Why was it such a shitshow even by Middle-Eastern conflict standards?

Why was it such a shitshow even by Middle-Eastern conflict standards?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why do you care

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why was it such a shitshow even by Middle-Eastern conflict standards?
    Was it really that bad, by brown standards?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It was 7 year conflict that ended with 2 million casualties and literally no significant geographical, political, or diplomatic changes for either side. Epitome of mindless slaughter. The Korean War and Congo Wars achieved more than the Iran-Iraq War did.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wasn't it basically WW1-style trench warfare (gas attacks included)?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It also included Iran sending children into minefields to clear them. Not with tools but with their feet and bodyweight.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Too be fair the war itself didn't have a lot of direct ramifications but it would be unwise and untrue that a war that catastrophic didn't have significant knock on effects to this day. The whole gulf war and ensuing trajectory of Iraq happened bc Iraq was so decimated from the war that he thought grabbing Kuwait would be a great actual victory and major financial boon. It also entrenched the more hard line and anti US/west faction of the Islamic Republic as the war caused both an internal move to hardliner control, birthed the IRGC, brought up the current leaders of the regime in fire and caused them to be anti west because of their support for Sadam and other actions such as the airliner shoot down and intervention in the tanker war.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Samefag

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            more of a contribution than you made

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So Iraq tried going against Iran first and then, after failing, went for Kuwait as a consolation prize?
          > Kuwait is gonna be easy
          > Narrator: it wasn't

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            More or less yes but it wasn't just consolation they were deeply economically fucked and needed more revenue which they wanted to get from oil rich Kuwait.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not him but iraq attacked iran thinking it would be easier than it was for a laundry list of reasons, including an assumption of tacit us support. during the war, most arab states (excepting syria) supported iraq in various ways - for the oil-rich kuwait and saudi arabia, this support was mainly loans that the iraqis assumed would be forgiven and what was called transshipment, where iraq shipped its oil to kuwait or saudi arabia, which then sold it on the world market, in order to prevent iran from being able to legitimately attack the tankers. that the iranians still attacked kuwaiti-flagged tankers was a contributing factor in us involvement in the later stages of the war (look up operation praying mantis for one example). anyway, following the war iraq was in a pretty dire financial situation and found that kuwait and the saudis did not intend to forgive their loans and so on. the invasion of kuwait was then motivated by first wanting to seize its oil and foreign currency reserves, second wanting to eliminate any debts iraq had to kuwait, and third a much-discussed misunderstanding where saddam thought the americans were cool with his plan because they agreed with him that calling in the debt was out of line (this turned out to be wrong). for its part, saudi arabia made substantial concessions to the us precisely out of fears that iraq would invade (they also turned down an offer from osama bin laden to hang out and have the taliban fight the iraqis in the event of an invasion, but that's a different story)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >including an assumption of tacit us support
              How did Iraq always understand "we don't give a shit" as actual support is absolutely baffling. The pulled the same shit when invading Kuwait.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US sent Iraq an insane amount of weaponry and munitions during that war, as well as intelligence.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              > have the Taliban/Mujahideen fight the Iraqis in the desert storm era
              Lmao that would have been a sight to be seen

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Arab Mujahideen fighters return to Arabia to fight Iraq
                >Mostly acted as financers, hiding in Pakistan instead of fighting on the frontlines
                >Many more joined after the war turned in the Afghans favor
                >Most of their combat experience was defending fortified cave systems
                >The Arabian Desert has no caves to hide in
                >ohshit.jpeg
                >Get wrecked by Iraqi combined arms because its all open sand
                >No American support because that was one of Bin Laden's demands of the Saudi's if the Mujahedeen were to fight for him
                >50/50 chances of Bin Laden becoming a meme, icon/tragic figure in the following decades

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >where saddam thought the americans were cool with his plan
              This is the common thinking, but I do question it. After the invasion it was pretty clear the US did not support it, but they still didn't reverse course. Even when the US started deploying huge numbers of forces, they still refused to withdraw. So I wonder how mush the US's opinion mattered form the start.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well, you also have to remember when Iraqis started to rise up against Saddam during the Gulf War out of frustration, US immediately stopped fucking Iraq and helped them with helicopters to quash the protests... And during Iran-Iraq war, US was steadfast behind Iraq, even more than they have been for Ukraine right now. I wonder what would have given Saddam the impression that US was cool with him doing whatever... hmmm ....

