Watch the news. Get a gander.
What's coming off the wire these days is all political related. That's the way it is when this country get's nearly two years away from a new president. If you research the trends of media during an administration where the president has a chance to be re-elected, you will find less hype over what is going on.
It happened with George Bush after Bill Clinton. It happened with President Obama after George Bush. It's happening again.
Had Hilary made a willful attempt to dethrone Obama after his first term, the problems that she would face would have been no where near as problematic as they are now. The media is trying to scrounge everything they can up.
The current scandal is one which has been covered up over and over again. Benghazi has been a thorn in a bed of roses for the Clinton campaign. She unfortunately timed her ride to the white house when the media is covering her every move. Checking her character to see what flaws she might show.
Her tactics to this point are pretty clear: Wait. By waiting she affords the media time to get the information correct and then let the world forget about it. The problem is also that she is waiting.
A congressional investigation is currently ongoing to find out where her emails were during the attacks, and furthermore why she didn't have an official account during this time.
Huge questions, and answers may not come quickly. It might be time for Hilary to start thinking about dumping the tank. Throwing her pot at a potential bid later down the road. Age isn't on her side though.
The real question is: if Hilary has nothing to hide, why not just dump everything out in front of congress now and give full explanations? Tell the truth and let the process unfold. That's not happening. So eventually congress WILL get the information it seeks. When this happens, it's going to take weeks if not months to search for data leading up to the attacks. What will be even more interesting is what else the government will find during this time.
Mrs. Clinton has made a mistake. I don't think she will recover from this one. The primary reason is that Hilary is riding a democratic wave into the white house. Most people are expecting a republican controlled congress to mess things up. This will play well in the elections, almost certainly allowing another democrat in office. However if the Republicans manage to gain leverage while in control, things won't be the same.
My guess is Hilary has an Ace of Spades and a two of diamonds in her pocket. If she doesn't play this carefully, her poker hand will be bust.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Halfway Lit Part II
I never intended to write a series of blogs. I never intended to write something so that I could have part II. I guess writing about being halfway drunk or lit changes that.
Here again, I'm halfway lit thinking about everything in the world. I'm on the downward slope of this high. Heading back to my normal terrain. Most likely I'll end up in a ravine before getting back to sea level. But that's another story. ~~~~catch the metaphors!
When I was in the military, and especially on my second deployment, I became somewhat of a poet. I wrote things so well that people said they would buy my stuff. I once wrote a blog about firefighters that nobody seemed to understand.
This didn't make sense, because I was just told that I should sell my work yet people didn't understand me? That's because I write my poems for me, everyone reading them seems to think they are taking me literally.
So being on the downward spiral of a lit, or being high is different. It's not like being drunk. The alcohol level in your body depletes so slowly that you feel depressed. While it's almost and instantaneous thing with weed. It just stops. Like a big breath of air.
Poems for me can take any sort of map.
Here is one instance:
The rose on my watch is green and red.
Through the night it ticks by my bed.
Because I'm not wearing it while I'm far far away.
That's because the watch ticks, for my redeployment in May
This story is of a little tin soldier.
Who fell on the ground and made the lid colder.
Of the manhole cover he fell on through.
It's almost like a scene from Guess who's two?
I seriously made that up on my own. It's not a big thing to me. I just kinda do it. <- nike="" p="">
Peace.
Here again, I'm halfway lit thinking about everything in the world. I'm on the downward slope of this high. Heading back to my normal terrain. Most likely I'll end up in a ravine before getting back to sea level. But that's another story. ~~~~catch the metaphors!
When I was in the military, and especially on my second deployment, I became somewhat of a poet. I wrote things so well that people said they would buy my stuff. I once wrote a blog about firefighters that nobody seemed to understand.
This didn't make sense, because I was just told that I should sell my work yet people didn't understand me? That's because I write my poems for me, everyone reading them seems to think they are taking me literally.
So being on the downward spiral of a lit, or being high is different. It's not like being drunk. The alcohol level in your body depletes so slowly that you feel depressed. While it's almost and instantaneous thing with weed. It just stops. Like a big breath of air.
Poems for me can take any sort of map.
Here is one instance:
The rose on my watch is green and red.
Through the night it ticks by my bed.
Because I'm not wearing it while I'm far far away.
That's because the watch ticks, for my redeployment in May
This story is of a little tin soldier.
Who fell on the ground and made the lid colder.
Of the manhole cover he fell on through.
It's almost like a scene from Guess who's two?
I seriously made that up on my own. It's not a big thing to me. I just kinda do it. <- nike="" p="">
Peace.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Presidential Candidate: Hilary Clinton
I really shouldn't be writing about politics on this blog. It's probably a really bad idea. Although our government should be a point of emphasis for all Americans, it's often a point of contention. Many people will choose who they do and don't like based off of politics.
