1 Tanks in Afghanistan.

For the love of Patton, why?!?

2 Hey, I agree with Joe -- 2014 is a stale date. Just not Afghanistan's.

3
"We've taken the gloves off, and it has had huge impact," one of the senior officials said.

wow imagine that! Only took, what, 9 years to figure it out?

These people at the Pentagon are pathetic.

4 The 2011 talk was always political and now the 2014 date will set liberal heads exploding.

Yeah, they'll be a few complaints - but that will be it.

The Left could care less about whether we are in Afghanistan or not as an objective issue. All that matters is if it helps Obama, and therefore the Left as a whole.

For comparison look at Gitmo. Apparently it was a war crime under Bush, and an unpleasant, but acceptable, nuisance under Obama...

5 DarkLord - why not, A-stan is not all twisty mountain passes

6
Bush should've leveled everything outside of Kabul and then bugged out.


We would've been done with that hellhole by Christmas 2001.

7 "We've taken the gloves off, and it has had huge impact," one of the senior officials said.

Has there ever been a war lost because the stronger side was too forceful in killing enemy combatants?

8 18-1, the famous unicorn - butterfly staring contest

9
That's a good question.

Did the Russians pussy-foot around in Trashcanistan, too?

10 5: Ask the Russians. Summary: The twisty mountain passes are where the enemy is dug in.

Always fit your force to the needs of the mission and environment. Unless the Taliban is fielding armored vehicles, why are we bothering with tanks?

11 I really thought Obama was going to cut and run come Hell or high water next year. He does seem committed to the fight if not in word, certainly in deed.

That's because he boxed himself in during his campaign with his line about ignoring Afghanistan and how he wouldn't make that mistake.  It's either a policy or another broken promise.

12 But credit where it's due...I really thought Obama was going to cut and run come Hell or high water next year. He does seem committed to the fight if not in word, certainly in deed.

As much as I dislike  have antipathy for  utterly f*ing hate, his politics, if he can at least allow the big four star to do his job and get this thing won I will be impressed to some extent. (Read that Ofumbles? The bar is low, all you have to do is stay out of the way)

If Petraeus can even get close to pulling this off, I'm all for giving him that 5th star. Whose with me?

13

O/T  breaking news

Raleigh, N.C. — Republican Renee Ellmers has unseated veteran Congressman Bob Etheridge, according to unofficial results of a recount in the tight race.

Etheridge, a seven-term Democrat, picked up seven votes on Ellmers after voting results from 10 counties were tabulated a second time, but it was nowhere near enough to overcome her 1,489-vote lead following the Nov. 2 election.

The State Board of Elections still must audit the results and will meet next Tuesday to certify the results of all elections statewide

Etheridge requested a recount after Ellmers led him by less than 1 percent of the 189,800 ballots cast in the Second Congressional District. 

Ellmers has spent the week in Washington getting oriented with the job in anticipation that she will be declared the official winner.

Meanwhile, in state races, Cumberland elections director Terri Robertson said that recounts completed late Wednesday show Democratic Rep. Rick Glazier leading Republican Jackie Warner by 46 votes, while Democratic Rep. Diane Parfitt leads GOP challenger Johnny Dawkins by 108 votes.

Warner filed a request for a new election because she said there were irregularities in ballot tallies and problems with electronic voting machines. The county board will hear the protest Monday.

A Rowan County recount also gave Republican Harry Walker a 166-vote victory over Democratic incumbent Lorene Coates.

Should the results stand, Republicans will have a 68-52 majority in the state House come January.

14

Wars are won by tough men doing impossible things with and for the guy next to them on the line but they need the right leadership and strategy from the guy making the calls. It's possible, just possible, that Petraeus can pull off something resembling a victory there. If so, David Petraeus will enter some very select company in the annals of American history.

If he does that they should make him a 5 star general

15
Our goal from the beginning should've been to bomb the Taliban/Al qaeda training grounds & strongholds and then make Kabul the city-state of the country.