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >US immediately stopped fucking Iraq and helped them with helicopters to quash the protests...
                what/ I've never heard of that

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not sure what the other anon meant but it's complicated. The timings of this are complex in historical and geopolitical context, and much has been lost or interpreted differently since. But at the time, right after the "five-week military operation" against Iraq, in the aftermath, there were uprisings among the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south of Iraq. Saddam's forces really brutally suppressed these, and US-led coalition didn't interfere at all, and there are documents allegedly that show they indirectly helped with intelligence and material in those suppression, because they were afraid that Iraq would dissolve and become a failed state otherwise, and they needed it as a buffer against Iran and Syria at the time.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >US immediately stopped fucking Iraq and helped them with helicopters to quash the protests...
                what/ I've never heard of that

                Well, you also have to remember when Iraqis started to rise up against Saddam during the Gulf War out of frustration, US immediately stopped fucking Iraq and helped them with helicopters to quash the protests... And during Iran-Iraq war, US was steadfast behind Iraq, even more than they have been for Ukraine right now. I wonder what would have given Saddam the impression that US was cool with him doing whatever... hmmm ....

                There's a really detailed set of info here if you are curious about the Helicopters. https://www.cfr.org/blog/remembering-iraqi-uprising-twenty-five-years-ago

                >Moreover, during the ceasefire negotiations after the Gulf War, General Norman Schwarzkopf of the UN coalition forces allowed Iraq to fly helicopters, including armed gunships. This decision was made without instructions from the Pentagon or White House and was based on Iraq’s request to transport government officials over destroyed roads and bridges. However, Saddam Hussein’s regime used these helicopters as gunships to suppress the uprisings.

                >he US also restrained the uprisings by refusing to provide captured Iraqi weapons or munitions stockpiles to the insurgents. Instead, these were destroyed, returned to Iraqis, or transferred to Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US left the Kurds out to dry and the Kurds were *still* friendly with the US to the present day.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Multiple times at that! The number of times US has abandoned or betrayed Kurds is at least a handful in the past 33 years.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >get blamed for maintaining Iraq
                >get blamed for invading Iraq
                What else is there?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We really shouldn't have been involved in that region at all, everything we've done has just made things worse. From supporting Iraq against Iran, which came back to bite us, to the Gulf War, which destabilized the region, to support of Israel, to arming rebels in Afghanistan, to the obvious 2000's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course all the bombings against Syria and Iraq fighting ISIS, after we had destabilized the whole region arming rebels against Assad... That entire region hates the US government and military now, and all we've done is create more extremists and more terrorists and pushing everybody further towards Russia, China and Iran.

                Lose lose lose 🙁

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Lose lose lose 🙁
                Unless you're a politician, a journalist, or a defense contractor executive, in which case it's been win win win since the Bush administration.

                If you're a taxpayer or a soldier, though, then you can get fucked and get tinnitus.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Still have to topple Iran so the entire region is destabilized. Then the oilwells can be secured like in northern Syria with a few bases. Same as Iraq. The region has always, and always be a shithole of shitflinging savages, they can sort themselves out once the last drop of black gold has been sucked out of that barren landscape.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ah yes, the US should have let al-qaeda continue to operate and attack the US with impunity. Ah yes, the US should let mudslimes take over Israel. Ah yes, the US should have let Sassam build nuclear weapon. And that's to say nothing about the moral obligation to destroy the evil in the world.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, we had no business going there. Al Qaeda, Taliban, Saddam, etc. were all our or the brits' creations anyway. Iran's mostly our or the Brits and French's fault too.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                [...]
                There's a really detailed set of info here if you are curious about the Helicopters. https://www.cfr.org/blog/remembering-iraqi-uprising-twenty-five-years-ago

                >Moreover, during the ceasefire negotiations after the Gulf War, General Norman Schwarzkopf of the UN coalition forces allowed Iraq to fly helicopters, including armed gunships. This decision was made without instructions from the Pentagon or White House and was based on Iraq’s request to transport government officials over destroyed roads and bridges. However, Saddam Hussein’s regime used these helicopters as gunships to suppress the uprisings.

                >he US also restrained the uprisings by refusing to provide captured Iraqi weapons or munitions stockpiles to the insurgents. Instead, these were destroyed, returned to Iraqis, or transferred to Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

                thx bro

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To be fair, Kuwait itself actually was really easy. Iraqis steamrolled it in two days with minimal casualties. It was the successive invasion by the US that Kuwait triggered when things got bad.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which really shows how much of a nagger Saddam was, since Kuwait were the ones who'd been financially backing him and letting him use their oil tankers for Iraqi oil (which were protected by the US).
            This even let to a small funni when a US frigate hit an Iranian mine and Uncle Sam "proportionately responded" 3/4 of the Iranian navy to the sea floor.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So, it was a peer conflict that ended up in a tie. Who'd thought. If only we had some war going on to see similarities.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > literally no significant geographical, political, or diplomatic changes for either side.
        This has got to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read On this board. I refuse to believe this is a genuine comment by a rational human being.
        A simple browse on Wikipedia is enough disprove your worlds tenfold.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >A simple browse on Wikipedia is enough disprove your worlds tenfold.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            For territorial changes sure, but the political and diplomatic ramifications are especially far reaching even to this very day.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, religion of peace at work.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >I have a theory that the schizo is the same one that had meltdowns over any random picture of Russian equipment and called everyone either armatard or “armatard false flaggers”
    You know there may be multiple schizos on this board, right?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They forgot to toggle off God Wants You Dead mode in the options

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what did they fight over?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nominally some Arab diaspora in Iran on the border with Iraq that "needed to be liberated"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Conveniently located where Iran's active oil wells were at the time.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          To be fair, the guys did actually exist. The Iranian Embassy Siege was just a few months before the start of the war, and it was done by that Arab diaspora trying to get Iran to give them independence. Iran basically laughed in everyone's faces, said they gave no shits about the terrorists, the British hostages, nor their own embassy staff, and left the bongs to pick up the mess.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            oh they absolutely existed, I was just implying Saddam's goal was to take over the oil fields rather than give those Arabs independence or free them from Iran. And hey, we got some of the most kino SAS footage out of that embassy hostage crisis. And MP5's sainthood.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It could easily be a two-birds-one-stone. Ba'athism (Saddam's political party) is an ideology that I would unironically describe as "NatSoc for Arabs", in that it's a totalitarian pan-Arabic Socialist party. They even nearly merged with Syria back before the Assad family, but negotiations fell through around the time they had to decide who was going to get to be in charge.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                fair point, yes. we also started fundamental islamic extremism to fight off arab nationalism and that came back to bite us hard.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                fundamentalist*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So it was the Bongs fault all along, it explains everything!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              everything wrong with iran came from a combination of british, russian, french and eventually US constant interference in their business.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Don’t forget the Persians

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >french
                ?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you think their language has so much French loanwords? Who do you think housed and assisted Khomeini during his exile IN FRANCE?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >No clear objectives/"win" conditions
    >Genocidal fundamentalists on both sides
    >Arabs
    >Unlimited oil money to buy weapons from white people (and Russians)
    >Already mentioned Arabs, but uncivilized political leadership that can't accept anything but the complete and utter defeat of their enemies to keep up strongman appearances

    Idk why do you think

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Arabs
      iranians are not arabs though

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Part of Iran is Arab, which was one of the justifications of invading and occupying Iran.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because you had two relatively strong centralized governments with large populations that had both been armed to the teeth by the Americans and Soviets.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The most gruesome thing I've ever heard about some war came from this conflict.
    I don't know why but the idea of "electrified swamps" killing child soldiers it's fucking brutal and surreal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't know why but the idea of "electrified swamps" killing child soldiers it's fucking brutal and surreal.
      That's what happens when you have modern technology and opposing death cult ideologies.
      Shit gets pretty violent.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nihilistic death-cults are as close as we've gotten to fantasy demonic cultists.

        >They made their way through the marshes, gathering up the dead Iranian soldiers like dynamite fishermen harvesting a day’s catch. Working methodically, the Iraqis piled the corpses on top of one another in the water in head-to-toe stacks, five bodies high and five across.
        >Together, the human piles formed long rows, the width of a troop truck, the top layers above the water’s surface. Each row extended in a straight line through the marshes from the Iraqis’ positions toward the Iranian border. Finally, the rows were sprinkled with lime and covered over with a foot-thick tier of desert sand.
        >It was the Iraqi method of road building, using the bodies of their enemies to construct assault routes for tanks and trucks.

        It's positively Assyrian. I don't know what it is, there is something fundamental in the soil of Mesopotamia itself that makes man like that. That, or way back in 1100 BC someone established a trend of savagery that got baked into the genetics.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They're semites. Same reason israelites have been murdering children in Europe for centuries - it's in their DNA to be like that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            *Islam

            FTFY

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm suspecting the guy with a hard on for just blaming Islam is JIDF given this level of mindless brutality predates either modern Judaism or the slightest wiff of Islam. Everyone else and you get momentary lapses of brutalism but over there it's been the modus operandi from the get go.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Board got flooded with JIDF on the 7th. Before that it was just that one Zionist from California posting randomly about how israelites rock. I’ve never seen the catalog move as fast as it did during the first few days of this conflict. Faster than anything with Ukraine/Russia. Makes you think.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Board got flooded with JIDF on the 7th
                a year and half ago you were whining about so called hohol shills "suddenly" appearing as everybody and their dogs was shitting on VEH DEH VEH. It must be a real source of seethe for turdies like you to realize nobody likes you under no circumstance. Even da joos are a preferred option every time then you

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No I wasn’t, I hate Russians and I like war history. The Ukraine war is perfect for me in that regard. I’m not sure why anyone on /k/ gets mad at people for talking about active conflicts on the board. Honestly, I’m not even sure what the point of your post is. It didn’t disagree or discount mine, it’s just an assumption that I’m from the third world. It would be one thing if the hohols actively tried to control the narrative but there’s plenty of pro Russian threads on here that stay up for a while. Nothing pro-Palestine stays up, nothing even anti-Israel stays up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This

                Weapons are part of war, talking about some LARPer's pew pew collection is boring AF.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NTA, they key is to not be a seething retard. Even if an OP is within tolerable rules, if the poster goes off and starts acting like a retard in another thread and eats a ban, all his posts get purged off the catalog, including thread starters, which in turn takes the thread with them. This then creates a feedback loop, because people see threads supporting /myteam/ get pruned, assume the moderation is working against them, and chimp out of their own accord, causing the cycle to begin anew.

                tl;dr, just post a thread about something Hamas/Russia posted without acting like a fucking monkey, it shouldn't be that fucking hard.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Good post but you misunderstood mine. I’m saying that I don’t think everyone that posts pro-Palestine stuff is a psycho and there is a noticeable shift in the catalogs whenever something fairly sane gets posted, and it’s been prevalent since Oct 8. Basically, while what you’re saying is true, I still think there is an undercurrent of narrative framing from outside parties who target websites like this for propaganda purposes. Considering it’s PrepHole and Israel, aka the nerdy forgotten white kids and the israelites, yeah I’m gonna assume the JIDF takes extra care to work harder here because of the demographic. Fuckers here talk about the turner diaries in sincerity for gods sake. This is the exact place the JIDF targets.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't know what it is, it's like the something got in the soil and taints them.

          It's Islam, buddy. In whatever flavor they have it. Save the fedora-tipping, or some babble about Assyrians or whoever. Islam changed them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Reddit Frog Spammer
      >A little bitch

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Great so there's a slight chance behind every pepe poster there's a fugly chick that could ruin my life?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The evidence for such events and even claims such as the “keys to heaven” are likely fabricated due to the immense amount of propaganda’s released by both sides. It’s easy to believe such claims as both sides did do a lot of nasty things to each each other in the span of 8 years ranging from targeting of civilians, chemical attacks, mass executions, ethnic cleansing, and more. Iran and Iraq tried everything they could to get an upper hand in highly contested areas on the front, ranging from the Mesopotamian marshlands, open desert, the hills and mountains of Kurdistan, and even international shipping lanes of the Gulf.

      The US sent Iraq an insane amount of weaponry and munitions during that war, as well as intelligence.

      Many nations did. Some eastern nations even outright supported both sides. China for example was pumping out type 59 tanks as fast as it could make them. There were even times where tank orders for both Iran and Iraq shared the same production lines.

      The US left the Kurds out to dry and the Kurds were *still* friendly with the US to the present day.

      US was not obligated to assist the Kurds at the time, many of the Kurdish groups were leftists aligned and even supported the PKK, which was having a very active and violent insurgency in NATO member turkey. Arming the Kurds in Iraq would inevitably arm Kurdish separatists in turkey and harm relations with Ankara and the Turkish army.
      Also the “kurds” aren’t some collective, even though many groups are underneath a left wing umbrella. Some Kurds are extremely devout Muslims, some are right wing nationalists, some are deeply embedded into tribal and clan culture. Iraqi Kurdistan even had their own civil war back in the 1990s due to competing ideologies, politician factions, and foreign governments fighting for power and influence in the region.

      Also (some) of Iraq’s Kurds are friendly with the nation of turkey despite the PKK’s decades long insurgency. The KDP led by the Barzani clan are friendly with turkey and let them strike PKK within the territory of autonomous Kurdistan. Turkey even assisted the peshmerga fighting against ISIS.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >even supported the PKK, which was having a very active and violent insurgency in NATO member turkey
        Turkey are not an ally and should be treated like trash.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Army crippled by military junta being removed from power islamists vs Arab army.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it wasn't your average Middle Eastern slap fight. It was in White Nationalist terminology a Racial Holy War. A conflict that pit a totalitarian Sunni Arab Fascist state against a Shia Persian-dominated theocracy, with the Kurds caught in the middle. It was the culmination of a millennia of hatred between Arabs and Persians who viewed each other not only spiritually corrupted and inferior, but straight up racially subhuman as well.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's not how it started but that is indeed what it turned into after about a year or two. That is some good description and analogy there.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You are sitting on the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world (at the time), you have absolute power and you’re friend with the largest power in the world and the local one. Your futur is bright, how do you fuck that up?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are you talking about Putin’s Russia?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Spooks playing both sides.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine ww1 with incompetent Arabs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They’re only incompetent because the British purposefully trained them wrong, as a joke

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The whole world was against Iran and they still won

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Iran had multiple benefactors come and go. They had the legacy of the Shah’s competent military, which at first was highly scrutinized by the newly found Islamic government. They also mobilized the population and used religious fever to their advantage in ruling people up to support the new government and fight despite some great odds. This sentiment carried them to expel the iraqi’s from their country but to also invade Iraq itself and take the war to Iraq and try and capture the coveted city of Karbala, which is a very important place in Shia Islam.
        Iran also had a decent MIC at the begging of the war and still sold a shit ton of oil to parts of the world.

        The US left the Kurds out to dry and the Kurds were *still* friendly with the US to the present day.

        I also forgot to mention that the 2003 invasion saw a greater liberation of the Kurdistan region thus cementing the current autonomous government we see today.
        The PKK offshoot, YPG tried a similar thing in Syria but rebranded itself as Rojava because all the non-Kurds in Northern Syria has little fucking tolerance to be part of a Kurdish collective.It also helps that the YPG also have intellect to not use the same tactics as the PKK such as committing terror attacks, killing government workers and innocent people such as school teachers, getting involved in the drug trade, and so on. Too bad for them, as turkey still sees them the same as the PKK and as a hurdle in establishing a puppet state in northern Syria.
        While the world watched Israel and Ukraine, Turkey is going to town in northern Syria with air strikes of its own and is slowly expanding TFSA influence.
        The US is powerless to stop any of this. It’s presence in the region is minimal compared to turkey and the importance of US-Turkish relations is more important than with Syrian Kurds.

        Imagine ww1 with incompetent Arabs

        In WW1 the Arabs weren’t actually incompetent. Thankfully they were backed by the Brit’s and the ottomans were the sick man of Europe (and Asia).

        Great so there's a slight chance behind every pepe poster there's a fugly chick that could ruin my life?

        feelsbadman.png

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The one time Iran planned a successful strike on Iraq’s heavily defended Nuclear facility
    >A rare move where Iran shared intel with Israel to finish the job a year later
    This war is filled with utterly bizarre combos of alliances.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Incompetant Iraqi's with mid weapons fighting suicidal human waves of underequipped fanatics. Perfect mix for a disaster

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *