Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon"

Hm, guess it's different from all those non-kill-weapons that most military organizations develop.

And really, why is it that when some other nation makes a new weapon we act like it's all sinister when we have the most advanced military in the world?

I was under the impression they expected him to end all US involvement in conflicts.

But Cpl Reynolds, of Dalgety Bay, in Fife, together with his spotter Lance Corporal David Hatton, worked out different factors such as wind speed and the trajectory of the bullet to hit the target. Musa, who was more than 1,500 metres away, was taken out with a single shot to the chest.

Cpl Reynolds, who has killed 32 Taliban fighters, said: “I was quite proud of that shot. It is the longest recorded kill in Afghanistan. I am going to use that fact as a chat-up line in the pub when I get back home.”

I wonder how all the "I'm against any war." people feel now that Obama has basically said we will be in Afghanistan for the duration. I was under the impression they expected him to end all US involvement in conflicts.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said any recommendation for more forces would have to address his concerns that the foreign military presence in Afghanistan could become too large and be seen by Afghans as a hostile occupying force.

"Clearly, I want to address those issues and we will have to look at the availability of forces, we'll have to look at costs. There are a lot of different things that we'll have to look at," he told reporters.

"While there's a lot of gloom and doom going around ... I think we have some assets in place and some developments that hold promise," Gates said on a visit to a Lockheed Martin factory building F-35 fighter jets in Fort Worth, Texas.

McChrystal has 103,000 troops under his command, including 63,000 Americans, half of whom arrived this year as part of an escalation strategy begun under President George W. Bush and ramped up under his successor, Barack Obama. The Western force is set to rise to 110,000, including 68,000 Americans by year's end.

TROOP INCREASE DIFFICULT

A further increase could be politically difficult for Obama, with members of his Democratic Party increasingly uneasy about the war and congressional elections due next year.

The White House sought on Monday to pin the blame for the grave state of the war in Afghanistan on the Bush administration, which made Iraq its top military priority.

"This was underresourced, underfunded, undermanned and ignored for years," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

"This was underresourced, underfunded, undermanned and ignored for years," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Is this statement true? (Pretty sure it is, by the way. Rhetorical question?)

If so, why would he be wrong in placing blame where it belongs?

Leadership is not placing blame but implementing solutions.

Is that why you are blaming Obama for everything?

Only reason people think of the Iraq War as a failure is because major media outlets have labeled it as such.

It was a typical presidential speech: full of broad generalizations and imagery but extremely light on specifics.

typical president

typical

Afghanistan: Total War, where you invade Afghanistan as either Alexander the Great, the British, the Soviets or the Americans - but always lose!

ABC News: "While tomorrow night's speech will have many audiences ... a senior administration official tells ABC News one key message will resonate with all of them: 'The era of the blank check for President Karzai is over. . . The president will talk about, this not being 'an open ended commitment'..."

Bush:

The Afghan leader has heard our ultimatum and understands it ("The president was described as heartened to hear that Karzai spent much of his inaugural address discussing corruption").

Bush:

The Afghan government will have strict benchmarks they must meet (Gibbs: "the new strategy will include many of the same benchmarks, but with ramifications to US support to Karzai and his government if they are not met").

Bush:

We're going to ensure that Afghan troops are trained to provide the security which the country needs (Gibbs: "the goal and the purpose of the strategy is to train an Afghan national security force, comprised of an Afghan national army and a police that can fight an unpopular insurgency in Afghanistan so that we can then transfer that security responsibility appropriately back to the Afghans").

Bush:

We're going to have a strategy based on funding and strengthening local leaders ("much of it will be targeted at local governments at the province and district level, and at specific ministries, such as those devoted to Afghan security").

Bush:

If we don't escalate, Al Qaeda will get us ("The focus of the new strategy, sources say, will be going after al Qaeda and affiliated extremists").

Bush:

We must fulfill our moral responsibility to stand with the Afghan people.

Bush:

Victory would surely be a stable democracy that can police itself and its people without the need for US/UN aid, while becoming an integral part of the world economy.

Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests

Victory would surely be a stable democracy that can police itself and its people without the need for US/UN aid, while becoming an integral part of the world economy.

In Afghanistan? lol

integral part of the world economy.