Secure one damn city. That's it.

16 2014? Great! The Republicans can now run as the "peace party" in the next election.

17 Has there ever been a war lost because the stronger side was too forceful in killing enemy combatants?

Ref. Alamo

18
Re: Ellmers

That is most excellent news!

And Melissa Bean in IL-8 also conceded. I was worried the Democrats were gonna steal those two elections, too.

19

@13

Great, not Etheridge will be roaming the streets, drunk, acosting kids.

20 13: Hallelujah.  Another close-run victory.

At this rate, we should have the final results just in time for the next round.

21
So that brings us up to +64 seats in the House, right?

22 10 - it reads like a reaction to the other enemy, the JAG officers refusing calls for fire. The direct fire would be under local command, no need to coordinate with higher.

23 Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Patraeus McCrystal's superior prior to McCrystal leaving? Couldn't this have been implemented then?

If I'm wrong about pecking order then.....nevermind.

24

Ah, nice.  There is few things more impressive in the world than seeing a main battle tank like the M-1 series, rolling through the hills and getting ready to toss a 120mm brick at the nearest bad guy trying to cower behind in a building.

This actually has precedent from the COIN in Iraq, where despite the much ballyhoos about the Strykers and the last days of the tank, the troops there found the ability of a tank to toss a brick at the bad guys to be very important.

25

Always fit your force to the needs of the mission and environment. Unless the Taliban is fielding armored vehicles, why are we bothering with tanks?

Thanks, I'll trust the Marines judgement.  Plus, out in Helmand and Kandahar, you can do some open field running.

26 If Petraeus can even get close to pulling this off, I'm all for giving him that 5th star. Whose with me? I'm thinking a little higher, with wardrobe change.

27 Our servicemen deserve our everlasting gratitude, especially when serving with any Demo president, let alone this one: I swear the left wants us to lose, as badly as possible, in every conflict. Speaking of our godlike CiC, you have to take a look at the latest Newsweek cover -- completely over the top deification of the empty suit. Newsweak was not worth 1¢ let alone $1. Gaaaaa, every day I find one more reason to hate the MFM just a little bit more.

28 I'm thinking a little higher, with wardrobe change. Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2010 12:22 PM (7Jipo) Eh. For all we know Petraeus is a squish on all other things.

29 I'm thinking a little higher, with wardrobe change.

I may love the guy as a general. But I'm not sure about his politics. And like a good officer, he doesn't talk much about them.

30 The US military is not perfect. But I am constantly in awe of them for their overall professionalism and effectiveness. Hope we can keep it that way.

31 Always fit your force to the needs of the mission and environment. Unless the Taliban is fielding armored vehicles, why are we bothering with tanks?

Because they're really useful. Ask the Dutch and Canadians.

32 My only concern with tanks in Astan is the fuel chain they require; lifting that stuff in and moving via browsers in a asymmetric environment would be a hellavu headache. If that's what the boys on the ground are calling for, we got plenty more if the need'em.

33 I know someone who was deployed to A-stan. Said there was nothing there but mud, dirt and drugs. Not like Iraq where there was some culture to build on. They are just herders and farmers.

34
If Petraus wants to be president someday, what's his easiest path?

He'll jump on the ticket with Obama in 2012; they'll cruise to easy victory, and then he'll run in 2016.

35 OT:  Politico - "Senate Democrats vent anger with Barack Obama"  LINK

Excerpt (for the funny):

If Democrats keep losing the message war, they worry, they will be wiped out in 2012.

“There was a lot of passion in that room,” one senator said. “The reason is because the public is with us on our policies, but they’re not getting the message.”

36 Great tank in Afghanistan movie:  The Beast.

37 Pence or Barbour would need a good VP. Plus, his insider deconstruction of the Obama decision making would be fun to watch.

38 34 If Petraus wants to be president someday, what's his easiest path? He'll jump on the ticket with Obama in 2012; they'll cruise to easy victory, and then he'll run in 2016. Posted by: Dr Soothsayer Johnson at November 19, 2010 12:27 PM (uFokq) Unless Bambi learns to triangulate I'd say that Petraeus's easiest path to victory would be to run AGAINST him. If things stay the same or get worse you could successfully run a mangy yellow dog against Obama, much less a popular general.

39

“There was a lot of passion in that room,” one senator said. “The reason is because the public is with us on our policies, but they’re not getting the message.”

Posted by: mrp at November 19, 2010 12:27 PM (HjPtV)

Yep, "Don't Stop Believin'" that crap.

http://tinyurl.com/284khqg

40 33 - you just describe most of the Middle East.

41 When you're wounded an' left on Afghanistan's plains.
An' the women come out to cut up your remains,
Just roll to your rifle an' blow out your brains,
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
- Rudyard Kipling

42

“There was a lot of passion in that room,” one senator said. “The reason is because the public is with us on our policies, but they’re not getting the message.”

There is the standard definition of insanity and then there is this.

Let's call it "Chuck Schumer."

43 Great, not Etheridge will be roaming the streets, drunk, acosting kids.

What, he wasn't already?

44

"Trust me, I'll pull out." has turned into -

 "It's physicaly impossible for me not to pull out sometime in the future.".

 

 

 

45 Always fit your force to the needs of the mission and environment. Unless the Taliban is fielding armored vehicles, why are we bothering with tanks?

Because they can take down a building from a mile away?

I see this as "Chicago Way" warfare:  If they bring an AK, you bring a SAW.  If they hide in a building, your bring an M1-A1.

46

I don't want Pertraus to run for office.

We don't know anything about him, and I am always wary of Generals. They are used to a "dictatorial" command structure, which doesn't fit well into a democratic process.

 

47

a mangy yellow dog

John Stennis is dead.

Haley Barbour comes close, though.

48 36 Great tank in Afghanistan movie:  The Beast.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 19, 2010 12:28 PM (xxgag)

RPG kaboom tank!

49 33 I know someone who was deployed to A-stan. Said there was nothing there but mud, dirt and drugs. Not like Iraq where there was some culture to build on. They are just herders and farmers.

Thus they are very uneducated:

Study: Few Afghans know about 9/11, reason for war

KABUL Â— Afghans in two crucial southern provinces are almost completely unaware of the September 11 attacks on the United States and don't know they precipitated the foreign intervention now in its 10th year, a new report showed on Friday.

NATO leaders gathered in Lisbon for a summit on Friday where the transition from foreign forces — now at about 150,000 — to Afghan security responsibility will be at the top of the agenda, with leaders to discuss a 2014 target date set by Kabul.

/But this particular ignorance is partially our fault - we should be showing the Afghans what their Taliban hosts did to us.

50

A-stan is a shit hole. I wish we had left by 2002. We should have bombed them into submission, handed it over to the Northern Alliance and then told them not to force us to come back.

 

51 45 Always fit your force to the needs of the mission and environment. Unless the Taliban is fielding armored vehicles, why are we bothering with tanks?

Because they can take down a building from a mile away?

I see this as "Chicago Way" warfare:  If they bring an AK, you bring a SAW.  If they hide in a building, your bring an M1-A1.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 19, 2010 12:33 PM (8y9MW)

You fly planes into our buildings filled with civilians, we reduce our nuclear stockpile by exploding them in your country.

52 /shrug  Normally I would just trust the judgment of the command officers, but the last couple years has given me a distinct aversion to just 'trusting the experts'.  Eh, I'll just back off on this one; can't reasonably claim expertise here.  I just hope they've the smarts to make it work better than it did the last time someone sent tanks into Afghanistan.  (I'd like to think so, but this has been a century of nasty surprises...)

