The CIA is full of Idiots

[MEGR]

Most of you probably know this, but I just want to vent my frustration. THE CIA IS BASICALLY FULL OF IDIOTS. Its seems that whatever they do is wrong, and that all they do is talk with nothing to back it. I just think that the CIA should be reformed somehow (learn a little something from the Mossad perhaps). Do you guys agree? I mean, the CIA couldnt find Bin Laden, Hussein, WMDs, the list goes on. I could be wrong, but I just keep getting the impression that the CIA hasnt really improved that much since 9/11. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

[ibstolidude]

Alll rightie then.....

[Seiyuuki]

Most of you probably know this, but I just want to vent my frustration. THE CIA IS BASICALLY FULL OF IDIOTS. Its seems that whatever they do is wrong, and that all they do is talk with nothing to back it. I just think that the CIA should be reformed somehow (learn a little something from the Mossad perhaps). Do you guys agree? I mean, the CIA couldnt find Bin Laden, Hussein, WMDs, the list goes on. I could be wrong, but I just keep getting the impression that the CIA hasnt really improved that much since 9/11. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

Have you had any experience with the CIA?

[springwheat]

Yes, their job is obviously just a matter of reading the carbon copy from mustafa and then forwarding it to the national command authority..

[Seraphim]

They are human beings, they make mistakes. They arent perfect like you.

CIA's Tenet: Agency Erred on False Iraq Uranium Claim Used by Bush

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq

[Zach R.]

Tane Angle, very well said. I couldn't have put it better.

[James]

Uh, the combined energies of the American, British, and a number of other nations' militaries (no offense to the rest of you) haven't been able to find OBL, Hussein, or WMDs. I will bet you a dollar that the CIA doesn't have 160,000 people on the ground in Iraq, either.

I think we need the character played by Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive" in real life. He'd find all of this stuff in just a few hours. :D

[ESCOBAR]

ok.........seriously, how can u say there full of idiots.

in my opinion the CIA is juss a corrupt agency. Do some history of them and you'll see what im talkin about such as the Kennedy Assasination, Bay of Pigs etc.

[Seraphim]

Ok, do you know how hard it is to find 1 person out of millions? Baghdad if im correct has 3million people alone. As the saying goes "its like finding a needle in a hackstack" Unless there was some magic human magnet that the US can flyover remote locations in aghanistan. Actually the magic magnet is real, just as real as the magic bullet. I think Osama and Saddam where last seen playing checkers by a grassy knole.

[springwheat]

in my opinion the CIA is juss a corrupt agency. Do some history of them and you'll see what im talkin about such as the Kennedy Assasination, Bay of Pigs etc.I, too, regard Oliver Stone as a credible source of historical information.

[James]

Bay of Pigs? That was a group of upset Cuban exiles who had no connection whatsoever to the CIA. Really. :lol:

[Mortimer]

FACT: most CIA directors and top officials are decendents of oil families

[JayHawk]

Do some history of them and you'll see what im talkin about such as the Kennedy Assasination, Bay of Pigs etc.


:roll:

So I suppose you think we're still in the 60's???

Come up with a better argument next time please...

[REMOV]

Baghdad if im correct has 3million people alone. Almost twice more - Baghdad's population is nearly five million (1995 est. 4 478 000, whole agglomeration est. 5 700 000).

And also the important question: Is CIA really searching Saddam Hussain? What will happened when he would got caught? Saddam's trial would be lawyers nightmare (like Slobodan Milosevic trial is). Who have a rights to charge Saddam - and what kind of charge it would be? The Iraqi nation? International community - UN? The US?

[Seraphim]

And again Remov comes in to the rescue.
I dont know what the CIA would do...if they can capture him, they will...if not, they will kill him. I think Saddam would be charged for crimes against humanity?

[spier]

9/11 was the one of the best things that could happen for the CIA after they had lost a LOT of their funding and freedom under Clinton. After 9/11 they were suddenly free to assassinate suspected targets in foreign countries even without the Presidents approval(Yemen.), and the money started to flow again.. If one day Saddam and Osama is captured, do you think that would be a good thing for the CIA? I am not suggesting that they aren't trying, it is just that they are probably not working as intensely as they might should have.

That they take the blame for the Presidents "mistake" can only be for political reasons.(it wouldn't look good if Bush lied to the American people now would it? Even though he obviously did.)

[REMOV]

After 9/11 they were suddenly free to assassinate suspected targets in foreign countries even without the Presidents approval(Yemen.)It's very risky business, especially if "permission to kill" includes other countries leaders. Because the opponents also would give a free hand to do exactly the same to American leaders. And they'd have strong explanation. "An eye for eye...". If you broke a rule others will break the rules too.

[spier]

And you believe the US has got anything to fear from the third world countries they are going after? And breaking rules has never gotten them in trouble before(if we ignore 9/11), simply because they are so much more capable of going through with it.

[REMOV]

And you believe the US has got anything to fear from the third world countries they are going after?In asymmetrical war - yes, of course. The weapon may be everything - a liner, a van (Do you remember Marines killed in Beirut?), the target also may be anyone - a child, a schoolbus etc. Desperate people make use of everything and will stop at nothing. Right, the US can win a war with almost every country (with the exeption of China, India or maybe Russia), but not with a group of people - Al Queida it isn't a country at all but hits the US more painly than a real country. Tell me how many body bags public opinion stands? Five a week, ten, twenty maybe? If Iraq uprises (under the banner of democracy and sovereignty) can the US stop them?

And breaking rules has never gotten them in trouble before(if we ignore 9/11) Tell me how many times the US was involves in a war with Arabs?

[Seraphim]

The terrorists that did the whole 9/11 atacks were from 3rd world countries. You have to be carefull of the attackers who would die to kill you.

Never underestimate your enemy.

[REMOV]

The terrorists that did the whole 9/11 atacks were from 3rd world countries.Mainly from the Saudi Arabia.

[spier]

I don't see how a possible Iraqi uprising would pose a significant threat to the US presence in Iraq. Public opinion would sway a bit of course, since the troops would have to kill a fair amount of civilians to break down any kind of resistance, but I doubt it would lead to another Vietnam. On the homefront that is.

Right now, the US couldn't "even" win a war against France. There is this thing called nuclear weapons that is a damn good insurance against aggresion from superior conventional forces. Something NK obviously has understood.

And I am sorry, but I am not sure I fully understood you last question, at least its relevance. But three times should be a good estimate, excluding CIA operations.

[REMOV]

I don't see how a possible Iraqi uprising would pose a significant threat to the US presence in Iraq. Ekhm... pardon, but what? I afraid you're have a problem with vision of such uprising (compare to Warsaw Uprising (http://www.allempires.com/articles/warsawuprising/warsaw1.htm) in 1944, Baghdad is even bigger and more people have an automatic rifles and RPGs. Crucial thing is determination of resistance).

Public opinion would sway a bit of course, since the troops would have to kill a fair amount of civilians to break down any kind of resistance, but I doubt it would lead to another Vietnam. Are you thinking that American soldiers are immortal and they would die or just simple killing "fair amonut of civilians" will fast break down any resistance (right, it depends on determination of resistance)? A FIBUA is a nightmare.

Right now, the US couldn't "even" win a war against France. There is this thing called nuclear weapons that is a damn good insurance against aggresion from superior conventional forces. I'm not agree. The US can win war (conventional or not) with all small nuclear countries (like France, UK, Israel or Pakistan). IMHO it would be a problem to win a war with China, India and Russia due to population of the first ones and nuclear arsenal of the last. But, nuclear weapon is final solution and I don't think so, that France would use it against the US, because of possible riposte.

Something NK obviously has understood. North Korea it isn't a real danger yet. Two or five small warheads means nothing. And again, using them is very dangerous for this country itself because after one single detonation the US don't hesitate strike back. So, the US can win with North Korea, but cost of conventional war is probably too high to be accepted (ca. 5..10 000 US soldiers maybe).

But three times should be a good estimate, excluding CIA operations.There is the first American-Arabian war, not a third. The Desert Storm was international operation led by the US.

[Beowulf]

ICBM :D

[Nawlins]

ICBM??? Forgive my ignorance, but what does that mean?

[spier]

Ekhm... pardon, but what? I afraid you're have a problem with vision of such uprising (compare to Warsaw Uprising in 1944, Baghdad is even bigger and more people have an automatic rifles and RPGs. Crucial thing is determination of resistance). Are you familiar with an incident in Somalia '93 that involved a handful of US Special Forces without heavy weapons vs a fully aremd city? 18 US casualties vs roughly 1500 dead Somalis, IIRC. That was ten years ago, now the US has M1 tanks with them everywhere they go, and most of the time, full airsupport. Strangely, I don't see the problem.

Are you thinking that American soldiers are immortal and they would die or just simple killing "fair amonut of civilians" will fast break down any resistance (right, it depends on determination of resistance)? A FIBUA is a nightmare. US soldiers are not immortal, however, they are the best equipped and best armed army in the area, excluding the Brits. I would say they have a good chance at winning against an unorganized, primitive army without much in terms of heavy weaponary.


I'm not agree. The US can win war (conventional or not) with all small nuclear countries (like France, UK, Israel or Pakistan). IMHO it would be a problem to win a war with China, India and Russia due to population of the first ones and nuclear arsenal of the last. But, nuclear weapon is final solution and I don't think so, that France would use it against the US, because of possible riposte. If France was situated in Mexico and wasn't surrounded with allies, then yes, the US could have won a conventional war, but since France is in the middle of Europe...No.


North Korea it isn't a real danger yet. Two or five small warheads means nothing. And again, using them is very dangerous for this country itself because after one single detonation the US don't hesitate strike back. So, the US can win with North Korea, but cost of conventional war is probably too high to be accepted (ca. 5..10 000 US soldiers maybe). Who said they were? I only mentioned that they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program to defend themselves against aggresion by foreign power(s).


There is the first American-Arabian war, not a third. The Desert Storm was international operation led by the US.You said "involved". They provided military help to Israel. They were cetainly involved with the first Gulf war( the one with Iraq vs Iran), and they are did theirs during the second gulf war. That's three times. Although you may argue that the Second gulf war never ended.

ICBM - Inter Continental Ballistic Missile.

[Mortimer]

i posted this in another post but i feel its appropriate here

bling bling

i tend to believe that 9/11 was allowed as an exucse for the US to do what its doing.

how can at least 4 intelligence agencies be blissfully unaware of the plot....plus not being able to find the hijacked planes when in the air and shoot them down....plus a million more other factors.

Before the US put its case forward for war in iraq it should have put its case for why the war on terror occured in the first place, the goverment is with holding huge amounts of documentation about 9/11.

And the US people are gullible enough to buy it.

ONE DIRECT 9/11 arrest?(it may have changed) in nearly two years

Since the bali bombings the indonesians have arrested more then 20 people in DIRECT realation to the bombings including top officials (in less the one year)......don't tell me the indonesian intelligence rivals the US's? the bali operation was a fraction of the size of 9/11 in a country that would be the harest to find the perps.

here is some intersting documentaries which i got some of my info from.
watch in this order - quicktime <15mb each (about)

http://gnn.tv/war_conspiracy/qt_hi.html
http://gnn.tv/after_math/qt_hi_a.html
http://gnn.tv/after_math/qt_hi_b.html
http://gnn.tv/after_math/qt_hi_c.html

[Seiyuuki]

Ekhm... pardon, but what? I afraid you're have a problem with vision of such uprising (compare to Warsaw Uprising in 1944, Baghdad is even bigger and more people have an automatic rifles and RPGs. Crucial thing is determination of resistance). Are you familiar with an incident in Somalia '93 that involved a handful of US Special Forces without heavy weapons vs a fully aremd city? 18 US casualties vs roughly 1500 dead Somalis, IIRC. That was ten years ago, now the US has M1 tanks with them everywhere they go, and most of the time, full airsupport. Strangely, I don't see the problem.

Are you thinking that American soldiers are immortal and they would die or just simple killing "fair amonut of civilians" will fast break down any resistance (right, it depends on determination of resistance)? A FIBUA is a nightmare. US soldiers are not immortal, however, they are the best equipped and best armed army in the area, excluding the Brits. I would say they have a good chance at winning against an unorganized, primitive army without much in terms of heavy weaponary.


I'm not agree. The US can win war (conventional or not) with all small nuclear countries (like France, UK, Israel or Pakistan). IMHO it would be a problem to win a war with China, India and Russia due to population of the first ones and nuclear arsenal of the last. But, nuclear weapon is final solution and I don't think so, that France would use it against the US, because of possible riposte. If France was situated in Mexico and wasn't surrounded with allies, then yes, the US could have won a conventional war, but since France is in the middle of Europe...No.


North Korea it isn't a real danger yet. Two or five small warheads means nothing. And again, using them is very dangerous for this country itself because after one single detonation the US don't hesitate strike back. So, the US can win with North Korea, but cost of conventional war is probably too high to be accepted (ca. 5..10 000 US soldiers maybe). Who said they were? I only mentioned that they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program to defend themselves against aggresion by foreign power(s).


There is the first American-Arabian war, not a third. The Desert Storm was international operation led by the US.You said "involved". They provided military help to Israel. They were cetainly involved with the first Gulf war( the one with Iraq vs Iran), and they are did theirs during the second gulf war. That's three times. Although you may argue that the Second gulf war never ended.

