Drew Bedson

Ya I can agree with that possibility. I do know that there's a lot of claims over that stuff. I didn't go on that one as I had been posted out but a few of my pals were saying it messed them up.

Kyle got hosed too and Matchee was an intimidating fellah. Brown and Gresty both got hosed on that deal. fact, we all did.

Know em all. Gresty is special K, got hosed in the deal. Great guy.

Too bad for both of us. I loved it. Remember Zipperhead hill and charging up that mother when I was a nothing then leading troops up all times as lead years later. In the heat and the cold. Ah well, all over now, no going back, just memories. I think you and I could sit over a few and talk about the characters we knew fairly well. Carriere, Woods, Ruckheim, Irving et al. Monkey Mcneil, Gapp, Marr also on my FB freinds list bless them all Stuart Groves is my daim BIL lol.

I knew him when he was a Private. He did it all right. Same as Marten, great soldier. We were all hard then. Wish things could just stay the same but life goes on and here we are. LOL so he was doing his job then. That first name shit doesn't work very well once you hit the line and take casualties Then you need to be more scared of your leaders than the enemy.. You still in Doug?

Chuck? RIP he was a great man.

I've learned that all those who signed to serve deserve the same respect. You have mine.

What was the lie in Iraq? The Congressional and UNSC authorization to use force was based on Iraq's refusal to adhere to the UNSC brokered ceasefire conditions of which only one had to do with WMDs. Not to mention UNSCR 686 which stated that if Iraq didn't return or account for POWs, foreign nationals or missing persons that they would be subject to the same use of force which was; “”authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent“” Please stop making your foreign policy determinations off protest placards.

Doubt that. We're all hard MF. RESPECT

CAR This is me, 84

And mine as well. 20 years Airborne. Bless you brother.

Not me, Canadian. Is jumping the gun and not knowing reality and whom is your enemy the reasons why you and your messed up theology leads the world in terrorist attacks?

True. Saved so many lives we cannot begin to count.

Definitely agree with that one. Gandhi was the same. Brilliant but all over the place.

No they are not. They are very fightened by the outcome so far as they see American success where you see failure. Why the different prism Gerry? Think you have it a bit backwards Gerry. They've removed a dictator who was in an international economic and military box and, have set up a government made up of Sunnis, Kurds and Secular Shia in a democracy with a market economy that will stabilize and prosper. This poses a serious threat to Iran's theocratic rule in a nation filled with mal contented young people reaching out to the modern world . At least 40% of the Iraqi government is diametricly opposed to Iran by religion, nationality, culture and birth and, the other 60%, while having less animosity towards Iran in general, are nonetheless Arabs, not Persian and, have a bond only in their sect of Islam. Another interesting fact, they are Iraqi, and are trying to keep the other 40% happy with compromises leaving Iran's problems very low on their priority list. Hardly a win for Iran and, definitely not what they wanted next door to them in place of a dictator who was, while under international sanctions and military restrictions, no threat to them whatsoever. A coalition government with Kurds, Sunnis and a Shia majority that is not even close to being in their pocket and, posses both a theological and an economic threat to any majority influence they had hoped to exert on the region. Your link was interesting in the fact that it places the cart before the horse. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a reaction to things NOT going their way in Iraq, rather than going positive. Yes, and maybe the Cat in The Hat will jump in too. Shia in Iraq have no interest in being a Tehran puppet and would allow that only in the form of a poison pill as it has serious repercussions with the amount of aid taken. And, even if they did, the Sunnis and Kurds would react in kind ratcheting up pressure via allowing more Jihadist in or, the Kurds, if they believed any of their gains were at risk, could concievably use their territory as a Kurdish base to wreak havoc from with Iran. That doen't mean to say there are not parts of Iraq that Iranian operatives are active in but, nothing like a fifth columm by any means. George Friedman of Stratfor (if the link won't work for you, PM me and I'll send you a copy of the report) Here's more Now you are telling me that a soldier in the feild can communicate with all these groups on a day to day basis to negotiate and get a full picture? Wow. What's their backdoor link to Tehran Gerry? Now, how does all this tie in with decisions outside even Iraq and Iran? If the US leaves all the above in the lurch to sort it out by themselves, cooperation with Pakistan will more than likely cease as confidence in America's support will drop to zero, allowing terrorists free reign there which would possibly lead to the collapse of Musharif's rule and subsequent failure of Afganistan and terrorist strikes against India (who would come into the fray with a nuclear capability). Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries in the region will also stop anti Jihadist policies as a whole new Jihadist 'Tet Offensive' would gain momentum. This in turn, would strenthen Sunni power throughout the region and marginalize Shiite (or, in the very least do nothing to strenthen Shiite power) which is a very big step back for Iran. Edit: 'Tied this nations hands' ???? Iran can do three things; increase pressure marginally in Iraq (thereby opening themselves up even more for retaliation from the US, Sunnis and/or Kurds, a future Iraqi state of Kurds, Iraqi Shia and Sunnis) as well as exposing themselves on the ground in a conflict in a foreign nation. Bluster on the world stage in pretend brinkmanship or, they can use their influence with Hamas and Hezbollah to make terrorist action globally by proxy. Of course, the latter would be self destructive in that it would simply legitimize any action the US chose to take against Tehran directly or, allow for international action to go ahead in the form of economic, political or even military coalition action. America on the other hand can carry on with action in Iraq and see the democratic process through, creating a stable Iraq which would place enormous pressure on Iran to reform or negotiate. They can continue supporting Sunni nations in the area by strengthening them and allowing them to prosper, thereby creating an economic threat to Tehran. They can also let the UN place sactions, let Israel bomb them, bomb them with some coalition friends or bomb them themselves, allow Russia, France, China or a host of other countries to do back door deals for them or, they can shift political alliances in Iraq to give the Iranians a compromise. Or, they can just do nothing until Iran actually is capable of making a nuclear weapon and take it out with whatever combination of characters bombs they can put together at the time. Whatever the case, the 'hands tied' analogy is indicative of a person who seems to be trapped in a box with Michael Moore. Of course, guys in a Humvee have all the info and contacts to sort this out right?

Yep. In some form it does. Kinda like the form that we have here where capitalism and democracy provide the tools for it to provide for the sheep to fleece. The form where it does not work is pretty much every one where socialism came after a revolution against a tyrant or another political entity. There, after promises of prosperity and equality it turns into intellectual purges and horror beyond imagination. Yes, a far better system for mankind if we were not human. However, the easiest one to start with from scratch but, it never works without the infastructure already in place.

Not even going to bother quoting that rubbish as you will probably want to edit it when you wake up. Socialism when blended? Ok, how about capitalism when blended with democracy like we have now? Same diff, just different starting points and, Socialism never worked when that was the starting point.

Knew that was comming as I wrote it. The flaw is in people and Socialism does not recognize idividualism wheras capitalism thrives on it. Thanks for commng out!

I concur. It is promotion of an idea that is geared not towards the adjustment or betterment of our society, but rather the destruction of it.

Agreed. However, everybody needs a job. Heck, if he had any dance experience, he might have started a ballet school. Saddam thought that Socialism was a good thing to be into and had to have believed in it to some degree. So, what happened? Easy, Socialism concentrates power and relies on rhetoric and party loyalty creating the opportunity for the misuse of same. It's an inherent weakness. One of them anyhow.

Not true. Those 'crazies' are a product of a civilization clash that has been brewing for more than eight hundred years. China has it's 'Crazies' as does Russia. The US is merely a present day focal point in order for Al Queda and the like to to attain power. The 'common enemy' approach that is used on mindless masses to combine them in a direction that benifits the directors is an effective tool. I'm quite surprised (and disappointed) they have used it so well that they can influence great thinkers who suddenly only have a thirty year memory span though. Kudos. If the US did not exist, do you really think that Al Queda would not either? Thier 'Manifesto' is not to bring the US to it's knees, it is to recreate the former Caliphate, which BTW existed - and fell, long before America even existed. The US has only been involved there since the second world war, leaving 750 years of defeat and oppression ranging from Attila the Hun to every other nation that stumbled across the Middle East inbetween. The mindset (and theological rallying point) is they have unjustly been losers and exploited by everybody, including the Dutch for crying out loud, with America being the latest 'bully.' Nothing wrong with them of course so self examination is out of the question. 911 could have just as well have been a combined attack on the Tower of London and the European stock exchange. Edit: Sorry, history hates a vacumn. If the US did not exist, another power would certainly have filled the void that is US influence and an attack would have been directed at them. So, pick your poison. Europe, China, Russia or some other entity. All would play their part equally well. Anybody blaming the US for this without tempering it with the mindset that has existed for almost a millenia should simply turn off CNN and any other western media and get their news from the truth of Allah - Al Jazeera. It has more reality than igoring history.

Oh yes. And, equally so are statements that he was not. Wrong. They all stated off as people who were a member and believer of whatever party they belond to. None of them had any idea they would one day lead that party, much less a country. Once they were given the opportunity to utilize party power, they quickly became what they were. And, this is the inherrrnet weakness in the Socialist dream - all people are not good. Many people are corruptable.

Agreed. TGIF! Niether can you discount the leftist applications either. All were heads of socialist parties when they took power.

Actually, that is a very relevent point. They have little in common with the rest of the region and wish to remain so. While Muslim, they are Shiite and, also, do not share the vision of a Pan Arab state that so many conservative Sunni Muslims aspire to. Another relevent point. Example is Iraq/Iran war in which the US supported both to ensure that neither got the upper hand and destabilized the region. A destabilized Iran with the radical Muslim world the way it is would be in nobody's interest. Iran is a very complex problem. It has an educated population that has access to internet and other western media yet is run by medieval minded clerics. Hence, there is a fifth column in place, it is just empowering them that is the problem. The ruling body knows that and, this is part of the problem that we see in play right now - selectively keeping Western influence out of their country without being drawn towards the rest of the Sunni dominated Muslim world. If Iraq is attacked, you lose the support of the people, the only bright point in the country for the West. Hence, it will be a last resort rather than a first. However, being a developed country, Iran has infastructure and the need to keep that apparatus in full swing. Hence, their desire to conduct brinkmanship with the attention grabbing Nuclear aquisition program. It's not about nukes but, concessions and dancing to the home town crowd against the Great Satan. Proving how strong they are so they should be followed rather than disobeyed. A crisis is a Texas sized meteor about to hit the earth. Not the possibility that Iran could, in a couple of years, have a nuclear weapon. Lots of time, lots of ways to get this problem dealt with and, lots of ways to undermine the Iranian govenment. MAD won't work on Iran because they won't get nukes - ever. This so called nutcase in charge of the show, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pretty shrewd. He should have been an actor in Hollywood as he plays all sides very well. He has the people doing a 'rah rah' as he fearlessly takes on the west, even though he has shit for cards. He has the west willing to give him just about anything out of the blue for doing nothing but stopping a nuclear program that he doesn't have for lack of material. He can turn up the heat at will on the US throught the back door in Iraq and, enjoys support from the non Persian Sunni world by support of Hamas. He knows he won't get attacked. They're at least a year or two from a nuclear weapon providing they get the things they need to even start. Hence, it's all rhetoric and, he is winning.

For sure. I was sayng however that being localized doesn't give you anything more than an interpretation of what the immediate area you are in has for a situation. The implications of leaving are more than just immediate area and even regional. Iraq is only one piece of the entire issue hence, a soldier in one part of it is hardly qualified to make strategic assessments that affect countries of the region thousands of miles away from Iraq. Won't argue on that one. However, people who have more information than they do as well as a combined political and military experience adding up to possibly millions of man hours having studied every military and political situation in man's history think it has a valid payoff. It seems that the risk and effort outweighs on the gournd considerations. Soon Gerry, soon. Just a bit more strength and they'll be there. Iran wishes Bush agreed with you as does Al Queda in Saudi Arabia and every other nation in the area along with Hamas and Hezbollah. Unfortunately for them he does not.