53

They are used to a "dictatorial" command structure, which doesn't fit well into a democratic process.

Yeah, because career Chicago machine politicians are egalitarian.  The process for electing a president is democratic, the institution of the presidency is not.

Eisenhower seemed to do just fine, by the way.

 

54 O/T  Cyber experts determine that stuxnet worm targeted frequency converters that control centrifuges' rotor speeds.

55 @49 - I'd often wondered about that.  Wasn't "Afghanistan" pretty much just some lines on a map to everyone except the West and the Taliban?  I'm pretty sure their "central authority" extended to the edges of Kabul and that was about it.

Part of the reason the Russians had such problems was that there wasn't a government to assault.    Everyone just saw an invasion, and didn't bother waiting around for some government to do something, they went to their friendly, neighborhood CIA Agent for some arms training and started killing Russians.

56 @51 - I didn't say we were doing it right...

57

^{Posted by: ya2daup at November 19, 2010 12:37 PM (HmCnI)}

Love that little worm.

58 I had sort of figured out that we weren't planning on withdrawing anytime soon when I heard that my brother, National Guard, was preparing to deploy in 2012. Nice to see that confirmed, though.

59 "Trust me, I'll pull out." has turned into -
 "It's physicaly impossible for me not to pull out sometime in the future.".

This is why you never trust a guy when he promises to pull out...

60 We need to deploy some f'n tanks on the Mexican border.

61

This is why you never trust a guy when he promises to pull out...

Is there something you want to tell the class, Alex?

62 55:  The problem was a mismatch between the modern notion of a nation state, and the more traditional...I hesitate to say 'structures', but...well, what was actually there.  Once there was a sort of monarchy that most of the tribes gave nominal fealty to, while in practice pretty much everyone just went about their business without worrying too much about it.  This got overthrown in '73 and replaced by a shaky republic, which was itself overthrown in '78 in a Soviet-backed coup.  It was resistance to this new regime that started the ball, and eventually Soviet tanks, rolling.  I think you pretty much know the rest from there, so I won't belabor the point further.

The quick summary is, for more than 35 years, folks have been trying to impose modern notions on people who really had no use for them, largely for their own purposes.  It ain't worked out so well, and in absence of external pressure, they pretty much just go about their business the same as they had before, except maybe with a few extra toys.  We've been largely falling into that same trap, though there have been occasional signs of intelligence to the contrary.

You can guess I don't have much faith this will end well.

63 Anyone notice Obama pulling the Guard from the border before went on vacation again?

64

They are used to a "dictatorial" command structure, which doesn't fit well into a democratic process.

Yeah, because career Chicago machine politicians are egalitarian.  The process for electing a president is democratic, the institution of the presidency is not.

Eisenhower seemed to do just fine, by the way.

He did fine, but Grant didn't.

Also, keep in mind that Eisenhower was president at a time when America had some 50% of the world wealth and all of our competators were either totally destroyed, bankrupt, or in the process of rebuidling.

The institution of the President is vastly different from being a General. The president can't just command thing. He has to sell ideas to the public and congress, he has to get congressmen to vote for his initiatives. etc.

It can't be run by executive order.

Also, keep in mind we know nothing about his politics. He could be a Colin Powell type.

65 they have used scores of high-explosive line charges - a weapon that had been used only sparingly in the past - to blast through minefields. That brought a smile to my face. Some of my fondest memories are shit we did with explosives - Line mains, ring mains, homemade bangalore torpedoes and claymores... Joe loves blowing some shit up. I was present once when our engineers used a MICLICC "mick-lick" (Missile launChed LIne Clearing Charge). After it went off, the ground looked like it had been raped by 10,000 hobos. Talk about feeling the earth move. Good for Petraeus. It's well past time to start laying down the scunion on these goatfuckers.

66 Russian counterinsurgency, also typified by the way they pulverized Grozny, is not the model we should be looking for

67 I'd often wondered about that.  Wasn't "Afghanistan" pretty much just some lines on a map to everyone except the West and the Taliban?  I'm pretty sure their "central authority" extended to the edges of Kabul and that was about it.

The modern borders for Afghanistan were drawn by the Brits and Russians as part of The Great Game.  Afghanistan has always had an identity, but it's always been half defined.  Strong rulers united the various kingdoms and chieftains, weak rulers ended up holding nothing but Kabul, if they're lucky. 

68 There used to be a site that had pics of Kabul from before the Russian invasion - uncovered women, tea houses serving alcohol, etc. Link I have is dead now. Probably needs to come back.

69 Well as was said by another general in another war "get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow". Let's hope some lessons have been learned since then and our general is allowed to fight this time.

70 52 /shrug Normally I would just trust the judgment of the command officers, but the last couple years has given me a distinct aversion to just 'trusting the experts'. Eh, I'll just back off on this one; can't reasonably claim expertise here. I just hope they've the smarts to make it work better than it did the last time someone sent tanks into Afghanistan. (I'd like to think so, but this has been a century of nasty surprises...) Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at November 19, 2010 12:37 PM (GBXon) In general, I agree with you. However, the one Command Officer who has shown that he knows what to do in tactical situations and adapt to changing conditions is General Petraeus. And by God if he wants tanks, I assume that he has a specific goal and deployment strategy for them.

71 A major problem was that the Russians never bothered to try and hold more than the major roads and urban areas of Afghanistan.  This allowed the insurgency to move and regroup in the rural areas.  Additionally, they loved to do large cordon and sweeps, often with ineffectual results.

72 Our Canadian friends have had tanks in country since at least 2006.

73 Is there something you want to tell the class, Alex?

Do you have the special doll?

74 things must be going great in Afghanistan if we heaven't needed tanks until now. I ma sure these 14 tanks will make a big difference.

75 Russian counterinsurgency, also typified by the way they pulverized Grozny, is not the model we should be looking for

Posted by: justin cord at November 19, 2010 12:48 PM (O20xS)

It's unfortunate the Ruskies didn't just depopulate the entire vile crap hole - nerve gas is cheap and effective and the USSR had lots of it.   

76 I was there in 76 and 77 In Kabul you could see women in miniskirts and fancy sunglasses who worked in the various ministries. Thank God we were able to put a stop to all of that socialist secularism by giving billions to the radical conservative islamists. I guess we sure showed those Ruskies !!

77 It's actually a little more complicated than that, the Russians ended up decapitating
the friendly Amin regime, and then went overboard in the same soft way they had done in Berlin, nearly forty years earlier

78

One, there's a lot of flat land in Afghanistan. Two, there are a lot of very sturdy buildings that may require a 120mm doorknocker.

Don't be shocked if this deployment of 14 USMC Abrams tanks isn't the last US heavy armor to go in there.

79 @ archie bunker - no you weren't, fuckstain.

80 Archie, please direct your complaints about the 1979 invasion to the Kremlin. I'm sure Putin gives a fuck what you think. None of us do.

81

Oh, second point regarding Petraeus and the Presidency:

I have said this before, and I will say it again. Dave doesn't have it in him to abase himself before an American electorate. Plus, Holly's exact words were "If he runs, he'll be doing it with his second wife." She's still pissed that he took the CENTCOM job. She wanted EUCOM so maybe he'd be hom a few nights a week. He'd be interested in Secretary of State or maybe Defense. He has some ideas on joint staff restructuring he'd like the clout to push based on the experience of the last ten years, but President? No way. Somebody would REALLY have to sell him that it was for the good of the country, and I'm 50/50 that Holly would kill him if he did.

He'd decline a fifth star as well. That rank was created to give US generals parity with British field marshals like Montgomery. I doubt he'd be offered it and more suprised if he'd accept it.

82

Lightly armored vehicles in Afghanistan are being destroyed by roadside bombs that a tank would survive.

A 120 mm gun can destroy a target the size of a house at greater than a mile, the article says. How much greater? They have no trouble hitting other tanks with it over two miles away.

83 "I remain skeptical about what can be accomplished in A-Stan long term, given it's location, lack of infrastructure, culture and a whole host of other problems that really aren't solvable by military force. That's especially true while Pakistan is still Pakistan. But if you're going to send men and women over there to fight...by God, let them fight."

Couldn't agree more.  So why are we fucking around again?  We can pound on them for 10 more years, they ain't gonna change.  We have to face a simple truth.  The people we are there trying to "protect" in order to form some sort of stable society are far closer in ideology to the Taliban than to us.  The guy who runs the place is playing a double game with us right now with Iran who wants to kill the Jews with nuclear weapons.  Our BEST CASE SCENARIO is to leave the place as a somewhat stable Islamic republic operating under Sharia law with a populace that mostly hates us. 

That still leaves numerous other hellholes around the planet where terror attacks can be planned, including on our own soil. We don't have the resources or the political will to invade them all and our "allies" in the GWOT have all but deserted us.  We are NO SAFER regardless of what happens in Afghanistan.  I was all for going after Al Qaeda and punishing the Taliban, but nation building in a place that resembles the Old Testament is a fools errand, a waste of good men and resources we are fast running out of.  The world of 2010 and that of 2001 are 2 entirely different places.  We have far more pressing matters and Republicans better have a better agenda for 2012 than doubling down on Afghanistan.

84 Oh, dear. Look, Afghanistan is huge, as big as Montana. That's a lot of terrain- varied terrain. Most of it is mountainous, but a lot of it isn't- especially the river valleys where most of the people actually live (you know, the ones we're trying to protect/wean away from the Taliban. The bad guys make extensive use of fortified firing positions, both purpose-built and the mud-walled compounds that cover the country like a thousand Alamos. Remember, a tank has other uses than just fighting other tanks; direct-fire support of infantry is a major one. Moreover, a tank gives you precision, = fewer dead civilians. Air power is messy, first because even a 500-lb bomb makes a very big boom, and also because they often miss. Even 'smart' weapons will land someplace they aren't supposed to one time in ten or better, whether due to FO error, pilot error, or equipment malfunction. Artillery is indirect, suffers from the same error possibilities, and tends to plaster rather a large area. An Abrams can see what it's shooting at, and bullseye it. Remember, the grunts, usually, simply fix the enemy so that ordnance can eliminate them. The Soviets' approach was- let's just call it very poor. I recommend "The Bear Went Over The Mountain" for a good view of what a cockup the Red Army made of A'stan.

85 I was there in 76 and 77 In Kabul you could see women in miniskirts and fancy sunglasses who worked in the various ministries. Thank God we were able to put a stop to all of that socialist secularism by giving billions to the radical conservative islamists.

76 and 77 was before the glorious socialist revolution you gobsmackingly-retarded ignorant fuck.

86 If you want to fix Afghanistan, you have a few other things to deal with first.

Specifically, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan.  (I figure India and the Saudis will lay off once those three are dealt with.)

87

The real reason the won is doing this?    There's no way in hell he could pull out before the '12 elections.    It's all political.    We all know what would happen if we pulled out & the Taliban was able to take back control.    How many mass murders do you think would happen?    How many horrific abuses of women & even children would we see?

The won couldn't even think of winning an election if that happened.    Don't think for a minute he's extending the timeline for any other reason than his own political hide.   He may anger his base over this, but he knows damn well he can't win with them alone.    There is no decision he makes without thinking about his own damn self.    Nothing is more important to him than that.

 

88

Biden can't wait until the Boss gets home, so he can tell him the great idea he has for a picture that will seal the deal on his re-election: a picure of Barky standing in the turret of one of those M1-A1 bad-boys, wearing a bicycle helmet.