For the record: I'm not Democrat, I'm not Republican, and I'm not anything else. I'm a veteran of the United States Army, and as a veteran I put my emphasis on anything that helps our troops and veterans. So if a democrat will help train our troops, while giving our veterans the best care then I guess you could say I'm a democrat. Same for Republican or independent. Most of the time though, I baffle people. Most of the time military isn't the first priority of a presidential candidate. So when you pick a person to vote for, you often find yourself picking opposite ends. Such as picking a president who wants to help our military, but also wants to make terrible tax cuts to do it.
I'm not a fan of Hilary Clinton. I think she's phony and will be exposed as such. Unfortunately for our voting public, it won't be enough to stem her from office. She's destined to be the next president. That's the cycle.
The real problem is her use of publicity stunts to keep her name just relevant enough so that people won't forget her. Kinda like Obama. Obama takes heat for Benghazi, then drops the IRS bombshell to eat up a little time and then finally reveals that he lied about Obamacare to keep everything off Benghazi. Now any investigation into Benghazi makes Republicans look foolish.
Hilary is using the same tactics. What Republic has this command and control right now? Who is even the front runner for the Republican nomination?
Keep thinking because none of them are as obvious as Hilary Clinton on the democrat side.
Hilary Clinton is the wife of a snake. Bill Clinton deregulated banks, and even went as far as to cut defense funding after a couple of missiles missed Osama Bin Laden's hide out in 1998. Don't think for a minute that the first possible "first man" won't make decisions on this country. Bill won't stand by the wayside.
This will be Bill Clinton 2.0
For the record: I'm not Democrat, I'm not Republican, and I'm not anything else. I'm a veteran of the United States Army, and as a veteran I put my emphasis on anything that helps our troops and veterans. So if a democrat will help train our troops, while giving our veterans the best care then I guess you could say I'm a democrat. Same for Republican or independent. Most of the time though, I baffle people. Most of the time military isn't the first priority of a presidential candidate. So when you pick a person to vote for, you often find yourself picking opposite ends. Such as picking a president who wants to help our military, but also wants to make terrible tax cuts to do it.
I'm not a fan of Hilary Clinton. I think she's phony and will be exposed as such. Unfortunately for our voting public, it won't be enough to stem her from office. She's destined to be the next president. That's the cycle.
The real problem is her use of publicity stunts to keep her name just relevant enough so that people won't forget her. Kinda like Obama. Obama takes heat for Benghazi, then drops the IRS bombshell to eat up a little time and then finally reveals that he lied about Obamacare to keep everything off Benghazi. Now any investigation into Benghazi makes Republicans look foolish.
Hilary is using the same tactics. What Republic has this command and control right now? Who is even the front runner for the Republican nomination?
Keep thinking because none of them are as obvious as Hilary Clinton on the democrat side.
Hilary Clinton is the wife of a snake. Bill Clinton deregulated banks, and even went as far as to cut defense funding after a couple of missiles missed Osama Bin Laden's hide out in 1998. Don't think for a minute that the first possible "first man" won't make decisions on this country. Bill won't stand by the wayside.
This will be Bill Clinton 2.0
Publicizing our fight
This is our fight. This is the fight of every person who has ever taken the oath as a member of our armed forces.
Today we stand strong, free, and greater than ever because of who we are. Because we are men and women of the United States Marines, Air Force, Army and Navy we are strong.
As a veteran, I see what we have done. I know that every member of each service has in some way been tested in these last 14 years. Now, our story's are beginning to take shape in the public eye. People are not being force fed news anymore. They are seeing what real people saw in combat.
I speak about this because I have watched both Lone Survivor and American Sniper. I know these films are great and tell truly moving stories to the American public. The stories relayed in each of these films comes directly from a book. From the eyes of people who lived it, screen writers try and fit the pieces into a complex film.
I can tell you they are doing it wrong. It's not their fault though.
I don't expect every detail of every military movie to be 100% accurate. If we can get 40% accuracy, that's pretty good. However, this is also hollywood which makes any film scene much more dramatic than it actually was. Also this type of information often leaves out some of the best feel good moments because they won't sell tickets.
I'll give you an example. In the book American Sniper, Chris Kyle mentions how he can tell the difference between Marines and Soldiers. Marines always seem willing and motivated to beat the living shit out of the enemy no matter what the circumstance. With Soldiers, it really depends on which unit you get. As a former soldier, I agree with this. I know the difference between the two units. Having served in a highly motivated unit and a very demotivated unit I know this comparison. However no film maker can put this into production without losing the audience. Telling people here in the states that one service is actually better than the other will rub people the wrong way. It only takes one mistake for thousands of people to wait for a film to show up on DVD. That's the last thing anyone in hollywood will take a risk on.
Hollywood will also not take a risk on a war film closing without big endings. At the end of the movie in Lone Survivor, it appears that the Army, Air Force, and Marines all converge on one area to rescue Marcus Lutrell. In reality, their wasn't an AC 130 in the sky firing magnetic death from above. Also, Army Apache's didn't show up for his rescue. I should also point out that the Apache's in the film were not accurate. Apache's run a 30mm cannon underneath. The sound from the film of the gun is that of a Marine Cobra which is not as bulky.
These kinds of things have to happen, and they must happen often. However with the war's winding down, people are finally getting the after action report from film. For years we tried to get public support for the war. Never killing to many enemies in excess to avoid public lynching, but never leaving enough enemies on the ground to attack American bases whole sale.
Both of these wars have been an ugly war between the media and the American people. It's what happens off the camera that should be on the news. Unfortunately that's not what happens.
So you must understand when viewing the latest war film that you are not getting the truth. You are still getting a feel good moment meant to sell tickets and congratulate actors.
I encourage anyone reading this blog to research the wars. Don't just go to CNN and make your opinion. Research what people say who have been their. People who believe in what we are doing. Then compare them with people who don't agree with them.
For the record, I could care less what country we invade or take over. As a former Soldier, I knew it was my job to support and defend the constitution no matter what. So if that means invading Japan or Australia, I would have done it. The place we go doesn't matter. It's the country we represent that does.
Today we stand strong, free, and greater than ever because of who we are. Because we are men and women of the United States Marines, Air Force, Army and Navy we are strong.
As a veteran, I see what we have done. I know that every member of each service has in some way been tested in these last 14 years. Now, our story's are beginning to take shape in the public eye. People are not being force fed news anymore. They are seeing what real people saw in combat.
I speak about this because I have watched both Lone Survivor and American Sniper. I know these films are great and tell truly moving stories to the American public. The stories relayed in each of these films comes directly from a book. From the eyes of people who lived it, screen writers try and fit the pieces into a complex film.
I can tell you they are doing it wrong. It's not their fault though.
I don't expect every detail of every military movie to be 100% accurate. If we can get 40% accuracy, that's pretty good. However, this is also hollywood which makes any film scene much more dramatic than it actually was. Also this type of information often leaves out some of the best feel good moments because they won't sell tickets.
I'll give you an example. In the book American Sniper, Chris Kyle mentions how he can tell the difference between Marines and Soldiers. Marines always seem willing and motivated to beat the living shit out of the enemy no matter what the circumstance. With Soldiers, it really depends on which unit you get. As a former soldier, I agree with this. I know the difference between the two units. Having served in a highly motivated unit and a very demotivated unit I know this comparison. However no film maker can put this into production without losing the audience. Telling people here in the states that one service is actually better than the other will rub people the wrong way. It only takes one mistake for thousands of people to wait for a film to show up on DVD. That's the last thing anyone in hollywood will take a risk on.
Hollywood will also not take a risk on a war film closing without big endings. At the end of the movie in Lone Survivor, it appears that the Army, Air Force, and Marines all converge on one area to rescue Marcus Lutrell. In reality, their wasn't an AC 130 in the sky firing magnetic death from above. Also, Army Apache's didn't show up for his rescue. I should also point out that the Apache's in the film were not accurate. Apache's run a 30mm cannon underneath. The sound from the film of the gun is that of a Marine Cobra which is not as bulky.
These kinds of things have to happen, and they must happen often. However with the war's winding down, people are finally getting the after action report from film. For years we tried to get public support for the war. Never killing to many enemies in excess to avoid public lynching, but never leaving enough enemies on the ground to attack American bases whole sale.
Both of these wars have been an ugly war between the media and the American people. It's what happens off the camera that should be on the news. Unfortunately that's not what happens.
So you must understand when viewing the latest war film that you are not getting the truth. You are still getting a feel good moment meant to sell tickets and congratulate actors.
I encourage anyone reading this blog to research the wars. Don't just go to CNN and make your opinion. Research what people say who have been their. People who believe in what we are doing. Then compare them with people who don't agree with them.
For the record, I could care less what country we invade or take over. As a former Soldier, I knew it was my job to support and defend the constitution no matter what. So if that means invading Japan or Australia, I would have done it. The place we go doesn't matter. It's the country we represent that does.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Why I write blogs
Not long ago, I was dreaming of becoming some sort of writer. I remember wanting to write a book on my childhood and how fucked up it was. I loved reading at the time, and nothing validated a persons life as much as an autobiography. The problem is you really only get one shot at an autobiography. Quite a bit more has changes since my childhood, and I would never know what to focus on.
When I was 24 years old, I read an article in a snowboarding magazine. The title said "working class hero" and it pictured a young man riding his snowmobile off a very steep cliff high in the mountains. On his back was his snowboard, and some other gear. Reading the article, it almost seamed like the guy writing the story was about as fucked up as the guy riding the snowmobile. I quickly began to learn that many of the people who write for magazines often live the lifestyle they write about.
