If we didn't castrate the Republican Gaurd, maybe that fierce army would have protected Iraq. At one time, they were ranked as the #4 military in the world.It was #4 in size .. as in the number of people.Originally Posted by bambino
You might want to read this article:
http://kurzman.unc.edu/death-tolls-o...iran-iraq-war/
Lets "assume" the countries were correct in their estimates/disclosures:
Iraq lost about 500,000 and Iran about 750,000.
Then you might want to read this assessment:
http://www.history.com/topics/iran-iraq-war
Here is a portion (over view):
"Three things distinguish the Iran-Iraq War. First, it was inordinately protracted, lasting longer than either world war, essentially because Iran did not want to end it, while Iraq could not. Second, it was sharply asymmetrical in the means employed by each side, because though both sides exported oil and purchased military imports throughout, Iraq was further subsidized and supported by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, allowing it to acquire advanced weapons and expertise on a much larger scale than Iran. Third, it included three modes of warfare absent in all previous wars since 1945: indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks on cities by both sides, but mostly by Iraq; the extensive use of chemical weapons (mostly by Iraq); and some 520 attacks on third-country oil tankers in the Persian Gulf-for which Iraq employed mostly manned aircraft with antishipping missiles against tankers lifting oil from Iran’s terminals, while Iran used mines, gunboats, shore-launched missiles, and helicopters against tankers lifting oil from the terminals of Iraq’s Arab backers.
"When Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, quite deliberately started the war, he miscalculated on two counts: first, in attacking a country greatly disorganized by revolution but also greatly energized by it-and whose regime could be consolidated only by a long “patriotic” war, as with all revolutionary regimes; and second, at the level of theater strategy, in launching a surprise invasion against a very large country whose strategic depth he was not even trying to penetrate. Had Iran been given ample warning, it would have mobilized its forces to defend its borderlands; that would have made the Iraqi invasion much more difficult, but in the process the bulk of Iranian forces might have been defeated, possibly forcing Iran to accept a cease-fire on Iraqi terms. As it was, the initial Iraqi offensive thrusts landed in the void, encountering only weak border units before reaching their logistical limits. At that point, Iran had only just started to mobilize in earnest."
Now fast forward to 1991 to 2003.... or even today.
#1: Iraq ATTACKED IRAN before IRAN was "organized"!
#2: Iraq used ballistic missiles and chemicals.
Now explain to the world how Iraq would be able to "stop" Iran today?
That's why the "talking point" ANTI-BUSHERS on here don't know shit from shinola about what they post when they talk shit about Iraq being some "countermeasure" against Iran! They run the risk of justifying the 2003 RE-invasion.... but that's what happens when folks attack before thinking .... just like Iraq did ... more than once!
I'm going to say this, and that's all:
In the mid to late-60's there was more than one war in progress in the World.
The Israelis have shown their ability to "handle" the region effectively and efficiently. But I can understand why the Jew Haters don't want to admit such a thing.....THEN or NOW!
Go back to the small print on the Kuwait and 2003 efforts and find the Israeli "foot print" in both of them. #1 the Israelis know the "lay of the land" and had the scud sites identified during the Kuwait conflict and were monitoring the "mobile" scuds to neutralize them, #2 the Israelis get along with the Kurds WELL! Go back to 2003 how did the "Kurdish" area of Iraq turn out EARLY ON ... remember the Russian "convoy" escaping Baghdad into the "Kurdish" area .... ? Look it up.