...what?

89

"Right now there are two living American soldiers who are generally credited with winning a war....Norman Schwarzkopf and David Petraeus. Nothing gives a general credibility like victory."

These two generals are nothing alike.  Schwarzkopf is the standard product of the US military institution.  He could have been replaced by most of the generals in the US Army and we would still have won.  We would have won Desert Storm even with an incompetent general just because our troops, equipment, and numbers were so much better than the Iraqis.

Petraeus, however, is in a league of his own.  Counterinsurgency is a very peculiar regime of war, the most difficult, of which Petraeus is the master.  I think he's a cut above the best generals we fielded in WWII.  America won't know how good Petraeus was for a century, when the classified accounts of what really happenned are declassified and the historians have time to sort through it all and make sense of it.

90 Ironically, the message to the the people the Taliban would be trying to recruit is: "Those withdrawl deadlines from the Americans don't mean squat". So perhaps the impact of O's treasonous deadline-making is at least being mitigated at this point.

91

The 68-ton tanks are propelled by a jet engine and equipped with a 120mm main gun that can destroy a house more than a mile away.

No, it's not. It is propelled by a turbine engine but is still a direct-drive. Jets use the thrust created for propulsion. And as somebody mentioned upthread, it can hit other tanks at about 2 miles away.

Also, I saw the headline on Stars and Stripes which is basically the military's newspaper overseas which read (to paraphrase) "Heavily Armored Tanks to Deploy to Afghanistan". I was unaware that we had anything but heavily armored tanks. Is there such a thing as a lighly armored tank in our inventory?

That's the problem when civilians who have never served try to inform the general public about the military. They usually don't have a clue of what they're talking about.    

92 They may want tanks in certain situations, like retaking a Taliban held town with lots of mud-wall strong points. Marwan was like that? Tanks are great then, because they can safely attack these.

93 Anything worth shooting is worth shooting with a 120mm HEAT round...

94

Tracks also have better off-road mobility than wheels.  The MRAP type vehicles have pretty substantial armor, but they have a high center of balance so they have to stay on fairly easy terrain.  Tanks allow you to move off the roads in more places. 

And, yeah, they poke big holes in things at pretty decent range. 

95 <a href="http://www.onlineusb.net">wholesale usb </a>Let us always meet each other with a smile,for the smile is the beginning of love,<a href="http://www.usb-disk.com">wholesale usb flash drives</a>and once we begin to love each other naturally we want to do something.
<a href="http://www.topusbdrive.com">Branded usb drive </a>

96  
I wonder what kind of whiskey Petraeus drinks?

97 Slot1 flash card R4 ¨¨ una flash card DS porta. porta S1 ha le caratteristiche della scheda flash mainstream: nessuna macchina pennello, built-in funzione di guida, possono portare flash card GBA e la fine del supporto dinamico patch giocando funzione CleanROM ¨¨ facile da usare.
Come un flash card precoce, R4 standard massimo sostegno da 4 GB TF card. Standard non supporta SDHC TF, questo ¨¨ dispiaciuto. Tuttavia, un ampio gruppo di utenti R4, sono le risorse pi¨´ rilevanti. Archivio gioco R4 ¨¨ memorizzato direttamente alla carta di TF, eliminando i passaggi manuali di archivio di backup Arresto. R4 ¨¨ un archivio di. 512k ¨¨ il file Sav.
R4 per homebrew, patch DLDI pu¨° automaticamente giocare, e integrato nel software kernel Moonshell multimediali, al fine di realizzare il film, ascoltare musica e delle funzioni di lettura e-book.
<a href="http://www.scheda-r4.com/">R4i SDHC</a>
<a href="http://www.scheda-r4.com/">ds Nintendo</a>
<a href="http://www.scheda-r4.com/">M3 ds real</a>
<a href="http://www.scheda-r4.com/">micro sd</a>