Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Have We Already Lost Iran?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Lol ^^^

I have never had the privilege of meeting any Iranian people but all the Iraqis I have met have been super (big shout)

:yaali:

Ya Ali (as) Madad.

(bismillah)

You've never met an Iranian before?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Million dead and they argue about who won the war.

The winner of the war was Henry Kissinger and his ilk.

How did Kissinger win the war?

He made Saddam powerless but he was not able to take advantage (i.e. he has not been able to install a good US puppet regime).

He killed some Iranians but he did not weaken the Iranian political system (and Iran is now the regional power).

He failed at all his political objectives... all he could do was kill people. He killed people in Vietnam too, but he still lost.

Iran won the war.

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Iran won the war.

Metaphorically, in this sense, Yes.

Iran had won the war when Saddam offered ceasefire after two years of fighting. Iranians rejected it and it carried on for another 6 years. At the end of the war, there were millions of bodies to count. No one came out as victorious in military terms. It was a total fiasco.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Metaphorically, in this sense, Yes.

Iran had won the war when Saddam offered ceasefire after two years of fighting. Iranians rejected it and it carried on for another 6 years. At the end of the war, there were millions of bodies to count. No one came out as victorious in military terms. It was a total fiasco.

I have already explained to you the purpose of this. This has been repeated so many times by people with little knowledge about the war.

I am not knowledgable about anything, but I have read a lot of books about this event. From the perspective of veterans, veterans' wives, and historians.

And from these readings, these are the conclusions which can be reached:

1) After two years of war, France and the Soviet Union put their full support behind Iraq. At the start of the war, these two countries (especially the Soviets) were hesitant to do so.

2) Saddam made many mistakes in his initial invasion, and he could learn from these mistakes.

3) IRIAF - whose 150:1 kill ratio in the first two years of war was the main reason for the failure of Iraq to advance deep into Iranian territory - was running low on spare parts and had no reliable source to get new ones.

4) President Banisadr (who was also commander chief of Armed Forces) led some of Iran's best Army divisions to destruction in failed offensives. And we did not have the ability to offer good formal training to millions of new volunteers at this time.

Knowing these facts, we can conclude that Saddam could attack again, this time against a more vulnerable Iranian military, with a stronger and better armed Iraqi military (with smarter tactics learned from the 2 years of failures). Unless you want to believe that Saddam was a peaceful angel who was provoked by the big bad wolves of Iran, this scenario cannot be dismissed!

What was the ultimate result of the 6 years of extended warfare? We destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, we destroyed their economy, Saddam was incurring more and more expenses (replacing every ONE lost tank with two others), Iraq was getting more and more loans from the GCC states. Iraq was growing bankrupt. Iran, meanwhile, did not have a strong economy and infrastructure to begin with (therefore we did not have good targets). We did not import many arms and thus did not incur as much expense as Saddam. And as a result, we could build the country after the war (the 20 year plan which is now ended, and most of its goals accomplished).

When you read about the history of the war in detail, you will discover this: Iran never had the intention of taking Karbala. This was what leaders and soldiers said because our people has a romantic idea of Karbala (and this could motivate them to fight). Throughout 1982-88, Iranian forces had become perfect at gaining small parts of Iraqi territory, shelling any industrial sites within range, holding the territory long enough to inflict serious damages, and then withdrawing into Iranian territory. This is all we were doing for 6 years! Iran's objective was a controlled burn of Iraq's economy, and we were successful in this objective.

Therefore, Iran won the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I appreciate your explanation in detail and I realise the potential flaws as well. . .

Knowing these facts, we can conclude that Saddam could attack again, this time against a more vulnerable Iranian military, with a stronger and better armed Iraqi military (with smarter tactics learned from the 2 years of failures). Unless you want to believe that Saddam was a peaceful angel who was provoked by the big bad wolves of Iran, this scenario cannot be dismissed!

This is just an assumption that Saddam would have invaded again if Iran had accepted the ceasefire. After all, Saddam did not invade Iran after 1988!

