Timeline for Who gained more successes in Iran-Iraq war?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2023 at 8:49 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | And exactly how much Iranian influence was reduced is also pretty hard to assess. See for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Brothers which however pitted the Syrian-backed faction against Hezbollah. Syria and Iraq also competed, to the point where Assad (the elder) even took part in the first Gulf War. | |
| Jul 21, 2023 at 8:31 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica: The last para of the answer is also patently ridiculous. The Gulf countries had nothing to show for for backing up Saddam in the end. Kuwait got invaded as "repayment" when it refused to write off the loans etc. Yeah, the GCC may have cashed in a bit more on their own oil sales, and may have stemmed the spreading of the Iranian influence a little, but on the balance of things, it's really hard to say the GCC came up ahead. | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 8:13 | comment | added | Rekesoft | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Your data would be better supported if, a) you put your ad-hominen attacks where the Sun doesn't shine - I'm questioning this answer's conclusions that the West gained much with this war, not making an anti-US rant, b) Iran-Iraq war was from 1980 to 1988, while your data covers a twice longer interval, c) Given that, as you say, most of those sales were on credit, are you sure money was paid? Boasting about weapon sales is a common tactic to make the arms industry more acceptable by the public. I don't think there were any paiments after the Kuwait war. | |
| Jul 19, 2023 at 15:49 | comment | added | Italian Philosophers 4 Monica | @Rekesoft hardly a major revenue for western companies You plain don't know what you are talking about. I am French and lived in France near the tail end of the Iraq War. liberation.fr/planete/2010/09/21/… : From 1972 to 1988, 90 combat planes, 150 helicopters, 560 armored vehicles, 81 self-propelled guns and more than 15,000 missiles of all types were thus delivered to Saddam Hussein's army, enabling French manufacturers to earn more twenty billion dollars. You can be anti-US all you want, but please be factual. | |
| Jul 19, 2023 at 7:44 | comment | added | Rekesoft | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Saddam didn't had to travel to Washington and talk with Reagan to know that the US will see with good eyes his attack on Iran and wouldn't intervene except to help him. He could read that on the newspaper. A brutal murderous dictator, maybe, but not an idiot. And even your own link acknowledges that. It also says that Iraq received and/or purchased billions of weapons from Soviet countries, so it was hardly a major revenue for western companies. Total purchases from the West are probably under two billions, which is the minimum amount you can use the plural with. | |
| Jul 19, 2023 at 0:07 | comment | added | Italian Philosophers 4 Monica | @Rekesoft about doubting billions very much. Much of the gear sold to Iraq was on credit. Lots by Germany and France (much more than direct US weapons sales). At least in the case of France, much was also underwritten by the state export insurance coverage. It's not that difficult to do the financial setup to sell now based on future oil revenues. In short, you are wrong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Re. "knowing he had the USA's backing", citations please. | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 8:54 | comment | added | Rekesoft | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Saddam had an obsession with Iran just like Hitler had an obsession with the URSS. No need to push him to attack Iran, he did it on his own. That said, Saddam attacked knowing he had the USA backing. While the official position of the USA was one of neutrality (even selling weapons to both sides) facts on the ground included constant skirmishes with iranian vessels (initiated by the USA, not by Iran), one of them ending in the downing of a civilian airliner, or quickly brushing aside Iraq's attack on USS Stark. | |
| Jul 17, 2023 at 22:39 | comment | added | user366312 | @Rekesoft, I doubt very much that the amount of weapons sold to two ruined Middle East countries would be "billions". --- You have to take into account that the West also sold arms to GCC by showing them Saddam as a boogeyman. | |
| Jul 17, 2023 at 17:08 | comment | added | Italian Philosophers 4 Monica | The way this answer is phrased sounds almost as if the West got the war started. Thing is, Saddam was a Soviet-backed tyrant, who IIRC had a fondness for Hitler and fancied that his great military genius would let him pull off a Guderian on his enfeebled and divided neighbor that he'd been squabbling with. The West may have helped him to avoid a spreading Iranian revolution, but that war was initiated by his stupidity only. You could also say that the war cemented the Ayatollahs' hold on Iran, so hardly a win win for the West. | |
| Jul 17, 2023 at 8:40 | comment | added | Rekesoft | Your first point is unclear. You probably wanted to say that the war "prevented", rather than "helped", the iranian revolution from spilling to other parts of the Middle East. However, it's not clear how this would have happened. I don't see why Iraq's use of chemical weapons was a downside for the USA (the only "West" remotely involved in the war). I doubt very much that the amount of weapons sold to two ruined Middle East countries would be "billions". The Iran-Contra papers mention just $47M for Iran. Iran is considered the winner just like Ukraine will be the winner if it survives. | |
| Jul 16, 2023 at 18:26 | vote | accept | Snack Exchange | ||
| Jul 16, 2023 at 17:39 | history | edited | user366312 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 998 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2023 at 17:34 | history | edited | user366312 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 998 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2023 at 17:24 | history | edited | user366312 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 74 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2023 at 17:17 | history | answered | user366312 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |