What's new

Iran–Iraq War

☪☪☪☪;956947 said:
Call me whatever you want dude - Does not matter. You forget that i also called Iraqis stupid.I'll let the personal attacks pass as that is only thing Iranians are good at.It is a fact that Iran and Iraq both were ruined after the War not just Iraq - and no you did not devastate Iraq it was US who did in 2003 which is why you have much more influence in Iraq today.

Iran wasn't really ruined. Only Khoramshahr was. I lived in Shiraz (Fars Province) which is right in the south and we occasionally got a random *** scud which would be cleared by night fall and paved by the end of the week. What ruined Iraq was the sanctions in the 90's. Imagine a country with a 40 billion dollar economy!! That was Iraq in the 90's. Sewage in the streets, malnutrition, broken infrastructure, no medicine, no food etc... And since the Am invasion Iran's proxies have been shitting all over Iraq and making it even a bigger **** hole.
 
. .
Pakistan supplied Iran with weapons to help defeat the Iraqis.

Can you substantiate this? The only support Pakistan provided to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war was refraining to help Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, during the 1980s Pakistan itself had it's hands full with the Soviet-Afghan crisis. Iranian involvement was present in that conflict too, but very little, given the fact that Iran was already fighting against Saddam.
 
.
Captain America, I think you fail to understand that the characteristics behind the American "coalition" force attacking Saddam's Iraq and the Iranian one were quiet different. The comparison would not be fair or even logical perhaps by your own standards. Let's break it down in any case but very briefly in a strictly military-based sense...

1. The US had Air Superiority over Iraq. The Iranian force did not.
2. The US conducted a sustained air campaign over Iraq. The Iranian force did not for it could not.
3. The US force had adequate armor support, all around air cover and mobile units. The Iranian force desperately lacked armor, air cover was a luxury and mobile units a rarity.
4. The fighting was not conducted on US soil. US citizens/ civilian population did not find themselves a specific target. The fighting was conducted on Iranian soil. Iranian citizens/ civilians were targets and suffered losses.
5. The US troops were well supported, well trained had good logistical back up and the units were well fitted. The majority of Iranian forces were hastily assembled and poorly trained volunteers. The majority of them learned combat skills on the field. Fire support was distant and weak and the soldiers lacked equipment. Iranian units were poorly fitted.
6. The Iranian forces lacked regional allies. They were plagued by parts/ spares shortages and sanctions. The US force did not lack in either of these regards.
7. The US had military-industrial technological and output superiority over Iraq. Iranians did not.
8. Iranians had to substitute soldiers in man-costly maneuvers to substitute is lack of armor, air cover, and mobility. The US forces did not lack in this regard.

etc.. etc..

So yes, "it does kind of contrast." I doubt there would have been more than 120 Iranian deaths or that the war would have gone for more than a month if the Iranian forces then had the same assets at their disposal. If you are going to argue that US soldiers, being as deprived as the Iranians were in the war, would have come out with 120 dead and finish in 3 weeks, then I no longer wish to continue this discussion. It is futile then.

Perhaps there is another reason:
Why Arabs Can't Fight - The Arab Culture TheorySource: Why Arabs Can't Fight - The Arab Culture Theory Published: May 15-16 1998 Author: Kenneth M. Pollack Posted on 12/12/01 5:19 PM Pacific by Obey The ...
ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Pollock.htm -
 
. .
☪☪☪☪;956871 said:
[/COLOR]This the most idiotic war in history i think - Lost 500billion for just a stalemate...Can't help but laugh at stupidity of Iraqis and Iranians.

Stupidity?.... isn't it a bit rude and igonarent to "laugh at" their "stupidity"?

This war's motive is no different than any other war in history. Like many other wars it reached no real outcome and caused a lot of damaged for both sides, but it's no different than any other war in history. In other words, it's no stupider than any other war.

You seem to forget how closely it resembles the Indo-Pak 1965 war.
 
