http://gamingtrend.com
September 16, 2014, 01:52:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Iranian Boats (possibly with GWB at the helm) Harass US Warship  (Read 22058 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #160 on: January 19, 2008, 07:08:53 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 08:54:59 PM

Quote from: ATB on January 17, 2008, 08:34:56 PM

So the dems rig elections too but the repubs are better at it?

There have been rigged elections in the past, in an ad hoc manner.  But only the Republicans put forth the effort to become a true criminal conspiracy.

Note how every time a Republican gets thrown in jail for fraud or theft... you will always hear about a contribution to the GOP involved.  It's just like turning in your weekly envelope to Tony Soprano.

I'm sure. So then the dems do it to save us from the repubs rigging it. Like Robin Hoods of politics.

How much longer can it be before you suggest that the Bushies killed Vince Foster to try and fram e the Clintons and they just blundered it? Oh wait and I'm sure they were drugging and hypmotizing Bill to make him lose it and go womanizing in hope of stealing power from the noble democrats. Christ. Is it possible that they killed JFK?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #161 on: January 19, 2008, 07:14:39 AM »

Quote from: Lee on January 19, 2008, 07:08:22 AM

Yep, you are the expert Unbreakable. Hell I am going to start asking you questions.

We changed the policy to include modern threats after the cold war. The mission is still peace through deterrence.

Yes... I'm sure that's what preemption is all about.

We sure peaced the fuck out of Iraq, didn't we?

Quote
You don't even know what you are posting, you just see key words to get alarmed about. None of these documents are talking about B-52s flying alerts with nukes, ICBMs all pointing at Egypt, or subs just waiting for a call from Bush. They included post cold war threats and made plans to deal with them. You can't be so naive to think they don't plan for everything can you?

I already know they don't plan for everything.  They didn't have jack shit in the way of plans for Iraq.  Or rather they DID, the ones that existed before Bush took office, but they just threw them all away and decided to wing it.  Heck, they STILL don't have any plans for Iraq.  Beyond stealing as much money as they possibly can, of course.

They also didn't seem to have a plan for what to do if a hurricane hits a major city.  How many days did it take them to get water to New Orleans?  At least four, wasn't it?

Oh... and how could we forget... "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"?  Yeah, they really prepared for that one too.  Maybe Dumya thought Bin Laden was a union.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 07:19:34 AM by unbreakable » Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #162 on: January 19, 2008, 07:15:00 AM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 09:43:05 PM

Quote from: Doopri on January 17, 2008, 09:22:55 PM

Quote
The fact that the goverment is loosening the trigger on the nukes for a broadser set of use, specifically non nuclear threats, is terrifying!

i find it scary too.  and its not just the the government, the politicians running for president on both sides of the isle have lobbed around more than enough hypothetical nukes as well.  the last three or four years have made incredible strides backwards in the field of nonproliferation

I am guessing you don't know how we recently got rid of the Peacekeeper weapon system and converted MMIII to one warhead instead of 3? We also got rid of a ACMs and have converted some other missiles.

Honestly you guys, as far as nukes go, don't believe anything you read. The government doesn't make any of this information public knowledge and the media guesses to fill in the holes. One base I was at the press reported that we shipped our nukes to England. We didn't even have nukes. They just saw bombers land empty and take off with missiles.

Wait a minute...

Are you telling me that there is not a red button next to W's bed that all of the nukes are directly connected too with long copper wires?

The wires are silver. It is a much better conductor and matches the drapes.
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3297


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: January 19, 2008, 07:19:35 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 19, 2008, 07:14:39 AM

We sure peaced the fuck out of Iraq, didn't we?

I wasn't aware we used nukes in Iraq. The nuclear mission is peace through deterrence.

As far as plans go, they don't always work.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #164 on: January 19, 2008, 07:22:03 AM »

Quote from: WalkingFumble on January 18, 2008, 05:01:38 PM

i think i missed something.  what did syria do other than open its doors for iraqi refugees?  sponsor terrorism and try to get wmds?  maybe they helped saddam help al qaeda with 9/11...
 
why isnt venezuela on our "to nuke" list?

They are. If the plan for an attack constitutes being on the list, pretty much everyone is on it.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #165 on: January 19, 2008, 07:23:53 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 18, 2008, 07:45:05 PM

Quote from: WalkingFumble on January 18, 2008, 05:01:38 PM

why isnt venezuela on our "to nuke" list?

Because Venezuela has a lot of their oil tied up in sand, which is right on the surface.  Nuking them would make all that radioactive, which is the last thing the Bush Crime Family wants to happen.  It's so much easier to just bribe a few generals and have them turn the country into a dictatorship.

Why bother, we have weapons to kill the people without disturbing the infrastructure? Of course that wouldn't leave to many lucrative Halliburton contracts would it?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #166 on: January 19, 2008, 07:25:47 AM »

Quote from: Rip on January 19, 2008, 07:01:37 AM


LOL, OMG...

Quote
The American Thinker is a daily conservative internet publication with articles on the topics of national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, and military strategy.[1] The articles published are often mentioned on The Rush Limbaugh Show. The site frequently endorse controversial conservative commentators such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh.[2][3]

Anyway... it's pretty obvious Rip isn't even worth addressing.

Anyone want to bet that by the time morning comes, over half his posts will be personal attacks targetting me?  He's already past 1/3.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 07:27:36 AM by unbreakable » Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #167 on: January 19, 2008, 07:44:55 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 19, 2008, 06:05:06 AM

Quote from: Rip on January 19, 2008, 06:02:35 AM

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 01:46:35 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 01:00:34 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran?

Reference please.

Good point I was aware of the qoutes on 'stablizing' or 'restructuring' Iran, but I had NO idea we were pointing our nuclear arsenal at them...I would like to know the source of that fact as well

He is talking out his ass. Not a single special weapon in our arsenal is loaded with a preprogrammed target. Loading a target requires executive approval of a launch preparation. But of course Lee knows this which is why he called him on it.

Proof?  Or are you invoking your almighty "anonymous dude on intarweb expertise"?


BTW, it's kind of flattering how over 25% of your posts are personal attacks on me.

Don't see any attacks. Just facts.

Quote
She said the 500 older U.S. Minuteman III missiles are now aimed at oceans, while the new Trident and Peacekeeper missiles contain no targeting information at all.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/detarget/news/940531-346693.htm

Quote
THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA HAVE AGREED THEY WILL NO
LONGER POINT NUCLEAR MISSILES AT EACH OTHER.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/detarget/news/980627-prc.htm

Quote
Our forces have been detargeted since 1994. They have not been aimed at any country. That was the -- we detargeted our forces after our agreement with the Russians in 1994.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/detarget/news/t07071998_t0707asd.html

Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #168 on: January 19, 2008, 07:50:56 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 19, 2008, 06:23:55 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:29:42 PM

Sure it does.  He says that my claim that the USA is targetting Iran with our nukular arsenal is "bullshit"... and the article discusses how our policies have been changed.  The article did not, obviously, know what those changes were, because that's "secret".

But if you want more detail... here, knock yourself out.

Or, just google for "USSTRATCOM target iran".  Honestly, it's not that hard to actually be informed.  It's just so few people even bother to try.

And had you actually, you know, read anything people were talking about, you (or Lee, or whoever) may have noticed this:

Quote
Three months after NSPD-14, on September 14, 2002, President Bush also signed NSPD-17 (National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction), a directive that articulated a comprehensive strategy to counter nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. NSPD-17 reaffirmed that, if necessary, the United States will use nuclear weapons against anyone using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces abroad, and friends and allies, according to Washington Times. But a top-secret appendix to NSPD 17 specifically named Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya as being among the countries that are the central focus of the new strategy, and that options included nuclear weapons. Those options were in place with OPLAN 8044 Revision 03. The motivation for the new strategy, one participant in the interagency process that drafted it told Washington Post, was the conclusion that "traditional nonproliferation has failed, and now we’re going into active interdiction." NSPD-17 is sometimes also called the preemption doctrine.

Emphasis mine.

So the translation is, EXACTLY as I've said, that the new to this Bush administration policy has been changed TO a first-strike nuclear attack targetting Iran.  Meaning, America is using it's nuclear arsenal to threaten a non-nuclear armed nation, which is (at the least) in violation of the UN Charter.

That's not something which was done before, it's not routine, etc etc to whatever other justificating spin you try putting on it.

And of course, it gets better from there...

