In a British cavalry regiment we have troops within squadrons within a regiment as the equivalent of the infantry having platoons within companies within a regiment.

I was in A, C (the senior one) and Headquarters Squadrons during my time there.

There are photos online, but I will not link 'em.

Thank you - a fairer analysis of my submissions.

At least you accept that I was in the military (though in my part of the Army we don't do 'squads' - and I was more senior that being in command of a troop (the cavalry's equivalent of a platoon) anyway). So my regiment's more senior officers diagreed with your comment of pitying my troops in having me with them.

We never have dropped anything on Iran ourselves, have we? And using Saddam as a proxy doesn't count.

Anyway, it really comes back to the point that it is now time to bomb the necessary Iranian bases/locations in order to win this war (and it was here that the former U.S. U.N. ambassador's opinion is a verification of my opinion).

Fine, Ahkanaten, don't permit anyone here to disagree (define forum in that please!).

However, I copied this (and I think this guy might have a reasonable view):

Bolton: US air strikes on Iran would be major step towards Iraq victory
May 7, 2008, 12:19 PM (GMT+02:00)

Former American UN ambassador John Bolton said that while a hostile Iranian response harming US interests existed, the damaged inflicted by Tehran would be far higher if Washington took no action. He was quoted by the UK Telegraph as urging therefore that Washington order air strikes against the Revolutionary Guards Corps camps training Iraqi insurgents.

A US spokesman last week confirmed earlier disclosure that the IRGC’s al Qods Brigades had drafted Hizballah personnel to support Iraq’s Shiite militias and train them at facilities in Iran.

Back to my opinion on the matter:

Since this is war - then we should be able to achieve military objectives without harrassment from the media's often unfocused perspective.
 

Have a read of:

http://www.envirosecurity.org/ges/TheUtilityOfForceByGeneralSirRupertSmith.pdf

Smith is my old boss, BTW.

If you use your civilian population is a means of combat, then they will be targeted (not our choice, but yours).

War has changed in the age of mass media. But you do not know war unless you've been there (get off your Playstations and Hollywoodized dramas). Pick up your comrade's shattered body and then you will have learnt the realities.

Er - you don't think they hate us already?

Well, if you bomb the hell out of their military bases they will learn respect - and possibly even follow Europe on the path to Enlightenment. Stop treating them like a civilization - because they aren't one as you understand it.

Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Iraq, and one I can't remember the correct name of. That enough to demonstrate I know the region reasonably? But I would also claim that that doesn't mean I understand the population - just a little bit more of their internation relations than most people.

But the enemy is clear; and as such they might require bombing to neuter their military means (and allow their populations the opportunity of becoming a civilian population, with civil rights).

I am not American (though my wife is), but I was in the British Army, have lived in the Middle-east for three years, and we used to fight terrorism when it was still funded by stupid (Irish)-Americans.

I know what I'm talking about; and in war there is a time to kill the bad guys (and if you can't see Iran as the baddies, then you, personally, are stupid).

Don't write pointless or rude replies to a serious post.

It is a time to bomb Iran (as much as necessary) to solve the Middle-east's problems.

A reminder of the effectiveness of the West's nuclear arsenal might also put off any more dodgy states trying to acquire those kinds of missiles (Hiroshima and Nagasaki kept the peace - ha! ha! - for fifty years).

In this case, the opportunity is a target. And will cause less lose of life (again like nuking the Japanese homeland).

Yes, I think this is very likely:

Bill and Hillery will have a Vulcan mind-meld so that he can never be accused of influencing her impact.

The problem really isn't immigration in itself - though that really should be stopped if we what the developing world to 'develop' - the problem is the planets overpopulation.

Time for nature to play its cards, and deal us a mass plague.

But still Iran insists it must go ahead with enriching its own (FOR CIVILIAN PURPOSES).

I think Bush's move to stop any attack on Iran's facilities has more to do with his legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President, than it does with any sense in not blowing the hell out of Iran (for the world's sake).

Is that the real problem with the Environment (if the Environment thread is where this comment actually belongs?).

Too many people using too many resources? And the Environment fed to extremes by consumerism/capitalism?

Well, the suicides are irrelevant to the military themselves, in terms of blame; any blame on the suicide rate falls directly on the society that brought them there.

A couple of quotes by an ex-military guy, that pretty much ring true today (very much today) in terms of the Middle-east:

1. Send 'em off, stuffed with lies and rubbish, to get killed and maimed for nothing except a politician's vanity or a manufacturer's profit.

2. Nobody.... has the right to talk of blame, or blunders. Just us, the living and the dead. It was our [deal].

In the second, he is talking of the military's own mistakes, not those who sent them there.

And what? Pray tell? Do you think the security services are going to say prior to a surprise military assault on Iran's targets?