ICBM - Inter Continental Ballistic Missile.

Casulty mean fatality and wounded total. In Somalia, 18 fatalities, and many wounded, minor and severe.

We are one of the most capable military forces in the world, but does the word "TACTFUL" mean anything to you? Yeah...just march right in town with a few M1 and shoot up a few civilians to instill fear in the rest of those dissidents...These day and age, "collateral damage" is very scrutinize.

You presume too much about the position and influence of France in Europe. From the top of my head, three neighbouring countries of France: Spain, Italy, and UK (separated only by the English Channel, but history have shown it can be crossed by an invasion force) have signed on with us for the war in Iraq so I doubt they will be eager to jump on the friendship boat with France. That leave Germany, we know where they stand, Belgium, probably go with the French. That leave the Swiss, and we know they stay neutral in everything (I for one have no problem against that). I'm not sure about Andorra. As for the rest of Europe, considering recent action by the French toward Easter Europe recently, I doubt they will sign on with the French, and REMOV from Poland will back me up on this.

Technically, "American-Arabian War" imply only American involvement, so that has yet to happen. To the other point, yes, we were "involved" in some Middle East conflicts.


i posted this in another post but i feel its appropriate here

bling bling

i tend to believe that 9/11 was allowed as an exucse for the US to do what its doing.

how can at least 4 intelligence agencies be blissfully unaware of the plot....plus not being able to find the hijacked planes when in the air and shoot them down....plus a million more other factors.

Before the US put its case forward for war in iraq it should have put its case for why the war on terror occured in the first place, the goverment is with holding huge amounts of documentation about 9/11.

And the US people are gullible enough to buy it.

ONE DIRECT 9/11 arrest?(it may have changed) in nearly two years

Since the bali bombings the indonesians have arrested more then 20 people in DIRECT realation to the bombings including top officials (in less the one year)......don't tell me the indonesian intelligence rivals the US's? the bali operation was a fraction of the size of 9/11 in a country that would be the harest to find the perps.

here is some intersting documentaries which i got some of my info from.
watch in this order - quicktime <15mb each (about)

http://gnn.tv/war_conspiracy/qt_hi.html
http://gnn.tv/after_math/qt_hi_a.html
http://gnn.tv/after_math/qt_hi_b.html
http://gnn.tv/after_math/qt_hi_c.html

First of all...CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah...Oliver Stone is a credible historian.

Yeah...if that wasn't bad enough, I'm "gullible" enough to buy everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you're going to be into this conspiracy stuff, please, for all that is good in this world, DO NOT speak for us.

:cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

[Mortimer]

i'm not a conspiracy theorist
i don't own any of those videos....all i said was it had some intesting stuff in it and its where i got some of my info from.

did you even bother to watch them? if yes then fine thats your opinion, if no - shut up.

I am aloud to say what i like and with a reply like that it just shows that for some reason what i have said bothers you so in order for you to feel better you have to shut me up...good attitude.

conspiracy theories are for depressed teenagers and last time i checked i wasn't either.

[spier]

Casulty mean fatality and wounded total. In Somalia, 18 fatalities, and many wounded, minor and severe.

We are one of the most capable military forces in the world, but does the word "TACTFUL" mean anything to you? Yeah...just march right in town with a few M1 and shoot up a few civilians to instill fear in the rest of those dissidents...These day and age, "collateral damage" is very scrutinize.

You presume too much about the position and influence of France in Europe. From the top of my head, three neighbouring countries of France: Spain, Italy, and UK (separated only by the English Channel, but history have shown it can be crossed by an invasion force) have signed on with us for the war in Iraq so I doubt they will be eager to jump on the friendship boat with France. That leave Germany, we know where they stand, Belgium, probably go with the French. That leave the Swiss, and we know they stay neutral in everything (I for one have no problem against that). I'm not sure about Andorra. As for the rest of Europe, considering recent action by the French toward Easter Europe recently, I doubt they will sign on with the French, and REMOV from Poland will back me up on this.

Technically, "American-Arabian War" imply only American involvement, so that has yet to happen. To the other point, yes, we were "involved" in some Middle East conflicts.
Thank you very much, but I am fully aware of the definition of casualty, but that isn't it. And casualty is usually considered as a dead person. Amongst the non-anally retentive that is.

And yes, the word "tactful" does mean something to me, I doubt the same thing can be said to a military commander losing soldiers to guerilla warfare. Just look at Israel - Palestine for examples galore.

As long as France does not act aggressively against the US then they have NOTHING to fear. They are a member of NATO, and if the US attacked then the other members of NATO would respond to that aggression. Regardless of what relationships you think France has got with the rest of Europe. The US would also need a base of operations on this side of the Atlantic, and I doubt anyone would allow that.(and no, they don't stand a chance taking over France with the men already stationed over here.)

On Conspiracies:
"Let nobody tell you what is right or wrong, never conform to any ideas but those you create yourself, believe nothing, question everything."

[benny5405]

You Bloodly Bush!!! son of a Bush!!!!! leave the World now~~Fxxk U :bash:

[Seraphim]

ICBM??? Forgive my ignorance, but what does that mean?

ICBM=InterContinental Ballistic Missile

[REMOV]

Are you familiar with an incident in Somalia '93 that involved a handful of US Special Forces without heavy weapons vs a fully aremd city? Yes. But they just esaping from crash site not fight against some kind of uprising. And are you familiar with later situation in Somalia? Are the US soldiers get Adid? ;)

18 US casualties vs roughly 1500 dead Somalis, IIRC. That was ten years ago, now the US has M1 tanks with them everywhere they go, and most of the time, full airsupport. Strangely, I don't see the problem. The only places of possible Iraqi uprising are cities. And nobody is familiar with such kind of war. What is happening with tanks at the streets you can see when Russians assaluted Grozny. During the IF operation light Fedayeen units disabled ca. 30 M1s using only RPGs. Right, Americans tanks seems to be better protected against RPG-7 round than Russian ones, but the fact is - even such powerful warmachine as Abrams can be damaged or badly damaged by simple and old weapon. Naturally - it is possible to win fight in urban areas, but it's hard thing to do. And city will be ruined... Second thing - political response - if Iraquis stand up and fight against their "liberators", what will be role of the US in Iraq? Occupants? How long?

US soldiers are not immortal, however, they are the best equipped and best armed army in the area, excluding the Brits. I would say they have a good chance at winning against an unorganized, primitive army without much in terms of heavy weaponary.[quote] You know, you've just repeated the same words as the politician and military men had told before Wietnam War and Somalia Operation ;)
[quote]If France was situated in Mexico and wasn't surrounded with allies, then yes, the US could have won a conventional war, but since France is in the middle of Europe...No.It is very hypotetical situation (hmm... something like in Larry Bond's book "Cauldron" (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/bond.html)) but if happens the role of US foreign policy should isolate France from their neighbours countries. In my opinion due to reasons of war it is possible (it is unlikely, but not impossible).

You said "involved". OK, you're right I should write "direcly involved". So, now answer my question.

[JunglistSoldier]

Thrust me. the world would be far better off if it wern't for organisations such as the CIA, MI6, mossad, etc.

[Saranof]

Finding WMD in Irak might prove a little hard, for obvious reasons :lol:

[Seiyuuki]

i'm not a conspiracy theorist
i don't own any of those videos....all i said was it had some intesting stuff in it and its where i got some of my info from.

did you even bother to watch them? if yes then fine thats your opinion, if no - shut up.

I am aloud to say what i like and with a reply like that it just shows that for some reason what i have said bothers you so in order for you to feel better you have to shut me up...good attitude.

conspiracy theories are for depressed teenagers and last time i checked i wasn't either.

Yeah...smart contradictory IDIOT, advocating your right to state your own opinion while telling me to shut up.

Yes, it does bother, DID YOU BOTHER TO READ MY STATEMENT???


And the US people are gullible enough to buy it.

DON'T SPEAK FOR US!!! YEAH...YOU'RE THE LONE HIGH AND MIGHTY GOD THAT SEE ABOVE THE ELITISTS' CONSPIRACY, WHILE WE'RE JUST BITING WHATEVER THEY THROW AT US!!!


Thank you very much, but I am fully aware of the definition of casualty, but that isn't it. And casualty is usually considered as a dead person. Amongst the non-anally retentive that is.

And yes, the word "tactful" does mean something to me, I doubt the same thing can be said to a military commander losing soldiers to guerilla warfare. Just look at Israel - Palestine for examples galore.

As long as France does not act aggressively against the US then they have NOTHING to fear. They are a member of NATO, and if the US attacked then the other members of NATO would respond to that aggression. Regardless of what relationships you think France has got with the rest of Europe. The US would also need a base of operations on this side of the Atlantic, and I doubt anyone would allow that.(and no, they don't stand a chance taking over France with the men already stationed over here.)

ca·su·al·ty
****unciation Key (kzh-l-t)
n. pl. ca·su·al·ties
1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.
2. One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.
3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.
4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets.