Quote
The regional strike plans also found their way into the draft Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (Joint Publication 3-12), which was under preparation within the military at the time Revision 03 was created. Yet the doctrine showed that planning went beyond retaliation and included preemptive strikes. The second draft from March 2005 listed five scenarios where use of nuclear weapons might be requested:

• To counter an adversary intending to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S., multinational, or allies forces or civilian populations;
• To counter an imminent attack from an adversary’s biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy;
• To attack on adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons, or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies; [this was probably the "target base" in OPLAN 8044 Revision 03]
• To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces;
• To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use.

Think a little about those last two, especially:

"To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces"
"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use."

Those statements are so vague they can essentially cover any offensive use of nuclear weapons, regardless of whether the nation/organization/whatever they are used against have nuclear weapons or not.

The policy of preemptive nuclear strikes is not new. The only thing that is new was for other forms of WMD to be included in the list of things that would cause this action to be "considered". That isn't even close to your suggestion that "we have nuclear weapons pointed at Iran". Which is tottaly and utterly false!
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #169 on: January 19, 2008, 07:57:09 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 19, 2008, 07:14:39 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 19, 2008, 07:08:22 AM

Yep, you are the expert Unbreakable. Hell I am going to start asking you questions.

We changed the policy to include modern threats after the cold war. The mission is still peace through deterrence.

Yes... I'm sure that's what preemption is all about.

We sure peaced the fuck out of Iraq, didn't we?

Quote
You don't even know what you are posting, you just see key words to get alarmed about. None of these documents are talking about B-52s flying alerts with nukes, ICBMs all pointing at Egypt, or subs just waiting for a call from Bush. They included post cold war threats and made plans to deal with them. You can't be so naive to think they don't plan for everything can you?

I already know they don't plan for everything.  They didn't have jack shit in the way of plans for Iraq.  Or rather they DID, the ones that existed before Bush took office, but they just threw them all away and decided to wing it.  Heck, they STILL don't have any plans for Iraq.  Beyond stealing as much money as they possibly can, of course.

They also didn't seem to have a plan for what to do if a hurricane hits a major city.  How many days did it take them to get water to New Orleans?  At least four, wasn't it?

Oh... and how could we forget... "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"?  Yeah, they really prepared for that one too.  Maybe Dumya thought Bin Laden was a union.

They have lots of plans. They have plans to nuc them as well. The quality of the plans or their effectiveness isn't at issue, the fact they have them is undeniable. Well for most people.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #170 on: January 19, 2008, 07:58:55 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 19, 2008, 07:25:47 AM

Quote from: Rip on January 19, 2008, 07:01:37 AM


LOL, OMG...

Quote
The American Thinker is a daily conservative internet publication with articles on the topics of national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, and military strategy.[1] The articles published are often mentioned on The Rush Limbaugh Show. The site frequently endorse controversial conservative commentators such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh.[2][3]

Anyway... it's pretty obvious Rip isn't even worth addressing.

Anyone want to bet that by the time morning comes, over half his posts will be personal attacks targetting me?  He's already past 1/3.

So bioweapons aren't much of a threat? Everytime I think you can't get farther from reality you prove me wrong.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #171 on: January 19, 2008, 08:49:36 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 19, 2008, 07:25:47 AM

Quote from: Rip on January 19, 2008, 07:01:37 AM


LOL, OMG...

Quote
The American Thinker is a daily conservative internet publication with articles on the topics of national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, and military strategy.[1] The articles published are often mentioned on The Rush Limbaugh Show. The site frequently endorse controversial conservative commentators such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh.[2][3]

Anyway... it's pretty obvious Rip isn't even worth addressing.

Anyone want to bet that by the time morning comes, over half his posts will be personal attacks targetting me?  He's already past 1/3.

OK so you would like more sources for the bio threat. You asked for it.

Quote
An attack on Iran could trigger horrific retaliation against the U.S. and her allies in the Middle East with chemical and biological weapons including nerve gas, anthrax, and a germ similar to the devastating Ebola virus.


While the U.S. has not overtly threatened to bomb Iran’s burgeoning nuclear facilities, it has warned of using the “military option.” And Iran has countered if attacked it would retaliate.


Western intelligence experts doubt Iran has acquired a nuclear device and suggest she is several years from doing so.

