The US could have destroyed Iran's entire infrastructure without dropping a single bomb

[AmirPatriot]

Iran couldn't even defeat Saddam's Iraq during their long Bloody 8 year war, losing millions of its people with no clear winner. U.S, U.K and some western forces took barely 4 weeks to crush Saddam's 'MIGHTY MILITARY ' and hang him. Lol

What a considered and detailed analysis.

 

[Anaoshak]

What the hell did you just say ?? China going to war against the U.S to protect Iran??lmao. . Even Chinese members here will laugh at this. If China never went to war against India for its dearest friend Pakistan in its time of need, why do you think they will do that for a foreign alien country far away from them like Iran?lol stop dreaming dude.

As for your point about Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq(who had the largest and most powerfulstanding army in the middle East back them). Yet the U S,U.K and Western forces made a mockery of these countries national army in a matter of weeks and they were fully conquered. The aftermath instability/civil sectarian conflict that came after that is due to the wrong policies adopted after the invasion, not military capabilities.
NATO not invading Iran has nothing to do with Iran's superpower military, only a fool will think otherwise. Lol

Iran couldn't even defeat Saddam's Iraq during their long Bloody 8 year war, losing millions of its people with no clear winner. U.S, U.K and some western forces took barely 4 weeks to crush Saddam's 'MIGHTY MILITARY ' and hang him. Lol

Was China the only country i mentioned? No. I said China and Russia. And i remember a while ago how members said "Russia would never help bla bla". Obviously, they would. And what i said about China going to war, is because their own Military figures said it a few years ago. And since then, their trade has expanded even more and they have certain contracts and properties they would want to protect in Iran. So yes, China would most likely help Iran if Iran requested it. Considering that Iran might also join SCO soon, that would increase the probability of China helping Iran in case of a war even more.

Afghanistan national army? Lol, there was no national army. There were a bunch of Taliban, with no equipment or technology at all, even the "FSA" and ISIS today are vastly more and better equipped than they were. And you didn't even finish the Taliban off. Against people with no air planes, no missiles, no nothing. If you had any knowledge about the Afghan war at all, you would know that the U.S bombed Afghanistan for a while and didn't get anywhere at all. And It wasn't until they got support from Iran, It's allies, the northern alliance in Afghanistan, that they could topple the Taliban government.
And regarding Iraq, really? Iraq had one of the largest and strongest militaries in the world in 1990, before the Persian Gulf War of 1991. You invaded them in 2003. They didn't have the "most powerful army in the middle east" then. Besides, It's been over 10 years and the war is still going on in Iraq and both the U.K and U.S are still involved there.
Or do you perhaps just mean the Invasion phase? Yes, you toppled a government where the majority of the people didn't want him. They had no motivation, More than half of his military abandoned post and didn't even want to fight for him in the first place. And you had to stay and fight for 8 years post-invasion and now there is fighting again. Still, about every equipment Iraq had and used, was imported and nothing was mass produced by themselves. They had a couple of scud missiles , and that was it.

Iran does not have a "superpower" military. You should read my text again. As i mentioned, Nato, The U.S hasn't waged a war against an industrialised military country since WW2. Afghanistan wasn't one. Iraq wasn't one. Vietnam wasn't one. Korea wasn't one and so on.
What I base what i wrote off is the U.S own military games where they lost against Iran. Based on what a bunch of military figures in the west have all said. A conventional war against Iran, is not possible. It's not Iraq and it's not Afghanistan. If you use Nukes, sure that's another story. But i hardly believe that the U.S or U.K would. Or use any other type of weapons of mass destruction.

Iran won the Iran-Iraq war. If a country invades you, fails and retreats = Win.
But i agree that Iran should have accepted Saddam's surrender/truce in 1982 instead of prolonging it. You know what though, for a country who JUST went through a revolution, had no army or military, had just about most of the west against it as well as most of the middle east supporting Iraq, Iran did better than good. You should read up on your history, i suggest the declassified CIA files where the U.S admits that they knowingly helped Saddam use his Chemical weapons because Iran was winning the war and they wanted to prevent that. Oh and the U.K did help Saddam when it came to chemical weapons as well, so did many western countries. Had people let this be a conventional war, Iran would have taken over Iraq. But the west and others couldn't have that happen, so they did what they could to make sure it didn't.

In any case, none of that matters. The past is done and gone. What matters is today, and Iran is a lot more developed, better motivated, equipped and organised today than any of those countries and it's not the 80's anymore. If you honestly agree to what i replied to in my post that you replied to "It will take yanks only few hours of carpet bombing to make mince meet out of Iranian forces without having to use their "strategic weapons"." Then you my friend, are delusional.

"Despite having the largest military budget in the world, the United States probably wouldn't be ready if it were forced into a "great power war" with China, Russia, Iran or North Korea, says the nation's top general.

U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley told a House Armed Services Committee hearing that if the Army were to fight a "great power war" with any one of four major potential foes, he had "grave concerns" about the readiness of his forces."

 

[California]

trust me guys, just 2 or maybe 3 carrier groups are enough to destroy all of iranian cities.

don't underestimate us, Iran is like an ant for us.

+ we used nukes before, amd we will use those monsters again if we have to...

 

[Anaoshak]

trust me guys, just 2 or maybe 3 carrier groups are enough to destroy all of iranian cities.

don't underestimate us, Iran is like an ant for us.

+ we used nukes before, amd we will use those monsters again if we have to...

Everyone knows who is underestimating who when it comes to talks regarding the US-Iran war scenario,

But yeah, waging a nuclear war would assure a U.S victory.
No argument here on that. But highly doubtful that they would do it.

 

[raptor22]

Was China the only country i mentioned? No. I said China and Russia. And i remember a while ago how members said "Russia would never help bla bla". Obviously, they would. And what i said about China going to war, is because their own Military figures said it a few years ago. And since then, their trade has expanded even more and they have certain contracts and properties they would want to protect in Iran. So yes, China would most likely help Iran if Iran requested it. Considering that Iran might also join SCO soon, that would increase the probability of China helping Iran in case of a war even more.

Afghanistan national army? Lol, there was no national army. There were a bunch of Taliban, with no equipment or technology at all, even the "FSA" and ISIS today are vastly more and better equipped than they were. And you didn't even finish the Taliban off. Against people with no air planes, no missiles, no nothing. If you had any knowledge about the Afghan war at all, you would know that the U.S bombed Afghanistan for a while and didn't get anywhere at all. And It wasn't until they got support from Iran, It's allies, the northern alliance in Afghanistan, that they could topple the Taliban government.
And regarding Iraq, really? Iraq had one of the largest and strongest militaries in the world in 1990, before the Persian Gulf War of 1991. You invaded them in 2003. They didn't have the "most powerful army in the middle east" then. Besides, It's been over 10 years and the war is still going on in Iraq and both the U.K and U.S are still involved there.
Or do you perhaps just mean the Invasion phase? Yes, you toppled a government where the majority of the people didn't want him. They had no motivation, More than half of his military abandoned post and didn't even want to fight for him in the first place. And you had to stay and fight for 8 years post-invasion and now there is fighting again. Still, about every equipment Iraq had and used, was imported and nothing was mass produced by themselves. They had a couple of scud missiles , and that was it.

Iran does not have a "superpower" military. You should read my text again. As i mentioned, Nato, The U.S hasn't waged a war against an industrialised military country since WW2. Afghanistan wasn't one. Iraq wasn't one. Vietnam wasn't one. Korea wasn't one and so on.
What I base what i wrote off is the U.S own military games where they lost against Iran. Based on what a bunch of military figures in the west have all said. A conventional war against Iran, is not possible. It's not Iraq and it's not Afghanistan. If you use Nukes, sure that's another story. But i hardly believe that the U.S or U.K would. Or use any other type of weapons of mass destruction.

Iran won the Iran-Iraq war. If a country invades you, fails and retreats = Win.
But i agree that Iran should have accepted Saddam's surrender/truce in 1982 instead of prolonging it. You know what though, for a country who JUST went through a revolution, had no army or military, had just about most of the west against it as well as most of the middle east supporting Iraq, Iran did better than good. You should read up on your history, i suggest the declassified CIA files where the U.S admits that they knowingly helped Saddam use his Chemical weapons because Iran was winning the war and they wanted to prevent that. Oh and the U.K did help Saddam when it came to chemical weapons as well, so did many western countries. Had people let this be a conventional war, Iran would have taken over Iraq. But the west and others couldn't have that happen, so they did what they could to make sure it didn't.

In any case, none of that matters. The past is done and gone. What matters is today, and Iran is a lot more developed, better motivated, equipped and organised today than any of those countries and it's not the 80's anymore. If you honestly agree to what i replied to in my post that you replied to "It will take yanks only few hours of carpet bombing to make mince meet out of Iranian forces without having to use their "strategic weapons"." Then you my friend, are delusional.

"Despite having the largest military budget in the world, the United States probably wouldn't be ready if it were forced into a "great power war" with China, Russia, Iran or North Korea, says the nation's top general.

U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley told a House Armed Services Committee hearing that if the Army were to fight a "great power war" with any one of four major potential foes, he had "grave concerns" about the readiness of his forces."

Actually there was no practical peace plan to be accepted back in 1982 after retaking Khoramshahr ... while Iraq was in our territories they demanding cease fire something we couldn't accept .. if Iraq wanted peace it could have withdrawn to international boundary base on Algeria agreement ...

 

[pher]

What the hell did you just say ?? China going to war against the U.S to protect Iran??lmao. . Even Chinese members here will laugh at this. If China never went to war against India for its dearest friend Pakistan in its time of need, why do you think they will do that for a foreign alien country far away from them like Iran?lol stop dreaming dude.

As for your point about Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq(who had the largest and most powerfulstanding army in the middle East back them). Yet the U S,U.K and Western forces made a mockery of these countries national army in a matter of weeks and they were fully conquered. The aftermath instability/civil sectarian conflict that came after that is due to the wrong policies adopted after the invasion, not military capabilities.
NATO not invading Iran has nothing to do with Iran's superpower military, only a fool will think otherwise. Lol

Iran couldn't even defeat Saddam's Iraq during their long Bloody 8 year war, losing millions of its people with no clear winner. U.S, U.K and some western forces took barely 4 weeks to crush Saddam's 'MIGHTY MILITARY ' and hang him. Lol

You know shit about China. China definately will help Iran if US dare to attack , which I doubt even lending US 10 balls. Iran is just too important to us in that region, which is a rare case of not being america's lackey.

Frankly speaking, US is only good at bullying those countries who have no good relations with big powers, like Iraq and Libya. Before inavading Iraq, US had to beg China and Russia to put sanction on it for 3 years.

Even Syria is untouchable for US and Nato, forget about Iran. The same goes for North korea, alive and kicking in humiliating US any time it wants and crossing all the red lines mighty US had drawn.

 

[Anaoshak]

Actually there was no practical peace plan to be accepted back in 1982 after retaking Khoramshahr ... while Iraq was in our territories they demanding cease fire something we couldn't accept .. if Iraq wanted peace it could have withdrawn to international boundary base on Algeria agreement ...

Actually, Saddam offered a ceasefire on the 20th of June on the basis of the pre-war status quo.
Also,
"After Iraq withdrew from Iran, the Ayatollah Komeini proclaimed that Iran would invade Iraq. Saddam, with the backing of fellow Arab states (fearful of the Shi'a Revolution being exported into their lands), offered favourable terms to Iran in order to end the fighting. The offer included $70 billion in war reparations. Iran refused, insisting that the only acceptable resolution was the removal of Saddam from power, replaced by an Islamic Republic."

And you probably know the back story,
On 21 June 1982 Khomenini proclaimed in a speech that Iran would invade Iraq and would not stop until an Islamic republic was set up in that country. The decision to invade Iraq was taken after much debate within the Iranian government. One fraction comprising Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, President Ali Khamenei and the Army Chief of Staff General Ali Sayad Shirazi urged that now that all of Iranian soil had been liberated to accept the Iraqi ceasefire offer rather embark upon an invasion that was likely to take a heavy toll on Iran's youth and with uncertain prospects for victory. In particular, General Shirazi was opposed to the invasion of Iraq on logistical grounds and said he was considering resignation if "unqualified people continued to meddle with the conduct of the war". On the other side, there was a hardline fraction led by clerics on the Supreme Defence Council, whose leader was the politically powerful Speaker of the Majlis Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, they favored continuing the war until the Baath were overthrown. Khomeini sided with the hardliners.

 

[raptor22]

Actually, Saddam offered a ceasefire on the 20th of June on the basis of the pre-war status quo.
Also,
"After Iraq withdrew from Iran, the Ayatollah Komeini proclaimed that Iran would invade Iraq. Saddam, with the backing of fellow Arab states (fearful of the Shi'a Revolution being exported into their lands), offered favourable terms to Iran in order to end the fighting. The offer included $70 billion in war reparations. Iran refused, insisting that the only acceptable resolution was the removal of Saddam from power, replaced by an Islamic Republic."

And you probably know the back story,
On 21 June 1982 Khomenini proclaimed in a speech that Iran would invade Iraq and would not stop until an Islamic republic was set up in that country. The decision to invade Iraq was taken after much debate within the Iranian government. One fraction comprising Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, President Ali Khamenei and the Army Chief of Staff General Ali Sayad Shirazi urged that now that all of Iranian soil had been liberated to accept the Iraqi ceasefire offer rather embark upon an invasion that was likely to take a heavy toll on Iran's youth and with uncertain prospects for victory. In particular, General Shirazi was opposed to the invasion of Iraq on logistical grounds and said he was considering resignation if "unqualified people continued to meddle with the conduct of the war". On the other side, there was a hardline fraction led by clerics on the Supreme Defence Council, whose leader was the politically powerful Speaker of the Majlis Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, they favored continuing the war until the Baath were overthrown. Khomeini sided with the hardliners.

First of all Saddam offer of ceasefire wasn't due to his spirit of peaceful coexistence amongst nations esp his neighbors but mostly base on his weak and shaky position after liberation of Khoramshar, because his main goal that was occupation and annexation of this city failed ...



Moreover despite his claims of withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Iran territories cities like Mehran, Sumar, Qsar Shirin, Talaiyeh, Shalamcheh and many others were still occupied .... in operation "Beit ol-Moqaddas" which Khoramshar liberated in it we managed to retake 5400 kms of our territories while Iraq had invaded at least 10000 kms.

Besides Iran had some demands:

1. Immediate cease-fire and end to the whole military action.
2. Determination of the starter of the war.
3. Punishment of the aggressor.
4. withdrawal to the international border.
5. Implementation of Algeria agreement.
6. Request of war reparations and damages.
7. Releasing the POWs.
​

None of these demands were met till 598 resolution .... and as you mentioned it was just a ceasefire offer not an actual peace plan ... furthermore Saddam torn apart the Algeria agreement before cameras before war therefore we couldn't trust him , Iran policy to not trust him was proved later on by Iraq invasion and attack after acceptance of 598 revolution by Iran and Iraq-Kuwait war ....
How on earth could you guarantee that a maniac like Saddam that has already started a war against you and occupied your lands wouldn't attack you again?
It's not possible unless you punish the aggressor ...

 

[gambit]

You know shit about China. China definately will help Iran if US dare to attack , which I doubt even lending US 10 balls. Iran is just too important to us in that region, which is a rare case of not being america's lackey.

Sounds like YOU know shit about your own China.

China illegally supplied Saddam Hussein's Iraq before the US invasion. China was Saddam Hussein's Iraq 3rd largest oil beneficiary. Top was Russia, next France, then China.

Why did China not helped Saddam Hussein's Iraq ? Because China could not cross that global distance and China learned what the US could do in war. Simple as that.

Frankly speaking,...

You are not capable of being honest. More like bullshit is more your forte.

Before inavading Iraq, US had to beg China and Russia to put sanction on it for 3 years.

If you want to use the word 'beg' to make you feel good on this forum ? Fine by me. But the reality was that the US wanted a diplomatic solution to Saddam Hussein's Iraq before resorting to the military one. But then did China came to Iraq's aid ? Did Saddam Hussein had to ask ? Why should Saddam had to ask anyway ? Since Iraq was beneficial to China, why did China not volunteered, thereby putting the US on a more cautious position that a major power might come to Saddam Hussein's assist ? If Saddam Hussein did not ask, it was because he KNEW, not felt, that China could do nothing.

The Iranians have no faith in China. Not because they do not want to have such a faith. After all, any assistance would be welcomed. The Iranians have no faith in China because just like Saddam Hussein, they know China do not have the physical means to assist Iran in any meaningful way. Guns, missiles, and boats cannot help the way troops can.

The PLAN have made much progress in terms of modernization since its embarrassment in Desert Storm when the PLA predicted Viet Nam era casualties for the US. I am a DS veteran and that was a good laugh AT China. But to date, the only power that can and have made a successful extra-hemispheric military adventure is -- US. And we did it not once, not twice, but thrice. The first was Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Iraq again. Your China can barely make a few ships that distance, let alone mass troops and their gear.

You know shit about your own China, son.

 

[pher]

Sounds like YOU know shit about your own China.

China illegally supplied Saddam Hussein's Iraq before the US invasion. China was Saddam Hussein's Iraq 3rd largest oil beneficiary. Top was Russia, next France, then China.

Why did China not helped Saddam Hussein's Iraq ? Because China could not cross that global distance and China learned what the US could do in war. Simple as that.


You are not capable of being honest. More like bullshit is more your forte.


If you want to use the word 'beg' to make you feel good on this forum ? Fine by me. But the reality was that the US wanted a diplomatic solution to Saddam Hussein's Iraq before resorting to the military one. But then did China came to Iraq's aid ? Did Saddam Hussein had to ask ? Why should Saddam had to ask anyway ? Since Iraq was beneficial to China, why did China not volunteered, thereby putting the US on a more cautious position that a major power might come to Saddam Hussein's assist ? If Saddam Hussein did not ask, it was because he KNEW, not felt, that China could do nothing.

The Iranians have no faith in China. Not because they do not want to have such a faith. After all, any assistance would be welcomed. The Iranians have no faith in China because just like Saddam Hussein, they know China do not have the physical means to assist Iran in any meaningful way. Guns, missiles, and boats cannot help the way troops can.

The PLAN have made much progress in terms of modernization since its embarrassment in Desert Storm when the PLA predicted Viet Nam era casualties for the US. I am a DS veteran and that was a good laugh AT China. But to date, the only power that can and have made a successful extra-hemispheric military adventure is -- US. And we did it not once, not twice, but thrice. The first was Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Iraq again. Your China can barely make a few ships that distance, let alone mass troops and their gear.

You know shit about your own China, son.

What you piece of sh*t want to approve by bullshiting so mcuh? Bragging the mighty of US by defeat primitive taliban and saddsam after 3 year's sanction? Is the best US could do? Don't make me laugh. Why you invading Iraq will make PLA enbarrassing? what kind of delusion is that?

As I said before, sonny boy, pay attention. Saddam Hussein and Gadaffy had no good relation with either China or Russian, so that you could bully them. Did you know the fact that US never dare to send a single soldier across the divided line in vietnam war? That is the main reason you lost miserably in that war. why? because China told you so.

Leave Iran aside, try Syria or noth korea first , then come back to bark. son.

 

[gambit]

What you piece of sh*t want to approve by bullshiting so mcuh? Bragging the mighty of US by defeat primitive taliban and saddsam after 3 year's sanction? Is the best US could do? Don't make me laugh. Why you invading Iraq will make PLA enbarrassing? what kind of delusion is that?

As I said before, sonny boy, pay attention. Saddam Hussein and Gadaffy had no good relation with either China or Russian, so that you could bully them. Did you know the fact that US never dare to send a single soldier across the divided line in vietnam war? That is the main reason you lost miserably in that war. why? because China told you so.

Leave Iran aside, try Syria or noth korea first , then come back to bark. son.

Can your PLA get over to Iran in sufficient numbers or not ? Simple question.

In order to help Iran against US, should the US and Iran get into a shooting fight, China would have to send tens of thousands of troops, hundreds of tanks, hundreds of helos, and ammunition for everyone and everything. Do not say China does not need to send that many. Iran and China will not be fighting against Iraq, but against US, a country that revolutionized warfare more times than your PLA can copy US. Maybe a slight exaggeration there.

The answer is no. China cannot help Iran in any meaningful way.

Say I have a brother -- Joe -- who lives across the country. I promised Joe that I will help him in times of need. Joe believes me.

Say Joe have a friend -- Sam -- who lives in the next block. Sam promised Joe that he will help Joe in times of need. Joe believes Sam.

One is family. One is friend.

If Joe ever needs help, who do you think Joe believes will be the quickest to help him ? This is not about faith in me helping my brother Joe, but about CAPABILITY. Who is the most capable at that particular time ? Yes, I can help my brother Joe but it will take time for me to cross the country.

If there is a shooting fight between US and Iran, and if your China sends whatever feeble help in PLAN ships, those ships will be rendered worthless in short order. Iran knows it. Your China knows it.

You know shit about your own China, son.

 

[pher]

Can your PLA get over to Iran in sufficient numbers or not ? Simple question.

In order to help Iran against US, should the US and Iran get into a shooting fight, China would have to send tens of thousands of troops, hundreds of tanks, hundreds of helos, and ammunition for everyone and everything. Do not say China does not need to send that many. Iran and China will not be fighting against Iraq, but against US, a country that revolutionized warfare more times than your PLA can copy US. Maybe a slight exaggeration there.

The answer is no. China cannot help Iran in any meaningful way.

Say I have a brother -- Joe -- who lives across the country. I promised Joe that I will help him in times of need. Joe believes me.

Say Joe have a friend -- Sam -- who lives in the next block. Sam promised Joe that he will help Joe in times of need. Joe believes Sam.

One is family. One is friend.

If Joe ever needs help, who do you think Joe believes will be the quickest to help him ? This is not about faith in me helping my brother Joe, but about CAPABILITY. Who is the most capable at that particular time ? Yes, I can help my brother Joe but it will take time for me to cross the country.

If there is a shooting fight between US and Iran, and if your China sends whatever feeble help in PLAN ships, those ships will be rendered worthless in short order. Iran knows it. Your China knows it.

You know shit about your own China, son.

Go launch your attack first, let us worry about the rest. otherwise bring your brag to somewhere else, I don't have obligation to entertain you here. warship? don't know China could reach Iran easiy by land, 100 times faster than your dumb AC? Go back to your kindergarden to learn some basic geografhy first, sonny kid.

 

[Anaoshak]

First of all Saddam offer of ceasefire wasn't due to his spirit of peaceful coexistence amongst nations esp his neighbors but mostly base on his weak and shaky position after liberation of Khoramshar, because his main goal that was occupation and annexation of this city failed ...

View attachment 324262

Moreover despite his claims of withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Iran territories cities like Mehran, Sumar, Qsar Shirin, Talaiyeh, Shalamcheh and many others were still occupied .... in operation "Beit ol-Moqaddas" which Khoramshar liberated in it we managed to retake 5400 kms of our territories while Iraq had invaded at least 10000 kms.

Besides Iran had some demands:

1. Immediate cease-fire and end to the whole military action.
2. Determination of the starter of the war.
3. Punishment of the aggressor.
4. withdrawal to the international border.
5. Implementation of Algeria agreement.
6. Request of war reparations and damages.
7. Releasing the POWs.
​

None of these demands were met till 598 resolution .... and as you mentioned it was just a ceasefire offer not an actual peace plan ... furthermore Saddam torn apart the Algeria agreement before cameras before war therefore we couldn't trust him , Iran policy to not trust him was proved later on by Iraq invasion and attack after acceptance of 598 revolution by Iran and Iraq-Kuwait war ....
How on earth could you guarantee that a maniac like Saddam that has already started a war against you and occupied your lands wouldn't attack you again?
It's not possible unless you punish the aggressor ...

Of course it wasn't because of peaceful intentions or out of the goodness of his heart. He was afraid. That's why he offered it.

Khoramshar was liberated on the 12th of May,
22 May 1982 is when operation "Beit ol-Moqaddas" was finished. And yes, after that operation there were still some areas where the Iraqis remained but the ceasefire was offered in June. And "Iraq had lost all captured areas in June, 1982." I checked a few maps as well and the timeline and they say the same thing.

Most of those demands weren't even met with the 598 resolution though. I mean even until the 2000s POWs were being exchanged, Saddam was still in power and wasn't punished for the Iran-Iraq war, no war reparations were paid and etc. The biggest demand was for Saddam to leave and an Islamic republic to replace him, Khomeini wanted Karbala and etc.

But It's true, you can't guarantee that someone like Saddam wouldn't start a war against you, i mean as you mentioned, he attacked again after he accepted the 598 and was repelled.
But countless lives would have been saved, Iran would have been a clear victor in the war instead of some people calling the outcome a stalemate, there would have been war reparations, and Iran could have built up. Now I'm not saying that Iran would have turned it's back against the Iraqi border because they said that they would abide by a ceasefire. They should have still been prepared.

And as i mentioned, had this just been a war between Iran and Iraq, Iran would have won easily. But they had to take the fact that the West didn't want them to win, into account. Without the West, Saddam would have been doomed.

 

[gambit]

Go launch your attack first, let us worry about the rest. otherwise bring your brag to somewhere else, I don't have obligation to entertain you here. warship? don't know China could reach Iran easiy by land, 100 times faster than your dumb AC?

And how many countries would the PLA have to cross from China to Iran ?

Go back to your kindergarden to learn some basic geografhy first, sonny kid.

You cannot even bring up Google Maps and you are telling me to learn geography ?

So how many countries would the PLA have to cross from China to Iran ? How long would it take China to secure border permissions ? What persuasion and/or incentives would China have to give to those countries to allow foreign troops to go thru their countries ?

A Chinese general said China would come to Iran's aid against The Great Satan ? Aaawwww...How nice...

But is there an official document outlining a mutual defense agreement between China and Iran ? Increasing economic ties and arms selling do not qualify as an official agreement that DEMANDS one to shed blood for the other. Like NATO or even the Taiwan Relations Act.

Geography maybe tied to and even shapes politics, but they are not the same. China and Iran are geographically linked but they are politically separated. That political partition is created by 'other countries' in that same geographical link. Do you understand ? In your naivete and rush to cover up your ignorance about global affairs, you ended up digging a deeper hole for yourself than you were before.

The reality is that China is actually happy for that separation between herself and Iran. No border ties means less of a need for that mutual defense agreement. Without that agreement, whatever the Chinese general said is: Bullshit.

Against the US, Iran is alone.

This is why no one should take seriously the PDF Chinese when it comes to military issues.

Again...You know shit about your own China, son.

 

[ebrahym]

Against the US, Iran is alone

and still they have given US a severe head ache
unlike DPRK which is more like benefactor to US