.
As an impartial observer my comments are:

Iraq and Iran had signed an agreement defining the boundary line in the middle of Shatt al Arab. Saddam considered this a sign of weakness of Iraq. No doubt Iran with Shah at the helm was dominant power of the region.

With the ouster of the Shah, most of the officers were either killed or removed from their position. Saddam saw this as an opportune time to attack Iran and grab hold of the vast Iranian oilfields in the Arab speaking Khuzestan bordering Iraq. The war was without doubt an act of unprovoked aggression by Saddam Hussein.

Arabs countries such as Kuwait, KSA and Jordan were always apprehensive of growing power of Iran and the fact that Iran under the Shah had diplomatic relations with Israel. Quite irrationally, they sided with Iraq and termed this as an Arab versus Iran war which it was not.

Revolutionary Iran then made the unpardonable mistake of ignoring all laws of decency and took US diplomatic staff “Hostage”. Despite the fact that president Bani Sadr as well as Qutub Zadeh (Foreign minister) were against it, they did not have the power to forcibly remove students and revolutionary guards besieging the US embassy.

US was at first neutral and refused to support the Shah if he took a military action against the revolutionaries. However 'Hostage crisis' made US an enemy of the revolutionary Iran. Also when Iran forces took possession of Majnun field and were on the offensive, Iraq’s offer of ceasefire was rejected by Iran.

Therefore, in my honest opinion, mistakes were made by Iraq as well as Iran. This needless and stupid war should not have happened but it did. It could have stopped a year or so earlier but it didn’t.

Only beneficiary were the arms producing countries which enjoyed cheap oil (Oil prices dropped to $10 per barrel for a short while) and sold arms to both the countries. This war and the following gulf war eliminated the famous 600-billion Petro dollar surplus altogether.

Other beneficiaries were Turkey which gained prominence as alternate route for the Northern Iraqi crude and India from where all the items banned by the US were imported. Hidujahs, an Indian family who were based in Iran, became billionaires in the bargain.

Support by the oil rich Arab Countries provided to the demonic Saddam Hussein was a grave error of judgment as well as a proof of Arab versus non Arab bigotry.

Kuwait as well as KSA increased their own production as Iraqi Opec quota and gave the proceeds to Iraq to fight Iran. Saddam repaid this act of kindness by invading Kuwait and setting fire to the oil wells when his armies retreated.

I have visited Iraq under Saddam. Man on the street was scared to death of Saddam Hussein and his secret police. He eliminated thousands of suspected malcontents. Ordinary citizens wouldn’t dare to converse with you in a room fearing that it was bugged; any conversation was done while walking on the street.

Saddam’s was a Baathist; quintessentially secular and believing in superiority of the Arabs (not Muslims). He was pro India and not particularly fond of Pakistan. Iraqi embassy in Islamabad was accused of supplying arms to the separatiss during Bhutto regime.

Despite all this, general public in Pakistan loves Saddam Hussein. Even the COAS Mirza Aslam Beg was a Saddam admirer.

There appears to be no logical reason for this except that Pakistanis hate the American so much that any one who stands up to the US, they adore him. I ask all Saddam lovers, would you rather leave Kuwait occupied by Iraq?

Regrettably, my countrymen can be naïve in the extreme.
 
Last edited:
.
Pakistanis are better off siding with Iran & UAE due to their close proximity, energy security, geo-strategic alliance and Persian heritage of culture. And a secondary imporant alliance with Saudi Arabia being a Sunni majority power.

There are many blunders in Pakistani forigen policy with undue favour towards arabs. For example taking the Palestinean cause, who are strongly pro-Indian. Pakistan geography lies in asia, not middle ease hence it should build its own sphere of influence independent of Arab blunders.
 