Iran could always defend itself again against fresh Iraqi offensive but this possibility was not given a chance. Rather, the war was adamantly continued.

If the rejection of ceasefire didn't give Iraq any chance to regroup and get prepared again, it didn't give Iran any respite either. What's the difference? Iran could have trained its volunteers and get better prepared if it had accepted the ceasefire.

Iran drove Iraqis out of its territory after two years. Feeling emboldened, spirited and adventurous, Iran decided to go after them in Iraq. Just that!

It wasn't expected of the side defending an offensive - and that under the leadership of a religious figure, an humble ayatullah.

What was the ultimate result of the 6 years of extended warfare? We destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, we destroyed their economy, Saddam was incurring more and more expenses (replacing every ONE lost tank with two others), Iraq was getting more and more loans from the GCC states. Iraq was growing bankrupt. Iran, meanwhile, did not have a strong economy and infrastructure to begin with (therefore we did not have good targets). We did not import many arms and thus did not incur as much expense as Saddam. And as a result, we could build the country after the war (the 20 year plan which is now ended, and most of its goals accomplished).

The logic of the destruction of infrastructure and economy that goes for Iraq, goes for Iran too. Iraq got worse from bad. Iran got worser from worse. It helped no one. And in the end, both sides were going around picking their young men killed needlessly.

Therefore, Iran won the war.

I don't see how.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How did Kissinger win the war?

He made Saddam powerless but he was not able to take advantage (i.e. he has not been able to install a good US puppet regime).

He killed some Iranians but he did not weaken the Iranian political system (and Iran is now the regional power).

He failed at all his political objectives... all he could do was kill people. He killed people in Vietnam too, but he still lost.

Iran won the war.

What were his political objectives? They wanted to contain or damage Iranian influence as much as possible, without giving Saddam enough advantage to actually win. The two countries spent the next eight years in a terrible war, with one million lives lost, many injured, economies devastated, a regional inflammation of the Sunni-Shia, Persian-Arab hatred. This is a hell of a win for the Americans and Zionists.

Are you really blind to how much stronger the two countries would both have been if this war had not taken place? If Iran and Iraq were at peace and Iran used the lost lives and money to develop itself?

Don't get me wrong, the defence of Iran was a monumental achievement for Iran, but the war and devastation was a monumental achievement for the Zionists.

Edited by Dirac Delta function
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
I appreciate your explanation in detail and I realise the potential flaws as well. . .

This is just an assumption that Saddam would have invaded again if Iran had accepted the ceasefire. After all, Saddam did not invade Iran after 1988!

Iran could always defend itself again against fresh Iraqi offensive but this possibility was not given a chance. Rather, the war was adamantly continued.

If the rejection of ceasefire didn't give Iraq any chance to regroup and get prepared again, it didn't give Iran any respite either. What's the difference? Iran could have trained its volunteers and get better prepared if it had accepted the ceasefire.

Iran drove Iraqis out of its territory after two years. Feeling emboldened, spirited and adventurous, Iran decided to go after them in Iraq. Just that!

It wasn't expected of the side defending an offensive - and that under the leadership of a religious figure, an humble ayatullah.

The logic of the destruction of infrastructure and economy that goes for Iraq, goes for Iran too. Iraq got worse from bad. Iran got worser from worse. It helped no one. And in the end, both sides were going around picking their young men killed needlessly.

I don't see how.

Brother... I think a continuous war is always to the advantage of the side with the more faithful fighters. This is why Iran wanted to continue the war. I believe that Iraq did not invade Iran after 1988 because Saddam finally realized that he could not achieve his goals no matter what. He invaded Kuwait instead, and would have easily conquered it if not for US and international involvement.

What were his political objectives? They wanted to contain or damage Iranian influence as much as possible, without giving Saddam enough advantage to actually win. The two countries spent the next eight years in a terrible war, with one million lives lost, many injured, economies devestated, a regional inflammation of the Sunni-Shia, Persian-Arab hatred. This is a hell of a win for the Americans and Zionists.

