Beerlight 0 #26 March 6, 2004 Your right..... Although it irks me when a few try and impress others with their worldly military "knowledge"... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #27 March 6, 2004 QuoteYour right..... Although it irks me when a few try and impress others with their worldly military "knowledge"... Amen, brother. Amen. I've seen a lot of incorrect analysis and information in regards to military topics. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #28 March 6, 2004 QuoteSeems like a lot of ex-mil (well maybe they were in, who really knows) personnel on here willing to chat about shit they probably shouldn't be talking about in a public forum.....Go get em Zen! Nothing that has been posted on here is classified. No one has given out current operational plans or talked about specific capabilities of any classified systems. You can get most of this information from open sources. For example: http://www.keyserkill.com/Wp102_Spring_2003/JSTARS-normalized-subs.doc http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/an-pps-5.htm http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/spasur_at.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1557140.stm Leaking classified information is a fairly serious charge. Would you care to be a little more specific on what you believe shouldn't have been talked about or who said it? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #29 March 6, 2004 It's ok, I believe the intention was not really to stop any classified leaks, but rather intimidate detractors of the Administration's efforts against terror. I believe the effort deserves to have the absolute best tools at its disposal. I believe the Administration should do everything they can to get the proper tools into the field as quickly as possible. I believe, to date, they have not done so. Already admitted in this thread was an early lack of translators and sensor systems and that personnel and equipment was diverted from the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden to the efforts in Iraq. While the original article in question may contain some errors, there is a basic underlaying truth in its message.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #30 March 6, 2004 Quotehonestly i think this board (and its numerous military members) are very very good about not saying things that might compromise security. I know i have to think about it when we start talking about certain subjects, but you can find far more on FAS about what we do and how we do it, than you can here.... Check back about a year and you will find that certain military contributors to DZ.COM "knew" things about Iraqi WMDs that they could not tell us for fear of compromising security.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