. .
stupid Iranians?
who started the war? Who used mustard gas? who tried to exterminate the kurds?

btw, us stupid Iranians destroyed Iraq beyond recognition since the war and now we practically control it. Saddam and all his goons were hanged by the balls and we're also seeking $ from Iraq for the damages caused in the imposed war. Looks like we succeeded in defending our country and putting the shias in power in Iraq (the fist time in history this has happened in an arab country). Looks like we won the war when everybody was against us.

Us stupid Iranians did not do any thing, It took the USA to do that.
Only time will tell who controls Iraq,, I hope its the Iraqis but then I am not an Iranian.
So far I have seen no metion of Iran useing children to clear mine fields because the soldier refused, or that Iran would only put enought fuel into its military planes for the pliots to complete their mission so they could not defect.

Ahmadinejad's World
The deployment of the Basiji in the mine fields shows what one can expect from the Mullah-Regime · By Matthias Küntzel

In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields, even against the objections of their parents. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise.

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world

Reason the article is called Ahmadinejad's World is he was one of the instructors that pushed the kids into doing this..
 
Last edited:
.
so it was the first sectarian war btw shias and sunnis !?

This is false on three counts, even if it be a popular misconception amongst some.

Firstly, it was a confrontation between Pan-Arabism espoused by Saddam Huessin and his Baathist party against the Iranian nationhood, with Iran as having been seen as a traditional rival. Support of Saddam's Iraq during the conflict by other Arab states may have had a religious basis too perhaps but the overriding principle was the commonality of being Arab and stalling the after-shocks of the Iranian revolution within the region. Also, it was a clash between opposing ideologies-- secular nationalist pan-Arab Baathists pitted against ideologically-strengthened Islamic revolutionary Iran.

Secondly, as far as a sectarian stance is concerned, the bulk of the Iraqi forces, especially those in the southern theater were also of the Shi'ah denomination. It is however alleged that Saddam trusted officers of the Sunn'ite denomination more in the armed services and thus the senior command staff and higher level field personnel were of this denomination whilst the rank and file were not. This also reflected the demographics of Iraq in general. Furthermore, Kurds in northern Iraq, who are mainly of the Sunn'ite denomination sided with Iranian forces citing opportunity to dislodge Saddam's stranglehold and oppression on their inhabited lands. Lastly, anti-regime forces composed of Iranians, notably the MKO, sided with Saddam in armed conflict-- though most probably they were of the Shi'ah denomination themselves probably.

Thirdly, as far as being a first sectarian conflict, this is false as well. There have been religious affiliation based armed conflicts between Muslim forces previously as well.

Lastly, every issue pertaining to Iran does not have a sectarian underpinning to it. There is an Iran and there are Iranian issues outside the underpinning of religious sect and even religion for that matter. I hope you have well understood.
 
.
Us stupid Iranians did not do So far I have seen no metion of Iran useing children to clear mine fields because the soldier refused, or that Iran would only put enought fuel into its military planes for the pliots to complete their mission so they could not defect.

This is another popular misconception, alongside the mass wearing of "keys to heaven." There were large mined areas and Iran possessed little in the way of mine clearing equipment. Iranian volunteers joined the war effort with a variation of age from as low as 14 to as high as above sixty. Given the lack of equipment, clearing mines was a rudimentary process during the war and more precarious given that mined parts lay in view of machine-gun manned dugouts. The clearing process was important though however nonetheless and soldiers volunteered for this and did so in all ages. The purposeful or deliberate usage of underage combatants or children is unfounded.


Ahmadinejad's World
The deployment of the Basiji in the mine fields shows what one can expect from the Mullah-Regime · By Matthias Küntzel

In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields, even against the objections of their parents. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise.

Matthias Küntzel: Ahmadinejad's World

There is no reference to the law made from the Government acts except for the mention of the author. Again about the keys bit, surprisingly of all of the young from my own family who volunteered in the war as Basij, none of them received the special keys which as the article purports are supposed to have be passed out to all in large quantities. I rather feel offended that they were deprived of the keys but rather given hasty basic field training instead.