Are you really blind to how much stronger the two countries would both have been if this war had not taken place? If Iran and Iraq were at peace and Iran used the lost lives and money to develop itself?

Don't get me wrong, the defence of Iran was a monumental achievement for Iran, but the war and devestation was a monumental achievement for the Zionists.

Iraq could have certainly been better off. For Iran it is not as certain, because much of Iran's defence industry and defence doctrine was formed as a result of war time experience. If Iran had not gained these experiences, then maybe the US could have been able to invade and occupy Iran. You never know brother. There were positive and negative results, so I do not want to paint such a broad brush and say for certain that Iran would be better off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brother... I think a continuous war is always to the advantage of the side with the more faithful fighters. This is why Iran wanted to continue the war. I believe that Iraq did not invade Iran after 1988 because Saddam finally realized that he could not achieve his goals no matter what. He invaded Kuwait instead, and would have easily conquered it if not for US and international involvement.

Iraq could have certainly been better off. For Iran it is not as certain, because much of Iran's defence industry and defence doctrine was formed as a result of war time experience. If Iran had not gained these experiences, then maybe the US could have been able to invade and occupy Iran. You never know brother. There were positive and negative results, so I do not want to paint such a broad brush and say for certain that Iran would be better off.

This is a common but fallacious way of thinking. People say, war has positive effectsd because we build new doctrines, new infrastructure, new industries. However, all these things can arise without war. Or the positives outcomes of war are dwarfed by the positive outcomes of peace. For the same cost to human lives and economy, Iran could have developed much more, be much stronger than it is now. What Iran fought was a conventional war with Iraq. If Iran attempts a conventional war with the US there is little doubt over how that would go.

I also doubt that the US could have occupied Iran war or no war. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq has a society divided along ethnic and sectarian lines. It had a dictatorship which inflicted far more brutality on it's own population than anything the Pahlavai regime or the Islamic regime has ever done. Pahlavi may have been scum, but he wasn't in Saddam's league. Thus, Iranians would have much less will to tolerate a foreign occupation of their country. Even now with the political system being as unpopular as it is, they prefer reform to revolution or foreign installation of democracy. They learnt a good lesson from the overthrow of Mossadeq - a lesson that you don't trust foreigners when it comes to political intervention in your country.

Edited by Dirac Delta function
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
After all, Saddam did not invade Iran after 1988!

Actually, yes he did, only this time with the MEK. It was repelled after only three days and he finally got the message. Anyway he was broke in 1988 (which led to kuwait) and he wasnt broke in 1982 so it would be reasonable to suggest that he would have carried on fighting when he got the chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
This is a common but fallacious way of thinking. People say, war has positive effectsd because we build new doctrines, new infrastructure, new industries. However, all these things can arise without war. Or the positives outcomes of war are dwarfed by the positive outcomes of peace. For the same cost to human lives and economy, Iran could have developed much more, be much stronger than it is now. What Iran fought was a conventional war with Iraq. If Iran attempts a conventional war with the US there is little doubt over how that would go.

I also doubt that the US could have occupied Iran war or no war. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq has a society divided along ethnic and sectarian lines. It had a dictatorship which inflicted far more brutality on it's own population than anything the Pahlavai regime or the Islamic regime has ever done. Pahlavi may have been scum, but he wasn't in Saddam's league. Thus, Iranians would have much less will to tolerate a foreign occupation of their country. Even now with the political system being as unpopular as it is, they prefer reform to revolution or foreign installation of democracy. They learnt a good lesson from the overthrow of Mossadeq - a lesson that you don't trust foreigners when it comes to political intervention in your country.

I don't know if you can call the system unpopular.

Voter turnout during Khatami times was 90 percent. Voter turnout in 2005 fell so far and was still 70 percent.

A vote for anybody is a vote for the system.

Even if people don't like the government, they see it as legitimate.

You cannot expect people to continue to have genuine love for the government for many decades like they did after the revolution.

Mammad Reza was worser than Saddam because he rejected the basic pillars of Iranian identity and Iranians did not see him as their representative. Savak could have tortured every single man, woman, and child in Iran but it would never have aroused the hatred of the people as much as the 2500 norouz celebrations.

And I don't think you understand Iranian defence doctrine. Why do you think we have not purchased any fighters since early 1990s? Why do you think it has taken us 30 years to finally produce our own frigates? Why has there been so little production of our Zolfaghar series tanks? Iran is not trying to fight conventional war with the US. Iran's first goal is deterrence; that is why we invest so much in missile research and production. And if Iran if invaded, Iran can use asymetrical warfare. We could block the Hormuz strait, we could attack the US fleet in the Persian gulf (which is very vulnerable), we could launch missiles at Israel and US military bases in the region, we could attack Kuwaiti and Saudi oil tankers, we could invade Bahrain, etc... We could do all these things and create so many fronts for the US that the damages are too much for the US to dare invade us.

You say we are attempting a conventional war. Firstly, we are not attempting war. But because of our history in the past 30 years, we have reason to prepare for war. Secondly, we would fight in a way that is to our advantage and is on our terms (just as we did in 1980-88). Don't worry about Iranian military competence because we have the best men in the world who are shaping our tactics.

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if you can call the system unpopular.

Voter turnout during Khatami times was 90 percent. Voter turnout in 2005 fell so far and was still 70 percent.

A vote for anybody is a vote for the system.

Even if people don't like the government, they see it as legitimate.

You cannot expect people to continue to have genuine love for the government for many decades like they did after the revolution.

Mammad Reza was worser than Saddam because he rejected the basic pillars of Iranian identity and Iranians did not see him as their representative. Savak could have tortured every single man, woman, and child in Iran but it would never have aroused the hatred of the people as much as the 2500 norouz celebrations.

I don't think he was anywhere near as bad as Saddam. Until you have mothers watching their babies being burnt alive, as a standard method of coercion, then I would be careful to be so flippant about children being tortured.

And I don't think you understand Iranian defence doctrine. Why do you think we have not purchased any fighters since early 1990s? Why do you think it has taken us 30 years to finally produce our own frigates? Why has there been so little production of our Zolfaghar series tanks? Iran is not trying to fight conventional war with the US. Iran's first goal is deterrence; that is why we invest so much in missile research and production. And if Iran if invaded, Iran can use asymetrical warfare. We could block the Hormuz strait, we could attack the US fleet in the Persian gulf (which is very vulnerable), we could launch missiles at Israel and US military bases in the region, we could attack Kuwaiti and Saudi oil tankers, we could invade Bahrain, etc... We could do all these things and create so many fronts for the US that the damages are too much for the US to dare invade us.

You say we are attempting a conventional war. Firstly, we are not attempting war. But because of our history in the past 30 years, we have reason to prepare for war. Secondly, we would fight in a way that is to our advantage and is on our terms (just as we did in 1980-88). Don't worry about Iranian military competence because we have the best men in the world who are shaping our tactics.

I understand that. I told you, I don't think invading Iran for any extended length of time was ever a plan for the US. After the battering they took in Vietnam, they became fully aware of what a simple AK-47 in the hands of a lot of determined people can do.

However, what you talk about - making a US attack more costly than it's worth - could have equally been a policy had the Iraq-Iran war not happened. I have great trouble believing that that war was in any way shape or form worth the cost to Iran, and obviously not to Iraq, which gained absolutely nothing at all from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
I don't think he was anywhere near as bad as Saddam. Until you have mothers watching their babies being burnt alive, as a standard method of coercion, then I would be careful to be so flippant about children being tortured.

I understand that. I told you, I don't think invading Iran for any extended length of time was ever a plan for the US. After the battering they took in Vietnam, they became fully aware of what a simple AK-47 in the hands of a lot of determined people can do.

However, what you talk about - making a US attack more costly than it's worth - could have equally been a policy had the Iraq-Iran war not happened. I have great trouble believing that that war was in any way shape or form worth the cost to Iran, and obviously not to Iraq, which gained absolutely nothing at all from it.

The Shah did practice torture, very freely. But that is not why people revolted. People revolted because of his lavish lifestyle and because he was too public about his contempt for Islam.

He was worse than Saddam. If he wasn't, the Iraqi people would have revolted. And if the Iraqi people did not revolt because they are better at tolerating brutality than Iranians, then that should be taken into consideration. If Iraqis did not mind the brutality enough to revolt, then they tacitly support such brutality. In that sense, Saddam's regime was recognized as legitimate. Had the US not invaded, I doubt any revolution would have taken place in Iraq. Therefore, Mammad Reza was worse.

Brother, certain defence innovations came as a result of the war. Iran was the first country to fire missiles from UAVs. We were also the first to fire Maverick missiles from AH-1 gunships (the US itself started adopting this practice in 1990). These are just some examples. The point is that war has a very far reaching effect. It affects politics and society, but it especially effects military thinking. And our military thinkers used this valuable experience.

If the United States learned so much from Vietnam, they would not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. You are giving them too much credit. They are not as clever as you make them seem; they have made many many many mistakes, which not only result in the oppression of millions but in the damaging of their own interests (directly or indirectly). For example: in the long run, the 1953 coup hurt the US. Without that coup, the revolution would probably not have taken place and the US would not have made such a powerful enemy in the Middle East. At the time, however, the US saw the potential of a Mammad Reza puppet regime and could not say no. Instead of compromising, they imposed their strict will... and today they are getting punished for it. Not only are they not clever, they are actually quite dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
(bismillah)

You've never met an Iranian before?

Met yes but don't know any persoanly! Also, I did know one but he was a car mechanic and not very religious and would hate to base my opinion on one non pious person.

Inshallah when I do my Ziarats in Iran I will meet some :)

:yaali:

Ya Ali (as) Madad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Shah did practice torture, very freely. But that is not why people revolted. People revolted because of his lavish lifestyle and because he was too public about his contempt for Islam.

He was worse than Saddam. If he wasn't, the Iraqi people would have revolted. And if the Iraqi people did not revolt because they are better at tolerating brutality than Iranians, then that should be taken into consideration. If Iraqis did not mind the brutality enough to revolt, then they tacitly support such brutality. In that sense, Saddam's regime was recognized as legitimate. Had the US not invaded, I doubt any revolution would have taken place in Iraq. Therefore, Mammad Reza was worse.

Brother, certain defence innovations came as a result of the war. Iran was the first country to fire missiles from UAVs. We were also the first to fire Maverick missiles from AH-1 gunships (the US itself started adopting this practice in 1990). These are just some examples. The point is that war has a very far reaching effect. It affects politics and society, but it especially effects military thinking. And our military thinkers used this valuable experience.

If the United States learned so much from Vietnam, they would not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. You are giving them too much credit. They are not as clever as you make them seem; they have made many many many mistakes, which not only result in the oppression of millions but in the damaging of their own interests (directly or indirectly). For example: in the long run, the 1953 coup hurt the US. Without that coup, the revolution would probably not have taken place and the US would not have made such a powerful enemy in the Middle East. At the time, however, the US saw the potential of a Mammad Reza puppet regime and could not say no. Instead of compromising, they imposed their strict will... and today they are getting punished for it. Not only are they not clever, they are actually quite dumb.

Iraqis did revolt. There was an uprising in 1991, after which about 200,000 were killed by Saddam's forces, entire neighbourhoods destroyed, the marshes drained (as punishment), and many were made refugees. Saddam's government had no legitimacy at all, from it's first minute to it's last.

The war in Iraq is an American success by military standards. After 6 years, their casualties are a fraction of what they were in Vietnam. They believed that there would not be an Irqi uprising, and indeed they were right. All there has been is a few roadside bombs killing the americans. Almost all violence is by terrorists and militias against the civilian population.

What they were wrong about is the political aspect - they failed to get a puppet government installed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Metaphorically, in this sense, Yes.

Iran had won the war when Saddam offered ceasefire after two years of fighting. Iranians rejected it and it carried on for another 6 years. At the end of the war, there were millions of bodies to count. No one came out as victorious in military terms. It was a total fiasco.

See this is exaclty what im talking about when i tell you that you read stuff but you don't seem to comprehend it.

This is just an assumption that Saddam would have invaded again if Iran had accepted the ceasefire. After all, Saddam did not invade Iran after 1988!

Even after 8 years of war, when iraq signed a peace treaty with iran, Iraq still attacked Iran in a final attempt. Bet you didn't know that!

Look up Operation Mersad, so maybe people don't have to explain everything to you.

Imam Khomeini was an excellent tactician. He knew that once you let saddam get off the hook he would regroup and attack again.

And if someone attacks you and ruins your house, you just don't let him off the hook once you throw him out, im sorry to inform you about this, but we don't follow the Christian ideology of turning the other cheek. Even the Christians don't do that anymore.

Edited by repenter
Link to post
Share on other sites

why do iranis blame iraqis for saddams actions? saddam didnt serve iraqis purpose the man killed his own ppl iranis shud knw tht iraqis are not to hate just cuz saddam single handled destroyed iran and won the war. its ok to admit saddam dominated iran but u have no reason to hate iraqis. most iranis despise ppl from iraq my cousin was in iraq last year doing zaiyraa of muslim ibn aqeel (as) in Kufa and these irani men pushed him to get to the way they didnt even apologize my cousin told them this is disrespectful not to me but to muslim ibn aqeel brothers the iranis pushed him again and walked away. im not trying to sterotype but most i know of iranis even here they hate iraqis

Edited by interesting_guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
why do iranis blame iraqis for saddams actions? saddam didnt serve iraqis purpose the man killed his own ppl iranis shud knw tht iraqis are not to hate just cuz saddam single handled destroyed iran and won the war. its ok to admit saddam dominated iran but u have no reason to hate iraqis. most iranis despise ppl from iraq my cousin was in iraq last year doing zaiyraa of muslim ibn aqeel (as) in Kufa and these irani men pushed him to get to the way they didnt even apologize my cousin told them this is disrespectful not to me but to muslim ibn aqeel brothers the iranis pushed him again and walked away. im not trying to sterotype but most i know of iranis even here they hate iraqis

(bismillah)

The bolded part is no. Just no.

And also, hatred and distrust exists among all people for multiple reasons. Don't respond by giving hate and distrust back. Simple as that.

Muslims should treat each other as brothers, and tribalism and nationalism are antithetical to this. I am pretty proud Iranian, but I draw the line when it comes to showing contempt or distrust towards others. By God I will never do anything like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
See this is exaclty what im talking about when i tell you that you read stuff but you don't seem to comprehend it.

LOL. Ay learned Sayyed, I don't have to agree with your take on the issue. I read and I see through, staying neutral since I am neither Iranian nor Iraqi, and I don't back either of the governments. :)

Even after 8 years of war, when iraq signed a peace treaty with iran, Iraq still attacked Iran in a final attempt. Bet you didn't know that!

Look up Operation Mersad, so maybe people don't have to explain everything to you.

Imam Khomeini was an excellent tactician. He knew that once you let saddam get off the hook he would regroup and attack again.

And if someone attacks you and ruins your house, you just don't let him off the hook once you throw him out, im sorry to inform you about this, but we don't follow the Christian ideology of turning the other cheek. Even the Christians don't do that anymore.

Who is here talking about turning the other cheek hmm? Iraq attacked Iran and has to be fought, with all power and determination. Who on earth in their right mind would not have sided with Iran at that time. But after two years, Iran shot itself on the foot by not accepting the ceasefire offer. Quite plain.

Edited by Marbles
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
That's because Latin America is not near Iran. If they were in the middle east, they would be singing the same tune as every other country. Turkey is the only country in the region that isn't bothered about Iran, and that's because Iran can't do jack to Turkey - it's too strong.

I'm not blaming Iran alone, every country in the middle east is nefarious in one way or another, including Iraq of course.

I will say one thing however, I don't speak for anyone else, but my views of Iran are not racially motivated; my views of the Arabs are far more negative.

No, Turkey is not 'too strong.' Turkey is in NATO. There is a big difference.

If the world had only two countries -- Turkey and Iran -- Iran would be stronger.

If it is not racially motivated, why was Kuwait not bothered that Saddam thought of Kuwait as an Iraqi province? Why did they send him billions and billions of aid? Their weak nationalist governments kept shouting curses at Israel when they could not do anything to defend themselves from Israel. But they don't support us today, even though we are the reason Lebanon is still exists. We do a better job of defending them than they could ever do. :lol: And all they feel toward us is contempt. They call us idolaters. Kuffars. Imperialists.

But i think we have reached a point that we don't care. Let the whole world be mad at us. They can't do a damned thing. :lol:

Now say salavat

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
No, no, no. Now you are doing the same thing as him. :(

JUST QUIT all the nationalist or ethnic bias of all types!!!

And I am sure that interesting_guy, in spite of his deeply ingrained mistrust, does not support Saddam(la) or his murderous activities. Saddam was no friend to Iraqi Shias.

The way to conquer a prejudice is by proving it wrong, not by responding in kind.

Sister, i am not a nationalist unless someone makes me one. Don't pay attention to what i just said because this was only in response to interesting_guy who has said that Saddam beat us in the war and that he wished Saddam killed more of us. To be honest i want peace and stability for Iraqis. Iran wants peace and stability for Iraqis. We accepted Maliki's formal apology for the invasion, and we do not even want any repairations. We are letting go of the past and we are trying to help Iraq by building factories and roads. Just as we are providing Pakistan with free electricity right now... just as we gave free water to Kuwait in the aftermath of the 1991 war... just as we acknowledged the elected government of the Palestinians in spite of their political and sectarian differences with us.

I support unity amongst Muslims and amongst all people. But when people send accusations our way i will turn into the worst type of nationalist because i think it is clear, through our words and our actions, that we have done more for the cause of unity than any other Muslim nation.

^

I think Iran should simply join Nato and get over this confrontation for no reason.

sigh...

Brother i don't think you quite understand this issue.

You seem to think we are 'confronting.' Tell me how we are confronting anyone.

We allowed for random IAEA inspections and those inspections revealed nothing. They still accuse.

We are signed to NPT and have done nothing to violate it. They still accuse.

We even suspended enrichment for two years (Khatami did from 2003-05). We got nothing in return.

When we compromise and get NOTHING in return, how is the solution to compromise further? That's the bend-over, Mammad Reza mentality. Those days are over. Instead of being afraid of the big scary God-nation (who is all powerful), we say a Ya Ali and we do what is our fundamental right. There is no other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Who is here talking about turning the other cheek hmm? Iraq attacked Iran and has to be fought, with all power and determination. Who on earth in their right mind would not have sided with Iran at that time. But after two years, Iran shot itself on the foot by not accepting the ceasefire offer. Quite plain

Bro Marbles, do a search on shiachat, the subject of "cease fire" has been talked about and I've posted about it. If you do not have all the information, why do you jump to conclusions or 'act' like you know all the facts? Why do you act like you know the situation and what was going on?

There are a lot of factors and many things to consider in 1982-83 war time situation between Saddam and Iran. I can name a few:

- Saddam's army did not fully retreat from Iranian territories.

- Iraqi army was still engaged in warfare against the Kurds, and had it's military set up near Iranian borders, set up and not demonstrating cease-fire actions.

