I want to ask the Military this question, or the plain clothes cia military this question, how is tormenting?
599977
Sounds alright to me.
875471
how is that a "law enforcement" question?
852058
and....what is the question
414978
Do some research on the subject, and then base your questions round that once you have got the basics. if the subject is for example the war you could start your questions after the basics by asking, for example how old were you when you joined the armed services. Be guided by the answeres you get
58530
what is the question?
372246
(m)\n\nThe historical view: By Allan Little\n\n \n\nGet ready to be shocked. Prepare yourself to be awestruck. For shock and awe are what the United States military say they hope to achieve in the opening minutes of the coming campaign against Iraq.\n\nIt will – if it goes to plan – be a war like none the world has ever seen. Washington is about to test drive the early prototype model of a military juggernaut that will be so powerful that it will eventually make any talk of ‘military balance’ redundant, even laughable.\n\n\nIn Washington, where the talk is all of “power projection”, a new ideological conviction is taking shape. It is being driven by technological advance. Technology, increasingly, is shaping what America can do, how America defines itself, and how it engages with the rest of us by providing the means to impose its will through sheer force of arms anywhere in the world where it feels US interests are threatened. \n\n\nThe sheer scale of American supremacy is written in the numbers: the US military is larger than the next ten national forces combined. Its annual budget is 400 billion dollars. It has five hundred bases. And still this is not enough. The Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is planning such sweeping changes in the military that they amount not to radical reform, not even to a revolution – but to transformation. \n\n\n“What we’ve got now is a kind of third age of the American military,” says Michael Clark, “a globalised military that can now do pretty much anything it wants. And we’re also seeing the development of a political ideology which backs up that military dominance. And that’s a pretty uncomfortable situation for the rest of us to be in. For the rest of the world it’s rather like being in a bath with an elephant – no matter how sensitive the elephant tries to be, the rest of us in the bathtub are going to feel pretty uncomfortable.”\n\n\nWashington’s current impatience with its reluctant allies emerged first in the seventy-eight day air campaign NATO fought in Kosovo four years ago. Many of the allies were squeamish to begin with about going to war at all. France intervened to impose political restrictions on what the military could do, to declare some targets – not matter how militarily legitimate – politically unacceptable. Many senior US generals came away from that experience feeling bruised. General Mike Short, who commanded the air campaign from Italy, told me “I never fought a war by committee before – I don’t want to have to do it ever again’. \n\n\nThe talk now shifted from formal coalitions of partners bound by Treaty, towards informal short lived partnerships of expediency – so-called ‘coalitions of the willing’. \n\n\nThat impulse toward unilateralism only reflects what is happening technologically. America is entering a new age of hi tech weaponry – of precision bombing, of lazar guided missiles, of aircraft dropping bombs in the Gulf, while the pilot sits a thousand miles away or more – possibly even in the Pentagon and going home to his wife and kids in a Washington suburb at the end of his day’s remote controlled combat. \n\n\nI asked a US Air Force General about the transforming power of pilot-less aircraft. And it brought me a swift ticking off. “They won’t be pilot-less. They’ll have a pilot. He just won’t be in the plane”.\n\n\n“The accuracy with which modern aircraft can attack their targets is astonishing”, says the military historian John Keegan. “They can at last do what they always said they could do. They always said they could hit a target from 10,000 feet and it actually wasn’t true – they were always missing. There was a very high inaccuracy factor – there isn’t any longer. Weapons are so accurate – nowadays when an aircraft wishes to hit a target it does hit it.”\n\n\nThere is a battlefield National Park on the outskirts of Washington DC at a place called Manassas. It was here,
906429
to what freaking question
700761
What exactly is  your question?
350992
You should try to specify your question a bit more so that we can answer ok? What uniforms? from where?
595269
Interesting.  So whats your question?
915851
How is this a question?
904205
is this a riddle?\n\nmm.. cia.gov?