Another misconception, which I shall state before anyone else does for I hear of it much outside Iran, is that of countless waves of weapon-less Iranians (said to be always children) running directly into Iraqi machine gun fire hoping to deprive them of ammunition entirely so that the weaponed Iranian troops at the rear could proceed with high pace. The sad imagery created of fanatical foolishly-brave Iranian troops (often without weapons) charging into mine fields or into direct fire, is a popular one.

Soldiers, however, especially the more religiously-motivated ones, were encouraged to aspire for martyrdom and it was showcased as even an achievement-- combatants would often wear their "kafan" (cloth wrapped around the deceased) underneath their uniforms. Given the hasty training given to them and the fact that combat was practically learned on the battle ground, there were poorly judged actions and numerous cases of heroics-- who could have saved themselves and those that came to their rescue if they had better managed or had more developed skills.
 
.
The Iran–Iraq War, also known as the Imposed War (جنگ تحمیلی, Jang-e-tahmīlī) and Holy Defense (دفاع مقدس, Defā'-e-moghaddas) in Iran, Saddām's Qādisiyyah (قادسيّة صدّام, Qādisiyyat Ṣaddām) in Iraq, and (First) Gulf War, was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Iran lasting from September 1980 to August 1988. It was initially refered to in the western world as the "Persian Gulf War" prior to the "Gulf War" of 1990 with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. Iraq was also aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June, 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.[12] Despite calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.[12][13]

The war came at a great cost in lives and economic damage - a half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers as well as civilians are believed to have died in the war with many more injured and wounded - but brought neither reparations nor change in borders. The conflict is often compared to World War I,[14] in that the tactics used closely mirrored those of World War I, including large scale trench warfare, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, use of barbed wire across trenches, human wave attacks across no-mans land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. At the time, the UN Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war." However, in these UN statements Iraq was not mentioned by name, so it has been said that "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian as well as Iraqi Kurds" and it is believed[15][16][17] that "United States prevented the UN from condemning Iraq".[18]

Date 22 September 1980 – 1990 {Resumed Diplomatic Relations With Iran In 1990}
Location Persian Gulf, Iranian-Iraqi border
Result Stalemate

* Strategic Iraqi failure
* Tactical Iranian failure
* Both sides claim victory

Territorial
changes Status quo ante bellum; observed by UNIIMOG based on Security Council Resolution 619

---------- Post added at 02:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

Iran Strength.
500,000 soldiers,
100,000 to 150,000;Pasdaran and Basij, 100,000 militia,
1,000 tanks,
4,000 armored vehicles,
5,000 artillery pieces,
747 aircraft,
750 helicopters

---------- Post added at 02:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------

Iraq Strength
300,000 in 1980,
1,000,000 by 1988,
4,000 tanks,
4,000 armored vehicles,
7,330 artillery pieces,
500+ aircraft,
100+ helicopters

---------- Post added at 02:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------

Iran Losses
1,000,000 dead :eek:;Iranian government official figure of 188,015 soldiers, militia, and civilians killed;

Economic loss of more than US$500 billion

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------

Iraq Losses
Estimated 700,000 soldiers, militia, and civilians killed or wounded
Economic loss of more than US$500 billion

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 AM ----------

This the most idiotic war in history i think - Lost 500billion for just a stalemate...Can't help but laugh at stupidity of Iraqis and Iranians.


Iran never had 700 and more aircrafts or such. Not even in Shah's time.
If they did they would've finish the war in 48HRS!

If Iranian's got killed in mass is due to being off guarded (Nasty move from Saddam and its allies) and then second due to lack off enough warfares arsenal and technical personnel.

So, war in general is a stupidity even if one person is killed!
But there is no stupidity in defending! is there? yes... maybe for you and such!
No wonder US freely comes in to your airspace and kills your people and you can not do jack $hit.
Very brave of you people!
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom