Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gyro/T69 on March 13, 2003, 08:52:55 PM
-
From http://www.osirp.org/
Iran and Iraq to release prisoners.
Would the Iranians join Iraq against US/UK troops if and when the war beginnings?
-
Didnt Iraq fly some mirage planes into Iran to hide from US?
Like 40 of em?
crabofix
-
Yup they did. Don't remember type or the amount. Seem's to me they flew anything they could get in the air to Iran.
-
yeah, but Iran never gave them back :) Actually, it was over 200. Most of the (surviving) Iraqi air f(a)rce was and is over there.
If Iraqi troops got involved, it would be to occupy the Shiite areas to the southeast of the country, and the US would tell Iran very bad things would happen to it if this were tried.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
yeah, but Iran never gave tthem back :)
Not to late for that
-
I dont think Iraq will have much use for an air force this time around. They may try fighting out of tunnels and spider holes, like the Viet Cong and the Japs on Iwo Jima/Okinawa
-
Originally posted by Rasker
I dont think Iraq will have much use for an air force this time around. They may try fighting out of tunnels and spider holes, like the Viet Cong and the Japs on Iwo Jima/Okinawa
For sure its gonna be fought in "Urban" terrain. Dangerouse stuff and US/UK will loose some of their advantages. And a to hard bombing of citys will kill to many civilians.
It won´t be "a walk in the park", thats for sure.
Still a mass defection would end it like a "snap" with the fingers.
-
fantasy land.
ask yerselves 'why didn't saddam use wmd last time?"
a: because if he did the war effort would have changed from 'get iraq outta kuwait' to 'kill saddam... and level baghdad'.
now the focus of this war is 'kill saddam, level baghdad if thats what it takes'.
you can bet he'll use wmd this time... he has absolutely nothing to lose.
say 'buh-bye baghdad and takrit'.
installing a new government will be no big deal... there will be damned little left requiring a government..
-
So you're basically saying that previously, Saddam didn't need to use WMD for fear of massive retaliation and neither could he afford to be linked to terrorist groups for the same reason. Now the US/UK is attacking him to rid him of WMD because supposedly it will inevitably fall into Bin Laden's hands, Saddam will probably use it and will pass it to Bin Laden's crew?
What a superb, well thought out policy that is.
BTW you level Baghdad and the US/UK will the sow the wind for a world-wide whirlwind. Personally, I'd be in the streets if WMD was used on civilian targets, such as Baghdad. It would be the end of the British government.
-
"I'd be in the streets if WMD was used on civilian targets, such as Baghdad"
Will you also be out in the street if Hussein uses WMDs on Israel? Or the Kurds, as the threat was reported in UK newspapers last week?
How would you feel if Hussein hit US/UK troops with WMDs? Would he be justified in doing so?
Would Israel be justified to do the same if hit with a WMD from Iraq?
-
1st: The planes
During Desert Storm Saddam wanted to avoid the destruction of their airforce and evacuated many planes to Iran.
Iran has integrated the better of these planes, like the MiG29, the Su24 or the Mirage F1 in the IRIAF.
The rest was not used but also not given back to Iraq. And I dont think that they will give them these planes in future back.
Officially these planes are defined as a small part of reparations the Iraq has to pay for their sneak attack against Iran during the Gulf War of 1980/88.
2nd : Relationship between Iranians and Iraquis or Arabs
The Iranians consider the Arabs as their natural enemy.
Ask an iranian if he is an arab and he will feel deeply insulted.
The Iranians are from aryan race while arabs are from semite race. Always during the 2500 years old history of Iran there have been wars against the arabs.
In the 7th century the arabs conquered during their islamic conquest also Iran and destroyed the iranian Sassanid-dynasty Empire.
But in folling century while they occupated iranian territory they were not able to assimilite the Iranians. They were succesful in other old cultural nations - like in Egypt or Syria who gave up their specific language or religions and became part of the Arab EMpire.
But the iranians were succesful to protect their specific language, the Farsi, which is still spoken today.
Thats the reason why you will find in Iran more statues of the poets of this time than of great generals or kings who had conquered whole empires.
Thes poets were the men who had saved the iranian language and Omar Chayyam was right when he said that "the feather is stronger than the sword".
Also the Islam was modified by the Iranians.
Iran developed the Shiite religion of Islam, which has many elements of the old iranian religion which was used in the country before the islamic conquest.
Even the clothes the iranian mullahs are wearing today are the same style the old high-priests of the Sassanid Empire were wearing during the time before the arab conquest.
The idea that Iran would help Saddam is absurd.
But there is a great interest of the iranians to get more influence in Iraq, because it is the only nation beside Iran which has a shiite majority.
60% of the Iraquis are Shiites. Their religious leaders are in iranian exile. There is an army of shiite iraquis stationed in Iran near the iraqui southern border which waits to help their people when Saddam is eliminated or deposed.
Basra is the inofficial capital of the Shiites in Iraq and when the Saddam sunnite-military makes their propaganda parades through the streets of this city they feel like an occupation force in enemy territory.
When the USA will attack Iraq from the south they will we celebrated as liberators from the sunni/Saddam terror-regime.
It will be easy to kick out Saddams forces from Basra - the important question is, what happens in Basra after that event.
And the most important fact is, that in Iraq there are the most holy places of the Shiite religion. Kerbala is for Shiite of greater importance than Mekka or Jerusalem.
So - I dont think that Iran will help Saddam. They are waiting for the time after Saddam to get more influence with the shiites of Iraq.
-
I don't think a lot of people have heard of Xerxes Darius the Kadjar etc ...
I still don't undertand how the Shah was able to get ride of the soviet in the north of Iran after WWII.
-
In the Bush stylee, your points are irrelevant.
Funnily enough, I live in the UK and the leaders of my government answer to me, as I am a British citizen. We are not barbarians who would indescriminately nuke Baghdad or use any other WMD on hundreds of thousands of civilians. British troops are fighting men and they take their chances; I'm sure they know that. However, I would support the use of tactical WMD against enemy military personnel IF British troops came under WMD attack first.
But the whole diddlying reason we are at odds with Saddam is because he is a genocidal maniac WHILE MY GOVERNMENT IS NOT. Therefore, I expect a better standard of conduct from my government compared to the nutcase we have such a huge problem with; it is the price we pay for considering ourselves civilised and is the price we pay for taking the moral high ground.
I would support the use of nukes against enemy cities only if the conflict was a 'total war', like WW2. And if you, for one iota of a moment, believe that the coming Iraq war is comparable to a total war of any kind, then you, my friend, are living on another planet.
Now, do you understand those points, or are there more stupid questions that need answering?
-
Originally posted by straffo
I don't think a lot of people have heard of Xerxes Darius the Kadjar etc ...
I still don't undertand how the Shah was able to get ride of the soviet in the north of Iran after WWII.
Cyrus, Kambyses, Darius, Xerxes of the Achaemenid dynasty were mighty kings like the others of the Arsakid-parthian or Sassanid dynasty.
At the same time when Frederick the Great fought his wars in the 18th century in Iran Nadir Shah conquered Afghanistan and India.
But as I said: Iran is more celebrating their poets like Chayyam, Ferdausi or Hafis than these men.
Another very good Shah was Shah Abbas, who ruled from Isfahan and made only few wars but was an excellent ruler for his people.
But I dont expect that many people know details of iranian history.
I also dont expect that people are able to understand that arabs and iranians are absolutely different and traditional enemies.
I just hope that the people who make military decisions are aware about these details.
There are three non-arab people in the Middle East : Turks, Iranians and Israelis. These 3 nations have helped each other - even when officially they declared the others for enemies.
Btw: The Iranians destroyed after WW2 the first and only kurdish republic which was built with soviet help in the soviet occupation zone in North-Iran.
It was the USA as the new ally of Iran which forced the USSR to leave iran.
Without this protection force it was no problem for the imperial iranian Army to march into the capital of the Republic Mahabad and execute all members of the kurdish parliament and their prime minister who were so stupid not to flee to the USSR.
That was the end of the Republic of Mahabad..
-
Intersting thing about Iran for me is that apparently it's where Croatians originate from way back when. :)
I really think it's unfortunate that we have lost the fine cultured people of that country for the last 25 years. :(
-
Very true, Grunherz. The same can be said of the people of Iraq. I was reading about the crusades, and the achievements of the Islamic clerics in that area. When they were star gazing, conducting intricate surgery and learning about the human body through dissection (a practise outlawed by the Catholic church), it really shows how completely twisted both the Taliban and Muslim fundamentalists are.
-
I thought it was not only because of the backing by the USA but also because of diplomatie.
-
"Now, do you understand those points, or are there more stupid questions that need answering?
Must be, you didn't say anything about theses.
Will you also be out in the street if Hussein uses WMDs on Israel? Or the Kurds, as the threat was reported in UK newspapers last week?
Would Israel be justified to do the same if hit with a WMD from Iraq?
-
Nice "duck" on the Israel/Kurd question Dowding.:p
-
Originally posted by straffo
I thought it was not only because of the backing by the USA but also because of diplomatie.
Yes - the iranians offered the russians economical advantages in the iranian oil sector.
But the main reason why they left Iran was the fact that Iran had the powerful ally USA.