Tane Angle is right, 31 fatalities INCLUDED in the number of casulties.

What credibility do you have in way of speaking for a military commander under that situation?

The U.S. is also a member of NATO, if both of us were to at each other throat, I doubt the rest of NATO will be quick to choose side and I doubt they will be quick to help the French!!! The U.S. does have a base of operation on this side of the Atlantic. I'm not talking about our base in Germany either, considering we're relocating our assests to Eastern Europe, which, I repeat myself, NOT VERY CLOSE AND TIDY WITH FRANCE. Plus, we can always count on our very good friend in the UK.

And at this point, I question myself, why am I still debating this, it is a very extremely unlikely eventuality.

[spier]

ca·su·al·ty
****unciation Key (kzh-l-t)
n. pl. ca·su·al·ties
1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.
2. One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.
3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.
4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets.

Tane Angle is right, 31 fatalities INCLUDED in the number of casulties.

What credibility do you have in way of speaking for a military commander under that situation?

The U.S. is also a member of NATO, if both of us were to at each other throat, I doubt the rest of NATO will be quick to choose side and I doubt they will be quick to help the French!!! The U.S. does have a base of operation on this side of the Atlantic. I'm not talking about our base in Germany either, considering we're relocating our assests to Eastern Europe, which, I repeat myself, NOT VERY CLOSE AND TIDY WITH FRANCE. Plus, we can always count on our very good friend in the UK.

And at this point, I question myself, why am I still debating this, it is a very extremely unlikely eventuality.You...total...IDIOT!

Said by, you:
"Casulty mean fatality and wounded total."

Now, we have four alternatives supplied by you, and number three is obviously the one we are gunning for since it is the military definition. That means you were wrong. That is, if we choose to be anally-retentive. But lets pretend for one second that we are a part of a functional society where words such as "casualty" are used a bit loosely. Like, as if we read CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)

And what credebility I have? Well, geez, I wonder. Could it be the Israel -palestine example I pointed out? You know, where Israeli Generals have had entire blocks levelled by D9's due to sniper fire from that area.

Have you hear about this thing called the "EU"? Yeah, well it is this brand new thing, so the news probably haven't reached you yet. This means that Europe is a bit closer than you think. And France is still highly regarded in Europe, despite what Faux News is trying to hammer into you. Ok, fair enough you are "relocating our assests to Eastern Europe", that only means you have to fight through half of Europe to get to France.

As you said, I don't understand why I am debating this, especially since you completely fail to understand how the world works.

[Duke]

The DCI or Director of the Central Intelligence Tenet wears two hats: the obvious one is the overal manager of the CIA, and the other hat is the head executive and coordinator of the major intelligence agencies, such as the NSA, DIA, and NRO.
The one problem Dir. Tenet faces is the fight between the Pentagon (mostly in the form the DIA) and the CIA. The source of the tension is the politicalization of the CIA and the needs of the DoD. In the last Administration, HUMINT was gutted, and then took a back seat to SATINT. Eventually, strategic intelligence became basically pictures and cycling. The only real HUMINT network the DOD (ISA is not a network) was its attaches in US STATE DEPARTMENT embassies. Which are not very effective against Al Qaeda.
With the glaring failure at the CIA to field officers in the RFM (radical fundementalist Muslims) areas and the view the DoD must clean up CIA bull****, the DOD has literally took over many jobs once seen as CIA missions. For example, both military personnel and DIA officers are now attending JOC.

[CX20]

If any of the other posters out there were wondering what we veterans mean about wannabes on this forum arguing like rude, idiotic little children over pointless details, please read the previous posts by Spier and Seiyuuki.

[usa320]

The reason the CIA looks like a bunch of idiots is because we only hear about their operations when the **** hits the fan...Which really isnt a bad thing. It was once said that the best way to defend the truth is behind an army of lies... If staying quiet or giving out misinformation gives the CIA the upperhand against terrorism, then thats fine by me.

[usa320]

"Right now, the US couldn't "even" win a war against France. There is this thing called nuclear weapons that is a damn good insurance against aggresion from superior conventional forces. "

I reckon the only fielded nuclear weapon france has is the ASAMP missile that is carried by the Mirages, which could never reach the US with American tanker support.

[spier]

If any of the other posters out there were wondering what we veterans mean about wannabes on this forum arguing like rude, idiotic little children over pointless details, please read the previous posts by Spier and Seiyuuki."veterans"?
You
Joined: 16 May 2003
Me
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
:roll:

You want idiotic posts? Here are some, by CX20:

Is the Italian Army flag still a white cross on a white background?
The French Navy were still not upto it on the 23rd September 1940, when we had to finish them off in port at Dakar!
At least I am rude with good reason, but for the sake of your sensetive soul, I'll be posting nothing but considerate posts from now on. Come on kids, let's "Sieg Heil" to our resident forum Nazi!

I reckon the only fielded nuclear weapon france has is the ASAMP missile that is carried by the Mirages, which could never reach the US with American tanker support. I said against CONVENTIONAL forces, not against civilians. That would mean that they are already in france. and the french would use tactical nuclear weapons against tanks and such.

Although the French do have carrier based aircraft capable of delivering nukes to the US mainland, they also have submarines.
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/frnukes.html

[cut]

spier: I pretty sure he means veterans of military service not time spent posting on this board

[Gordon]

"veterans"?
You
Joined: 16 May 2003
Me
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
:roll:

I wasn't going to comment on this thread ... then I saw this, it's embarrassing. As cut said, I think CX20 was referring to military veterans. As to the rest of the crap you spout ... go sort your head out.


I don't see how a possible Iraqi uprising would pose a significant threat to the US presence in Iraq. Public opinion would sway a bit of course, since the troops would have to kill a fair amount of civilians to break down any kind of resistance, but I doubt it would lead to another Vietnam. On the homefront that is.

So what, your idea is to take out the Iraqi population in the name of liberation ... don't you think a full scale Iraqi uprising would signify some kind of failure on our part ... well hell, who cares ... if they don't like it we'll just kill 'em and they won't be problem ... isn't that why we got rid of that bloke in the first place?

[usa320]

Bottom line is the CIA shouldnt be critiscized, as we only hear about its failures, not its successes, which are far more.

[spier]

spier: I pretty sure he means veterans of military service not time spent posting on this boardI sure hope so.
So what, your idea is to take out the Iraqi population in the name of liberation ... don't you think a full scale Iraqi uprising would signify some kind of failure on our part ... well hell, who cares ... if they don't like it we'll just kill 'em and they won't be problem ... isn't that why we got rid of that bloke in the first place?Yes, of course. rofl

There is this recurring case of people calling me "idiot" and such but don't even bother to face my arguments, or when they do, prove to be idiots themselves. Please stop, the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

[REMOV]

let's "Sieg Heil"Do you know what it means? ;)

[spier]

let's "Sieg Heil"Do you know what it means? ;)"Victory hailed"? Had German for six years so it better be somewhat correct. p-) Anyway, it was the context that was the important bit, since it after all used to be(is?) the Nazi greeting.

[Colt45]

Dont just barge in and start calling the american intellegence idiotic. Its the stuff we dont hear about or didnt know that happened that made a difference, that we dont even realise. You never know how Aidid MYSTERIOUSLY died of cancer, possibly Black agencies could have done this? See its stuff like that, that we dont think in to.

[martinexsquaddie]

As to the CIA they did completely fail to spot the collapse of the SOVIET UNION not that any other western agency did any better.
There was an interesting series on BBC Radio 4 about the CIA during the cold war pretty depressing really at one point in the 1980s the Russian leadership were so convinced that Reagan was prepairing a Nuclear first strike they had KGB officers driveing around DC counting the number of lights on late at night in Goverment offices theory being if your starting a nuclear war your get your people out first so if no lights on time to let the nukes fly :(
And the CIA was blissfully unaware how worried the soviets really were :(.
Fortunatly for us all things were resolved.

[REMOV]

"Victory hailed"? Had German for six years so it better be somewhat correct. p-) Anyway, it was the context that was the important bit, since it after all used to be(is?) the Nazi greeting.Not exactly - I tell you funny story of the Polish highlanders and Austrians skiers. It was about 20 years after the Second World War (and Poles have very bad memoirs about German 1939-1945 occupation). Austrians came to Poland to a some sort of ski competitions. They won a kind of race or something, so at the evening they came to the Polish inn and delighted with winning. They sang, raise a glasses to a champion, had a good time and suddenly they starded to shout: "Sieg Hail! Sieg Hail! Sieg Hail!". All Polish highlanders had frozened at the moment, the inn was suddenly completly quiet, and then all of them surrouded the surprised Austrians. But some astute translator explains Poles what means this cry, and saved Austrian before they were beat up. So, sometimes the words in some language envoke strange associations... ;)

[CX20]

This is what I received in the form of a private message from Seiyuuki;

"AND WHO DIE AND MAKE YOU GOD OF THE FORUM???

You want childish...how 'bout this???

f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH

SO...AM I CHILDISH YET???

Veteran of what? I'll gladly spit on grave someday no matter what!!!

SO...AM I CLOSE TO CHILDISH YET???

If you're going to judmental on the premise of singular threads...go monitor and preach to a f*** post pertaining to Communism

If not...I'LL DEMOSTRATE SOME MORE CHILDISH BEHAVIOUR FOR YOU!!! "

Very eloquent, don't you all agree? And how brave and mature of him NOT to post it in public, although he did prove my point rather nicely for me! rofl

[Seiyuuki]

This is what I received in the form of a private message from Seiyuuki;

"AND WHO DIE AND MAKE YOU GOD OF THE FORUM???

You want childish...how 'bout this???

f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH

SO...AM I CHILDISH YET???

Veteran of what? I'll gladly spit on grave someday no matter what!!!

SO...AM I CLOSE TO CHILDISH YET???

If you're going to judmental on the premise of singular threads...go monitor and preach to a f*** post pertaining to Communism

If not...I'LL DEMOSTRATE SOME MORE CHILDISH BEHAVIOUR FOR YOU!!! "

Very eloquent, don't you all agree? And how brave and mature of him NOT to post it in public, although he did prove my point rather nicely for me! rofl

And here you advocate maturity???

Sarcasm has lost its value on the net...consider this SMARTASS

Why would it be a private message instead of a posting?

Hmm...could it be that the mature thing to do is to keep it personal between us and not degenerate the thread and forum into a personal war??? Yeah...Take the high ground and look down upon personal bickering between me and spier...but it's perfectly for you to highlight ours, how generous.

Sure...we can go at it back and forth and have it pop up on top of the forum listing day after day???

For a "veteran," that very noble of you.

How 'bout I send you some more??? You can continue to have materials to drag this thread to your level??? :lol:

[CX20]

I agree let's keep it mature.


f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH


Yep, maturity was what you had in mind from the outset.


f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH


Are you riding a bicycle? Because I swear I could just hear you backpeddling...........

End of my involvment, because my point has just been proved......again. I'm just going to listen to an Eminem CD to learn some more retorts that might enable me to communicate at your level.

[Seiyuuki]

:cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

Enough said...

READ IT CAREFULLY


And here you advocate maturity???

Sarcasm has lost its value on the net...consider this SMARTASS

Why would it be a private message instead of a posting?

Hmm...could it be that the mature thing to do is to keep it personal between us and not degenerate the thread and forum into a personal war??? Yeah...Take the high ground and look down upon personal bickering between me and spier...but it's perfectly for you to highlight ours, how generous.

Sure...we can go at it back and forth and have it pop up on top of the forum listing day after day???

For a "veteran," that very noble of you.

How 'bout I send you some more??? You can continue to have materials to drag this thread to your level???

[CX20]

Sarcasm?


I'll gladly spit on grave someday no matter what!!!

Sarcasm?


f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH

Sarcasm?


consider this SMARTASS


Not sure those spurts of intellect match the Oxford English definition of sarcasm, but never mind. When your explosive tirade failed to impress, you relied on all the time classic fallback......claim it was sarcasm to save face. I can't blame you, conversation in this manner must seem intensely academic to you and whilst obviously struggling, you have to make everyone else perceive that you've asserted your obvious dearth of intellect and experience somehow.

Now to take a leaf out of your book to finish off (for real this time) :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

See you on another thread young man.

[Colt45]

dude i got both your back but quit bitchin'

[spier]

This is what I received in the form of a private message from Seiyuuki;

"AND WHO DIE AND MAKE YOU GOD OF THE FORUM???

You want childish...how 'bout this???

f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH
f*** YOU BITCH

SO...AM I CHILDISH YET???

Veteran of what? I'll gladly spit on grave someday no matter what!!!

SO...AM I CLOSE TO CHILDISH YET???

If you're going to judmental on the premise of singular threads...go monitor and preach to a f*** post pertaining to Communism

If not...I'LL DEMOSTRATE SOME MORE CHILDISH BEHAVIOUR FOR YOU!!! "

Very eloquent, don't you all agree? And how brave and mature of him NOT to post it in public, although he did prove my point rather nicely for me! roflI love the way you took a private message and made it public, that was mature. That you also try to spin the message to suit your own agenda is even better.

I always have this quote nearby, and I feel you could benefit from reading it: Do not use uncommon words to impress your reader, its distracting and amateurish.