but in return Iraq received USA Sat images+ F-1s,Mig-23s,Mig-25s,Bell-214ST,french helis,Chemical weapons,T-72s etc.... Not comparable!

TOW beats any of the tanks Iraq had, there were many secret arms affairs with Iran, to counter all the F14s Iraq needed to get these jets ofcourse.
But yes, Iraq received more weapons cause Iran had a stronger military at the start of the war, bigger population, Kurds on its side + the ones in Iraq.
Not all of Iraqs Shias would be on Iraqs side in this was cause it was seen as a sunni-shia war.

Though making this the world vs Iran like some like to do is already proven wrong by arms deals in secrecy which shows their intentions.
@Aryan
Why are you being ignorant, do I have to repeat it again.

The F14 was a powerfull aircraft in the 70s and 80s, one of the best in the world, Iraq had no air capabilities similar to the F14 with its AIM 54 long range missiles, therefor it needed the weapons from Russia and France.

Look at it this way, the US supplied Iran with a load of weapons in the 70s, then Russia/France supplied Iraq with a load of weapons in the 80s..

 

[kollang]

TOW beats any of the tanks Iraq had, there were many secret arms affairs with Iran, to counter all the F14s Iraq needed to get these jets ofcourse.
But yes, Iraq received more weapons cause Iran had a stronger military at the start of the war, bigger population, Kurds on its side + the ones in Iraq.
Not all of Iraqs Shias would be on Iraqs side in this was cause it was seen as a sunni-shia war.

Though making this the world vs Iran like some like to do is already proven wrong by arms deals in secrecy which shows their intentions.
@Aryan
Why are you being ignorant, do I have to repeat it again.

The F14 was a powerfull aircraft in the 70s and 80s, one of the best in the world, Iraq had no air capabilities similar to the F14 with its AIM 54 long range missiles, therefor it needed the weapons from Russia and France.

Look at it this way, the US supplied Iran with a load of weapons in the 70s, then Russia/France supplied Iraq with a load of weapons in the 80s..

So do you agree the supply rate was about 1/20?on the other hand you are not considering that Iran military was completely dependent to Americans?do you ever know the first time Iranians saw intelligencer C-130s inside was after the revolution?do you know according to Mossad report ,20% of IRIAF,10% of IRIN and 0% of Iranian MBTs were operational at the beginning?do you know at the end of the war only five F-14 were in service?

You issue the F-14 for all your losses in the war.but you should consider we could not use F-14s for air strikes against Iraq.so how do you justify other losses in the war?H-3 operation?NAM summit operation?

 

[Doritos11]

So do you agree the supply rate was about 1/20?on the other hand you are not considering that Iran military was completely dependent to Americans?do you ever know the first time Iranians saw intelligencer C-130s inside was after the revolution?do you know according to Mossad report ,20% of IRIAF,10% of IRIN and 0% of Iranian MBTs were operational at the beginning?do you know at the end of the war only five F-14 were in service?

You issue the F-14 for all your losses in the war.but you should consider we could not use F-14s for air strikes against Iraq.so how do you justify other losses in the war?H-3 operation?NAM summit operation?

I do not know the rates or any exact numbers out of my head, looking it up needs me to look at several sources.

The F14 was mainly responsible for air to air losses, its hard to take these out of the air cause they fire from a distance with its aim 54.
H3 was a good operation, though I think Syria allowing its use of airspace and emergency way out has helped during this operation.

 

[kollang]

I do not know the rates or any exact numbers out of my head, looking it up needs me to look at several sources.

The F14 was mainly responsible for air to air losses, its hard to take these out of the air cause they fire from a distance with its aim 54.
H3 was a good operation, though I think Syria allowing its use of airspace and emergency way out has helped during this operation.

I am not asking for exact number.only guess!

F-14s were mostly to defend Khark island and key cities like Tehran and Esfahan.do you know why?because the governmet had to be carefull about the income.we had no one for help.at the same time PGCC used to give needed financial supports for Saddam.it was realy unfair.

Yes.H-3 operation was indeed great.after the bombing one phantom got wounded and immediately landed on a road in Syria.and after some repairs he got back to home.this was their support.