Otherwise they would have come back after Iran didnt gave them any oil after they left :D
-
lol :)
naughty persian ;)
-
you guys all missed dowding's point. His point was that if the UK responded with WMD against civilian targets he'd be demanding the current UK government to step down. He's a UK citizen. He doesn't want his country to respond with WMD civilians. He's also warning what will happen if the US responds with WMD against civilians.
His point is that the UK (and US) should be above slaughtering civilians and non-combatants, even if the enemy resorts to that level. Our whole mantra in this (our = US + UK) is freedom for the Iraqi people along with security for the world. How hypocritical would it be for either nation to turn around and say "well, Saddam, you just used WMD, so we're going to level Baghdad with a nuke now." ??? That's asinine, and it completely shows no respect for human life, which is supposedly what this is all about.
It's obvious Dowding would support military action against any nation that uses WMD. It's plainly obvious he wouldn't support retaliation against hte civilians of that nation though. I agree with him. Anyone that advocates wiping out a nation seriously needs to cool off and realize exactly what the hell they are saying.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
you guys all missed dowding's point. His point was that if the UK responded with WMD against civilian targets he'd be demanding the current UK government to step down. He's a UK citizen. He doesn't want his country to respond with WMD civilians. He's also warning what will happen if the US responds with WMD against civilians.
Im not sure he had one. Dowding is kinda like Clinton - hes says "alot" but doesnt say "much."
Where it was written that the UK had any intention of using non-conventional weapons against civilian targets is unknown to me. Even if they did, I doubt they would take Dowding very seriously and step down.
In any event good Dowding, sir, you need not go nuclear (no pun intended) when someone asks you a question you cant possibly answer without looking like a hipocrate. I wonder if you have real reasons why you oppose US/UK action unless it complies with your rules, or if you've just jumped on the bandwagon - disagreeing in an attempt to appear more "schooled" than the rest of the "sheep".
The objective is to remove Saddam from power. Ill let the military commanders figure out how to do it, not the politicians, and certainly not the public. The last time we did it the other way around, we didnt fare so well.
-
Thank-you Nifty.
I explained my position on the UK front. I explained my position on WMD attacks against UK forces. I'm not a Hussein supporter. But my country is better than him and I expect better from my government.
So Saudaukar, of course I couldn't bring down the government alone. But do you really think I would be alone? There were nearly 2 million people in London a few weeks ago just protesting against the idea of a war. If the UK government ordered the use of a WMD on Baghdad can you imagine the reaction? Not only would you have millions in the streets, the whole of parliament would want Blair's head on a pole on the Tower of London.
Israel will do what Israel will do. I have no control over them - but I do have a voice in my country.
Dowding is kinda like Clinton - hes says "alot" but doesnt say "much."
lol good one
The objective is to remove Saddam from power. Ill let the military commanders figure out how to do it, not the politicians, and certainly not the public. The last time we did it the other way around, we didnt fare so well.
Oh dear. You think the deployment of nukes on civilian targets is not a political decision? On what particular planet are you living on?
The day to day conventional fighting is left to the military. Decisions that would mean the death of millions of civilians in a nuclear attack is not - and rightly so.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Oh dear. You think the deployment of nukes on civilian targets is not a political decision? On what particular planet are you living on?
The deployment of nuclear weapons should be, and is a political decision. However, since Im not aware of any plans by the Bush Administration to nuke Iraq, Iran, SK, or France, Im discussing this in conventional weapon terms.
The reason we're concerned about Iraq and South Korea is because they can be in a position to acquire these weapons within months and their political leadership is far from stable. The United States has not detonated a nuclear weapon in anger in over 50 years. How long do you think Saddam would wait if he came across one?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Israel will do what Israel will do. I have no control over them - but I do have a voice in my country.
Very good "duck" again Dowding...
Would you support the use of WMD against Iraq if they used them against Israel?
-
"Now, do you understand those points, or are there more stupid questions that need answering?"
Must be, you didn't say anything about theses.
Will you also be out in the street if Hussein uses WMDs on Israel? Or the Kurds, as the threat was reported in UK newspapers last week?
Would Israel be justified to do the same if hit with a WMD from Iraq?
Still waiting.
-
Hmm what happend to that nice nuclear research site that the French helped Iraq to build?
crabofix
-
Den Blev Mos(s)ad.......:D
-
Curiously enough, about a month ago Goeff Hoon, the UK defence secretary stated that the UK reserved the right to use nuclear weapons if neccesary to defend British Troops in any conflict. This was after a challenge by Clare Short. The implication was that we would use them in Iraq if we were put in a desperate position by the Iraqui's. He said this on Breakfast with Frost.
The specific subject of Nuclear Weapons has been discussed and a particular policy has been publically expressed. Don't know what it adds to the debate, but I thought I'd mention it.
-
After World War I, when the defeated Ottoman Empire was being carved up among the western powers, it was proposed that Kurdistan be governed by the US as a League of Nations mandate. As the Senate defeated US ratification of the Versailles Treaty and US membership in the League, the proposal became moot, and Kurdistan was divided between Turkey, the British mandate of Mesopotamia (Iraq) and the French mandate of Syria. It's interesting to speculate how different the history of this area might have been if America had accepted this mandate, and ironic that we might wind up governing a good portion of this area and more beside (unless we manage to kick the post-war stuff back to the uN)
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
From http://www.osirp.org/
Would the Iranians join Iraq against US/UK troops if and when the war beginnings?
Hehe check history of iran and then try to ask again :)))
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Didnt Iraq fly some mirage planes into Iran to hide from US?
Like 40 of em?
crabofix
well mate try to go to Iran and say I love Sadam... i guess you will some toons of rock imidietly :))))
people of iran hate sadam.... ofcourse they do not like americanos as well
but they are very friendly and decent ...
anyway i will tell you more in few weeks
-
Originally posted by babek-
2nd : Relationship between Iranians and Iraquis or Arabs
The Iranians consider the Arabs as their natural enemy.
Ask an iranian if he is an arab and he will feel deeply insulted.
The Iranians are from aryan race while arabs are from semite race. Always during the 2500 years old history of Iran there have been wars against the arabs.
In the 7th century the arabs conquered during their islamic conquest also Iran and destroyed the iranian Sassanid-dynasty Empire.
But in folling century while they occupated iranian territory they were not able to assimilite the Iranians. They were succesful in other old cultural nations - like in Egypt or Syria who gave up their specific language or religions and became part of the Arab EMpire.
But the iranians were succesful to protect their specific language, the Farsi, which is still spoken today.
Thats the reason why you will find in Iran more statues of the poets of this time than of great generals or kings who had conquered whole empires.
Thes poets were the men who had saved the iranian language and Omar Chayyam was right when he said that "the feather is stronger than the sword".
Also the Islam was modified by the Iranians.
Iran developed the Shiite religion of Islam, which has many elements of the old iranian religion which was used in the country before the islamic conquest.
Even the clothes the iranian mullahs are wearing today are the same style the old high-priests of the Sassanid Empire were wearing during the time before the arab conquest.
The idea that Iran would help Saddam is absurd.
But there is a great interest of the iranians to get more influence in Iraq, because it is the only nation beside Iran which has a shiite majority.
60% of the Iraquis are Shiites. Their religious leaders are in iranian exile. There is an army of shiite iraquis stationed in Iran near the iraqui southern border which waits to help their people when Saddam is eliminated or deposed.
Basra is the inofficial capital of the Shiites in Iraq and when the Saddam sunnite-military makes their propaganda parades through the streets of this city they feel like an occupation force in enemy territory.
When the USA will attack Iraq from the south they will we celebrated as liberators from the sunni/Saddam terror-regime.
It will be easy to kick out Saddams forces from Basra - the important question is, what happens in Basra after that event.
And the most important fact is, that in Iraq there are the most holy places of the Shiite religion. Kerbala is for Shiite of greater importance than Mekka or Jerusalem.
So - I dont think that Iran will help Saddam. They are waiting for the time after Saddam to get more influence with the shiites of Iraq.
WOW Babek ... im impresed by your exact stuff
this guy know something about that region
-
Originally posted by straffo
lol :)
naughty persian ;)
ohhhh man you dont know what are you taling about .... i trough you wanted to say ... what a lovely persian ! :D
-
Originally posted by Ddriag
Curiously enough, about a month ago Goeff Hoon, the UK defence secretary stated that the UK reserved the right to use nuclear weapons if neccesary to defend British Troops in any conflict.
Defend troops with nuclear weapons ???
LOL you will call me radical bastard , but im saying shot Mr. Goeff Hoon because he is absolutly retarded idiot
-
At the risk of sounding like Hortlund, I can see this is going straight over your heads.
Why should I be out in the streets if Saddam unleashed WMD? He's a nut-case - we know that. But my government isn't and shouldn't be. It really is as simple as that.
-
"Why should I be out in the streets if Saddam unleashed WMD"
Gee... I guess I don't know. Here's an idea, to show your condolences for the murdered Jews or Kurds that would have died for no other reason that being Jews and Kurds?
Sound like a good reason?
-
Gyro clearly missed the point. Try again.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I still don't undertand how the Shah was able to get ride of the soviet in the north of Iran after WWII.
If my memory serves me correctly, the USSR was massing troops on their border with Iran. They were given a warning by the US was we were the only country to use the Atomic Bomb on another country and wouldn't hesitate to use it again. We gave the USSR 48 hrs to withdraw their offensive troops from the border. They had it cleared in 24 hours.