replica rolex watches

Posted by: replica rolex watches at August 22, 2008 12:14 AM

rolex replica watches

Posted by: rolex replica watches at August 22, 2008 12:13 AM

I always Buy Runescape from the company http://www.gameim.com. Because the company provides us Cheap runescape Gold.

Posted by: Cheap runescape Gold at August 16, 2008 01:40 AM

You can use runescape money or rs gold to upgrade and buy your favourite equipment.

Posted by: rs gold at August 16, 2008 01:39 AM

At last I tell something to you on this game the Runescape Gold is very useful.

Posted by: Runescape Gold at August 16, 2008 01:37 AM

As you start your NosTale gold journey, you will gain friendships with Nosmates and Partners that will assist you anyway they can. Make your way around the world of NosTale online gold to help defeat the evil devils that have plagued the lands.

Posted by: NosTale gold at August 16, 2008 01:35 AM

As your apprentice, I always waste your cheap Habbo Coins. But I really not to think that you left so suddenly, then am duty-bound not to turn back!

Posted by: cheap Habbo Coins at August 12, 2008 01:06 AM

Finally, I gained have sufficed the LOTRO Gold, had the family. We were in together finally.

Posted by: LOTRO Gold at August 12, 2008 01:04 AM

But others actually need to practice the level laboriously from the first floor, make cheap Hellgate gold to buy the equipment laboriously, all the times upgrade to the high rank.

Posted by: cheap Hellgate gold at August 12, 2008 01:03 AM

The husband, for you, I will want to adjust myself diligently and I will make cheap lastchaos gold.

Posted by: cheap lastchaos gold at August 12, 2008 01:02 AM

I also thought that I was not RMB players, did not know how to lead our brothers, and I also did not have a large of hero online money.

Posted by: hero online money at August 12, 2008 12:59 AM

Actually I hoped that other come to buy mabinogi gold for their hurts.

Posted by: buy mabinogi gold at August 12, 2008 12:55 AM

I want to forget you, but I cannot achieve, see the computer and I remember you, see my cheap imvu credits that I remember you once again.

Posted by: cheap imvu credits at August 12, 2008 12:54 AM

I see this store is accepting some employees, I am being subject to duty and make some holic online gold.

Posted by: holic online gold at August 12, 2008 12:52 AM

Remember that when we play together, I use my NosTale money to buy needed goods, I breeze Chuifu delicate face, mind you and I are known in the region……

Posted by: NosTale money at August 7, 2008 08:17 PM

Cheap metin2 gold can also be used at the appropriate time! 4-5 in class when the Timberwolves should be killed, but I think the Timberwolves seemed to brush Shao Ledian, like a fault, this time there's two ways Lian Ji, 1 Slowly killing Xiaolang, 2 for technical operation of fixing the wolf, Xuelang, I kill four wolves linked to the two 1-2 can kill, can not be lucky to see (experience not out) 4 killing Xuelang 1 Only 19 percent in the experience of fixing the wolf probably about 12 percent bar, did not remember. So you have to Buy metin2 gold timely added!

Posted by: metin2 gold at August 7, 2008 08:16 PM

Once she was cheat many by archlord online gold therefore I secretly pledged that I must protect her.

Posted by: archlord online gold at August 4, 2008 09:25 PM

Wrong Brian. It had nothing to do with numbers of men on the ground. We had enough. The reason that we had an insurgency of this magnitude are to the east. There is a large country called Iran that has a vested interest in not allowing Iraq to stabilize under US influence and especially not with significant Sunni influence. Iran used it's proxies to "buy" into the future of Iraq. A future that at least guarantees them a say so in how Iraq turns out at least and at best turns Iraq into an Iranian client state. Flooding these streets with 300,000 ACU wearing soldiers who are required to follow western laws of war would just put more of us in danger and make Iraq a target rich environment. Never mind the fact that the U.S. Military is not large enough to maintain its many global commitments and sustain 300,000 troops occupying a hostile region.

The problem is that this is what we were going to face in Iraq NO MATTER WHAT STRATEGY WE CHOSE short of nuking it into oblivion. Our administration failed to communicate this fact properly and people supported an operation much bigger in magnitude than most realized.

We have never needed more troops on the ground in Iraq. We need more troops in the military in general so that soldiers aren't coming here 4 to 5 times. More troops so that the Russians don't feel comfortable to do as they are in Georgia/Ukraine. More troops so that Iran has to worry about a war being the consequence of meddling in Iraq. A WAR and not some limited bombing raid they can withstand. A war like Iraq got.

Involuntarily Extended Today...;(
-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at May 15, 2008 01:31 PM

Ed, the reason we're facing problems in Iraq today is not because we're "looking ahead" at the moment. It is because Rumsfeld pursued a strategy that worked fine for overthrowing Saddam, but had very little real ability to stabilize Iraq afterward. Had we gone in with many more boots on the ground, expecting a bigger fight post-war, we'd have done a much better job in preventing this insurgency from springing up.

We were looking ahead in 2003, but we are not now.

Lesson for next time, if you are going to occupy a country, send lots and lots of men.

Posted by: Brian at May 15, 2008 08:56 AM

I just realized a corolation here that might be useful.

If any of you are followers of any sports team or season, especially football, what do you always hate that your team might do when there is a strong opponent coming up in the schedule and the week before you face what you think is a weak team that all you have to do to win is show up on the field and the game is yours.

Its called looking ahead, and in the sports world it is very dangerous and has led to many teams having major upsets to supposedly weaker teams. Sound familiar to any scenario going on in the military?

Iraq was identical to this. We thought for sure that there would be no insurgency in Iraq, that the Iraqi Army would for the most part throw down their arms and we would be greeted in the streets by the Iraqi People. Now we are deep in a hard fight which from the looks of things might be close to turning around for us. I'm not saying Iraq is turning for sure, although I hope that it is. But don't you see the issue here? Yes we need to be prepared for future conflicts, but not at the expense of losing the battles we fight today.

This is what Gates is trying to stop. Are systems like the F-22, the F-35, the Virginia class submarines, LCS, FCS, etc. important for us to be a viable threat to future opponents? Most certainly this is the case. But have you all forgotten who some of our adeversaries are? North Korea, Syria, and Iran come to mind here, and guess what? Even though they have a large conventional force, they all also have unconventional forces and doctrines as well that fit into the combat we are doing today.

Posted by: Ed at May 15, 2008 08:05 AM

The DoD definitely needs to make these wars we are fighting THE TOP PRIORITY. That doesn't mean to totally ignore the future and that is not being suggested. The USA focused on winning WW II and still managed to be prepared for the Soviet threat. We can do the same. The GWOT is no less significant and in fact the consequences are much more dire. Moreover, we are much more likely to have future conflicts of this nature rather than the traditional force on force high intensity wars of the past.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at May 15, 2008 03:51 AM

I agree in some terms with Gates, but only in case of very limited budget. My conclusion is that there is not just enough for military budget and should be what it was during the Cold War era. In other words, we should have enough money to spend for current wars, and for possible wars of the future. The Beijing Olympics is about to come and it has been often rumor it would be the point which China would start considering invasion of Taiwan after the Olmpics is over, the most likely scenario of war with western countries. We should not be dreaming a post Cold War era, we are in Cold War II with China, but even worse China is now a non-democratic Capitalist country that will not fall like USSR.

Posted by: pedestrian at May 14, 2008 11:23 PM

Gates is wrong. Drinks are on me when he and England go.

Pretty short duration for a poll.

Posted by: ELP at May 14, 2008 07:43 PM

Byron,

That is nothing further from the truth.

TINSTA ALLONS,
WR

Posted by: WR at May 14, 2008 07:39 PM

I would have to agree with Sec Gates on this on as well, not in whole but in part. Sec Gates makes a valid point that some of the systems going through the aquisitions process are not the best thing for us to be spending our money on right now. Unfortunatly a cabinet of senior officers decides what we need and then forwards it to Sec Gate offices. Often without input from the end user. The pilot, troops, sailors who will be using the system. I doubt Sec Gates reads everything that is approved.

We should focus on the war at had with a proper balance on looking to the future threats. China, Middile East conflict that will always be, Eastern Europe with Russia, South American terrorist organization in that area and of course Africa.

War is not going anywhere the scale of the war will change over the decades; large, small, regional or international. All of these conflicts will happen over time and the U.S. military leadership has been blessed in most cases to have some of the military equipment to meet the threat.

An earlier post mentioned that the fact t hat we have a superior force has kept other conflict from happening and I agree. The strength of our force provides deterrence. A $$$ aircraft carrier that doesn't fire a single shot for 2 weeks but just positions itself in the gulf for a few weeks says alot to the countries in that area. Our nuclear forces (which I am a member of) stay ready to respond and engage the enemy in a moments notice and they know that. So in turn do not attack. I believe billions of dollars worth of deterence is well spent money when it come to defending our country. I also believe that the balance in spending need to meet the current threat and prepare for the future threat.

JB

Posted by: JB at May 14, 2008 07:20 PM

Fighting an insurgency is tactics, not procurement. This is among the most damn fool threads ever, one huge non-sequitar.

SOCOM with 17,000 people is fully converting to the MK-16 SCAR rifle for just $20 million. We could probably convert the Corps for $200 million, the Army for $500 million. The stuff to fight an insurgency is cheap. It's tactics.

Posted by: Brad at May 14, 2008 07:00 PM

Gates has it right. Unless the guys and gals in service are over there they seem to want to focus on the future with their predictions. Will China be a threat one day, probably but thats decades away. Is Russia a threat, not really since their military is in disrepair. The only way they could inflict damage to us is with nukes and I see no reason to use them right now.

We need to focus on getting what we need to finish the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need stop building stuff for the future when the current events arent being handled correctly. Do we need F-22's and F-35's. Yes, but not every plane we have needs to be stealth. We cant afford every plane to be stealth. We have transport planes older than their pilots that are in high demand and theirs political bs wasting more time there. Either give it to company that won or decide to keep military spending with US companies but you cant have it both ways.

We need to focus on whats going on right now instead of what might happen. Theirs too much bueacracy in the Pentagon and govt together and even with a budget of 600+ bil a year, we cant get what we need to our troops in combat. That is pure bs and shouldnt be happening. Stop funding programs that need materials and technology 20-30 years out when our military is stretched and our equipment isnt being replaced fast enough and out country is raking up debt we're going to have trouble handling 10 years down the road.

Posted by: Poskiki at May 14, 2008 06:25 PM

Are there even going to be any more Iraq largescale counter-insurgencies? Many of the rationales behind that war (e.g. that you can use the military to successfully impose regime change) have been largely disproven, and just about everyone has lost the taste for "preventive" wars.

Posted by: CSI at May 14, 2008 03:59 PM

We're not fighting a war in Iraq, we're enforcing an occupation. The cohesive warfighting government of Iraq was destroyed within a month of initiating operations. The 'War' is over. All thats left at this point are partisan fighters being supported by foreign aid fighting in asymmetrical fashion against the occupation.

The same goes for Afghanistan.

Back in Vietnam, we were up against a cohesive structured military invasion from an external source.

Russia is still a military threat, though diminished from its former peak in the 80's. China is a military threat, with great potential in both technology and numbers.

What's sad is that so much money and effort has gone into developmental cul-de-sacs and political greed that the actual 'warfighting capability' of the US has been cut down to the point that even a relatively small occupation is causing us problems. All these programs that billions are poured into over the years get canceled without yielding any results - FOR NOTHING! Basically, that money is being given away where it could be used to purchase fresh, functional, and proven equipment. CENTCOM has had trouble procuring parts for its most common utility vehicle, the HMMWV, partly from budgetary politics, partly from lack of foresight to supply needs. In the end, the American soldier is being shafted and neutered in his ability to do his job.

Just imagine how empty our TOE would be if China decided to make a conventional-arms run for resources in Siberia or the Philippines. Sure, we currently have forces pre-positioned in Iraq and Afghanistan, to a lesser degree Japan. But they aren't organized to fight a war, they are organized to occupy. Air superiority would be questionable. The prospect really frightens me.

Posted by: Mystick at May 14, 2008 03:45 PM

Defense acquisitions are complicated enough without having an idiot like Gates screw things up.

Are there problems with our current acquisitions process? Of course. Can those problems be fixed? Well, some of them can.

Nobody is ever going to fix Congress sticking their noses into every little project. No one is ever going to fix some Senator pushing for his hometown factory to get a contract over some factory somewhere else. And no one is ever going to fix Congress pussing out and delaying acquisition programs for a decade or more because they don't want to spend the money now.

None of those things are the fault of the military, and none of them come from "gold-plated weapons systems". They're simply the cost of doing business in an imperfect democracy.

We can't afford to have another war like WW2. The ONLY reason that we've seen a sharp decrease in the number of high-intensity wars is that the US has overwhelming superiority versus any other country on Earth, or any other group of countries. If all of Asia declared war against the US, major hostilities (i.e., fighting against organized forces) would be over within a year, with the US a solid victor. The US cannot be defeated in conventional combat. And everybody on Earth knows it. THAT is why nobody tries it. Do you pick a fight with a guy who is seven feet tall and has fists as big as basketballs? Not if you are smart, you don't.

The only reason the US is in this position is because of our "military industrial complex". We have decades of investment in creating an immensely powerful army. No one else is even close. But this is not a divine birthright. It came from decades of work. We certainly have the ability to piss it away, which is exactly what Gates is suggesting.

Posted by: Brian at May 14, 2008 03:18 PM

I agree with Gates as far as how long our R&D to production time goes. I think the main problem our military and government has is the need to have an absolutely perfect product that takes decades to develop. In the meantime, for example, you go from having the 82nd Airborne to make by with a so-so light tank, the M551 Sheridan, going into Operation Desert Shield that would barely been able to handle a armored assualt. Then the tank is retired in 1996 with no replacement because the XM8 Buford light tank program was cancelled as well. What was wrong with the M8, probably the same thing that is wrong with the FCS Mounted Combat System. So instead of having a Airborne Tank that would be a quick combat force against a variety of future threats, including small terrorist threats, you reduce the units down to light anti-tank units, not much use against terrorist. United Defense, now BAE Systems even has a diesel-electric hybrid version that now has room in the back for some troops. Why can't we use this tank for Airborne troops instead of having just Anti-tank units that are small an unarmored? I was in both Desert Storm and in OIF, and between both wars, we were better equiped in Desert Storm as far as having what technology we had in the war. It would be alot better to have an Armored Infantry Airborne unit that has an M8 tank with infantry moving beside it moving in downtown Bagdad than in Uparmored Humvees, maybe even that in MRAPS. Even with MRAPS, especially in an urban setting, you have to get out of the vehicle. Would you rather have a small 3-4 man crew per each vehicle, or and infantry squad around a light tank that can manuver more that an M1? We are starting to get to the point of over designing our combat equipment that causing long development cycles that seem to parallel with what the Nazi's did during WWII. Would if we continue this trend and, say the Next-war-itis does happen, with China or even a resirgent Russia. Would we want us to have overdesigned, expensive systems that take forever and a day to field like the Nazi's. And have basic, cheap easy to produce systems from China and Russia (like us during WWII)that can handle our current systems but maybe not our new systems that are to late to help because the either still in development of bog down in production? We need to run our military development through lean line design equilvalent and do incremental development that keeps us ahead of any threat in the now and then in the future. Stop doing a whole program a satisfy first what is needed now and improve on it. Sometimes during OIF, especially when Rumsfeld said " You go to war with the army you have now" this made us feel a desparation almost like what was happening during the beginning of WWII when Germany and Japan was ahead on technology. But then we had far superior technology that had to be developed as a program and need to be just perfect before the troops would get it. Live in the here and now, not so much in the future or you may never get the future you want.

Posted by: Bill Nelson at May 14, 2008 01:29 PM

"This is not to say they will never happen again, but given the fact that the last 2 major force on force fights we have had since Vietnam were both dealing with Iraq could give you some signs of this."

In the past twenty-thirty years, Russia fought Chechnya twice, Afghanistan once, everybody fought Iraq, then the Coalition fought Iraq again, then NATO in Afghanistan. We fought against Serbia, in Somalia, and Panama, hell, nearly everywhere.

There are simmering regional conflicts from Colombia to South Africa to Kashmir to China, some of which could become full scale conventional wars. Don't give us this BS that large wars are over. We've fought two large wars in the past twenty years, both against Iraq.

Seriously, what are you people smoking and can you email me some?

Posted by: Brad at May 14, 2008 01:13 PM

Good Morning Folks,

I'm with Sec. Gates on this one. As former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said "...you have to fight the war you got."

It's time for the brass to get their collective heads out of their "six's" and face reality, we are at war NOW. If we don't win this one any talk of the future might just be N/A.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at May 14, 2008 12:35 PM

Gates will be out of office soon Stu. He leaves on January 20th, the inauguration day for the next president. Gates is better than Rumsfeld ever was and I served under both men.

DoD has always been doing this push for more expensive and newer toys. This is nothing new. What is new is Gates telling them what the realities of combat are. The age of the major force on force combat has given way to the age of limited engagements, Small unit tactics, and Urban fighting.

This is not to say they will never happen again, but given the fact that the last 2 major force on force fights we have had since Vietnam were both dealing with Iraq could give you some signs of this.

Militaries around the world are now realizing that a smaller, determined enemy can cause problems to a larger, more combat ready force.

Posted by: Ed at May 14, 2008 11:51 AM

Get Gates out of office

Posted by: Stu at May 14, 2008 11:28 AM