846032
Ask one of your comrades, maybe they'll have some answers
737538
I'm sorry...I'm confused, are you a military officer asking a leading question about a conspiracy between the CIA and the MOSSAD to frame the president of Russia? Please clarify?
737544
There is no shortage of wannabes in this country.  I live next door to one.  One of the sure bets is that if they were in the Army they were on secret missions about which they cannot talk even today.  A lot claim to be snipers, Seals, special ops, and things like that.\n\nIf you have been in a war, it is not difficult for you to get them to expose the lies.  This neighbor claims he was in Vietnam, working for the CIA, and only flew in at night and they did not know where they were going.  His job was dramatic.  He said the missions that he went on was to bust up enemy places where they kept the POWs.  I have been from one end of Vietnam to the other and can tell you the terrain of the country.  This man can not even state specifically if they were in the mountains, the Delta, on the Mekong, or packing through rice patties.  \n\nYou can trap them if you know enough about the service.  My sister was married to a wannabe for a while and he would talk about it to my brother, who was in the Army,  but would not mention it to me.  He was in the Navy, he said, on a carrier off the coast.  So I whumped out some vocabulary words that any sailor would know.  "What size of ropes did you use to tie up?"  So he told me how big the "ropes" were.  Problem:  The Navy might buy rope, but when it is received, it is line from that point on, you don't tie up with ropes, you tie up with lines.\n\nThere are special vocabulary words used in the Navy from the first time they put a ship in the water.  Ask him what his rate was!  He should answer something like Radioman, Boatswain's mate, Gunner's Mate, or a specific job type.  Rate is not rank.  A man can be an E-2 Gunner's Mate or a Chief Gunner's Mate.  You can always ask him how many buttons were on the flap on the front of a paid of bell bottomed trousers.  The answer is 13.  \nSomehow get the word Marlin Spike into a conversation, anyone who has been to boot camp will know what that it, it is a tool for parting "rope" (really "line" so that you can splice it.  What, for instance, is the difference between a Marlin Spike and a Fid.  A Marlin Spike is for small line, the Fid, which requires a "serving hammer," is for big line.  Tell him someone told you something about a "Hawser," if he does not know what that is, he ain't been in.  Depending on when he was in, he might not know what a "Blivet" is, and there is probably no definition in the dictionary like the one I am going to tell you, but a Blivet is a five pound sack with ten pounds of shit in it.  Other terms are Yardarm, halyard, aftersteering, fluke and a billion more than are not used in other branches of the service.  Special vocabulary words are slowly, if ever, changed, and what I would suggest to you is that you look up each of these words (and you will not find my definition of "blivet" in a nautical dictionary).\n\nDon't dive bomb the idiot with terms, just integrate them into general conversation and do it slowly.  \n\nThere are other things that are not known.  For instance, the US flag, when the ship is in a foreign port, is on the after mast (a short mast on the stern) whereas the flag of the country they are visiting is flown from the main mast and is hoisted as soon as the ship has one line over, or the anchor is on the bottom, in a foreign port.  When the anchor drops, or the first line is over on the pier, the call comes out to "shift colors."  That is the command for changing the US flag to the after mast and the host nation's flag on the main mast.  \n\nThat brings up a story that occurred a month or so before Clinton left office.  There was a story that he was going to Vietnam (which he did) and while they were there, the N. Vietnamese ensign (flag) was going to fly from the main mast.  Now, from what I have told you, that is pro forma, status quo, or any other thing that indicates that is the normal th
383648
so what's the question?
340495
hey dude! listen to yourself 'spies and intelligence'\nman get real! spies work undercover. what is undercover on Y! answers? huh? like they all must log in, right?\nand 'intelligence' duh man! read the answers and then speak about intelligence. take my answer for example. do you think I am intelligent? I failed whatever can be failed in this life! that's not intelligence. right?\n\nand please, do not vote this bullsh*$ as the best answer. my chief checks regularly only the best answers, and adios best carrier for me. see what I mean?