Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988

    As I understand it right after the Revolution the Iranian military was effectively broken and newly imposed US sanctions made it impossible to get spare parts for their American made hardware. Iraq at the time had, at least what was on paper, a large fairly modern force. Question: Why didn't Iraq win?

  • #2
    Originally posted by outcast View Post
    As I understand it right after the Revolution the Iranian military was effectively broken and newly imposed US sanctions made it impossible to get spare parts for their American made hardware. Iraq at the time had, at least what was on paper, a large fairly modern force. Question: Why didn't Iraq win?
    Because their Army was garbage, just like Iran.

    This war will only be remembered for it's brutality and futility. How can two armies slaughter each other for eight years and not gain one inch of ground?

    Only in the Middle East, man.
    America doesn't deserve its military

    -Emma Sky

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by outcast View Post
      Why didn't Iraq win?
      The Iraqis thought they won the war. They held back the Persian horde and it was Khomeni who sued for peace.

      Comment


      • #4
        Why didn't Iraq win?
        modern force isn't always the key to win war。The history have offered enough wars to Confirm it。

        Comment


        • #5
          War in the ME is still fought on mediaeval terms; loss of life is no big deal, it just means you get to go to Paradise that much sooner. I don't think the Western mind can understand their overall religous philosophy, which emphasises the fact that this (physical) life is merely transitory and, therefore, there is little to be gained by prolonging life. Therefore, thousands of Iranians and Iraqis willingly died to support their "way of life", even though it meant their ultimate death. Like I said, I don't think a Western mind could ever truly understand the mindset of a Muslim, it is quite alien to us.

          As osage said, "Only in the middle east".

          Iraq did win, but at great cost; they were willing to use WMD IN THEIR OWN TERRITORY to gain victory, which they did. Thousands of Kurds who just happened to be "in the way" when Iran invaded northern Iraq were gassed, along with the enemy invaders.
          "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry but history does not support that view. When the Mongols passed through the area, the Muslims didn't fight to the death, they couldn't open their gates fast enough to welcome their guests in.

            When Tammerlane visited again several hundred years later, Muslims were horrified that not a dog was left alive.

            As much as the Muslims think that they can tolerate this kind of bloodletting, it pales in comparison to what we did in two World Wars.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by outcast View Post
              Question: Why didn't Iraq win?
              Because the CIA didn't want them to. We could never have had all this excitement today if Iraq had kicked thier ass then. Read up all you can on the superpower competition in the ME at the time. Primarily you had the US and Russia fighting each other by proxy on one front and GH Bush trying to keep a handle on his Frankenstien which he created back in his CIA days named Saddam Hussein. Dig hard, its out there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                Sorry but history does not support that view. When the Mongols passed through the area, the Muslims didn't fight to the death, they couldn't open their gates fast enough to welcome their guests in.

                When Tammerlane visited again several hundred years later, Muslims were horrified that not a dog was left alive.

                As much as the Muslims think that they can tolerate this kind of bloodletting, it pales in comparison to what we did in two World Wars.
                I think the Muslim mindset has changed over the centuries; when I said "mediaeval", I meant it in the Western sense, as in barbaric and uncivilised. In the Middle Ages, the Muslim world was one of the premiere civilisations of the world, well-versed in science and philosophy. In a sense, we have traded places since then, the Muslim world becoming more "barbaric and uncivilised", while we have (supposedly) become more civilised. For a good perspective on this change, read "What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response", by Bernard Lewis.
                "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                  Because the CIA didn't want them to. We could never have had all this excitement today if Iraq had kicked thier ass then. Read up all you can on the superpower competition in the ME at the time. Primarily you had the US and Russia fighting each other by proxy on one front and GH Bush trying to keep a handle on his Frankenstien which he created back in his CIA days named Saddam Hussein. Dig hard, its out there.
                  And the US was supporting Iraq right up to the eve of GW I, if not overtly, then covertly; see "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" by Barry M. Lando. At that time, we were dealing with the "lesser of two evils" in the ME; it was either Khomeini or Saddam, and Saddam would actually talk to us.
                  "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                    And the US was supporting Iraq right up to the eve of GW I, if not overtly, then covertly; see "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" by Barry M. Lando. At that time, we were dealing with the "lesser of two evils" in the ME; it was either Khomeini or Saddam, and Saddam would actually talk to us.
                    CIA rule #1; He who makes the mess, should clean it up. Think about it?;)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                      I think the Muslim mindset has changed over the centuries; when I said "mediaeval", I meant it in the Western sense, as in barbaric and uncivilised. In the Middle Ages, the Muslim world was one of the premiere civilisations of the world, well-versed in science and philosophy. In a sense, we have traded places since then, the Muslim world becoming more "barbaric and uncivilised", while we have (supposedly) become more civilised. For a good perspective on this change, read "What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response", by Bernard Lewis.
                      What happened to them?

                      Did we really trade places? Or they were stuck in the 7th century (or whenever that was) and the rest of the world, especially the west, had moved on?
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        The Iraqis thought they won the war. They held back the Persian horde and it was Khomeni who sued for peace.
                        Which wouldn't have been necessary if they (meaning Saddam) hadn't attacked Iran in first place.

                        Or as Osage put it:

                        Originally posted by osage18 View Post
                        Only in the Middle East, man.
                        Well said

                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        What happened to them?

                        Did we really trade places? Or they were stuck in the 7th century (or whenever that was) and the rest of the world, especially the west, had moved on?
                        Both. An unqualified BOTH.

                        And it's more like the 3rd or 4th century, at best.

                        And that pretty much goes for most (make that all) of the countries under Islamic law.

                        Once they decide that a woman wearing trousers maybe shouldn't be beaten like an animal...then maybe they'll decide to join the rest of the world.

                        But I'm not holding my breath.
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          modern force isn't always the key to win war。The history have offered enough wars to Confirm it。
                          True there are other factors, being modern isn't enough to gaurentee victory if they are not properly led. The BeiYang fleet's crushing defeat in 1894 is a good example.

                          The Iraqis thought they won the war. They held back the Persian horde and it was Khomeni who sued for peace.
                          Looking at the map it seems they got off to a reasonable start and then got pushed back, and in some places got pushed back behind their own borders. Personally I dont call that victory, though perhaps they have a different idea of victory. So again, why didn't they outright smash the Iranian armed forces?

                          Because their Army was garbage,
                          Ok, in what ways?

                          This war will only be remembered for it's brutality and futility. How can two armies slaughter each other for eight years and not gain one inch of ground?

                          Only in the Middle East, man
                          World War 1? Although back then they didn't have jets, tanks, or assault rifles, so in this day and age yeah, only in the ME. It also makes you wonder how capable Russian tanks, planes, etc are since we only see them being used by incompetant arab and african armies.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by outcast View Post
                            Looking at the map it seems they got off to a reasonable start and then got pushed back, and in some places got pushed back behind their own borders. Personally I dont call that victory, though perhaps they have a different idea of victory. So again, why didn't they outright smash the Iranian armed forces?
                            Initally, they did but Saddam didn't have the numbers to go all the way to Tehran which allow the Iranians the one thing Saddam didn't have - time. Time to rebuild, regroup, refocus, and re-commit.

                            Within 6 months, the Iranians were on equal footing skill wise. Within 2 years, the Iraninas built an army that was ready to drive the Iraqis out.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by outcast View Post
                              World War 1? Although back then they didn't have jets, tanks, or assault rifles, so in this day and age yeah, only in the ME. It also makes you wonder how capable Russian tanks, planes, etc are since we only see them being used by incompetant arab and african armies.
                              Check Grozny recently?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X