How the situation with Iran may reflect on Georgia

Discussion in 'Nuclear, Chemical & Bio Weapons' started by jeddie80, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you are referring to (Darius fleeing the scene of battle) is regarded by historians as a legend, even if it is captured in a famous painting. But regardless, Alexander (who wanted to create a world empire on the fusion of Iranian and Macedonian races) did conquer the Persian Empire. His vision, however, was betrayed by his own generals, who wanted to rule Iran as foreign rulers, which is why Seleucid rule over Iran was short-lived lasting less than a hundred years. After the Seleucids, for seven hundred years under, first the Parthians and then the Sassanids, Iran stopped the Roman advance into the region and, on quite a few occasions, inflicted massive defeats on the Romans. Hence, while Rome disastrous defeat the Battle of Carhae at the hands of the upstart Parthians, shocked Rome and left such a bitter taste that the loss was not forgotten for a long time (with the Roman legions captured by the Parthians), by the time of the Sassanids, such defeats suffered by Rome (and then Byzantium) became common place. Indeed, successive Roman emperors were either killed or wounded in battle against Iran and one, Valerian, was captured and held in captivity for the rest of his life. The latter victory something that is captured for time immemorial in the following bas relief found in Naghshe Rostam in Iran:
    [​IMG]
    Anyway, if you are interested to read on the Roman-Persian wars, this Wikipedia article (Roman-Persian Wars) does an adequate job introducing you to the subject. The salient point relevant to what I had said captured in the following summary:
    But don’t worry, it wasn't just Rome that had trouble subduing Iran. Thus, for instance, when the Ottomans were busy capturing the rest of the Middle East, in Iran they encountered a rival empire that competed with them for centuries for control of the region. Numerous wars between Iran and the Ottoman empire over several centuries (16th-19th centuries), however, produced as much success for the Ottoman empire as was enjoyed by Rome and Byzantine empires. Not much at all. You can read about the outcome of those numerous wars here: Ottoman-Persian Wars. Or you can read about them in any source you wish. The point being that many empires claiming to be the strongest in the world before America's turn, had faced Iran, only to learn that they were unable to subdue it.
     
  2. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I should add to my last post the following: when Iran has suffered its worst defeats, it usually hasn't been at the hands of the "most powerful empire" of the time. Instead, it has been at the hands of upstarts which we hardly took seriously. The Greek city states were largely Iranian vassals and even if we had been unable to subdue mainland Greece in the course of the Greco-Persian wars, they were hardly regarded as equal of the Persian empire. Yet, under Alexander, they conquered the Persian empire. Later, what the Rome and the Byzantine empires were unable to do over seven hundreds years and countless wars, the nomadic Arabs -- which Iran had looked at with utter contempt -- were able to in one full sweep, conquering the Persian empire. Again, before the Mongols literally ripped through Iran and savaged the land and its people, Iran's rulers at the time regarded them with such contempt that they had (as it turned very unwisely) ordered the Mongol emissaries beheaded for their arrogance. That led the Mongols to unleash their full fury on Iran. Subsequently, centuries of warfare with the Ottomans didn't produce any real victory for either side, but a new upstart empire in the north (Russia) was able to inflict what are for Iran its most disastrous defeats in a long time. The first Russian-Persian war (the Russo-Persian war of 1804-1813) starting (ironically, given the title of this thread) essentially over Georgia, which had been under Persian suzerainty at the time but attempting to enlist Russian support to free itself of the Persian yoke, with Tiblisi in particular being ruled by Iran for much of its history. As a result of that war, Iran lost the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, northern Azerbaijan) to the Russians and then in a the Russo-Persian war of 1826-1828, despite a very promising start to that war with Iran recapturing much of the Caucasus, Iran ended up losing a lot more. Iran's loss in that war was so disastrous, the Iranian army virtually seized to be a real fighting force anymore, with Iran falling into a state of utter weakness and almost irrelevance for over a century thereafter. (To be fair, the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-1857, represented the last attempt by Iran to assert itself as a power, recapturing Herat in Afghanistan only for the British to intervene and force Iran to relinquish its claims to Afghanistan. It was after that war that Iran totally seized to be a meaningful state, enjoying nominal independence but suffering from overt interference by Russia and Britain in its affairs)..

    Anyway, my point being: yes, we have occasionally lost battles to the major powers of the day, but our real lasting defeats have generally been at the hands of unexpected rising powers who we had largely failed to notice. That history leads me to believe that Iran may have a lot more to worry about from the Sunni/Wahabi/ISIS nuts than the enemy it has been preparing itself to fight over the past few decades.
     
  3. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Again.....the United States is going out of it's way to prepare....Israel, Iran, Saudi Arbabia, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan...etc...etc...etc....prepare all these Nations ahead of time and educate them to just how serious the United States considers the violations of the NPT by Iran.

    The protection and enforcement of any and all especially serious violations of the NPT is something the United States ir prepared for and dedicated to do under any and all circumstances as to not enforce the OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES OF IRAN.....a nation which signed the NPT in order to be ALLOWED to purchase Nuclear Reactors, Reactor Grade Uranium and Nuclear Technology....all things Iran itself had no capability of developing on it's own....to not enforce Iran's OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES UNDER THE NPT....is not an option.

    Iran MUST HONOR THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND HONOR THE AGREEMENTS IRAN HAS AFTER SIGNING THE NPT.

    You keep on talking and posting pictures about Iran's Military Capabilities.

    Why?

    You INSTEAD should be posting about how a WAR will be averted by Iran honoring it's agreements....but you are not.

    Why?

    I happened to bring up Darius II's dishonorable in the extreme abandonment of his army when they held a much superior in number Force than that of Alexander the Great....and I brought it up because I was trying to explain to you that what will happen if Iran does not Honor it's agreeement with the United States will make that Persian Military Defeat seem like losing a game of Chess compared to the possible level of destruction and death that can be brought down upon Iran if Iran makes a few mistakes in dealing with the United States.

    #1. The Iranian Religious Leadership must be made to understand that this agreement with the United States is IRAN'S LAST CHANCE and if Iran does not honor this Nuclear Agreement that those Iranian Religious Leaders WILL BE REMOVED FROM POWER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

    #2. The Iranian Military has been made aware....by the U.S. Militaries CENTCOM....what the U.S. Military response would be should Iran not honor the agreement and then when the U.S. Military begin's actions to seize all Iranian Nuclear Facilities....any Iranian Military Personal or Service Branches that attempt to interfere with U.S. Rangers and Special Forces, Special Team's and CIA Team's that will be Chopper Dropped into Iran and will seize all Iranian Nuclear Facilities.....that any Iranian Military Service Groups that interfere will be destroyed.

    #3. We have already made it be known that the United States want's to keep the Iranian Navy, Air Force and Regular Army Divisions INTACT to be the new Military and Protector of a CIVILIAN RUN AND CONTROLLED IRANIAN DEMOCRACY....and those who STAND DOWN and do not fight....WILL NOT BE TARGETED!!

    #4. Those Iranian Military Units, Groups or Divisions that DO FIGHT....will be OBLITERATED.

    #5. Control of Iran's Oil, Economy and writting of an IRANIAN CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS....will be handled by the Iranian People as Iran will no longer exist as a Religious Oligarchy.

    As I stated....this is not some war with the Greeks, or Rome or Iraq.....this would be a war WITH THE UNITED STATES.

    And the ONLY reason we would go to war is if Iran does not honor the Nuclear Agreement which mean's the U.S. Military would be fighting a war with a possible NUCLEAR CAPABLE IRAN!!!

    That mean's that the U.S. Military WOULD TAKE NO CHANCES.....and the lethality and brutality of such a U.S. Military Invasion cannot be understated.

    It would make the Invasion of Iraq seem like a few firecrackers were going off.

    This is both the facts and the POSSIBLE TRAGEDY.....as even if as we expect...all Iranian Service Branches with the exception of the Republican Guard....STAND DOWN AND DO NOT FIGHT.....the United States would still have to destroy the entire Iranian Republican Guard.

    This would be losses of life over 100,000 people.

    Maybe we would drop new USAF Non-Nuclear EMP's and render all Republican Guard Units INERT....but if they were too close to the Nuclear Facilities....we would come in with Heavy Bombers using new Self Guided Anti-Armor and Anti-Personal Cluster Munitions which do not violate the Cluster Bomb Ban as these render themselves inert after they jit the ground and do not explode.

    You have absolutely no CLUE as to what level of Military Force Iran would be going up against.

    THE HOPE IS IRAN HONORS THE AGREEMENT AND BY DOING THIS EVERYONE BENEFITS!!!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  4. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    One other thing.....if Iran does not HONOR IT'S AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES....it would not be about as you posted..."subduing Iran."

    It would be about SEIZING AND REMOVING ALL IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND NUCLEAR TECH AND DISMANTLING OF IRANIAN NUCLEAR REACTORS!!!!

    If Iran HONORS THE AGREEMENT....then there is nothing for Iran to worry about.

    If Iran does NOT honor the agreement.....this is how it would begin.

    The U.S. Navy would send in 5 to 6 U.S. Nuclear Carrier Battle Groups.....One in the Red Sea....2 to 3 in the Arabian Sea and 1 to 2 in the Mediterranean Sea.

    These 5 to 6 Nimitz Class Nuclear Carrier Battle Groups which also have within EACH CARRIER BATTLE GROUP 2 Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers equipped with both Conventional and Nuclear Warhead Cruise Missiles as well as SM-3 ABM/ASAT's....which as Anti-Aircraft, Anti-Ballistic Missile and Anti-Satellite Missiles....and equipped with the new Pandora's Fog and Lasers which the first will not allow an Anti-Ship Missile to find it's target and the second is capable of frying any anti-ship missiles electronics.

    This is from Forbes.....

    On June 21st the navy carried out sea trials of a new countermeasure to anti-ship missiles called Pandarra Fog. Slated to be deployed as part of a warship’s defensive armament, the Pandarra Fog system creates radar-absorbing carbon-fiber clouds that prevent a missile’s seeker from finding its target. It is a simple but effective means of blinding the radar target acquisition system of anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles and ballistic missiles like the Wrecker and the DF-21.

    “This isn’t just smoke or chaff, this is a high tech obscurant, which can be effective against an array of missile homing systems,” said Antonio Siordia, U.S. Seventh Fleet’s science adviser.

    Then there are the laser cannons that are joining the fleet this year. Just one sailor can operate that weapon, which can burn through missiles and fry electronics with laser beams that can also shoot down drones and disable swarming speedboats. Able to fire continuously, the laser beam projector is also less expensive than launching defensive missiles.

    LINK....http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/08/04/our-aircraft-carriers-are-not-sitting-ducks/

    AboveAlpha....continued....
     
  5. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thus 5 to 6 U.S. Navy Nuclear Carrier Battle Groups capable of carrying up to 130 F-18's or about 96 mixed aircraft of all types each with 2 Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers equipped to shoot down any Iranian Ballistic Missile Lanches and capable of destroying any Iranian Cruise or Anti-Ship Missiles....each with 4 Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers....plus Frigates, Mine Sweepers, and a number of L.A. Class, Virginia Class and Seawolf Class Nuclear Attack Subs.....will be in the area.

    The USAF will have at least 1000 Aircraft of all types from Heavy B-2 Stealth Bombers to F-22 Raptors to Electronic Warfare Aircraft...etc.

    Marines....well.....just PRAY we don't send in the Marines!!!

    The U.S. Army has 1000's of M1A2 Abram's Tanks pre-positioned in the Middle East and you better hope we don't have to use those either!!

    This is not about SUBDUING IRAN.

    This is about FORCING IRAN TO CAPITULATE and if it doesn't....DESTROYING ALL AND ANY IRANAIAN FORCES THAT WISH TO FIGHT....as well as REMOVING THE CURRENT IRANIAN RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP.

    THAT...is what will happen.....unless of course Iran HONORS THE AGREEMENT!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  6. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Also....you talk about when Iran suffered it's WORSE DEFEATS.

    The U.S. Military Actions I have been describing will not be to conquer and hold LAND....they will not be about grabbing Iranian Oil Fields....and they will not be designed to make Iran a U.S. Territory.

    They will be for the purpose of seizing. dismantling and removing all Iranian Capability to use Nuclear Technology.

    Any attempt by any Iranian Military Force to interfere with this purpose will be destroyed.

    AboveAlpha
     
  7. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have mentioned 2 ancient battles that I believe hold relevant lessons for any Iran-US military encounters. I will post about those battles:
    Battle of Salamis
    While the Persians lost this battle, the real lessons from it today revolve around how a similar fate can face the much larger and better equipped US naval forces if they are stupid enough to engage Iran in a battle in the Persian Gulf and in the narrow confines of the Straits of Hormuz. Except if Xerxes was lured into this unnecessary battle in the Straits of Salamis by deception and false testimony, in case of war with Iran, the Americans will be lured into a similar battle by the adverse consequences for the world economy of Iran being able to close the Straits of Hormuz.
    Battle of Carrhae
    The Battle of Carrhae was fought between Iran under the Parthians and Rome. The battle ended in one of the worst defeats in the annals of Roman history. The hit-and-run tactics employed by the Parthians were quite similar to the asymmetric tactics favored by Iran. The arrogance and overconfidence of the Romans going into this battle is reminiscent of the attitude prevalent among Americans today.
    Besides these 2 battles, I had alluded to another battle as well. While I am not sure this battle has any relevant military lessons today, it is one of the most memorable battles in the annals of wars waged by the west against Iran. I posted the rock relief at Naghshe Rostam to commemorate this victory and I will post a bit about the battle itself.
    Battle of Edessa
     
  8. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Standoff weapons have failed against ISIS and in Afghanistan. The continued use of ineffective tactics speaks poorly for the Obama administrations adroitness in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency.

    That phrase is reserved for the domestic opponents of the Obama administration.

    The collapse of the Iraqi army was predictable. The collapse of the entire Iraqi Project was predicable. The Vietnam experience made the events in Iraq predictable.

    Obama wanted to fulfill a campaign promise to withdraw US forces from Iraq. That was more important than the conduct of American foreign and national security policies.

    Your post brings US Army General William Westmoreland to mind. He thought he could use body counts to kill his way to victory in Vietnam. He saw "light at the end of the tunnel." It would be funny except for all the tragedy.

    Agreement with me is a good thing. ;)

    Actually, the Mexicans seem to want what America has to offer.

    America has much to learn from Islam about female emancipation and the treatment of LGBTQ folks. Hahahaha. JK. The lights of Islam died in the Siege and Sack of Baghdad in 1258 CE by Hulagu Khan. Islam never recovered.

    Btw, the one true religion that will save one's soul is agreement with me. Everything else is a false religion. JK.

    Atheism of the non-strident variety is the path that works for me. Reality is too random for there to be a deity. However, religion can provide comfort in individual lives. I've witnessed the phenomenon.






    All things pass in time. The US lacks a unifying principle which would hold the society and polity together. Here's something that elaborates on the subject:

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-09-01/erosion-american-national-interests

    There will always be an America in the sense that it is a place. But the society and polity have an expiration date. All complex societies collapse. When and why remain unanswered in the case of the USA. My own view is that factionalism, financial crisis and foreign defeat will bring the polity down in the fullness of time. No complex society has ever survived prolonged financial crisis...except for Byzantium for awhile, but in that case it reverted to a far less sophisticated society.

    I once loved the USA. But then it was transformed. Lots of people lose their affection for a polity or society when they become alienated and estranged from it. Detachment is often the result. Even the residents of Rome lost their affection for their polity in the fifth century when it became Gothic.
     
  9. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You cannot use examples of ancient warfare as far as any U.S. Military action that the U.S. might be forced to exact upon Iran.

    You bring up the U.S. Navy which operates in conjunction with all other U.S. Military service branches as the U.S. Military fights battles in an Integrated Service Manner.

    There would not even exist an Iranian Navy prior to any U.S. Naval Forces sailing into some bottleneck in the Persian Gulf.

    As far as Ground Forces....the U.S. Military would obliterate any Ground Force well before the enemy force ever knew we were comming.

    Where you are going with this I have no idea?

    AboveAlpha
     
  10. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you are saying is nonsense. Unless the US evacuates from the Persian Gulf, the US is already there. There are plenty of US naval ships in the Persian Gulf area; there are also US naval bases in Bahrain, Qatar and other bases elsewhere in the region. Conversely, the number of US aircraft required to even go after Iran's most obvious targets, never mind trying to destroy all of Iran's capabilities in your insane delusions, will be a lot more than what the US has in the region or which the US can assemble without its intentions being first telegraphed to Iran.
    But lets say Iran is stupid enough to sit idly and let the US assemble the kind of armada it assembled to take on Saddam before Desert Storm and not do anything about it. (To be sure, America's own military assessments have generally noted that the force required to take on Iran will need to be much larger given Iran's much larger territory and population, around 1 million men which would necessitate a draft), As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, while there are absolutely no military lessons to take from seeing the US slaughter the Iraqi forces as they were unilaterally retreating in the so-called Highway of Death (except that Iran shouldn't commit the same stupid blunders as Saddam, blinking at the last second trying to retreat from Kuwait as the land offensive was beginning), or from the tanks battles in open desert between the US and Iraq's Republican guards, there is one lesson from Desert Storm that is instructive. That lesson relates to the difficulty the US had in destroying Saddam's Scud missiles (missiles that unlike Iran's, were purely psychological weapons) despite those Scuds aimed at Israel operating from a very small area (designated as H3) and that area being under complete US air surveillance. Iran is a country more than 3 times the size of Iraq; Iran's missile arsenal is many times larger; Iran's missiles are of enough range to be fired from any place in the country and not just a H3 sized area; Iran's missiles include many that, unlike the liquid fueled Iraqi Scuds, use solid fuel (meaning they can be taken out to fire off immediately, as opposed to liquid fuel missiles that need time out in the open before they are fueled and fired). And the US will not be able to assemble the kind of forces from the kind of coalition it had assembled against Saddam during Desert Storm. So what makes you even remotely delusional enough to think the US will be able to take out everything (or anything much) that Iran has to fire at the US by writing this drivel on the internet??

    The dynamics suggested by those ancient battles is exactly what is at play today. Arrogance, lust for power, and the belief that one's forces are invincible on one side; use of advantageous terrain, swarming tactics, guerrilla hit-and-run tactics, on the other side. And the outcome will be the same too.
     
  11. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's too bad the Sassanids lost the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah in 636 to the votaries and acolytes of the Prophet.
     
  12. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like other conquerors, Arab rule proved short lived and Iran wasn't vanquished. The real Arab caliphate was the Umayyad; it was overthrown as a result of a revolution spearheaded by Persians, initiated in the Khorasan region of Iran.
    Abbasid Revolution
    Thereafter, the capital of the caliphate was moved to Baghdad, a new city built near the Sassanid capital Ctesiphon (the Sassanids having moved their capital to Ctesiphon to underline that Mesopotamia would remain under Iranian rule and will be a part of Iran, even though the population of the area even then was mostly non-Iranian and non Persian). From Baghdad, the actual administration of the empire slowly fell to Persian administrators.
    The Abbasid Empire (c. 750–1258 C.E.)
    The Abbasid period also marked the Golden Age of Islamic civilization, with a flowering of the arts, sciences, and other intellectual endeavors. Persian influences and Persian culture reigned supreme during this period, with many of the most notable scholars of this period being of Persian decent. So strong where Persian influences over the achievements of this period that many 19th century historians, influenced by Gobineau's theories of Aryan supremacy, viewed this history as proof of the victory of the "Aryan" Iranians over the Semitic Arabs and the superiority of the latter over the former.
    ABBASID CALIPHATE
    Of course, this dichotomy is no longer accepted quite as such, but it speaks to the incomparable contributions of Persians to the development of an Islamic civilization that was simply far ahead of the west at the time. Nonetheless:
    In any case, with the rise of Iranian dynasts over the Iranian plateau, the Iranian Renaissance of the 9th and 10th centuries and the flowering of a new Persian language, and with the the popularity of the Iranian epic, the Book of Kings (detailing the glories of pre Islamic Iran in 60,000 couplets), and later the rallying behind the Shia banner under the Safavids (1501-1724), Iranians made sure that they maintained their separate identity from the Arabs and would not give up their links to their proud history.
    P.S.
    I should mention that the Wahabi version of Islam propagated by the Saudis, ISIS, Al Queda et al is not even the same as the Sunni Islam that existed under the Abbasids or under the Ottoman court. Like the Abassid caliphate, the Ottoman court itself was under Persian cultural influence. In fact, Persian being the lingua franca of the Ottoman court even as the Ottomans were in constant warfare against Iran and Iran was a rival empire. That Wahabi version of Islam, however, is the version that the Arabs who lost out as a result of the Abbassid revolution still cling to as representing the "real Islam, before it was corrupted by the influence of the Persians! As for the Shia, these Wahabi rate them as pure heretics and in their mind are little more than Iranian 5th columnists, notwithstanding the fact that the actual origins (as opposed to its eventual evolution) of the Shia-Sunni split in Islam had nothing to do with the Arab/Persian divide.
     
  13. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The flowering of the Abbasid Caliphate came to an abrupt halt in 1258 CE with the Siege of Baghdad by Hulagu Khan.
     
  14. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While the Mongol invasions brought unprecedented destruction on the centers of Islamic civilization, and were particularly devastating on Iran, the Mongols who ruled the region were eventually tamed by the superior Persian culture and became Iranicized as well. But the destruction they brought did contribute to the different trajectory followed by western civilization compared to Irano-Islamic civilization because this destruction coincided with a time when Europe was emerging from its Dark Ages and experiencing the European Renaissance. A renaissance that was in no small measure made possible by the works of Moslem (many Persian) scholars -- works that were suppressed in the Islamic world after the Mongol invasions but which became the base upon which much of the western intellectual heritage was built. Thus, for instance, the Persian scholar and mathematician Ghazali (1058-1111 AD) had already developed much of the ideas later associated with Descartes (1596-1650 AD), with some of Descartes work even appearing almost plagiarized from Ghazali (you can find a comparison of the writings here). The works by Avicenna, the famous Persian physician and philosopher, especially his Cannons of Medicine, were standard texts for training of physicians in European universities for many centuries. Razi (Latinized Rhazes) is another Persian philosopher, physician, chemist and alchemist, was an early proponent and pioneer of experimental medicine: his works (especially his books "On Surgery" and "A General Book on Therapy) were part of the standard curriculum in western universities for centuries and he also help laid the foundations for many of the fields of medical study (such as pediatrics and ophthalmology). The Persian mathematician and scholar, Khwarizmi, on the other hand, had a profound impact on the development of mathematics in the west, with terms such as algebra, algorithm derived from his works which also spread the so-called "Arabic numerals", digits and other mathematical innovations to Europe. There were many other great Persian Moslem scholars whose work, instead of being built upon in Iran and in the centers of Islamic civilization, became the foundation for the development of the sciences, mathematics, even philosophy and social sciences in the west.

    Incidentally, I should mention that while the Islamic world began to fall behind Europe following the European Renaissance in the west and the Mongol invasions in the Islamic world, the visible signs of this decline were not as noticeable for a long time. Hence, as late as the 18th century, the Ottoman empire was still a threat to Europe, while the Safavid empire was a rival empire of equal power and glory, whose capital, Isfahan, is still today like a museum of Irano-Islamic civilization.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Iran once ruled huge territories in the Caucasus. Those territories were ruled directly or indirectly by Iran for centuries. However, the territories were lost as a result of Russian expansion. Does Iran have any desire to expand its power or influence into the Caucasus?
     
  16. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Standoff weapons have not failed against ISIS and in Afghanistan. Funny how there is this expectation that wars should be fought and over in a matter of a few days or weeks seems pervasive in the war monger's corner, especially given that America has been fighting war continuously since 2002.

    The fact that Obama refuses to put "boots on the ground" to combat ISIS is no indication of the effectiveness of his administrations counter terrorism strategy. The body count of Americans vs "terrorists" is a rather positive measure of effectiveness.


    Is that why those opponents can win congress and still not be able to put forth a meaningful legislative agenda, and in fact spend most of their time on purely political grandstanding? And this from the party that strongly objects to even the most common sense gun controls. That is rather ironic, no?


    got news for ya. EVERY human success and failure is predictable after the fact. Vietnam? Seriously? The conditions and fundamentals of Vietnam were completely different as were the war fighting abilities and technologies of both sides.



    Yes, I mean when it comes to American "CONDUCT" of foreign affairs and national security policies, honoring multinational agreements signed in good faith by all parties isn't important. Who knew that the word of America as represented by the signature of its President was NOT to be trusted.


    And yet the US didn't lose a single major battle. They did manage to kill a few million civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, tho.


    Does not change the veracity of my statement.






    All things pass in time. The US lacks a unifying principle which would hold the society and polity together. Here's something that elaborates on the subject:

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-09-01/erosion-american-national-interests

    There will always be an America in the sense that it is a place. But the society and polity have an expiration date. All complex societies collapse. When and why remain unanswered in the case of the USA. My own view is that factionalism, financial crisis and foreign defeat will bring the polity down in the fullness of time. No complex society has ever survived prolonged financial crisis...except for Byzantium for awhile, but in that case it reverted to a far less sophisticated society.

    I once loved the USA. But then it was transformed. Lots of people lose their affection for a polity or society when they become alienated and estranged from it. Detachment is often the result. Even the residents of Rome lost their affection for their polity in the fifth century when it became Gothic.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting article, thanks for link.

    OTOH, America is far from the doom and gloom pictures being drawn by politicians and pundits pandering to specific demographics. I believe that the most fractious contribution to the current state of affairs is the never ending political campaign cycle and the massive amounts of money required to "play the game". I don't know of any other democracy on the planet where the politicians spend more time fundraising to be able to campaign and keep their jobs/power than they do actually doing the jobs they were elected to do.

    Prior to the explosion of digital media and the exponential increase in communication capabilities of everyone with an opinion and an axe to grind, even the most heated and savage political debates were played in front of a relatively small audience. Now a single misstatement, or an unguarded remark of the kind that everyone makes, can destroy a career, can launch congressional investigations and energize partisan opposition to never before achieved results.

    Sweating the small stuff at the expense of the big stuff seems to be the modus operandi of both partisan politics and the mass media.
     
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are right: indeed, many of Iran's wars against Rome, then Byzantine, and later the Ottoman empire, also involved the territories between Iran and these various empires in the Caucasus. Generally speaking, though, besides northern Azerbaijan (which was always part of Iran until the Russo-Persian wars in the 19th century), much of Armenia (including Yerevan) and much of Georgia (including Tiblisi) were for long stretches ruled directly or indirectly by Iran.

    Anyway, the short answer to your question is that Iran has no basis to hope to have anything besides normal (hopefully good) relations with Armenia and Georgia, but the Republic of Azerbaijan (northern Azerbaijan) is different. The Azeris are Shia and until they were separated from Iran in teh 19th century, shared the same history as Iran. Moreover, the majority of Azeris live in southern areas of Azerbaijan located in Iran. Hence, many Iranians might wish to see Azerbaijan return to Iran one day. However, at the moment, as a result of decades of first Soviet, and then subsequently Israeli inspired, propaganda and attempts to create rifts and divisions among Iran and the Azeris, as well as chauvinistic Azeri attitudes which have been developed among certain segment of the Azeri population in Iran encouraged by Azeri propaganda across the border, the greater fear and risk is not to see separatist behavior among Iran's own large Azeri community.

    P.S.
    Showing both the pragmatic streak in Iran's foreign policy, as well as the concerns about the role of the Republic of Azerbaijan possibly causing issues for Iran among Iran's Azeri community, Iran generally tilted towards the Armenians in their war against Azerbaijan. Additionally, Iran has excellent relations with (Chrisitan) Armenia, while its relations with Azerbaijan (despite its majority Shia population) is strained.
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Standoff weapons are exactly that, standoff.

    Good at killing some grunts on the ground, but useless in actually taking over territory. And taking over territory is really the only way to end a war.

    Sure, you can do other things like destroy the enemies military capability. But unless they stop doing what caused the war, this is only a temporary state of affairs. So unless you fight a series of wars (Arab-Israeli comes to mind) until the agressor side finally decides it is not worth fighting any more, a power change removes one of the leaders, or put boots on the ground to secure the area, the wars or conflict will never end.

    The problem is that ever since the end of WWII when 2 bombs put an end to the will to fight of the Empire of Japan, people have believed in some kind of "Magic Bullet" that will end a conflict with no friendly (and minimal enemy) casualties. The only problem is, that is a fantasy and not real. The most standoff can do is to inhibit the enemy and degrade their capabilities. It will never stop them short of complete and utter destruction.

    This has nothing to do with the media or politicians, but the ignorance and gullability of the common person. Of course, most people also think that the US is a Democracy, which shows how ignorant most people really are. And they generally enjoy their ignorance.
     
  19. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You keep thinking that Iran has some capability to stop what might be coming.

    Iran has no such Military Capability.

    As I keep asking you...why are you not simply talking about Iran HONORING IT'S AGREEMENTS??????

    That's all Iran has to do....HONOR WHAT IRAN HAS AGREED TO DO!!!

    If not....the U.S. Military will FORCE Iran to Honor it's agreements.

    Iran could not stop this.

    The only arrogance being displayed here is your arrogance of thinking Iran has any chance at all of stopping whatever the U.S. Military must do.

    The ONLY dynamics here is which way to twist the lit Cigarette Butt that is Iran into the ash tray while putting it out....left or to the right?

    AboveAlpha

    - - - Updated - - -

    This area while make a nice R&R area for American Troops.

    AboveAlpha
     
  20. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Iranians lost an Arab master and took on a Mongol master. Iranian conscripts were part of the Arab invasion of Tang Dynasty China, and part of the Mongol invasion of Song Dynasty China. From the fall of the Iranian Sassanid Dynasty in the seventh century to the Arabs until the rise of the Iranian Safavid Dynasty in the sixteenth century Iran was ruled by foreigners. I must observe that Iranian siege technology was instrumental in the Mongol defeat of the Song in northern China.

    Many will dispute the Islamic contribution to Western Civilization. They would point to the rediscovery of Greek and Roman learning resulting from Byzantine scholars who took up residence in the West after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. Btw, there are different types of algebra with different origins...Babylon, Greece, India, Arabia and Iran.

    Incidentally, I should mention that while the Islamic world began to fall behind Europe following the European Renaissance in the west and the Mongol invasions in the Islamic world, the visible signs of this decline were not as noticeable for a long time. Hence, as late as the 18th century, the Ottoman empire was still a threat to Europe,[/QUOTE]

    The Ottomans were a threat to the European heartland until 1683 when they were defeated at the Second Battle of Vienna. After that date the Ottomans were slowly rolled back until their European possessions were limited to the southeastern quarter of Thrace. It took the British and French to hold off the Russian dismemberment of Turkey during the Crimean War.

    The Safavids were the equal of the Ottomans. If they hadn't been equal to the Turks the Ottomans would have rolled over them. I would like to see Isfahan.
     
  21. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those were epic campaigns brought to life in Gibbon's volumes on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The defeat of Crassus, fresh from victory over Spartacus, at Carrhae saved the Parthians from subjugation. The victories of Galerius, Julian, Belisarius and Heraclius were fascinating. The victories of Shapur and Khosrau were equally interesting. The capture of the Emperor Valerian and his demise proved that all glory is fleeting. Didn't the Sassanids keep him in a cage for the remainder of his life, and then stuff his body so it could be displayed?

    "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

    Apparently the Azeris of Azerbaijan have much to fear from a more powerful Iran. They will make common cause with the Israelis and Saudis in order to maintain their independence.

    Tilting toward Christian Armenians against Muslim Azeris was treason to the Ummah wasn't it?

    Nationalism leads to war. War leads to surprises. Miscalculation is the handmaiden of war.

    Iran is also vulnerable to national aspirations among the Kurds and Balochis.
     
  22. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes they have. America has been defeated by a gang of Fuzzy Wuzzies. How ineffably sad!

    Americans no longer have the heart to wage war in the brutal manner necessary to defeat an enemy, nor have the steadfastness to outlast an enemy. The political culture has evolved in a manner that guarantees American defeat in all conflicts longer than a year.

    ISIS is now able to carry fire and sword into the American heartland pretty much at will through adaptation of the lone wolf method.




    Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. :) I bet Howard Zinn is rolling over in his grave.

    No. Gun ownership is supported on a bipartisan basis. Reopen the Insane Asylums and then we can talk about gun registration.




    History teaches us what is likely to happen in any prospective course of action because the universe of human nature and behavior are limited. Our experience in Vietnam was predictable because of the character of the Tonkinese and Annamese in resisting foreigners, whether they be Ming Dynasty Chinese or the Fourth Republic French.





    I knew. America's word is worthless in the long run. Ask Tecumseh and Crazy Horse. Ask the South Vietnamese. Ask the guy who said "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."




    America didn't lose any battles involving forces larger than battalion size.

    Heart and steadfastness are more important than body counts.




    Actually it does.






    You're welcome.

    Maybe. But there's no denying that America is experiencing a shocking depletion of its reservoir of human capital and moral fiber. America has gone from Dawn To Decadence.
     
  23. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Superficially, you are partly right, but still not entirely, since between the 9th and 11th centuries we had the so-called Iranian Intermezzo with Iranian dynasties ruling Iran and the eastern Islamic world. But more fundamentally, as I alluded to already, while the head of the empire was often a foreigner, the administration of the empire would rest with Persian administrators (Viziers or Prime Ministers) and almost all the regimes that emerged became more or less under Persian cultural influence. Even political power essentially vested more in the Viziers than any caliph or sultan. Thus, as I had mentioned, the Abbasid caliphate itself was pretty much run of by Persian administrators, who controlled the position of Vizier (Prime Minister) and, over time, consigned the caliph to a largely ceremonial role. The caliphate itself, began to lose effective political power with the rise of local dynasties around the region. In Iran, you had the rise of the Persian Samanid dynasty who established the Samanid Empire (819-999) over much of Iran and the eastern Iranian cultural zone. You had also had the Buyid Dynasty (934-1062), another Persian dynasty which was Shia and ruled over the rest of Iran not ruled by the Samanids as well as Iraq, the caliph being essentially a captive of the Buyids who kept him alive only not to cause discord among the majority Sunni, Arab, population in their realm. Another Persian dynasty still, the Dylamites, ruled another part of the Iranian cultural zone in a period referred to as the Iranian Intermezzo (the period between the end of real political power of the Abbasid caliphs and the rise of the Sejuq Turks). Except, even the Seljuk Turks were only Turks in their ethnic background; otherwise, they too adopted Persian culture and their empire represented a continuation of Irano-Islamic civilization (with new Persian, the official language of the empire), while the administration of the Seljuk Empire also fell to Persian Viziers, the most notable of whom Nizam-al Mulk wrote the Siyasatnama (Book of Government), which is part of a larger tradition of Persian scholarship on governance known as "Mirrors for Princes", a style of writing reminiscent of Machiavelli's The Prince.
    What will be disputed is not what I really said. True, after Khwarizmi's work became known in the west, many began to mistakenly credit it with establishing Algebra as a mathematical discipline, when in fact Khwarizmi had himself relied on Indian, Persian, Greek, and Babylonian works before him. But that is a specific issue which doesn't change the overall point I was making in relation to Khwarizmi's work (I never said he started Algebra, but that the name of the field in English is derived from his work). Nor my overall point either about the influence of the works of these scholars. Thus, the Persian philosopher, lawyer, and scholar, Ghazali, had already written much of what made Descartes famous centuries later. He may not have said "I think, therefore I am", but a lot of Descartes writings are almost copied from what Ghazali had written. You can compare the works putting them together word by word here. To deny that influence would be quite unfair! Similarly, when the works of Razi (Latined Rhazes) and Ibn Sina (Latined Avicenna) were the main authorities on medicine in the west for centuries, taking western medicine from the voodoo methodology prevalent before in the Middle Ages to the foundations of the modern discipline, the influence is clear regardless of what anyone might want to say about it. And it doesn't matter either, that neither Avicenna nor Rhazes invented the wheel all by themselves and that their works benefited from earlier works including from the Greeks. Their work, and observations based on the experimental methodology they pioneered, was critical to an understanding many ailments and set western medicine on a path that it might very well have not taken without their works. True, this same path (in more nascent forms) was already begun by the Greeks and others before, but the works of all these civilizations were not only put together in one tradition, but they were expanded and improved on in a manner which laid the clear foundations for the remarkable developments in the sciences, philosophy, mathematics and other fields in the west. In the meantime, in the Islamic world itself, this foundation largely fell prey to the distinctly anti-scholarly policies of the Mongols, who for a while preferred to pretty much destroy all vestiges of urban civilization in the Irano-Islamic world. (The Mongols who ruled the Irano-Islamic world in Il Khanate were eventually freed of those prejudices and began ruling in the tradition of other Moslem potentates under the guidance of Persian administrators, but in the meantime, regrettably, the rigorous intellectual tradition that was being developed became scattered as opposed to being build upon).
    Here we agree. And I certainly would like you to be able to visit Isfahan. It is the jewel of Irano-Islamic civilization and a city whose charm captures nearly all visitors.
     
  24. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree. But if you are an advocate of waging war outside the Geneva conventions then you are advocating for waging war like the Nazis and Commies did. As for steadfastness, I don't see a lack of it. The killing of Islamists continues, the US remains in Afghanistan after 13 years still fighting, albeit at a low intensity.

    What defeats America is their complete lack of cultural empathy. they consistently miscalculate reactions of the populous of non-European nations. And even the war mongers when they have the political power seem to screw up things up on the verge of complete victory. The most monumental clustermuck, even worse than Vietnam, was the de-baathifcation process in Iraq that caught the administration with its pants down.


    As is every and any terrorist group. Lone wolves are incredibly hard to catch but they will only be successful if America is terrorized. Isn't if funny that when a religious fanatic/nutbar launches a lone wolf attack, the sky is falling and America is under threat and civil liberties need to be curtailed, but when a run of the mill fanatic/nutbar pulls out a couple of guns with high capacity magazines and starts shooting up a movie theatre, its just a nutbar and there is no need to overreact by instituting more common sense gun control laws.


    Surely you are not suggesting that the inaction of any meaningful legislation on the part of the republican house and senate is "dissent"? Not doing their jobs and spending the majority of time fund raising in order to keep their jobs is a form of "dissent"?


    We agree on American jingoism being blind to cultural and social differences.

    I disagree. if America's word and the sole superpower is worthless, then we are all truly screwed.

    what does the price of "victory" matter as long as you fight with heart and steadfastness.


    shocking depletion of its human capital? Was there a tsunami or some other natural disaster that killed millions of people that I didn't hear of?

    depletion of moral fiber? this from the guy that said dissent is truly patriotic? It might not be your morality, but it methinks you sell Americans short.
     
  25. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. Now all that needs happen is that the arab nations get their heads outta their collect arses and crush ISIS on the ground, while the US et.al. bomb the crap outta them from the air.

    too true. Which is why both Iraq and Afghanistan were failures. In the end its all about hearts and minds, not military occupation that true peace requires.
    Fact is, waging a war on a tactic employed by mostly stateless actors can never be won.




    I agree. the "magic bullet" is the nuke, but thankfully after two real world demonstrations the world has attempted to avoid their repeated use. Co-incidentally, I just saw a documentary called "the man who saved the world", about a Russian Lt.Col. who was in charge of the USSR's most advanced nuclear defense systems, who was on the hot seat when a glitch in the system showed America had launched a full blown missile launch against them (a true War Games) and had to decide if they were going to launch a counter attack. The guy insisted on waiting until confirmation of the US missile launch by other radar systems ignoring orders to launch. Needless to say he didn't launch and they never found the source of the glitch. (or at least they didn't admit finding it).

    Kinda like the Russian sub commander who rec'd orders to launch on the US during the Cuban missile crisis who disobeyed the order. But I digress.



    I think also that apart from a very few Americans, most are completely removed from the horrors of war. All the terror, suffering and blood are in the abstract - something they see in movies and on tv and in their video games. they don't recognize the utter inhumanity of war.
     

Share This Page