- There are proofs from former Ba'athi leaders close to Saddam, that the ceasefire was a tactic and a he did not have real intentions for it.

- Since the beginning of the invasion no country supported Iran, that's 1980.

- The ceasefire was a political tactic in order to antagonize Iran. That alone was the sole reason for it at that time (1982).

- Sayed Khomeini had stated that if Saddam steps down, ceasefire would be reached to the UN.

- Iraq/Saddam stated that no compensation for the attrocities committed by the Iraqi army would be given. Attrocities such as bombing, murdering, raping women, chemical weapons attacks, destroying Iranian towns and villages. Which was committed by the invading Iraqi army.

Saddam in power, actually caused mutiple times the deaths of Iraqis than the whole Iran/Iraq war 8 years combined.

- Because of Saddam's actions and sanctions, it is estimated that nearly 1 million Iraqi's died. Some say a lot over.

"At least she is surviving. Unicef estimates that at least 500,000 children have died, who ordinarily would have lived. "

BBC news

- The Kurds claim up to 100,000 kurds murdered by Saddam's regime.

- 1991 uprising in the south, 100,000 shia's were murderd by Saddam.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a speech that Sayed Khomeini said, that if this man stays in power, many many more people will die and suffer. It was the believers duty to remove him. This is the the view of the Iranian Islamists. Iranian nationalists wanted the ceasefire, not the Islamists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. Ay learned Sayyed, I don't have to agree with your take on the issue. I read and I see through, staying neutral since I am neither Iranian nor Iraqi, and I don't back either of the governments. :)

Who is here talking about turning the other cheek hmm? Iraq attacked Iran and has to be fought, with all power and determination. Who on earth in their right mind would not have sided with Iran at that time. But after two years, Iran shot itself on the foot by not accepting the ceasefire offer. Quite plain.

I just explain to you why it shouldn't have accepted the ceasefire oh unlearned Marbles. Even after 8 years when they did accept ceasefire, saddam still attacked. You are quite blunt Marbles, try reading the post throughout next time.

And how did iran shot itself in the foot exaclty? Non of the families of the shahids complain, why should you? And Iran is now stronger then ever.

It's good that you dont take sides with "governments", non of them would have any use for you anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sister, i am not a nationalist unless someone makes me one. Don't pay attention to what i just said because this was only in response to interesting_guy who has said that Saddam beat us in the war and that he wished Saddam killed more

dont be so stupid ive said at least 20 times on this thread that i hate saddam where did i say i support a man that killed shias see smiley this guy barabder is from yazd, iran they are zoroastrian ur not a shia they worship fire and these ppl they have a higher then god attitude this guy has no regard for human life in iraq. his ppl have been murdering iraqis for a few decades now and he's proud of it and thats how most iranis feel, i dont know if the nose surgery he had last night is bothering him but this time he needs to get his brain checked. they do sex change in iran they shud do brain checks for sure

Edited by interesting_guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
dont be so stupid ive said at least 20 times on this thread that i hate saddam where did i say i support a man that killed shias see smiley this guy barabder is from yazd, iran they are zoroastrian ur not a shia they worship fire and these ppl they have a higher then god attitude this guy has no regard for human life in iraq. his ppl have been murdering iraqis for a few decades now and he's proud of it and thats how most iranis feel, i dont know if the nose surgery he had last night is bothering him but this time he needs to get his brain checked. they do sex change in iran they shud do brain checks for sure

1) Most people in Yazd are Muslim (and i am one of them).

2) Zoroastrians do not worship fire, they worship God. But they consider fire to be a cleanser.

3) You have said in this very thread that you wish that Saddam had killed more Iranians.

4) You celebrated the Zahedan bombings.

You are the one who celebrates the killing of Iranians. I don't celebrate the killing of anybody.

You consider the Iran-Iraq war to be a racial war; I do not. If it was a racial war, why did we have the support of Syria and Libya (both Arab states)?

You are a Bathist. But what's worse is that you are pretending not to be. You are a nationalist in religious clothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...