Topic phục vụ việc dọn dẹp box KTQS

Em xin nhận lỗi! Đó là sơ suất của em.Lần sau nếu post bài em sẽ ghi rõ nguồn xuất sứ!
Còn đường dẫn em lưu trong đĩa mềm,hôm nay không mang trong người,các bác thông cảm.Mai nhé

thông tin mỗi lúc một kiểu, lúc thì mig 21 bay ngang hạ F117, lúc thì SAM bắn hạ, bây giờ lại thêm vụ Ta la la gì gì nữa phát hiện F117 để bắn hạ!!! Em chịu, kô biết đường nào mà lần!

Tin này các bác nghe hay không thì tuỳ, vừa mới mua của cái nước có nhiều sao nhiều vạch 10 con M1.
Mit Gott Für Koenig und Vaterland

không hiểu Mẽo sẽ đóng ở Cam Ranh không nhỉ. tụi ghẻ kì này lo sốt vó.
Expansion of military bases overseas fuels suspicions of U.S. motives
BY MICHAEL KILIAN
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has dramatically expanded its military presence in the Middle East and Central Asia, building a vast network of bases designed to counter what military officials call an "arc of instability."
U.S. military installations in the region extend from Turkey to near the Chinese border, and from former Soviet republics in the north to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. The facilities surround Iran; are situated in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and are close to Syria and Lebanon. Several were created to address the confrontation with Iraq, and continue *****pport operations there.
"No one could have anticipated in the summer of 2001 that the United States would be basing forces at Karshi Khanabad, Uzbekistan, or conducting a major military operation in Afghanistan," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Congress last year.
Experts fear the ubiquity of U.S. forces may fuel belief in radical Islamic claims that America is bent on controlling the oil and politics of the Islamic world. A poll that the nonpartisan Pew Research Center conducted in Muslim nations in the region found significant portions of their populations believed just that.
Experts believe the threat implicit in a nearby American military presence - especially after the Iraq invasion - could inflame Islamic nations such as Iran.
"The first thing to recognize is that other countries will view this in different ways than we do," said Marcus Corbin, senior analyst for the Washington-based Center for Defense Information. "They will view this sometimes as an aggressive, hostile encirclement. Iran is probably the best example. It is almost literally surrounded. A huge chunk of its borders are with countries where the U.S. has vastly increased its presence or become a close ally.
"The point is to realize how threatening this is to other people," he added. "This is hard to do, because we don''t necessarily think of ourselves as a crusading people invading other countries willy-nilly."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has rejected the notion that the United States is interested in a permanent, large-scale presence in the Middle East and Central Asia and has stated that once the Taliban and al-Qaida have been defeated, the United States will have no bases in Afghanistan.
But the United States now has bases or shares military installations in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, as well as on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Rumsfeld and Pentagon officials are soon expected to unveil plans for a new U.S. military "footprint" on the rest of the world. The plan is expected to include a shift of resources from the huge Cold War-era bases in Western Europe to new and smaller ones in Poland and other Eastern Europe nations as well as a relocation of U.S. troops in South Korea.
The planners are also surveying American facilities in the Middle East and Central Asia, but changes there are more likely to deal with the size and impact of the U.S. profile there than with the number of facilities.
The U.S. military''s defense strategy, officials say, is focused on asymmetric threats, and on the need to respond quickly anywhere in the world.
Pursuing a strategy of "places, not bases," the administration wants to strengthen its alliances with friendly countries in the region - and its access to their military facilities. But it doesn''t want to engage in extensive base building, as it did in Western Europe after World War II and in northeast Asia after the Korean War.
"What''s unlikely is to have permanently stationed U.S. forces in all these places," said Michelle Flournoy, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction. "We''re more likely to see a situation where we periodically go into a base and do exercises and build up the infrastructure to make it more usable in the future. Then we leave again or rotate forces in and out."
In keeping with Rumsfeld''s "transformation" policy of converting the U.S. military from its heavy, largely static Cold War mode to smaller, lighter, more flexible and more rapidly deployed units, these forward outposts would be lightly garrisoned but capable of accommodating a large surge of American military power.
"That''s what we did in (Operation) Iraqi Freedom," said retired Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski, Defense Department director of force transformation. "We had (a) garrison in Kuwait. We enormously strengthened that garrison and then we stepped off from that garrison against objectives (in Iraq)."
The U.S. military presence in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the new location at Manas, Kyrgyzstan, near the Chinese border, for example, involves garrisons of about 3,000 troops each.
"We have no plans to put permanent bases in this part of the world," Rumsfeld said at a news conference in Uzbekistan last month.
But some big, permanent bases in the region are likely.
"What people aren''t telling you is that `places, not bases'' depends on having bases somewhere," said Kurt Campbell, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and now director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies'' International Security Program.
Key to continued American involvement in the region would be not only the Camp Doha troop base and two air bases in Kuwait, but also the big Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which has a 15,000-foot runway needed for air refueling tankers, and the U.S. Navy base at Juffair in Bahrain, headquarters for the fleets patrolling the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.
According to Campbell, the viability of such U.S. outposts depends on whether the host country is a stable democracy and is willing to provide support and security.
"One of the problems we see with a variety of these bare-bones military facilities in the Central Asian republics and elsewhere in the Middle East is that some of those con***ions do not exist," Campbell said. "Local populations, if not hostile, are uncomfortable with the implications of an American presence."
He predicted that some of these U.S. outposts "may be short-lived."
"The initial rationale for some of this global pre-positioning is to get closer to the flame - to be able to act, vis-a-vis Iraq and elsewhere," he said. "What''s unclear to me is do we really want to get a lot closer? I think there are some very real hesitations associated with what happens when you put U.S. forces together in an environment. It can actually spur exactly the kinds of political consequences that you want to avoid."
---
---------------------
tha hy sinh chu khong chiu chet, quyet khong de che^.t chiem TS va HS

