Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Drew Bedson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Drew Bedson

  • Rank
    Full Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    travel, fitness, art, philosophy, skiing, canoeing

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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.
  2. Kyle got hosed too and Matchee was an intimidating fellah. Brown and Gresty both got hosed on that deal. fact, we all did.
  3. Know em all. Gresty is special K, got hosed in the deal. Great guy.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. I've learned that all those who signed to serve deserve the same respect. You have mine.
  7. 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.
  8. And mine as well. 20 years Airborne. Bless you brother.
  9. 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?
  10. True. Saved so many lives we cannot begin to count.
  11. Definitely agree with that one. Gandhi was the same. Brilliant but all over the place.
  12. 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?
  • Create New...