But many agree that Iran has a program for chemical and biological weapons (CBWs) -- one more shrouded in secrecy than her nuclear program. Not only do analysts say the Islamic regime has stockpiles of CBWs, they also suggest that Iran also has the means to deliver the weapons to targets in Israel, Iraq and the United States.


http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Iran_Chemical,_Bio_Weapon/2007/11/07/47636.html

Maybe from Chinese sources.

Quote
With relatively little information available elsewhere regarding China's policies, activities, and priorities pertaining to biological weapons nonproliferation, this collection of essays is first and foremost a reflection of the readiness of Chinese experts to discuss and address these extremely important matters. Second, these essays indicate that Chinese views on bioweapons nonproliferation policies and mechanisms are evolving. Third, these essays provide considerable information for their colleagues in the West to contemplate, to appreciate, to agree with, and to contest. These essays, in other words, are seeds for a dialogue between Chinese and Western policy analysts, scientists, and officials about the nature of the biological weapons threat and the tools that can be applied domestically and internationally to reduce the threat of biological weapons proliferation.

Quote
Liu Jianfei, PhD, a professor and research fellow at the Institute of International Strategic Studies at the Central Party School, assesses the biological weapons threat from state and non-state actors. Liu sees bioweapons proliferation threat as being high, particularly because of the advances in the life sciences, and he posits that the most likely route to terrorist acquisition of biological weapons would be from states that perceive security threats from other countries and opt to put germ weapons into the hands of terrorists to divert their opponents' attention.


http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/070917.htm

Perhaps the Chinese are Bushies?

Quote
The world is largely unaware of, and therefore largely unprepared for, bioterrorist attacks. Bio-weapons threaten thousands of casualties in addition to other disastrous long term consequences. Criminal networks can covertly transport lethal agents across borders and terrorists have already proven that anthrax can be fatally deployed.

Bio-technology is undergoing rapid evolution. This process, and the wide dissemination of developments, is already proving difficult to manage. There is evidence that terrorist organizations have a heightened interest in the use of biological weapons, establishing terrorist support cells in different regions around the world with the ability and motivation to carry out attacks.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/BioTerrorism/default.asp

Quote
Biological weapons have been called "the poor man's atom bomb." By any measure, the economic outlay required to develop offensive bioweapons capabilities is significantly less than that of a nuclear program. Less is needed in the way of equipment and infrastructure. The materials themselves are less rare. And less is required in the way of specialized knowledge for the biological aspects, since much of the information can be found in the public domain. Worldwide, trained microbiologists overwhelmingly outnumber nuclear physicists. All these aspects tempt not only nations of concern, but also non-state actors. In fact, it seems far more likely that biological agents will be used by terrorists than by warring nations. Although the terrorist use of bioweapons is likely to occur on a reduced scale, it could have worldwide ramifications under unfavorable circumstances.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14284/page/6

Too late to pull up anymore. I am sure no amount of sourcing will pursuade you anyway.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile WWW
« Reply #172 on: January 19, 2008, 07:59:59 PM »

and what do you know. Verification that this isn't a stance we are alone in maintaining.

Quote
Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes in case of a major threat, the latest aggressive remarks from increasingly assertive Russian authorities.

"We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky said.

The comments from the hawkish Baluyevsky did not appear to mark a policy shift for Russia, whose leaders have stressed the need to maintain a powerful nuclear deterrent and reserved the right to carry out preventive strikes to counter existential threats. But in most of their public remarks about preventive strikes, President Vladimir Putin and other officials have not specifically mentioned the use of nuclear weapons.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324006,00.html
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3297


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: January 19, 2008, 08:05:48 PM »

You can't quote Fox News! They are less reliable than the government! slywink
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #174 on: January 19, 2008, 08:09:01 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 19, 2008, 08:05:48 PM

You can't quote Fox News! They are less reliable than the government! slywink

He's also quoting "American Scientist" and "Newsmax".  I suppose next we are going to see links to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh.

Here's a great avatar for Rip:
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 08:10:48 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #175 on: January 19, 2008, 09:16:03 PM »

Quote
reserved the right to carry out preventive strikes to counter existential threats.

does this make anyone else laugh?

will the russians be launching strikes because they feel lost, empty and purposeless?
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #176 on: January 22, 2008, 07:22:02 PM »

A little late to this thread, but it is pertinent....

Pretty much nukes aren't "aimed" at anyone.  There are a number of pre-loaded scenarios that will upload coordinates to targeting systems at appropriate nuke sites.  Most scenarios deal with Russia and China - and these are the most thorough and some involve virtually our entire arsenal - but there are hot loadable, limited and specific targeting scenarios for Iraq (assuming they haven't been removed), Iran, North Korea and India/Pakistan, amongst others.

With the correct codes, these can also be keyed in at nuclear sites in the event of an EMP blast which knocks out country-wide electronic communications.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3297


View Profile
« Reply #177 on: January 22, 2008, 07:37:43 PM »

Would love to know where you guys get your info since none of this stuff is public.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 15415


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #178 on: January 22, 2008, 08:19:13 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 22, 2008, 07:37:43 PM

Would love to know where you guys get your info since none of this stuff is public.

Don't answer him! He's going to have you killed!
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3297


View Profile
« Reply #179 on: January 22, 2008, 08:22:47 PM »

Well I didn't say he got it correct. slywink This isn't stuff you just find on the net, so I am curious where they get their info.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #180 on: January 22, 2008, 08:35:14 PM »

Where did we find out about "stuff".

Yes, I'm sure we can cite a single source where we heard about "stuff".
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #181 on: January 22, 2008, 08:39:04 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 22, 2008, 07:37:43 PM

Would love to know where you guys get your info since none of this stuff is public.

Let's just say you're not the only one who has spent time in sensitive Governmental areas.  And please note I'm not talking about hot targets nor exceptions...I know that there's not just one protocol so I'm generalizing.  And I will grant that since it's been some time since I've dealt in this arena, my information could be outdated.  However, if I were to write a book - regardless whether it's fiction or nonfiction - it would have to be pre-approved by certain agencies prior to being submitted for publishing.  slywink
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 15415


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #182 on: January 22, 2008, 11:16:31 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on January 22, 2008, 08:39:04 PM

Quote from: Lee on January 22, 2008, 07:37:43 PM

Would love to know where you guys get your info since none of this stuff is public.

Let's just say you're not the only one who has spent time in sensitive Governmental areas.  And please note I'm not talking about hot targets nor exceptions...I know that there's not just one protocol so I'm generalizing.  And I will grant that since it's been some time since I've dealt in this arena, my information could be outdated.  However, if I were to write a book - regardless whether it's fiction or nonfiction - it would have to be pre-approved by certain agencies prior to being submitted for publishing.  slywink

OMG OMG OMG....this is getting spook....y. Because I started the tread (the most popular in Political/Religious Nonsense history by the way; GO ATB!) does that mean I'm going to be dragged away by the NSA as a National Security risk?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #183 on: January 23, 2008, 04:41:54 PM »

It feels more and more like the "Political / Religious Nonsense" forum is skipping past the political and religious parts.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #184 on: January 25, 2008, 11:29:02 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on January 22, 2008, 08:39:04 PM

Quote from: Lee on January 22, 2008, 07:37:43 PM

Would love to know where you guys get your info since none of this stuff is public.

Let's just say you're not the only one who has spent time in sensitive Governmental areas.  And please note I'm not talking about hot targets nor exceptions...I know that there's not just one protocol so I'm generalizing.  And I will grant that since it's been some time since I've dealt in this arena, my information could be outdated.  However, if I were to write a book - regardless whether it's fiction or nonfiction - it would have to be pre-approved by certain agencies prior to being submitted for publishing.  slywink

Perhaps the policies have changed since I was in the Marines, but aren't making statements like this considered forbidden as well?
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #185 on: January 25, 2008, 01:35:20 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on January 25, 2008, 11:29:02 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on January 22, 2008, 08:39:04 PM

Quote from: Lee on January 22, 2008, 07:37:43 PM

Would love to know where you guys get your info since none of this stuff is public.

Let's just say you're not the only one who has spent time in sensitive Governmental areas.  And please note I'm not talking about hot targets nor exceptions...I know that there's not just one protocol so I'm generalizing.  And I will grant that since it's been some time since I've dealt in this arena, my information could be outdated.  However, if I were to write a book - regardless whether it's fiction or nonfiction - it would have to be pre-approved by certain agencies prior to being submitted for publishing.  slywink

Perhaps the policies have changed since I was in the Marines, but aren't making statements like this considered forbidden as well?

Making statements that you have/had an SCI clearance?  No, that's not forbidden though "advertising" it is frowned upon. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.187 seconds with 75 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.074s, 2q)