Iraq defeated Iran

Bring me a hard non-meme source that says they were used to clear mines, don't move goalposts.

>refworld.org/docid/498805f02d.html#_ftnref922
>unicef.org/sowc96/2csoldrs.htm
>un.org/documents/ga/docs/51/plenary/a51-306add1.htm

>UN/UNHCR
I said none-meme sources and you deposited a propaganda central. Preferably Iranian or Iraqi.

No. There is plenty of rope, care to join?

In Czechoslovakia like 90% of our military exports went to Iraq and Syria. Tanks, APCs, rifles, that kind of shit, and those shits weren't even paying for it on time. It was considered a strategic interest because they were friendly socialist countries or some shit.

UN being a meme.
I bet you only consider official ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN news to be non meme.
>come on abdul

forgot pic

Attached: Saddam-Hussein-hanging-AFP-800x430.jpg (800x430, 46K)

no
by the end of the war Iraq was winning and had the upper hand but Saddam was smart enough to realise that it was going to be a long ping pong match where they trade blow so they went for a peace treaty

>ISIS clerics on Veeky Forums

youtube.com/watch?v=z2wxK9JSro8

What a clusterfuck this was

Attached: iraniraq.png (411x467, 26K)

Saddam went for the wrong enemy, he should've made amends with Syria and teamed up to terrorize Israel into submission and stabilize Lebanon.

Israel & Iran
>Top 10 anime rival team up
US supporting both sides
>Top 10 anime wild cards

it's funny how modern communists love iran and pretend soviet support for saddam never happened

If not for the middle east consistently spreading its shit worldwide and ruining it for the rest of us their conflicts are fucking hilarious for how convoluted they consistently wind up becoming.

Most cold war conflicts are convoluted, the Iran-Iraq war is pretty low on the "convoluted" list for the average cold war conflict. If you want a real convoluted conflict, than check the Portugese wars in Angola and the civil war that followed, the few consecutive conflicts in Vietnam & Cambodia, and so on.

USSR sold arms to both sides, but a shitload to Iraq because they were trying to wrist Iraq from the claws of the US. No one in their right minds would support Iran, it was a lost cause after fanatics took over (an intended move by the US to prevent the USSR from influencing the revolution into a socialist one through the Tudah political party and taking over Iran, essentially the US pushed Iraq into the war, started the war, just to prevent Iran from becoming a USSR proxy).

>/pol/ loves Iran
>/pol/ loves Saddam
>/pol/ hates Israel
>/pol/ loves Russia
>/pol/ hates America
>Israel teamed up with Iran to screw over Saddam who was backed by Russia and US

>they were trying to wrist Iraq from the claws of the US
Iraq wasn't in any "claws", they were just moderately friendly witch each other until Kuwait crisis happened.

+forgot to mention that this war was extremely benifical to the US because it kept ayyrabs splintered and divided and kept Iraq, probably the most powerful Arab state at the time, busy at doing something else instead of antagonizing Israel. The war in Iran and US support essentially polarized the ayyrabs and caused a strong split between the two strongest Arab states; Syria and Iraq.

No they weren't, the US had deep ties with Iraq. They supported him not only with arms, but intelligence information and even gradually entered the conflict towards its end and enforced alot of sanctions on Iran through the war to keep it starved and terrorized. They had even made plans to intervene in the war in-case the Iraqis chimped out and Iran went too deep into Iraq.
When Saddam was planning to go into Kuwait, he literally asked the US for a green-light before invading (which he received).

When I say 'deep ties', it doesn't mean the US was hand-holding Iraq the same way they guarded Israel's safety. They were just benefiting from Iraq and had strong reasons to keep Iraq friendly for middle-eastern geopolitics. Ofcourse, when the USSR collapsed, this instantly no longer mattered now that the USSR was de-fanged. And the US wanted to quickly deal with Iraq and Syria being threats to Israel.

>China on both sides
>North Korea
>Israel wanted to help
>they said no

Attached: 1517216227631.jpg (500x352, 75K)

>China and US play both side
>Iran-Israel tsundere relationship
>fucking Sudan
I wonder if those guys really knew what they were doing.

>(denied by Iran)

Attached: my_sides01.jpg (225x225, 12K)

So what youre saying is that America is responsible for Saddam gassing Kurds because they bolstered him before? So you're saying all Soviet war crimes "ironically" fall upon all the Allies?

Fuckoff with your "lel saddam and taleban are american" bullshit. How do you know which sandshit dictator is gonna go ballistic? You dont. So what is there to do? Let the subhumans destroy each other? Sign me in.

>Anonymous 03/19/18(Mon)16:41:48 No.4319953
>So what youre saying is that America is responsible for Saddam gassing Kurds because they bolstered him before
Yeah. They gave Saddam the weapons, they trained his army how to use them, they gave his army intelligence information when they wanted to use them. Deal with it.

>let subhumans destroy eachother
You're a 56% subhuman if you think the US is some kind of police force and it tries to stop subhumans from killing eachother when it's the biggest, largest instigator and driving force behind all current wars in the middle east. Bite a fucking bullet

Why do mongoloids take wikipedia pages on a literal sense? China sold arms to both sides, does that mean they actually supported both sides?
>Israel wanted to help but they said no
No they didn't say no. Israel sold hundreds and hundreds of millions worth of weapons to Iran through the war, including ballistic missiles. I'm pretty sure at this point no one through the war secretly slipped more weapons to Iran than Israel, even corrupt CIA cartels went to Israel when they wanted to get weapons through to Iran. Iran and Israel both shared intelligence information about Iraq through the war, especially the Osirak nuclear reactor that Iraq was building. Both Israel and Iran also coordinated operations on this reactor until they destroyed it. Israel violated neutrality and the airspace of two Arab countries to attack and destroy this particular reactor.

Just like Allies gave resources for the Soviets so they could make the biggest tank army in the world. This blame game is so old.

When do the sandnigs take responsibility for using those weapons? Never, because they are too inbred to account for their own actions? Thought so. It's easy to blame instigators when youre so easy to manipulate.

>fail to gain any of your short term or long term objective
>fail to defeat a nation in the middle of a revolution and major parts of its civilian and military hierarchy are being purged or fleeing the country
>while your country has the backing of virtually the entire world
>"We won though"
Arabs are pathetic.

So it took Saddam 8 years to finally understand that the war couldn’t be won but only continue ceaselessly without any tangible gains.

>This is considered smart

Doesn't make a difference. Iraq started this war with a relatively small army (smaller than Iran's). The offensive bogged down because instead of listening to experienced Iraqi generals, Saddam chose to launch a silly all-border offensive. It doesn't matter if alot of countries exported alot of arms to Iraq, if they had the equipment and manpower pre-war, then it would've been retarded to fail the invasion. And Iran had an army and a strong air-force from their days as US lackeys in the cold war. Revolution or not, this army didn't disappear. It was still a strong fighting force in the middle east, easily strong enough to toe-toe the Iraqis.

The war stale-mated a few years later. It doesn't matter who you are or who's selling you weapons once you lost your momentum and surprise. Iraq made ambitious offensives at the very end of the war that virtually annihilated the Iranians but for some reason Saddam simply called to a halt and ceasefire after capturing Al-Faw. Probably to save face and make it look like liberating Faw was the real objective all-along.

Doesn't matter what kind of apologism you are shifting here to alter away the course of the goal posts end result is:

>Iraq starts a war of territorial conquest
>Iraq fails to gain any territorial concessions or gains from Iran
>War ends
Iraq lost.

I'm not being apologetic, I'm just not talking about history in nigger-speak or with a retard view-point.

>Iraq fails to gain any territorial concessions or gains from Iran
That's where you're wrong. Opinion disregarded

Actually Iraq lost its sovereignty over the Shatt-el to keep Iran neutral during 1991's events. So kys please.

>retard view-point
>Absolute truth is Iraq starts a war to gain territory, Iraq accepts UN resolution to end the war having not gained territory
So they lost the war, status quo was never changed for Iran. So stop being a dumb faggot.

By the 1980s the eastern block was in such a dire financial situation that they sold arms to practically anybody who could provide hard currency.

Literally who cares? Iraq also sent all it's jets to Iran during the gulf war. And Iraq technically does still have sovereignty over the Shatt-Al-Arab since it's inside their border.

>starts war to gain territory
I'd like to see you prove this.

>I'm retarded, Iraq NEVER stated the war to take territory from Iran
Neat, opinion discarded

I can't interpret this as an argument, so I'll send you off with a link that is a containment area for people who like to argue in the same fashion as you do
boards.Veeky Forums.org/pol/

>Iraq still does have soverignity over the Shatt-Al-Arab
So does Iran.
He's right you are a moron. And a /pol/fag yourself so the irony of telling one off to there while you are a screeching example of autism is hilarious. Please end yourself, you disgusting sub-human.

>Stalemate
>Defeated
What did he mean by this?

>Iraq attempts to take complete control over the Shatt-al arab river
>Iraq attempts to promote and annex Khuzestan with its large Arab minority population
>Iraq fails to force Iran to concede defeat or territorial concessions
>"Iraq never attempted to take territory from Iran"
Sure thing, Chemical Ali.

spotted the Arab

>Literally seething
Did I hit a nerve?
>so does Iran
prove it, I'm waiting.
>Iraq attempts to take complete control over Shatt-Al-Arab
They did, they control it, the Iraqi border literally ends just over the river.

>Iraq attempts to promote and annex Khuzestan with its large Arab minority population
You still have not proven this, Iraq wanted to instigate a rebellion here, but nothing says they wanted to annex territory.

>Iraq fails to force Iran to concede defeat or territorial concessions
If the UN resolution is not that, than I don't know what is.
>strawman
I guess since you completely veered-off arguing and took-up ad-hominem then I hit a nerve or triggered something personal ;)

>*snip for nonsense*
Not an argument
>*snip for nonsense*
Not an argument.
>*snip for nonsense*
Not an argument.

Ass-pained Arab butthurt and booty-blasted beyond the capacity for human comprehension at continually failing at wars. Adorable.

>collection of insults whenever asked to prove anything
Watch me take you seriously
Watch me do it again lmao

>Did I hit a nerve?
The only nerve hit is how dumb you are at literally making things up.
>prove it
Where is your proof in the first place?
>They did
They didn't, as Iraq and Hussein's goal was complete control over the Shatt-al river, which they failed at as Iran also then and now still retains a large control and sovereignty over it and Iraq does not have a monopoly on it.
>Not proven this
So all those Iraqi propaganda radio broadcasts, televised adverts, and pamphlets air-dropped demanding Khuzestani/Iranian Arabs to separate and help Iraqi regulars take control of the province and the repeated failed invasions were just magically made up by Anti-Arab sources?

Sure thing dude, whatever helps you sleep at night.
>UN resolution
Iraq is the one who sued for peace in 1982, and Iraq accepted the UN resolution the same time the Iranians did who simply were dropped into defensive positions and stopping offensive attacks.

You have no idea what you are talking about and are an apologist for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.

Seeing as how you provided no arguments, abused argument from belief fallacies, and provided no evidence, insulting you is justified entirely.

>The Iraqi government's dissatisfaction with Iran's possession of the oil-rich Khuzestan Province, which the Iraqis called Arabistan and had a large Arabic-speaking population, was not limited to rhetorical statements. Iraq began supporting secessionist movements in Khuzestan, and raised the issue of its territorial claims at an Arab League meeting, though unsuccessfully
>Iran's abrogation of the treaty marked the beginning of a period of acute Iraqi-Iranian tension that was to last until the 1975 Algiers Agreement.[48] In 1969, Saddam Hussein, Iraq's deputy prime minister, stated: "Iraq's dispute with Iran is in connection with Khuzestan, which is part of Iraq's soil and was annexed to Iran during foreign rule." Soon, Iraqi radio stations began exclusively broadcasting into "Arabistan", encouraging Arabs living in Iran and even Baloch people to revolt against the Shah's government. Basra TV stations began showing Iran's Khuzestan province as part of Iraq's new province of "Nāṣiriyyah" (ناصرية), renaming all of its cities with Arabic names.
>Of Iraq's six divisions that were invading by ground, four were sent to Khuzestan, which was located near the border's southern end, to cut off the Shatt al-Arab from the rest of Iran and to establish a territorial security zone.
>Operation Undeniable Victory was an Iranian victory; Iraqi forces were driven away from Shush, Dezful and Ahvaz. The Iranian armed forces destroyed 320–400 Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles in a costly success. In just the first day of the battle, the Iranians lost 196 tanks. By this time, most of the Khuzestan province had been recaptured.
So you've lied on several things here: a major goal of Iraq was the annexation of Khuzestan, obtaining the large Iranian-Arab population, hoping they would instigate partisan warfare and support the Iraqi military and the fact the Iraqis had several direct attempts at taking Khuzestan which failed.

>You still have not proven this, Iraq wanted to instigate a rebellion here, but nothing says they wanted to annex territory.
Either you like the other anons have said are dumb or are an Iraqi-dispora Arabfag. Because either way what you are saying is not true. Iraq believed Khuzestan was Iraqi clay and wanted it back and on top of that it would've removed any major Iranian presence over the shatt-al-arab river considerably. And they repeatedly attempted to take it over with mechanized and infantry forces several times in the first 2-3 years of the war.

So bullshit.

I had to write up an extensive history of Iraq, anyone wanna be linked to it on google docs i can post the link.

Attached: 1520497787998.jpg (492x330, 21K)

Didn't both sides claim victory?

the international community would never let Iran win the war anyway so I find it hard to claim Iraq won.

so why do people like saddam husssein? is it just /pol/fags?

docs.google.com/document/d/1Q4k-YQguAjiAft3SJwd_hcQDyB6g5wYEPfwSDwkU9qk/edit?usp=sharing

I made a copy of it, but the images kind of fuck up the formatting of the text as I originally typed it up in a long ass chart with questions and cited sources.

But give it a read for a (TO LONG DIDINT STUDY) version of Iraqi history

Attached: 51E2F9CE-D380-4111-9B84-3390E8AD2022.jpg (500x375, 57K)

TOO LONG DIDN'T STUDY*

oh yea and while we are on the topic of Iraq if you lookup Sargon of Akkad it fucking puts the image of that fucking fatass keyboard warrior guy who uses Sargons name, honestly if he could come to life he would be so disappointed where his name is affiliated now. A fat white anglo.

Attached: Screenshot_1.png (1340x593, 252K)

Stalemate but technically speaking, Iraq lost. Like others have said, Iraq's goal was territorial conquest and annexation of Iranian soverignity both on land and over the sea routes leading into the Shatt-al-arab river.

Claiming Iran won is just as wrong as claiming Iraq won.

>goal of defender is to defend
>Iran succeeds in this
>goal of attacker is to annex
>Iraq failed at this
Not rocket science. Also Iraq wanted to bow out of the war as early as 1982 when Saddam realized he was in for a war of attrition. When you can't change the status quo and want to gain territory and conquests and fail at that, you have lost.

I admire him in a non satirical sense, but it's mainly due to his character. Iraq from when it became a sovereign country after WW1 with prince faisel was under countless fuckings coup's and usurpers of power making it a very unstable country. But after 1968 with Al Bakr, a fixated power was consolidated until 1979 with Saddam's official claim to power. He lasted 1979-2003, thats a long fucking time. He did squander Iraqi resources on frivolous conflicts and his people had a relative disdain for him, but he was kind of like a muslim Stahlin or Pinochet. Stern, tuff but produced irrefutable results, but the totalitarian Ba'athist government really had no clue how to run an Oil based economy so it kind of flopped. Iraq under Saddam had the greatest potential for growth and prosperity but failed to do so because of extremely poor mismanagement.

Attached: Screenshot_6.png (163x164, 63K)

Well Iran succeeded in keeping all of their shit and stopping Saddam's annexation of Khuzestan and removing their influence on the Persian Gulf and Shatt-al river, I'd say despite the demoralization from the constant shelling by Iraqi scud missiles at the end of '88 that Iran still managed to come out with more dignity in the war than Iraq did.

How the fuck did Saddam lose this

Not a victory, not by any sense. They defended themselves but ended the war as one of the most isolated nations in the globe, their economy still hasn't recovered from that nor their political position. Iraq came out of the war with the 3rd largest military in the world, if not with their dignity.

>liking saddam is /pol/fag behavior
Exactly when did this meme materialize? or is it a JIDF strawman?

>modern communists love iran

Attached: 1502302783347.png (552x680, 391K)

Iran's economy has recovered, but Iraq was made worse for wear as a result of the Iran-Iraq War. Add in the fiasco of the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait, Desert Storm, and now, and the Arab World has been a laughing stock now for the last 60 odd years.

>Iran's economy has recovered
T. Mullahullah Al-Khomeini

Iran has been hit under different sanctions in the 90s and 2000s, not because of its own economy struggling due to any real internal issues. Add in the fact they are and still are diversifying their exports with technology, especially bio-technology, cultural goods and so on to not be so invested in the oil market are all promising signs.

Stop trying to poison the well, Hakim.

>Iran's GDP per capita is literally on par with Iraq's as of 2018
>"o-our economy is recovering"
>"w-we're on top, the war was nothing, the sanctions are nothing, w-we're in control"
Calm down, Rafsanjani. And go exhibit some more of your plastic drones and rockets

$.05 has been deposited in your account, Goldstein.

Due to like 30+ sanctions and frozen Iranian assets, yes. Now factor it without those restrictions, mate.

it's true tho
Iran is anti-American, which is reason enough for commies to support it. Same thing with Assad.

>We shouldn't be sending armed forces to support Islamist uprisings...
>WHY DO YOU SUPPORT ASSAD?

I have never met a single anarchist or new age commie that supports Iran.
No, they aren't.

>nerve gassing civilians is kind of bad
>WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT COMRADE ASSAD'S ANTI-IMPERIALISM?

Sadam was literally a Soviet satellite and most of his army's equipment came from there, what is this bullshit.

to what end?

>fail to invade Israel numerous times
>invade Lebanon
>invade Jordan
>support terrorist attacks around the ME
>back Iran against Iraq which in turn is backed by the USSR, France, and half the world
>back the PKK against Turkey
>while also oppressing Syrian Kurds
>back the US against Iraq
>back Iraqi insurgents against the US
Man were the Assads actively trying to get on everyone's shitlist? Except Iran.

Have you ever considered the possibility of not intervening on either side? Let the people of Syria decide their own problems?

t. retarded pseudo-historian teenager

I never mentioned that I was in favour or against intervention pham, just that commies have a weird hard-on for foreign, non-communist dictators.

Most of those are good, though.

>back US against Iraq
>break-up with Iraq
now what they did is coming back for them, Assad's country is a flat dumping ground for bombs and terrorist central.