Iran demands $1 trillion in compensation from Iraq

[ASHISH67]

Ahmadinejad has lost it

BAGHDAD: Iran demands $1 trillion U.S. dollars in compensation from Iraq for the damage done to the country during the Gulf war, a local news agency quoted an Iranian lawmaker as saying.

“According to UN estimates, the Islamic Republic of Iran demands $1 trillion U.S. dollars in compensation from Iraq in compensation for the damage caused by the war,” said the head of the foreign relations committee in the Iranian Shura Council, Hassan Ibrahimi, according to the news agency.

In response to what the Iranian news agency described as “allegations of the Iranian seizure of an oil well in Iraq,” Ibrahimi said that his country “will never have a dispute with Iraq.”

“The issue will be resolved by means of diplomatic dialogue,” he added. The Iranian ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, had denied reports that Iranian soldiers seized an oil well in Missan.

During an emergency meeting on Friday, Iraq’s National Security Council considered an Iranian force’s incursion into an oilfield as “violation of the country’s sovereignty,” demanding “the immediate withdrawal and removal of the Iranian flag from the well tower in the field,” according to the Iraqi government’s official spokesman.

The spokesperson said 11 Iranian soldiers had taken control of the Fakka oilfield in a remote desert area of southeastern Iraq, in a “violation of Iraqi sovereignty.”

Iraq demanded an immediate withdrawal from well No. 4 and the Fakka oilfield, saying it was looking for a peaceful and diplomatic settlement to the issue.

Iraqi officials said the Iranian soldiers crossed into Iraqi territory on Friday and raised the Iranian flag at Fakka, whose ownership is disputed by Iran.

http://www.geo.tv/12-20-2009/55138.htm

[Ulytau]

How much we ''Turkiye'' must demand than :|

[3rdMillhouse]

Hey, I want some compensations too.

[Estopped]

They do have a right to compensation. There is no doubt about that. To dismiss 8 years of war and 500,000 Iranians dead is akin to trivialising the holocaust, or other wars that exacted a heavy price. It's wrong on either side. If I can remember correctly the other arab states have not forgiven Iraq for the gulf war and still want compensation.

The question is whether they gave up that right and, if they didn't give up that right, whether it would sour relations between them to a point where it would be better to forego compensation in return for a strategic return in the future.

[3rdMillhouse]

They do have a right to compensation. There is no doubt about that. To dismiss 8 years of war and 500,000 Iranians dead is akin to trivialising the holocaust, or other wars that exacted a heavy price. It's wrong on either side. If I can remember correctly the other arab states have not forgiven Iraq for the gulf war and still want compensation.

The question is whether they gave up that right and, if they didn't give up that right, whether it would sour relations between them to a point where it would be better to forego compensation in return for a strategic return in the future.

Waiiiiiit.... that war that started with the invasion of Kwait lasted for 8 years and killed 500k iranians? News to me.

[Estopped]

Waiiiiiit.... that war that started with the invasion of Kwait lasted for 8 years and killed 500k iranians? News to me.

forgive me, but are you just purposefully stupid?

[ting]

Waiiiiiit.... that war that started with the invasion of Kwait lasted for 8 years and killed 500k iranians? News to me.

:roll:

1234567

[Mordoror]

Waiiiiiit.... that war that started with the invasion of Kwait lasted for 8 years and killed 500k iranians? News to me.

:cantbeli::cantbeli:

you know what ?
there was a BIG HUGE war before the so called GW1
and it was a try by Irak to invade Iran and seize the oil field in the south of the country
in that war Irak used bombers and MRBM against civilian targets (cities) and WMD against badly protected Iranian troops resulting in 30-50 000 killed by combat gases only (not a very nice way to go when you have to puke your lunges bit by bit because of mustard gas effect)

you may not like Iran but from an international rules point of view iranians have the right to ask for compensation as it was a war of agression against their country

[SBL]

BAGHDAD: Iran demands $1 trillion U.S. dollars in compensation from Iraq for the damage done to the country during the Gulf war, a local news agency quoted an Iranian lawmaker as saying.
Typo, methinks.

[3rdMillhouse]

You gentlemen might wanna educate yourselves on what the term "GULF WAR" means. Here's pro tip: it's not used as a reference to the Iran-Iraq War.

[ASHISH67]

Typo, methinks.

not my fault :-P:-P

[Backpacker]

You gentlemen might wanna educate yourselves on what the term "GULF WAR" means. Here's pro tip: it's not used as a reference to the Iran-Iraq War.
Actually, yes it is.
The term has been hijacked more-or-less by the Americans to describe Desert Storm. I've read plenty of literature referring to the Iran-Iraq war as the Gulf War.

[Estopped]

You gentlemen might wanna educate yourselves on what the term "GULF WAR" means. Here's pro tip: it's not used as a reference to the Iran-Iraq War.

The article clearly refers to the Iran-Iraq war. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[Telmar]

You gentlemen might wanna educate yourselves on what the term "GULF WAR" means. Here's pro tip: it's not used as a reference to the Iran-Iraq War.

Anyways, you could have at least a drop of common sense.

[Telmar]

They do have a right to compensation. There is no doubt about that. To dismiss 8 years of war and 500,000 Iranians dead is akin to trivialising the holocaust, or other wars that exacted a heavy price. It's wrong on either side. If I can remember correctly the other arab states have not forgiven Iraq for the gulf war and still want compensation.

The question is whether they gave up that right and, if they didn't give up that right, whether it would sour relations between them to a point where it would be better to forego compensation in return for a strategic return in the future.


If they are filing this in just now, they might as well forget it.

[Bolshoy]

You gentlemen might wanna educate yourselves on what the term "GULF WAR" means. Here's pro tip: it's not used as a reference to the Iran-Iraq War.

Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was before Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and operation desert storm, the Gulf War...

If thats what you don't get...

[LineDoggie]

I believe he also wants reparations for Iran being Occupied during WWII by the Soviet Union, UK & USA

[FlintHillBilly]

Wow. He really wants US dollars. What a surprise. Thought he didnt like the dollar and was one of those that were pushing to drop it?

[Mordoror]

You gentlemen might wanna educate yourselves on what the term "GULF WAR" means. Here's pro tip: it's not used as a reference to the Iran-Iraq War.

here is another pro tip : get your fact straights when you try to look smart giving a tip to others

[Tyon]

Hm 1 Trillion short or long scale?

[kecemplunglagi]

They're THAT broke after all those centrifuges building so they need USD 1 Trillion? Do they want it in cash as well?

[speckfire]

Are they taking out the cost of the planes that Saddam flew there in the 1st gulf war? Or are they still paying rent to Iraq ;)

[3rdMillhouse]

The article clearly refers to the Iran-Iraq war.
No, it doesn't.

[khukuri]

They do have a right to compensation. There is no doubt about that. To dismiss 8 years of war and 500,000 Iranians dead is akin to trivialising the holocaust, or other wars that exacted a heavy price. It's wrong on either side. If I can remember correctly the other arab states have not forgiven Iraq for the gulf war and still want compensation.

The question is whether they gave up that right and, if they didn't give up that right, whether it would sour relations between them to a point where it would be better to forego compensation in return for a strategic return in the future.

from wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War



Saddam decided to withdraw his armed forces completely from Iran, deploying them along the international border between Iraq and Iran.....



A Saudi Arabia-backed plan to end the war agreed to by Iraq included $70 billion in war reparations to be paid by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf on behalf of Iraq, and complete the Iraqi evacuation from Iranian territory - an offer called by some critics of Iranian government as "extraordinarily favorable to Iran."[32] Iran rejected Iraq's offer, demanding the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, the repatriation of 100,000 Shi'ites expelled from Iraq before the war, and $150 billion in war reparations.[citation needed]

On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi declared to "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem".[27] This matched a comment made by Khomeini on the issue of a truce with Iraq: "There are no conditions. The only condition is that the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic."[33]

I dont like Saddam, but afaik the iranina can go and f themselves. Not only have they supported terrorist groups in iraq (sadr) but they have caused trouble all over the m east.

[Cedan]

They should be paid in Zimbabwean dollars

[Ordie]

The Iranians are possibly doing another Galteiri as a means to diflect attention away from doemestic woes.

[SilentType]

I demand Iran pay the United States of America $1 Trillion dollars for taking hostages at our Embassy.

I demand that the check be made out payable to me.

[Dercius]

They should tell them, Irak is under new management, for claims related with the previous regime you should contact central office of Baath party which lies over there (while pointing towards a pile of smouldering rubble) p-)

[F-14A]

Saddam decided to withdraw his armed forces completely from Iran, deploying them along the international border between Iraq and Iran.....
False and very inaccurate statement !

1) Saddam's Iraq invaded Iran on 22nd Sept 1980 and couple months into invasion and Iraqi Armed Forces maximum penetration into Iranian lands Saddam in speech boasted how he had seized Appox 20,000 square kilometres of Iranian lands by force.

2) On Iranian side after war fronts stabilised, Iranian authorities estimated the land seized by Saddam Iraq Armed Forces from Iran amounted to approx 15,000 square kilometres.

3) During 1981 and first half of 1982, in series of Four offensives which ended with liberation of largest city occupied by Iraqi Forces i.e. Khoramshahr, Iranian Armed Forces had liberated Appox 10,000 square kilometres of lands seized from beginning by Saddam and his Generals from Iran.

4) After Liberation of Iranian Port of Khoramshar, with Iraqi Army having suffered its biggest setback, (one on series of Four offensives), low on morale, having just lost 19,000 POW in just one offensive, on orders of Saddam decided to withdraw from Iranian held territory and ask for ceasefire .

5) The problem with Saddam so called Withdrawal and request for Ceasefire was that after all the PR Iraqi Armed forces only withdrew from 2,500 square kilometres of remaining occupied territories.

6) In mid 1982 even after so called withdrawal by Iraqi Army, they (a) stayed inside Iranian borders virtually across entire 1,300 km border by around 1 to 2 km (b) across sections like Schlamcheh, Taleyeh, Fakeh, Mehran, Qar-shirn etc they actually retained entire large section of Iranian lands on border. This amounted to remaining 2,500 square kilometres of occupied territories Iraq still held after so called withdrawal..

7) To add insult to injury when actual Towns were evacuated in Saddam withdrawal, the actual towns like Qas-Shirm disappeared from maps (bulldozed, dynamited, completely Flattened to ground level, with no building standing except for towns main mosque which was spared because on early days of was in Sept 1980 Saddam visited it to gloat and thus the mosque was renamed "Saddam mosque and there you could not destroy anything that carried Saddam name !!!)

The simple question for any body looking at above from Neutral position would be, would you have stopped the war with crazy dictator Saddam Hussein in mid 1982 with above situation on Ground when his forces where still holding seized lands ? Would you just forgot about the Bloodbath they started and suffering they imposed on your country population ?

If your confused think about WWII, and moments after Allies liberated France in 1944, and ask yourself should Allies just stopped on French border and said well we stop now, and lets Kiss and make up Mr Hitler ?

Would you not go after the AGRESSOR who started the war and try bring those to justice that started the war, compensate those involved, make sure the same people could not do same again ?







A Saudi Arabia-backed plan to end the war agreed to by Iraq included $70 billion in war reparations to be paid by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf on behalf of Iraq, and complete the Iraqi evacuation from Iranian territory
All above only existed in media and there was never a formal approach or offer between governments.

Would you stopped just based on what some media outlets suggested unofficially ? ..... don't think so ...



NOTE on Maps: Apart from most of territory that was still occupied by 1985 and reversals in battlefields Saddam Iraqi Army managed to seize more territory during closing stages of war in 1988 on borders. After invasion of Kuwait in 1990 Saddam withdrew from these 2,500 sqm to free troops to face upcoming war with coalition.


BTW, please note on maps there are Two geographical locations opposite one another sharing the same name "Fakka" ....... on Iraqi side of border, the other on Iranian side ...... With a road running through both and linking the two nations there ......... site of a lot battles during 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

[khukuri]

The simple question for any body looking at above from Neutral position would be, would you have stopped the war with crazy dictator Saddam Hussein in mid 1982 with above situation on Ground when his forces where still holding seized lands ? Would you just forgot about the Bloodbath they started and suffering they imposed on your country population ?




Yeas I would, at least If I would have wanted to ask for 1trillion dollar 20 years later.

Im all up for busting Saddams ass, thats not the point of this. The point is, you cant claim damages for a 10 year war if you had the chance of truce after 2 years.

Now you point out the 2500 sq km thingy, for now, your word word stands against whatever source wikipedia uses. Im not saying you are wrong, just that there is no proof to what you say, or what wikipedia states.

Anyhow, if Iran wants a cent of these 1 trillion dollars it should have stopped supporting Sadrs thugs, a couple of year ago that is!

[tanks_alot]

The simple question for any body looking at above from Neutral position would be, would you have stopped the war with crazy dictator Saddam Hussein in mid 1982 with above situation on Ground when his forces where still holding seized lands ? Would you just forgot about the Bloodbath they started and suffering they imposed on your country population ?

If your confused think about WWII, and moments after Allies liberated France in 1944, and ask yourself should Allies just stopped on French border and said well we stop now, and lets Kiss and make up Mr Hitler ?

Would you not go after the AGRESSOR who started the war and try bring those to justice that started the war, compensate those involved, make sure the same people could not do same again ?


If my brilliant war plan involved flooding the enemy positions with human waves of unarmed children, then yes, i would most certainly have signed a cease fire, got my Stalin style politically cleansed army into shape and then started fantasizing again about how i will install Islamic regimes all the way to Jerusalem.

[Clockwinder]

The statute of limitations ran out years ago. . More deflection and distraction. Maybe the people beaten to death in Iranian prisons of late could expect some compensation?

[deagle]

those bastards !

they waited for inflation to jack up !!

[Estopped]

Yeas I would, at least If I would have wanted to ask for 1trillion dollar 20 years later.

Im all up for busting Saddams ass, thats not the point of this. The point is, you cant claim damages for a 10 year war if you had the chance of truce after 2 years.

Yes, you can.
Germany was paying compensation long after WW2 finished.



Anyhow, if Iran wants a cent of these 1 trillion dollars it should have stopped supporting Sadrs thugs, a couple of year ago that is!

It's not relevant to the issue.

[F-14A]

Now you point out the 2500 sq km thingy, for now, your word word stands against whatever source wikipedia uses. Im not saying you are wrong, just that there is no proof to what you say, or what wikipedia states.
Below is quote from Page 24 of 824 page final report to congress on conduct of the Persian Gulf War issued 1992 in USA

"QUOTE"
Concern was heightened by Saddam's sudden reversal of his position regarding sovereignty of the Shatt-Al-Arab. In a surprise move, he accepted the "thalweg" (the centre of navigational channel) as the sovereign boundary between the two countries. He further withdrew all Iraqi forces from Iranian territory seized in 1988 offensives, In essence he gave up all he had won in eight years of war with Iran.
"UN-QUOTE"

If you get time to review the events from back in 1990 you can read about:
- Saddam opening letters to Iranian authorities
- Sudden agreement to withdraw from occupied lands, release of POW etc
all after two years of stalling during negotiations in Geneva

[The Mighty Quinn]

This guy reminds me of Dr. Evil....one trillion dollars ah ah ah ah

[Silent Reader]

This guy reminds me of Dr. Evil....one trillion dollars ah ah ah ah


its just US-dollars... so not that much *hides* p-)

[Dean1962]

While Iraq was responsible for that war, Iran's request should be rejected for a number of reasons. First of all, the current Iraqi government was no more responsible for that was than I was, and with the recent policy and government shifts that have taken place, I do not believe that the current Iraqi government is well placed to even begin negotiating any such payout. After all, most of the people who made the political, strategic and even the tactical decisions during that war are now dead. How convenient.
In addition, if Iran wants a payout, I believe that Iraq is also within its rights to ask for one as well. IIRC, Saddam Hussein asked for a truce and cessation of hostilities on several occasions, but he was turned down every time by Ayatollah Khomeini's government. Then in late June 1982, Iran attacked and invaded Iraq. It seems to me that the Iraqis did indeed start the war, but the only reason that it lasted eight years was the intransigence of the Iranians. So if Ahmadinejad wants a payout from another government, he should start figuring out his payment to Iraq, because Iranian actions were directly responsible for the destruction of the Iraqi economy. In fact, the war virtually ruined the economies of both belligerents. Any payouts would probably be about equal.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I'm sure it would only go to important things like nuclear weapons; oops I mean peaceful nuclear power plants.

Maybe the Iraqis could teach the Persians some Greek:
"You want $1 trillion ... ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ"

In all seriousness. It's a issue for the Iraqis.

I'm going to guess it is going to be a lower priority issue, behind things like infrastructure, education, defense, etc.

[bbsh]

The Iranians know how the world will respond to articles like these and how ludicrous demands like these might seem to the average person and thats exactly why they are making them.

Consider this an attempt by the Iranian regime to have Iranians absorb criticisms and be-littleing of their 'divine war' in order to 'unite' Iranians and forget about all the domestic (elections) issues..

[apadana]

Yeas I would, at least If I would have wanted to ask for 1trillion dollar 20 years later.

Im all up for busting Saddams ass, thats not the point of this. The point is, you cant claim damages for a 10 year war if you had the chance of truce after 2 years.

Now you point out the 2500 sq km thingy, for now, your word word stands against whatever source wikipedia uses. Im not saying you are wrong, just that there is no proof to what you say, or what wikipedia states.

Anyhow, if Iran wants a cent of these 1 trillion dollars it should have stopped supporting Sadrs thugs, a couple of year ago that is!

Read some books about this subject before pretending to be an expert. Do you honestly think Iran just started asking for compensation 21 years after the war? Iran has asked for compensation since the end of the war as it was agreed by both sides during negotiations of cease fire at the UN. But in case you forget Iraq had a ruthless , uneducated, aggressor Arab leader by the name of Saddam Hussein. As we all know Saddam never listened or fulfill on his agreements. With that being said, it's perfectly reasonable for Iran to continue requesting her rightful compensation since Iraq now has more reasonable leaders . Plus even maleki who visited Iran said his nation will pay compensation. I think some people are so caught up on the anti Iranian fever that they can't distinguish right from wrong in regards to anything that has to do with Iran.

[apadana]

If my brilliant war plan involved flooding the enemy positions with human waves of unarmed children, then yes, i would most certainly have signed a cease fire, got my Stalin style politically cleansed army into shape and then started fantasizing again about how i will install Islamic regimes all the way to Jerusalem.

It's ironic this is coming from an Israeli since you guys have a history of fighting back against those who first attacked Israel. Iran did the same thin as you Israelis or western nations. For god sake Israel is still occupying land it took during those war's and you Israelis defend this occupation because Israel was attacked and fought back and took the aggressors land. Please stop preaching you're nonsense because you truly don't make sense. Lastly, Israel sold a lot of weapon's to Iran and Iran sold Israel oil during those 8 years so it seems like your leaders agreed with Iran to fight back for those 8 years.

[khukuri]

Read some books about this subject before pretending to be an expert.

im not pretending to be an expert, Im questioning conflicting sources and claims, something that F14A, unlike you understand and responded very well too.




The point is,

There is no way in hell we are going to pay money to a country that is supporting terrorists in our country. as simple as that

In principle I think we do infact owe Iran, but based on latest events, no way.

[apadana]

While Iraq was responsible for that war, Iran's request should be rejected for a number of reasons. First of all, the current Iraqi government was no more responsible for that was than I was, and with the recent policy and government shifts that have taken place, I do not believe that the current Iraqi government is well placed to even begin negotiating any such payout. After all, most of the people who made the political, strategic and even the tactical decisions during that war are now dead. How convenient.
In addition, if Iran wants a payout, I believe that Iraq is also within its rights to ask for one as well. IIRC, Saddam Hussein asked for a truce and cessation of hostilities on several occasions, but he was turned down every time by Ayatollah Khomeini's government. Then in late June 1982, Iran attacked and invaded Iraq. It seems to me that the Iraqis did indeed start the war, but the only reason that it lasted eight years was the intransigence of the Iranians. So if Ahmadinejad wants a payout from another government, he should start figuring out his payment to Iraq, because Iranian actions were directly responsible for the destruction of the Iraqi economy. In fact, the war virtually ruined the economies of both belligerents. Any payouts would probably be about equal.
By your logic if a country invaded another country and starts losing once they say sorry then everything should be finished. Did you forget how the world responded once Saddam invaded Kuwait? Bush used the event as one of the reasons to attack Iraq in 2003 nearly 13 years after the invasion of Kuwait. While Iran has been asking for compensation that was agreed upon for 20 year's now.

[apadana]

im not pretending to be an expert, Im questioning conflicting sources and claims, something that F14A, unlike you understand and responded very well too.




The point is,

There is no way in hell we are going to pay money to a country that is supporting terrorists in our country. as simple as that

In principle I think we do infact owe Iran, but based on latest events, no way.
Most of your current leaders lived in Iran while in exile when uncle Saddam was your leader. Iran's foreign policy was the same back then as it is now. So if your current Iraqi leaders lived in Iran and sit and talk with Iranian leaders today and negotiate multi million
Dollar deals they should have the audacity to pay the agreed compensation. I don't see you complaining about Iraq buying electricity, water, or when Iran builds roads or schools in Iraq but when you're country has to pay back the damages it created you say Iraq shouldn't deal with Iran? If that's not hypocritical than what is?

[tanks_alot]

It's ironic this is coming from an Israeli since you guys have a history of fighting back against those who first attacked Israel. Iran did the same thin as you Israelis or western nations. For god sake Israel is still occupying land it took during those war's and you Israelis defend this occupation because Israel was attacked and fought back and took the aggressors land. Please stop preaching you're nonsense because you truly don't make sense. Lastly, Israel sold a lot of weapon's to Iran and Iran sold Israel oil during those 8 years so it seems like your leaders agreed with Iran to fight back for those 8 years.

You miss my point, i'm not disputing the fact that Iran was the one who was attacked, but as an Israeli, if my country was attacked and faced with the choice of a cease fire or sending children in human waves against enemy positions, then i would have taken the first option without a doubt. when Iran decided to refuse a peaceful end to the fighting and implemented evil tactics against it's own people, it lost any morale high ground and i hope that one day the people of Iran will punish those in the regime who were responisbile for those crimes.

As for Israel's stance during the Iran-Iraq war, it was: "we wish good luck to both sides". Israel had an interest to keep both sides fighting. not very nice, but that's how it was.

EDIT: By the way, can anyone recommend a good obective book about this conflict?

[Dean1962]

Man, I just don't get it.
Wars are an incredibly complex series of events, and stopping a war is even more complex. But the idea of compensation is always there, and in most cases, it is an impediment to a longer peace. if you don't believe me, check out the WW I Armistice agreement, and you can see that it led directly to WW II. Great agreement, that one.
Many groups are asking for compensation from others; off the top of my head, the Armenians want compensation from Greece, American Blacks want compensation from US Whites, Canadian Aboriginals want more compensation from the Canadian government, and so on and so on....
Now Iran wants compensation from Iraq. Join the line.
I do not believe that compensation should be paid to Iran, or in fact in any of these cases. It is patently unfair for a person or a group of people to be forced to pay for the actions of those who preceded them, especially when the people who were responsible for the perceived wrong are dead. When the Ottoman Empire decided to end their pesky Armenian problem by liquidating them, shure enough it was a crime against humanity of the highest order. But they were replaced by the modern Turkish government, and that government, and all of those who have replaced them had nothing to do with the massacres. I am Canadian. It is quite possible that somewhere along the line, someone in my family was a slaveowner. But slavery in Canada was illegal long before it was stopped in the US, so should I have to pay compensation to somone for the actions of my great-great-great grandfather? When does it end? How far back are we supposed to be allowed to go?

Iran and Iraq went to war, and yes, Iraq did start it. However, Iraq asked for a truce two years after the war began, in 1982, as well as numerous times after that. Every single attempt to end the fighting was refused by Iran. Every single one. In fact, Iran only decided on a truce when Iraqi forces decisively defeated the Iranians at Basra and the Al-Faw Peninsula in 1988, and it appeared that they could go further. So who is responsible for the last six years of the war? Iraq? I don't think so. And in fact, most of the destruction of the belligerent's economies occurred in the latter part of the war.
So, why should Iraq pay a dime?
In the treaty that both signed that ended the war, certain countries decided to pay Iran for reparations and Iraq was among them. Fine. If they want, the Iranians can demand that amount, actualized to 1988 dollars, and that is the amount that Iraq should pay. But Iraq could not pay then, and two devastating wars later, Iraq still cannot pay. So the timing of the Iranian demand is really weird, why now? They know very well that they are not going to get any of it, so why ask? Some have stated that it is to deflect criticism from the elections issue, or from whatever else, but in the end, they are right. This is an attempt to deflect attention away from another issue, and it is for domestic consumption only. As such, I think Iraq would be well advised to completely ignore it.

[T-5 Killer]

I demand Iran pay the United States of America $1 Trillion dollars for taking hostages at our Embassy.

I demand that the check be made out payable to me.

THIS right here. "he who is without sin cast the first stone"p-)

[Stan187]

Okay, so what happens if Iraq doesn't pay up?

Iran is going to infilitrate Iraq, fund militias and use its operatives to try to subvert the stability of the country and put it in their sphere?

Oh, wait, they're doing that anway.

:bash:

[apadana]

You miss my point, i'm not disputing the fact that Iran was the one who was attacked, but as an Israeli, if my country was attacked and faced with the choice of a cease fire or sending children in human waves against enemy positions, then i would have taken the first option without a doubt. when Iran decided to refuse a peaceful end to the fighting and implemented evil tactics against it's own people, it lost any morale high ground and i hope that one day the people of Iran will punish those in the regime who were responisbile for those crimes.

As for Israel's stance during the Iran-Iraq war, it was: "we wish good luck to both sides". Israel had an interest to keep both sides fighting. not very nice, but that's how it was.

The notion that Iran send human waves of children to war has been a propaganda story. Sure some 13, 16 ... volunteerd and died honorably for their country. But Iran didn't organize and march kids to martyrdom as some in the west claim. Iranians fought with the little they had as any country would when they are attached

[Dean1962]

By your logic if a country invaded another country and starts losing once they say sorry then everything should be finished. Did you forget how the world responded once Saddam invaded Kuwait? Bush used the event as one of the reasons to attack Iraq in 2003 nearly 13 years after the invasion of Kuwait. While Iran has been asking for compensation that was agreed upon for 20 year's now.

It's not logic, it's realpolitik. Let's get serious, the only reason that the world reacted the way it did to the invasion of Kuwait was due to the fact that too many countries have vested interests in the Persian Gulf. A good example of the opposite was the Ethiopian invasion of Eritrea; due to the fact that there are no countries that have any interests in either Ethiopia or Eritrea, the only reaction was a collective asking of, "what the hell is an Eritrea?"
In either event, I do believe that the best way to have a durable peace is to say sorry and finish it, as continued bickering over borders and compensation will definitely send relations in a downward spiral that neither side needs, but that one side (Iran) wants. If Iran continues asking for this and that, what will end up happening is a cold war such as the one between Greece and Turkey, which costs both sides billions and shows no sign of ending in spite of the fact that it is entirely useless. Just end it and get on with rebuilding; in the end both sides will be winners.

[apadana]

You miss my point, i'm not disputing the fact that Iran was the one who was attacked, but as an Israeli, if my country was attacked and faced with the choice of a cease fire or sending children in human waves against enemy positions, then i would have taken the first option without a doubt. when Iran decided to refuse a peaceful end to the fighting and implemented evil tactics against it's own people, it lost any morale high ground and i hope that one day the people of Iran will punish those in the regime who were responisbile for those crimes.

As for Israel's stance during the Iran-Iraq war, it was: "we wish good luck to both sides". Israel had an interest to keep both sides fighting. not very nice, but that's how it was.

EDIT: By the way, can anyone recommend a good obective book about this conflict?


Man, I just don't get it.
Wars are an incredibly complex series of events, and stopping a war is even more complex. But the idea of compensation is always there, and in most cases, it is an impediment to a longer peace. if you don't believe me, check out the WW I Armistice agreement, and you can see that it led directly to WW II. Great agreement, that one.
Many groups are asking for compensation from others; off the top of my head, the Armenians want compensation from Greece, American Blacks want compensation from US Whites, Canadian Aboriginals want more compensation from the Canadian government, and so on and so on....
Now Iran wants compensation from Iraq. Join the line.
I do not believe that compensation should be paid to Iran, or in fact in any of these cases. It is patently unfair for a person or a group of people to be forced to pay for the actions of those who preceded them, especially when the people who were responsible for the perceived wrong are dead. When the Ottoman Empire decided to end their pesky Armenian problem by liquidating them, shure enough it was a crime against humanity of the highest order. But they were replaced by the modern Turkish government, and that government, and all of those who have replaced them had nothing to do with the massacres. I am Canadian. It is quite possible that somewhere along the line, someone in my family was a slaveowner. But slavery in Canada was illegal long before it was stopped in the US, so should I have to pay compensation to somone for the actions of my great-great-great grandfather? When does it end? How far back are we supposed to be allowed to go?

Iran and Iraq went to war, and yes, Iraq did start it. However, Iraq asked for a truce two years after the war began, in 1982, as well as numerous times after that. Every single attempt to end the fighting was refused by Iran. Every single one. In fact, Iran only decided on a truce when Iraqi forces decisively defeated the Iranians at Basra and the Al-Faw Peninsula in 1988, and it appeared that they could go further. So who is responsible for the last six years of the war? Iraq? I don't think so. And in fact, most of the destruction of the belligerent's economies occurred in the latter part of the war.
So, why should Iraq pay a dime?
In the treaty that both signed that ended the war, certain countries decided to pay Iran for reparations and Iraq was among them. Fine. If they want, the Iranians can demand that amount, actualized to 1988 dollars, and that is the amount that Iraq should pay. But Iraq could not pay then, and two devastating wars later, Iraq still cannot pay. So the timing of the Iranian demand is really weird, why now? They know very well that they are not going to get any of it, so why ask? Some have stated that it is to deflect criticism from the elections issue, or from whatever else, but in the end, they are right. This is an attempt to deflect attention away from another issue, and it is for domestic consumption only. As such, I think Iraq would be well advised to completely ignore it.

Wrong again Iran accepted a cease fire when Iraq used chemical weapons for the first time. Did you work for Saddams ministery of propaganda by any chance?

[Red_Fern]

Fcuk Iran, they don't need anything monetarily from Iraq.

[Dean1962]

The notion that Iran send human waves of children to war has been a propaganda story. Sure some 13, 16 ... volunteerd and died honorably for their country. But Iran didn't organize and march kids to martyrdom as some in the west claim. Iranians fought with the little they had as any country would when they are attacked

:bash:

And the difference is.....?
Have you read what you wrote? Can you really believe that? I will say this, and I truly believe it. No civilized country sends it's children to fight in a battle. Period. It makes no difference if they were volunteers or drafted. Either way allowing such an event speaks volumes about the people and polices of the government that led Iran.

It's not good reading.

[tanks_alot]

The notion that Iran send human waves of children to war has been a propaganda story. Sure some 13, 16 ... volunteerd and died honorably for their country. But Iran didn't organize and march kids to martyrdom as some in the west claim. Iranians fought with the little they had as any country would when they are attached

So you say, yet countless sources suggest otherwise.

[apadana]

It's not logic, it's realpolitik. Let's get serious, the only reason that the world reacted the way it did to the invasion of Kuwait was due to the fact that too many countries have vested interests in the Persian Gulf. A good example of the opposite was the Ethiopian invasion of Eritrea; due to the fact that there are no countries that have any interests in either Ethiopia or Eritrea, the only reaction was a collective asking of, "what the hell is an Eritrea?"
In either event, I do believe that the best way to have a durable peace is to say sorry and finish it, as continued bickering over borders and compensation will definitely send relations in a downward spiral that neither side needs, but that one side (Iran) wants. If Iran continues asking for this and that, what will end up happening is a cold war such as the one between Greece and Turkey, which costs both sides billions and shows no sign of ending in spite of the fact that it is entirely useless. Just end it and get on with rebuilding; in the end both sides will be winners.

Comparison of Greece Turkey to this more recent event is uneducated to say the least. You see your argument doesn't make sense simply because Iraqi leaders have respected and accepted that they have to pay back Iran. And I'm talking about Iraqi leaders since Saddam

[apadana]

So you say, yet countless sources suggest otherwise.

Countless sources and yet I guarantee you won't find one documented photo, video, or even the childrens family members given an interview about this subject. Surely if there are countless source as you put it then you should be able to find a documented source in today's internet, mass media age.

[Dean1962]

Wrong again Iran accepted a cease fire when Iraq used chemical weapons for the first time. Did you work for Saddams ministery of propaganda by any chance?

You truly are a twit. Try again. I hate to quote Wiki, but in this case, it is quite well presented:
Wiki quote begins:
By April 1988, however, the Iraqi forces had regrouped sufficiently to begin a new series of devastating attacks on the Iranians, and in quick succession recaptured the strategic al-Faw peninsula (lost in 1986 in Operation Dawn-8) through the extensive use of chemical weaponry, and territory around Basra and also struck deep into the Iranian north, capturing much matériel. [4] In July 1988 Iraqi airplanes dropped chemical cyanide bombs on the Iranian Kurdish village of Zardan (as they had done four months earlier at their own Kurdish village of Halabja). Hundreds were killed at once, and the survivors are still suffering from a variety of physical and mental disorders. The enraged Iranians considered a huge rearming and nuclear weapons, but decided that this was beyond their means. Following these major setbacks, Iran accepted the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 598 and on 20 August 1988 peace was restored.
End of Quote.

While the use of chemical weapons did enrage the Iranians, it was not their use alone that ended the war. The Iranians were smart enough to realize that they could not defend certain areas against further chemical attacks, and by the same token, they would not be able to stop further advances by Iraqi troops. They also knew that defeating the resurgent Iraqi army and re-taking lost land was becoming impossible. But remember, the use of chemical weapons alone would not have won the war for Iraq, as they never had enough to launch large scale (strategic) attacks into Iran, but they were able to stabilize the tactical situation in Al-Faw and around Basra. As for working for Saddams's ministry of Propaganda, not even close.
My work at the time was in the military of my country where I was able to read classified reports of the situation as it developed. As a result, I saw the results of all the attacks, as well as the weapons, units, numbers, all of it. I remember what I saw and read, and I wish I could forget some of it. And I know this: The Iran Iraq war was one of the most savage ever fought and multiple atrocities were committed by both sides. Neither Iran nor Iraq can claim the moral high ground and neither should. In a very real sense, this is really one of those situations where we should let the dead bury the dead as much as possible so as to allow a durable peace. In addition, due to serendipitous US influence, most of the Iraqi commanders who committed the crimes against humanity have been tried for their crimes and hanged. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Iranians.

[Dean1962]

Comparison of Greece Turkey to this more recent event is uneducated to say the least. You see your argument doesn't make sense simply because Iraqi leaders have respected and accepted that they have to pay back Iran. And I'm talking about Iraqi leaders since Saddam

Think it through. What was the event that caused the current situation between Greece and Turkey. Tell me what it was, then try and tell me why there is no comparison.

[apadana]

You truly are a twit. Try again. I have to quote Wiki, but in this case, it is quite well presented:

By April 1988, however, the Iraqi forces had regrouped sufficiently to begin a new series of devastating attacks on the Iranians, and in quick succession recaptured the strategic al-Faw peninsula (lost in 1986 in Operation Dawn-8) through the extensive use of chemical weaponry, and territory around Basra and also struck deep into the Iranian north, capturing much matériel. [4] In July 1988 Iraqi airplanes dropped chemical cyanide bombs on the Iranian Kurdish village of Zardan (as they had done four months earlier at their own Kurdish village of Halabja). Hundreds were killed at once, and the survivors are still suffering from a variety of physical and mental disorders. The enraged Iranians considered a huge rearming and nuclear weapons, but decided that this was beyond their means. Following these major setbacks, Iran accepted the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 598 and on 20 August 1988 peace was restored.

While the use of chemical weapons did enrage the Iranians, it was not their use alone that ended the war. The Iranians were smart enough to realize that they could not defend certain areas against further chemical attacks, and by the same token, they would not be able to stop further advances by Iraqi troops. They also knew that defeating the resurgent Iraqi army and re-taking lost land was becoming impossible. But remember, the use of chemical weapons alone would not have won the war for Iraq, as they never had enough to launch large scale (strategic) attacks into Iran, but they were able to stabilize the tactical situation in Al-Faw and around Basra. As for working for Saddams's ministry of Propaganda, not even close.
My work at the time was in the military of my country where I was able to read classified reports of the situation as it developed. As a result, I saw the results of all the attacks, as well as the weapons, units, numbers, all of it. I remember what I saw and read, and I wish I could forget some of it. And I know this: The Iran Iraq war was one of the most savage ever fought and multiple atrocities were committed by both sides. Neither Iran nor Iraq can claim the moral high ground and neither should. In a very real sense, this is really one of those situations where we should let the dead bury the dead as much as possible so as to allow a durable peace In addition, due to serendipitous US influence, most of the Iraqi commanders who committed the crimes against humanity have been accused of their crimes and hanged. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Iranians.

Your source basicly validates everything I said. Iran fought back for 8 years and as soon as Iraq used chemical weapons Iran accepted a cease fire. Maybe if you lived and grew up in that part of the world then you would have a better understanding but it seems as if your intention is to ignore the truth

[apadana]

Think it through. What was the event that caused the current situation between Greece and Turkey. Tell me what it was, then try and tell me why there is no comparison.

There is no comparison simply because of the time and the fact that Iraqi leaders have aplogized for saddams war and promised to pay back. Care to explain how this compares to Turkey and Greece ?

[Dean1962]

There is no comparison simply because of the time and the fact that Iraqi leaders have aplogized for saddams war and promised to pay back. Care to explain how this compares to Turkey and Greece ?

Like I said, buddy, think it through.

If you can.
Oh, and by the way, re-read my posts, particularly with regards as to the amount Iraq should pay.

Look, a lot of the people on this site are very well educated, and have served in various branches of their military. By and large, we have an excellent understanding of history and the events that shaped it. If you want to argue your point, I will give you a bit of advice.
1. Try to accept that there is a differing point of view, and that it might be as valid as my own.
2. Rather than picking various points to argue with, try to argue about the conclusions. You have attacked one or two points in many posts, but you have yet to really attack any of the conclusions of anyone.
3. As for Greece and Turkey, I asked you to find the seminal event that led to the current situation. Ass you have yet to do so, I can safely assume that you have no idea what I am talking about. Do not turn a question back against someone who asks one, it looks petty and silly. To give you a clue, the situations started with the Ottomans. I'll leave it at that.

Oops, gotta go. I'll check back later. See ya, guys!

[apadana]

Like I said, buddy, think it through.

If you can.
Oh, and by the way, re-read my posts, particularly with regards as to the amount Iraq should pay.

Look, a lot of the people on this site are very well educated, and have served in various branches of their military. By and large, we have an excellent understanding of history and the events that shaped it. If you want to argue your point, I will give you a bit of advice.
1. Try to accept that there is a differing point of view, and that it might be as valid as my own.
2. Rather than picking various points to argue with, try to argue about the conclusions. You have attacked one or two points in many posts, but you have yet to really attack any of the conclusions of anyone.
3. As for Greece and Turkey, I asked you to find the seminal event that led to the current situation. Ass you have yet to do so, I can safely assume that you have no idea what I am talking about. Do not turn a question back against someone who asks one, it looks petty and silly. To give you a clue, the situations started with the Ottomans. I'll leave it at that.

Oops, gotta go. I'll check back later. See ya, guys!

There is a major difference between point of view and logic. For example I can say the sun is black but that's not logical so it can't be considered a worthy point of view. Your the one who brought up Turkey and Greece into the discussion without a proper explanation. I explained the current Iran-iraq compensation issue but you've failed to explain your comparison so much that your asking me to explain your comparison even when I explained the major differences between the two subjects.

[Dean1962]

Your source basicly validates everything I said. Iran fought back for 8 years and as soon as Iraq used chemical weapons Iran accepted a cease fire. Maybe if you lived and grew up in that part of the world then you would have a better understanding but it seems as if your intention is to ignore the truth

I like how you have conveniently ignored the fact that Iran refused truce offers from as early as 1982.

2 Wiki quotes

A Saudi Arabia-backed plan to end the war agreed to by Iraq included $70 billion in war reparations to be paid by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf on behalf of Iraq, and complete the Iraqi evacuation from Iranian territory - an offer called by some critics of Iranian government as "extraordinarily favorable to Iran."[32] Iran rejected Iraq's offer, demanding the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, the repatriation of 100,000 Shi'ites expelled from Iraq before the war, and $150 billion in war reparations.

also,

Using the Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 6 June 1982 as a pretext for a withdrawal, Saddam suggested to Iran that it should stop fighting and send its troops to assist the Palestinians fighting in Lebanon, an offer which was refused.[27]

End quote

This is why I believe that Iran bears the brunt of responsibility for its own trouble, and any war damage incurred from 1982 on should not be paid by Iraq.

If I lived and grew up in that part of the world, two differences would be true. First of all, I would not have had access to the military documents in which I read about the heavy damage incurred to Iraq by Iranian warplanes. Don't forget, in spite of the disparity of numbers between the Iraqi and Iranian air forces, Iran had air superiority for most, if not all of the war. When Iranian airplanes flew over Iraq, they were not dropping love notes, and the toll to Iraq was staggering. Chances are than most Iranians don't even consider that, if they know about it at all. Were I Iranian, I would not know either, which is the second difference. The Iranians remember the martyrs, the dead, the fear, and so on. That's normal. However, the fear, the deaths, the raids, the artillery, all of that happened to the Iraqis as well, and it was Iranian weapons that caused it. I do not blame Iran for doing that, in fact, quite the opposite. Iran had every right to defend itself within the rules of war. The problem that I have is that both Iran and Iraq went well outside of those rules, and with Iran, it really became apparent in 1982 when they refused TWO offers to end the war.


There is a major difference between point of view and logic. For example I can say the sun is black but that's not logical so it can't be considered a worthy point of view. Your the one who brought up Turkey and Greece into the discussion without a proper explanation. I explained the current Iran-iraq compensation issue but you've failed to explain your comparison so much that your asking me to explain your comparison even when I explained the major differences between the two subjects.

I realize that English is probably your second language, but could you edit this into something that makes a modicum of sense? I think I know what you meant, but I would rather be sure before answering. At any rate, I gotta go (skiing) so once again, later guys.

[apadana]

I like how you have conveniently ignored the fact that Iran refused truce offers from as early as 1982.

2 Wiki quotes

A Saudi Arabia-backed plan to end the war agreed to by Iraq included $70 billion in war reparations to be paid by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf on behalf of Iraq, and complete the Iraqi evacuation from Iranian territory - an offer called by some critics of Iranian government as "extraordinarily favorable to Iran."[32] Iran rejected Iraq's offer, demanding the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, the repatriation of 100,000 Shi'ites expelled from Iraq before the war, and $150 billion in war reparations.

also,

Using the Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 6 June 1982 as a pretext for a withdrawal, Saddam suggested to Iran that it should stop fighting and send its troops to assist the Palestinians fighting in Lebanon, an offer which was refused.[27]

End quote

This is why I believe that Iran bears the brunt of responsibility for its own trouble, and any war damage incurred from 1982 on should not be paid by Iraq.

If I lived and grew up in that part of the world, two differences would be true. First of all, I would not have had access to the military documents in which I read about the heavy damage incurred to Iraq by Iranian warplanes. Don't forget, in spite of the disparity of numbers between the Iraqi and Iranian air forces, Iran had air superiority for most, if not all of the war. When Iranian airplanes flew over Iraq, they were not dropping love notes, and the toll to Iraq was staggering. Chances are than most Iranians don't even consider that, if they know about it at all. Were I Iranian, I would not know either, which is the second difference. The Iranians remember the martyrs, the dead, the fear, and so on. That's normal. However, the fear, the deaths, the raids, the artillery, all of that happened to the Iraqis as well, and it was Iranian weapons that caused it. I do not blame Iran for doing that, in fact, quite the opposite. Iran had every right to defend itself within the rules of war. The problem that I have is that both Iran and Iraq went well outside of those rules, and with Iran, it really became apparent in 1982 when they refused TWO offers to end the war.



I realize that English is probably your second language, but could you edit this into something that makes a modicum of sense? I think I know what you meant, but I would rather be sure before answering. At any rate, I gotta go (skiing) so once again, later guys.

You posted the same wiki link 2 times in 6 post's but it doesn't prove anything. We all know Iran declined a cease fire but you fail to give a reason. And I've asked you 4 times to provide some kind of reasoning behind your comparison and each time you ignore my request and try to change the subject, now my English is the new subject. I'm fluent in 3 different languages but I don't expect to be as good as someone who's natural language is one of those 3 languages.

[Sootan]

While Iraq was responsible for that war, Iran's request should be rejected for a number of reasons. First of all, the current Iraqi government was no more responsible for that was than I was, and with the recent policy and government shifts that have taken place, I do not believe that the current Iraqi government is well placed to even begin negotiating any such payout. After all, most of the people who made the political, strategic and even the tactical decisions during that war are now dead. How convenient.


Hmm, I wonder if Germany's post-WW2 government could have gotten away with that kind of argument....

[F-14A]

Iran refused truce offers from as early as 1982.
No one in their right mind would agree to any truce while enemy forces are still inside their land, forcefully occupying territory.

Official Iranian position back in 1980 to 1982 was same, before Saddam wanted to talk ceasefire, Saddam had to order Iraqi forces to unconditionally withdraw ALL its forces from ALL Iranian territory they had seized and go back and respect 1975 borders.

You then had to agree to aggressor being determined (Iraq), war damages being determined and paid so as to discourage the same people or others in future to try the same game without knowing of consequences their actions would have.

Its based on above that for first time in long time in history of nations in modern times that this time around after an invasion \ war, the countries borders did not change (shrink) as it had done for several hundred years ...





A Saudi Arabia-backed plan to end the war agreed to by Iraq included $70 billion in war reparations to be paid by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf on behalf of Iraq, and complete the Iraqi evacuation from Iranian territory - an offer called by some critics of Iranian government as "extraordinarily favourable to Iran."[32] Iran rejected Iraq's offer, demanding the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, the repatriation of 100,000 Shi'ites expelled from Iraq before the war, and $150 billion in war reparations.

Talk is cheap ....... and as I mentioned, Iranian authorities never received any formal offers or guarantees of any damages .... all you have from time are talks, mostly in media quoting numbers ......... which means nothing in real world.

Even the follow-up UN Security Council Resolutions (514 in 1982 or 479 in 1980) at time failed to even refer to Saddam Iraq as " Aggressor" and very little hope at time anyone really fair look on subject.

IMPORTANT - Mind you back in 1982 $150 billion in war reparations was indeed what was Iran demanding. However as I mentioned earlier, even before money it was WITHDRWAL and then determine AGRESSOR ...... money was last on list ....






Using the Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 6 June 1982 as a pretext for a withdrawal, Saddam suggested to Iran that it should stop fighting and send its troops to assist the Palestinians fighting in Lebanon, an offer which was refused.[27]

This excuse was only a Saddam Hussein delaying tactic.

Iranian Intel assets were monitoring deliveries of New weapons and huge expansion of defences by Iraqi Armed forces, time was of essence and the final knock-out blow had to be delivered ASAP.

Example after deliver of first batch of 80 x T-72, another shipment of 400 x MBT (including T-72) was taking place via Kuwait ......... Iranian Forces were depleting their limited and scarce resources with each offensive, while Iraqi Army expanding with more \ better systems arriving every month.

Even worst the enemy was gradually learning and adapting its defences and fighting strategy which helped its defensive capability ....... No time to waste ....... hence why offensive against on Basra followed very quickly after Liberation of Khoramshahr in May 1982.




If I lived and grew up in that part of the world, two differences would be true. First of all, I would not have had access to the military documents in which I read about the heavy damage incurred to Iraq by Iranian warplanes. Don't forget, in spite of the disparity of numbers between the Iraqi and Iranian air forces, Iran had air superiority for most, if not all of the war. When Iranian airplanes flew over Iraq, they were not dropping love notes, and the toll to Iraq was staggering. Chances are than most Iranians don't even consider that, if they know about it at all. Were I Iranian, I would not know either, which is the second difference. The Iranians remember the martyrs, the dead, the fear, and so on. That's normal. However, the fear, the deaths, the raids, the artillery, all of that happened to the Iraqis as well, and it was Iranian weapons that caused it. I do not blame Iran for doing that, in fact, quite the opposite. Iran had every right to defend itself within the rules of war. The problem that I have is that both Iran and Iraq went well outside of those rules, and with Iran, it really became apparent in 1982 when they refused TWO offers to end the war.

The words "Iranian Air Force" and "Iraqi Air Force" look like been switched around in above !

Back in Real world:

- Iraqi Air Force is infamous in being remembered for its widespread and deliberate attacks on Civilians from day one of war, graduating in what they termed "War of Cities" !

- In return Iranian Air Forces and retaliation were controlled and aimed at military \ industrial.


Iranian Air Forces at start of the war in 1980 had about 470 x combat jets, received little in replacements and ended the war with a reduced force of Approx 200 to 250 x combat jets remaining in fleet as war ended in 1988.

Iraqi Air Forces on other hand started the war in 1980 with about 370 x combat jets, received Hundreds of new planes as replacements and ended the war with an expanded force of Approx 550 x combat jets remaining in fleet as war ended in 1988.

Taking into accounts the number of Iraqi combat planes lost \ claimed (estimates vary from 400 to 600) it goes without saying in numbers Iraqi Air Force had ever more greater superiority in numbers as war dragged on.

All Iranian Air Force could do couple years into the war when it looked like war could go on for long time was to limit itself to aggressively dispute the Airspace over Iran, have enough capability for retaliations etc.....

The number of Civilians who were KIA on Iraqi side was a fraction of that in Iran.

To portray the events otherwise does not do justice to History ......

[Dean1962]

Hmm, I wonder if Germany's post-WW2 government could have gotten away with that kind of argument....

Actually, they did. As soon as the last Nazi government under Admiral Dönitz was replaced, the US bent over backwards to rebuild the nation under the Marshall plan as a bulwark against communism. As I remember the figures, Germany received far more from the Allies than they ever paid in compensation to anyone.
It was actually a smart move. The Allies finally realized the reparations that Germany had been forced to pay after WW I was not only unreasonable, it was probably the major cause of WW II. As a result, cooler heads prevailed, the Marshall plan was adopted, and peace finally broke out in Europe. In fact, if you look at European history, we are now in the longest period of peace that Europe has ever known. The one exception was the series of ex Yugoslav civil wars, but at least, there were no power blocs going head to head as there had been in the past.

[Dean1962]

No one in their right mind would agree to any truce while enemy forces are still inside their land, forcefully occupying territory.

The official Iranian position back in 1980 to 1982 was the same, before Saddam wanted to talk ceasefire, Saddam had to order Iraqi forces to unconditionally withdraw ALL its forces from ALL Iranian territory they had seized and go back and respect 1975 borders.

At the time that the second offer was made, Saddam had already ordered his forces back to the international border as it was a defensible line. In 1982, the Iraqis were losing, and had completely lost the initiative. In hindsight, it was easy to understand the Iranian reason for refusing the truce offers, but at that time, there were no more Iraqis occupying Iraqi territory.


You then had to agree to aggressor being determined (Iraq), war damages being determined and paid so as to discourage the same people or others in future to try the same game without knowing of consequences their actions would have.

Reparations were a part of the equation, and they had been demanded and approved. The sticking point was actually the Iranian demand that the regime of Saddam Hussein be removed. As later events have shown, that was never going to happen, as Hussein was enough of a sociopath that he was willing to sacrifice every single one of his people to remain in power. I am sure that the Iranians realized this, as everyone else in the world already knew it. Hell, at that time, even I knew it, as the dossiers on Saddam Hussein were already well developed and available. So why did Iran make that a condition of ending the war, knowing very well that it would never happen?
You are completely right in that Iraq had to be declared the aggressor, but again, in realpolitik, we knew that was not going to happen


Its based on above that for first time in long time in history of nations in modern times that this time around after an invasion \ war, the countries borders did not change (shrink) as it had done for several hundred years ...





Talk is cheap ....... and as I mentioned, Iranian authorities never received any formal offers or guarantees of any damages .... all you have from time are talks, mostly in media quoting numbers ......... which means nothing in real world.

Talk is cheap, but the offer was real and serious. I remember the offer being made to Iran, it was reported in the media and many people believed that it could have ended the war. Most of Iran's conditions had been met, the Iraqis had been forced out, everyone knew who the aggressor was, reparations had been offered, and Iran's sovereign territory had been recognized, even by Iraq. (At that time, Saddam had renounced Iraqi claims on the Shatt al Arab and all other Iranian territory.) But Iran refused it on the pretext that the Saddam Hussein regime had not been removed from power. I do have the advantage of hindsight, but that decision meant six more years of war and untold thousands of deaths. Yes, it was a formal offer, and I remember the formal refusal.


Even the follow-up UN Security Council Resolutions (514 in 1982 or 479 in 1980) at time failed to even refer to Saddam Iraq as " Aggressor" and very little hope at time anyone really fair look on subject.

IMPORTANT - Mind you back in 1982 $150 billion in war reparations was indeed what was Iran demanding. However as I mentioned earlier, even before money it was WITHDRWAL and then determine AGRESSOR ...... money was last on list ....

This excuse was only a Saddam Hussein delaying tactic.

Money was indeed last on the list, but it made no difference. At that point in time, the Iranians had the initiative, and they believed that they were going to win the war. They had passed from the defensive to the offensive stage of the war, they were poised to attack Basra, the Shatt al Arab was back in their hands and useless to Iraq, and the Iraqi ability to export oil was dropping with every raid. With this situation in mind it is not surprising in the least that Iran refused, but it is my opinion that this refusal, coupled with the later attacks into Iraq have severely weakened the Iranian case for war reparations. As soon as Iranian troops crossed the border, they became aggressors in their own right, especially when you consider that the stated goal was the removal of the Iraqi government. They wanted to drive to Baghdad.

The UN. (deep sigh) The UN was unable to state that Iraq was the aggressor for two reasons. First of all, they wanted and needed the cooperation of the Iraqi government to accomplish anything, so pointing the finger of blame at Saddam would have meant an immediate end to any attempts to restoring peace. The second reason is that the Iranian government had mouthed off a bit too much, and too many people noticed. “The road to Jerusalem passes through Karbala.” Remember that? I sure do, as it was discussed in many military conference rooms around the world, including the one I was in. People noticed that, and because of that and other known Iranian policies, many countries in the security council would have vetoed any resolution that painted Iraq as an aggressor. Besides, everyone knew who the aggressor was. That's realpolitik for you, everyone knows, but nobody says. For some reason, Iran decided that they did not want to play that game even though they knew the rules and the result was plain to see. I never understood that decision.



Iranian Intel assets were monitoring deliveries of New weapons and huge expansion of defenses by Iraqi Armed forces, time was of essence and the final knock-out blow had to be delivered ASAP.

Ahh, the knock out blow. The crux of the matter. Iran's stated goal at the time was to restore her sovereignty over all occupied territory. That was done. So if all of a sudden, you want to deliver a knock out blow, how are you going to accomplish that? You have to march to Baghdad, and then anywhere else that the Iraqi government moves to. (No, they would not have stayed in Baghdad.) Can that be accomplished without Iran becoming and aggressor in their own right? Where is the line between self defense and aggression? To me, as soon as Iraq withdrew and the antebellum borders were restored, Iran had accomplished her goals, particularly as they knew that the stated goal of removing Saddam could never happen. Nonetheless, they continued the attack.


For example after deliver of first batch of 80 x T-72, another shipment of 400 x MBT (including T-72) was taking place via Kuwait ......... Iranian Forces were depleting their limited and scarce resources with each offensive, while Iraqi Army expanding with more \ better systems arriving every month.

Even worse, the enemy was gradually learning and adapting its defenses and fighting strategy which helped its defensive capability ....... No time to waste ....... hence why offensive against on Basra followed very quickly after Liberation of Khoramshahr in May 1982.

The words "Iranian Air Force" and "Iraqi Air Force" look like they have been switched around in the above!

You are right, the Iraqis were improving in every field. The last attack in 1988 was devastating, and it would have been devastating even if Iraq had not used chemical weapons. Finally, the Iranian government realized that they could lose the war, so they decided to accept the truce offer they had so foolishly refused six years earlier. When your back is against the wall, accepting a truce is far easier. That was the real reason why Iran finally stopped fighting, not simply the chemical weapons. If Iranian intelligence was able to figure out what the Iraqis were receiving, they should also have known that the Iraqi stocks of chemical weapons were quite limited.

So far, you are right with all of your above observations except one. As far as I remember, the IRIAF never lost their ability to launch deep raids into Iraq, something that the Iraqis were barely able to do after the first week of the war. Yes, Iraq had more aircraft, but their pilot training and combat tactics were dismal. In fact, if one Iranian F-14 came up, every single Iraqi pilot would run for their lives, knowing very well that they had no chance of defeating it. They were able to mount raids, yes but they never were able to hold air superiority for any amount of time. In fact, the conduct of the Iranian Air Force is, in my opinion, one of the greatest campaigns ever conducted by an air force in history. They were constantly outnumbered, had incredible difficulty keeping their aircraft flying, were unable to replace lost pilots, and they still inflicted a stinging defeat on the Iraqis. Incredibly impressive, especially when you consider that many pilots were asked to fight right after they had been removed from their prison cells! Yes, you read that right.


Back in Real world:

- Iraqi Air Force is infamous in being remembered for its widespread and deliberate attacks on Civilians from day one of war, graduating in what they termed "War of Cities" !

In return Iranian Air Forces and retaliation were controlled and aimed at military \ industrial.

What they targeted and what they hit are two different things. Don't forget, this was before the advent of smart bombs. Both sides bombed and shelled hospitals, schools, markets, neighborhoods, everything. One of the reasons that Iraqi pilots hit civilian targets was that their limited training did not allow them to hit what they were supposed to. On the other hand, one of the reasons that Iranian pilots had trouble hitting their targets was due to the fact that they had trouble keeping the electro-optics up and running. You should know that if your name is F-14A. Personally, I am incredibly impressed that any of the F-14s flew at all!



Iranian Air Forces at start of the war in 1980 had about 470 x combat jets, received little in replacements and ended the war with a reduced force of Approx 200 to 250 x combat jets remaining in fleet as war ended in 1988.

Iraqi Air Forces on other hand started the war in 1980 with about 370 x combat jets, received Hundreds of new planes as replacements and ended the war with an expanded force of Approx 550 x combat jets remaining in fleet as war ended in 1988.


Taking into accounts the number of Iraqi combat planes lost \ claimed (estimates vary from 400 to 600) it goes without saying in numbers Iraqi Air Force had ever more greater superiority in numbers as war dragged on.

Read the above. Oh, and by the way, my information for that comes from an Iranian source.


All the Iranian Air Force could do a couple years into the war when it looked like war could go on for long time was to limit itself to aggressively dispute the Airspace over Iran, have enough capability for retaliations etc.....

They did a lot more than that. What the Iranian Air Force pulled off was nothing short of a miracle, and every time the Iraqis came over Iran, they knew that they could well be fighting for their lives. I remember seeing another interesting statistic at the time; the amount of recalled and failed sorties by both air forces. The number of failed sorties by the Iraqis was three or four times that of Iran's. In the air, Iran was far more effective, and I must admit, it makes me wonder why the current Iranian government has allowed the quality of their air force to fall so low. I also believe that many Iraqis simply dropped their bombs close to the targets simply because they were afraid to loiter in the target area trying to identify what they were supposed to hit. (a difficult task at mach one) I and many others believed that this was the reason that there were so many civilian deaths during the War of the Cities. The Iraqis were unable to hit the broadside of a barn. (an expression that means they could not hit the target under any conditions)


The number of Civilians who were KIA on Iraqi side was a fraction of that in Iran.

I never once disputed that, and I never will. All I ever said was that Iran's demand for war reparations was severely weakened by their actions during and after 1982. I will not dispute that Iran did lose more people, I will not dispute that Iran was very severely weakened by the war. In fact, I realize that in many ways Iran has not yet recovered from the war. All I said was Iran's own actions allowed the war to drag on for six years longer than it should have, and that the blame for the losses and damage that they suffered cannot and should not be blamed on Iraq alone. History has shown that it is very easy to start a war, and incredibly difficult to stop one. The Iran - Iraq War has shown us what the price can be when we don't stop fighting. Both Iran and Iraq are still paying the bill.


To portray the events otherwise does not do justice to History ......

I am lucky in that I was able to see the raw information coming from the field at the time, so the media was not my major source. That being said, the reason that I used the Wikipedia article was because it described the events as I remembered them, and it is also easy to see if the source material is decent. I have not read the source material they cite although I have heard of it, and as such, I believe their descriptions and conclusions to be valid, although I do not agree with some of the numbers they cite. In the end, the disparity between their numbers and the ones I remember can also be attributed to the fact that my memory of events that occurred some 30 years ago may be somewhat off. But I stand by my conclusions. As a history buff myself, I would not ever try to re-write what happened during any war, as doing so can have very serious consequences in later decision making.

[Indiana Jones]

Actually, they did. As soon as the last Nazi government under Admiral Dönitz was replaced, the US bent over backwards to rebuild the nation under the Marshall plan as a bulwark against communism. As I remember the figures, Germany received far more from the Allies than they ever paid in compensation to anyone. [...]

Nah. Not at all. Mind you, Marshall aid, in the German case, was primarily meant to enable the Germans to pay reparations in the first place, and they were the one nation in the ERP that had to repay the loans completely, even though they eventually did not do so. In macroeconomic terms it truly was a quantité negligable anyways.
Cheers,
IJ.

[thanamestolga]

Iran:
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww31/thanamestolga/lingerie_dr_evil_surgery.jpg
We want one million billion trillion gazzilion dollars!

Turkey:
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww31/thanamestolga/CakeOfficer.jpg
Us too.

Australia:
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww31/thanamestolga/HahaCake2-1.jpg

Canada:
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww31/thanamestolga/HahaCake-1.jpg






Sue me for being bored :P

[Dean1962]

Iran:
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww31/thanamestolga/lingerie_dr_evil_surgery.jpg
We want one million billion trillion gazzilion dollars!

Turkey:
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww31/thanamestolga/CakeOfficer.jpg
Us too.

Australia:
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww31/thanamestolga/HahaCake2-1.jpg

Canada:
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww31/thanamestolga/HahaCake-1.jpg






Sue me for being bored :P

Fine. I'm suing you for one trillion dollars. Payable now. So there. I bet you're scared now, eh? p-)

[Dean1962]

Nah. Not at all. Mind you, Marshall aid, in the German case, was primarily meant to enable the Germans to pay reparations in the first place, and they were the one nation in the ERP that had to repay the loans completely, even though they eventually did not do so. In macroeconomic terms it truly was a quantité negligable anyways.
Cheers,
IJ.

Depends on who is doing the paying and who is the payee. From the Allies' point of view, the US did bend over backwards, as the US obliged Britain to repay all lend-lease amounts owing while on the other hand, they piad for the re-building of Germany. Who Germany actually paid or did not pay is another matter. Actually though, I was thinking about it and I forgot who Germany did not pay. Damn. Must be getting old.
Have a good one.

[saturnin]

Nah. Not at all. Mind you, Marshall aid, in the German case, was primarily meant to enable the Germans to pay reparations in the first place, and they were the one nation in the ERP that had to repay the loans completely, even though they eventually did not do so. In macroeconomic terms it truly was a quantité negligable anyways.
Cheers,
IJ.

Things are a little more complicated. Marshall plan among others reacted to supply creasis in Germany in late 1947 (coal,...). (note: help with GARIO was actually larger then ERP) Discussion about Marshall aid to France also helped to put pressue on France with aim to lower restriction policiy in occupied Germany. USA realized it is time to abolise different "level of indsutries" and start german economy. Marshall plan wasn´t really important from macroeocnomic perspective when speaking about extend but was important when defending USA policy in Germany against opposition in France or even GB.