Who would win in a war of Turkey vs. Iran and Iraq?

Turkey is a NATO member, they have access to American equipment while Iran does not.

>Turkey purged all their good military commanders.
To be fair, most of those officers only got jobs in the first place because they were islamists

Idk, so does 99% of people here. I'm just using logic and comparing army size and military budget. Also ignore my first sentence in that post i was being an asshole.

I'm pretty ignorant about the Middle East

Attached: 1460677798275.png (657x527, 13K)

doesn't matter
just the general area where your bombs go

I doubt their conventional forces have improved in any meaningful way. There's a reason why them and North Korea develop nuke/bio/chemical arsenals as a deterrant, because their conventional forces are Third World tier.

Whoever attacks will lose. Iran and Iraq have more people but could not effectively invade Turkey in Eastern Anatolia.

t.urk

Not really, just a militaryboo

In the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was (amusingly enough) supported and armed both by NATO and the Warsaw Pact. If there was a war with Turkey, obviously the latter would get all the US material support they need so it would probably just be a repeat of the 80s conflict.

Tell me: what is going to happen to the Kurds in Syria? They control a sizeable portion of the country now. Will they be engaged by Turkey militarily?

Turkey could destroy the entire middle east, let alone the Shia qaffir

They will get fucked by Assad and the Turks because they didn't agree with Russia. And now that the US pulled out as well Rojava will get destroyed.

Meant for

Turkey.

Turkey and it's not even close, although it'll end with Turkey occupying most of iraq but unable to go into actually significant parts of Iran

kurds...

only contrarians or shiites would say iran.

are you guys retarded
Turkey is way more advanced and they are a NATO member
not even close
Turkey wins

Iran doesn't have access to weaponry from the US or its allies, whatever they have is probably Russian/Chinese/homebrew so they're at a big disadvantage in conventional forces.

Turkey
Its not even a contest, sadly

It should be Turkey vs Iran.

Iraq is in shambles

why would iraq and iran be on the same side of a war?

That was because we (USA) funded saddham hussein throughout the war.

Hopefully Iran/Iraq, fuck Turkroaches and fuck Erdogan.

usa didn't fund any side, they sold weapons to both sides

turkey because pic related

Attached: 5c2fa91e2721b.jpg (3500x2099, 550K)

Why the fuck doesn't Turkey just re-establish the middle eastern Ottoman empire again?
It would literally solve all the problems

About 1/3 of Iran's population are Turks. A lot of them would probably side with Turkey, and given the corruption and hypocrisy of todays government, if Turkey were to make itself a real Islamic government, a lot of the Muslims in Iran would probably side with Turkey as well.

Attached: iran-chadori-niqabi.jpg (1714x964, 114K)

The only scenario for this would be a Turkish invasion which NATO would not support

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_War

>About 1/3 of Iran's population are Turks
no
>A lot of them would probably side with Turkey
no

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

subhuman mutt

Not the same degree of support between those.

I'm aware of my own history, zhang.

Just stating the facts. You can be in denial if you want.

They also got their asses handed to them in Syria prior to the Russian intervention in 2015 with their aerial superiority, so apparently their forces are just as shitty as they were during their stalemated war with Iraq

For the love of everything that’s holy please don’t reply to that poster. He’s unironically mentally ill. Just check the archive if you don’t believe me.

Azerbajanis aren't the same ethnic group as Anatolian, stop your autism.

They're shia, they live in iran since ever, it's impossible to imagine a thousand of them even side for turkey for any reason, they're very foreign to them, they've nothing do with anatolian.

During the savafid or qajar era, they fought against the sunni ottomans.

You're probably right. Don't even have to check, saying that 30% of iranian will rise against iran to side with turkey is enough.

Stalemate. Iran is powerful enough to fight a western backed Turkey on its own.
Neither side can advance. The border is very small with mountains and entrenched positions on both sides.

>Not the same degree of support between those.
top kek and you know this how? who knows whats swept under the rug.

Turkey would destroy Iraq in a matter of days and easily occupy it. Iran is a different story though, their mountainous terrain makes it difficult to invade. For Turkey to invade it there would be need of serious propaganda to turn 25 million Turks in Iran against the country. Since Turkey is a member of NATO none of those would happen though.

Heres a photo from Hamedan I took while hiking. Not right at the border but you get the idea.

Attached: IMG_20180912_105031.jpg (3264x2448, 2.72M)

>easily occupy it

The US army, with a budget 40 times superior, struggled for over a decade against the guerilla there.

Turkey wouldn't pacify it even in a century.

Azeri's aren't even called Azeri's in Iran. They're straight up called Turks.
>They're shia
Sectarianism isn't really a thing in Iran. Muslims after Khomeini's revolution see all Muslims as Muslims, and secular people who don't even care about religion at all replace that with ethnicism.
>During the savafid or qajar era, they fought against the sunni ottomans.
There's a reason Safavids don't exist anymore, and the Qajars were largely non religious. Things change in the course of 200-500 years

>t.clueless
Azeri is not an ethnicity btw. It was a term created by Soviet Union to fullfil their divide and conquer tactics. And since the ones in Iran are closer to ones in Azerbaijan they are also called like that. It would be a really big issue in a situation of war. Iran with its islamic and autocratic government is not a very desirable country to begin with. Many people would welcome Turkey invading it.

As someone who spent almost three months in the region there is absolutely no Pro-Turkish feeling in the population. None.
The only Turkish influences are their cheap TV dramas and some shopping trips to Turkey.

>Comparing a country that is ocean away and came for oil with Turkey. Turkey has historical claims on Northern Iraq with Turkish population, if there would be a war, it would be justification not oil.

A lot of the people there would welcome any invasion to remove their shitty gouvernment. But they wont accept Turkish occupation. They are not Turks and dont feel any conncetion to Turkey. The state is oppressive but is oppressive to everyone. Even their great leader is an Azeri.

Ocean away or the US are a superpower and turkey doesnt have 5% of their military abilities.

turks in iraq aren't even a tenth 1/10 of the population and they arabized a lot since Saddam.

>historical claims
iraq was under mameluk rule and other autonomous powers in the last centuries prior to the british colonialism.

Could Iran use Kurds to fight a proxy war?

Turkey has the luxury of being able to ignore human rights and just wipe out guerillas unlike western nations.

I've lived in Iran my whole life. That's a lot more than 3 months. Also as a foreigner only a very certain demographic will even talk to you. Most will see you as a dirty kaffir and stay away from you.
Amongst secular folk, We wuzzers hate Turks. Turks hate we wuzzers.
Amongst religious folk, most see the government today as corrupt and hypocritical and mostly just a police state.

if that was the case, the PKK / kurdish separatists wouldn't exists.

Pretty sure the US did ten times worse than what turkey could ever do in term of human right violations. They still didn't pacify iraq after a decade of war and trillions of dollars.

if 6,000 us billions wasn't enough for iraq/talibans, it's not turkey and its tiny economy compared to the us that can afford to invade countries.
6 trillions in that time was like 10 times the whole gdp of turkey, and 300 times their military budget.

>unlike western nations
lol

Attached: abughraib.png (500x445, 405K)

no what im saying is, if it came down to war between Turkey vs Iran/Iraq the outcome will directly affect Turkish people inside it's own borders and therefore Turkey would use every trick in the book including things like rounding up civilians and putting them into concentration camps (or killing them, to kill morale/supply to resistance) to wipe out guerillas.
Americans have no existential threat even if they do poorly in the war and therefore wouldn't risk going to such extremes of violating human rights for this war.

>Americans have no existential threat even if they do poorly in the war and therefore wouldn't risk going to such extremes of violating human rights for this war.
They knowingly invaded Iraq for no justifiable reason and tried (poorly) to cover it up for years, why would Iran be a problem? Some republicans have been salivating about it for years too.

im not talking a dab of human rights violations here and there
im talking mass exterminations of civilians that have even the slightest potential of assisting guerillas
im talking burning down entire mountains and villages that might help or facilitate guerillas

Like they did in Vietnam?

the US was unironically pretty humane in vietnam in comparison to their actual capabilities

>Vietnamese civilian dead: 627,000–2,000,000[45][71][72]
>More bombing than the whole WW2 combined
>Agent orange

Considering what the VC and NVA did and especially what happened after the fall of the South, yeah, I'd say we were far from the bad guys.

>U.S. forces established numerous free-fire zones as a tactic to prevent Viet Cong fighters from sheltering in South Vietnamese villages.[380] Such practice, which involved the assumption that any individual appearing in the designated zones was an enemy combatant that could be freely targeted by weapons, is regarded by journalist Lewis M. Simons as "a severe violation of the laws of war".[381] Nick Turse, in his 2013 book, Kill Anything that Moves, argues that a relentless drive toward higher body counts, a widespread use of free-fire zones, rules of engagement where civilians who ran from soldiers or helicopters could be viewed as Viet Cong, and a widespread disdain for Vietnamese civilians led to massive civilian casualties and endemic war crimes inflicted by U.S. troops.[382] One example cited by Turse is Operation Speedy Express, an operation by the 9th Infantry Division, which was described by John Paul Vann as, in effect, "many My Lais".[382] A report by Newsweek magazine suggested that at minimum 5,000 civilians may have been killed during six months of the operation, as there was around 748 recovered weapons.[383]

Attached: Viet_nam_Tragedy.jpg (1024x770, 117K)

USA is pretty much on the level, if not worse, than Mongols when they intervene in a country and cause a war. The thing is, USA has yet to do this on itself (i.e., Civil War), which is a scary thought. I wouldn't put it behind American subhuman savages from starting to butcher and cannibalize each other either.

Yeah, Americans are subhuman savages. It would be good for the rest of the world if this country internally destroyed itself. Only problem is I would be pulled into such bullshit.

and they couldve done alot more and alot worse but they chose not to?

>Whataboutism
>we were far from the bad guys
>The government of Vietnam says that 4 million of its citizens were exposed to Agent Orange, and as many as 3 million have suffered illnesses because of it; these figures include their children who were exposed.[4]

>hundred of thousands of civilians killed directly and indirectly by us

>the US military dropped 260 million cluster bombs – about 2.5 million tons of munitions – on Laos over the course of 580,000 bombing missions. This is equivalent to a planeload of bombs being unloaded every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years – nearly seven bombs for every man, woman and child living in Laos.

does US rape entire populations to subjugate them and burn down their entire cities for grazing fields

They caused the suffering (death, wounded, health damage and long term consequences, rape, abandonning hapa babies) of basically all the viets, even to their "allies" they abandonned after the war and let them die.

if you can the psychological damage of the people that lost member of their familities, on both sides, no, they couldve not done more. They already hurted directly and indirectly llike half of the viet population of that time.

Are you actually a leaf?

Attached: kissinger.jpg (500x430, 69K)

the civil war were high but it's not on the same scale as the atrocities of the post-industrial wars like vietnam was.

Japan did worse in China and Nazis did worse in Europe tho.

your first point doesn't do anything to support your second point. I'm saying while they did fucked up shit to Vietnamese civilians, they clearly did not take the steps to completely root out the guerillas and their support which would involve destruction of entire cities, geological obstructions (eg. forests, jungle, urban, etc) and the systematic killings of civilians

During the Ottoman-Savafid Wars, the Persians would refuse to engage the Ottoman army directly, instead they would retreat into the inaccessible Iranian heartland and wait for winter, when the Ottomans were forced to retreat.

One German traveler recounted seeing the streets and alleyway in Constantinople lined with men who had missing fingers and toes from frostbite incurred in the mountains of Armenia during those campaigns.

What if you count CIA initiatives to install violent autocrats around the globe?

more importantly, who would you cheer for?

Iran easily

Iran here as well, just for my enjoyment of Persian history alone desu.

They literally did though. They destroyed every city not held by the south in sustained bombing raids, used napalm to burn the jungle, and agent orange to kill the plant life and poison the guerrillas. They even extending bombing into Cambodia which destabilized that country and resulted in further atrocities.

Agent orange still causes birth defects today and Vietnam has much higher cancer rates. Some areas are still too toxic to enter.

Attached: agent.jpg (1000x665, 108K)

I was referring to a potential new civil war in the USA.
Yes.

North Vietnam had a population of 15 millions, and the whole vietnam, both north and south, had around 30 millions. On those 30 millions there were 12 millions over the age of 20 iirc so adult.

4 millions died directly as the result of that war, and 2 millions were wounded. That's 6 millions casualities just because of the war.

To this 6 millions you add the 3 millions people that suffered from an illness related to the agent orange, including the 1 million who became disabled because of it. You got 9 millions casualities on a 12 millions adult population/total of 30 millions viets. Of course we don't even count here all the ptsd and war traumatism and the traumatism of losing their family and psychological damage 100% of the viets got from the war, because that's just all the population

Yes maybe a full genocide with nukes could have been somewho worse, but the soviet and china would not have that happend.

Oh no, Americans are way too rich to have a civil war. Civil wars can't happend in a rich, developed western democracy. It's not really possible.

No gayreeks allowed

The ethnic tensions are pretty intense right now, and the country is very polarized between far-right and far-left.

There is absolutely no contemporary political issue even close to being as explosive as slavery was.

Impeachment might be if it plays out badly. You might have half the country up in arms no matter what the outcome.

stil extremly far from any kind of civil war. It's just impossible in a rich western country.

I would bet all the money I have that the US will never be in any civil war in the next century.

The US dismantled the Iraqi army in every way imaginable in a limited invasion in a 3 week period, which was at the time a top 5 army in the world. Turkey is not the US, but it's a professional army with NATO standards. Turkey defeats Iraq with low difficulty and stalemates Iran into submission.

>I would bet all the money I have that the US will never be in any civil war in the next century.
I would too. The revolutionary spirit of this country is dead.

Azerbaijanis is a foreign term retard, they call themselves Turks and they absolutely would not side with Persians against fellow Turks. Stop talking if you don't know anything you stupid french faggot.

pakistani president looks cool af.

>Impeachment might be if it plays out badly.
Impeachment of what?