Bọn ghẻ bây giờ đang dần dần bị bao vây từ tất cả các hướng rồi.
 

Em xin lỗi trước vì đây là topic Quân sự mà em viết dưới đây mang tính chính trị nhiều hơn!
Em nghĩ là Mẽo nó sẽ không vào CR vì:
-Truyền thống của là không cho kẻ khác đô hộ mình 1000 năm Tàu ghẻ có làm gì được đâu?Không nhẽ bây giờ lại đi ngược lại truyền thống đó?
-Nếu đóng quân ở đó thì ai mà biết Mẽo nó sẽ làm gì?Em nghĩ chỉ cần 1 thời gian ngắn là nó chia cắt SP ra làm đôi ngay!Làm vậy khác gì mang cưa,tự cưa thân mình?
-Cuối cùng là phản ứng của Gấu Trắng.Họ sẽ nghĩ thế nào nếu Mẽo mang quân vào nơi vốn được coi là Đồng minh chiến lược?
Nếu nó điên lên cắt các hợp đồng hàng nóng trong thời điểm đó rùi xúi Tàu ghẻ tràn xuống thì toi đặc!

he he bac yên tâm , đến cưa tàu , cưa đài loan, cưa nhật , cưa thái cong không cưa đưọc nưa là , đến cưa Mỹ cung vâyh thôi dù lắp thêm lưõi urian
ЧУТЬ ЧУТЬ Н. Ч~ТА.ТЬСЯ
!

hehhehe bác lấy bài này ở đâu thế. tôi cũng có gửi một bài tiếng Anh cùng chủ đề rồi.

---------------------
tha hy sinh chu khong chiu chet, quyet khong de che^.t chiem TS va HS

Vâng ,tớ nghĩ trên này cũng có nhiều bác cao tuổi ko biết tiếng Anh, nên post tiếng Việt nên để phục vụ bà con.
 

Bác cứ lo hão, em nghĩ cứ cho nó thuê đi, vừa được tiền, mà thằng TQ đi ra đi vào cũng phải cẩn thận!
Còn thằng Mỹ thì ... , cho nó đóng quân ở đó mới khỏi sợ nó đánh bác ạ! Nó vốn nổi tiếng sợ tổn thất về người, nên chiến tranh luôn oanh tạc bằng các phi cơ hiện đại như B2, F111 rồi bao vây kinh tế đến khi nước đó kiệt quệ mới gửi thiết giáp kèm bộ binh vào đánh! Đánh thằng Iraq mà đến 10 năm nó mới đánh xong!!! Bây giờ nó gửi quân ở nhà mình thì có khác gì nó để gửi con nó ở nhà mình, đánh 1 cái sợ rút quân kô kịp, mình thịt cho bằng hết! Mà sau cuộc chiến VN, Mỹ sẽ chẳng bao giờ dám tấn công VN nữa, đi đánh bất cứ đâu cũng đều oang oang sợ lập lại 1 Viet Nam war thứ 2! Bây giờ qua rồi cái thời CT lạnh, chơi với cả 2 bên, chơi với Mỹ kiếm tiền, chơi với Nga kiếm đồ chơi!!!