I quickly have up on the magazine writing idea because blogging is so much more convenient. I'll never be famous for my blogs, but I will at least have published something and vented it for everyone to read.
Writing gives me a sense of leverage. I can write about anything. The key to my writing is knowing when my article is about to suck. Unfortunately, that time usually comes about midway through a blog. It will seem like I have a whole bunch of momentum going into my story, but then out of no where I'll lose my steam and drop off.
I once wrote for my college newspaper. I took special pride in seeing my name on an article. It almost made me feel famous. People would look at that article, and before they read anything they would know my name. I was a junior reporter, so my picture didn't come with any of my articles. I wrote well enough to stay on for free during my freshman year. Over the summer, I interviewed for what was something I happened to be passionate about. I wrote about some really cool things, but I also found myself hindered by the politics of a dip shit editor.
Then one day everything changed. I wrote an entire article. Not just in my basement, but I traveled throughout my entire state to get the information. Unfortunately our copy editor had been sick on our review day so our assistant editor in chief reviewed the article. Normally this person doesn't review copy articles. That goes to the copy editor who doesn't get any credit for their work. The only glory for a copy editor is they get paid more than the editor themselves. They hold one of the highest positions, and most of the time keep the editor in chief from writing something really bad.
But I digress...back to my article that I had written. I wrote the article and had kind of blogged it. I didn't really think about which way the stories were going. I didn't write to a point. I wrote with many points which is really hard to close. Sometimes in the newspaper industries writers will start a point and never finish it. We call this the cliff hanger. I left about three cliff hangers all dealing with several college food reviews. My assistant editor in chief reviewed the article and closed the gaps. But when this person did this, he was stepping off of his authority chair and onto his writing chair. Thus when the article came out, his name was listed first on the article with my name as a contributor. This was so far from the truth because he never even left the building for the article.
When I saw this I was pissed. I typed a letter and signed it for him. I told him that stealing someone's work is not acceptable, and that plagiarism is against university policy. The next day my EIC called me in and told me that I was to never speak to our assistant editor in chief again. He was a nice guy, but I think he was intimidated by me. I don't know why, maybe my military service.
Either way, that was the last article that I wrote free hand too. The assistant editor in chief was also in charge of all the editorials. So I lost my editorial as I wasn't allowed to talk to the boss of them. I went to sports and found university sports to be absolute bullshit. I interviewed a coach who insisted that I refer to him as coach in my story. I didn't like him, I didn't respect him and he didn't like that.
I left sports, to the dismay of the sports editor who really liked me, and went to work for the EIC on investigative reporting. Unfortunately our school didn't have any good scandals going for it. So I was shit out of luck and ended up covering bullshit stories. My EIC got a lead that our IT department was not archiving old emails. This meant that if John Smith had gone to school and graduated, if someone else came to the school as John Smith this person would immediately have access to the previous John Smith's files because the actual folder for this name stayed open. That wasn't the case. Emails stayed open for 2 years after the student graduated or left school. This gave each former student the ability and time to transition to a new email. Then after that time, their entire folder was deleted. This meant that if the government or anyone else asked for record, our school wouldn't have them.
I told my EIC to go fuck her self with a nice sized dildo. I was fired, and sent to the employment office where I was informed that I was not allowed to work for club organizations in a paid manner ever again.
Too bad. I really didn't care.
But with blogging, I don't have this problem. If you don't like my blogs, you can leave at any time. You could with the newspaper too, but I was writing under my universities mast head.
But the real point is that I write so that I can be free. These last 20 minutes on this computer have been solitude for me. I hope they are for the reader as well, but I guess I'll just hope you made it this far in my blog.
My goal in my blog is me. But I hope that you might get to the bottom of this blog and like what you see. Enough to follow my blog....pretty please?
When I was 24 years old, I read an article in a snowboarding magazine. The title said "working class hero" and it pictured a young man riding his snowmobile off a very steep cliff high in the mountains. On his back was his snowboard, and some other gear. Reading the article, it almost seamed like the guy writing the story was about as fucked up as the guy riding the snowmobile. I quickly began to learn that many of the people who write for magazines often live the lifestyle they write about.
I quickly have up on the magazine writing idea because blogging is so much more convenient. I'll never be famous for my blogs, but I will at least have published something and vented it for everyone to read.
Writing gives me a sense of leverage. I can write about anything. The key to my writing is knowing when my article is about to suck. Unfortunately, that time usually comes about midway through a blog. It will seem like I have a whole bunch of momentum going into my story, but then out of no where I'll lose my steam and drop off.
I once wrote for my college newspaper. I took special pride in seeing my name on an article. It almost made me feel famous. People would look at that article, and before they read anything they would know my name. I was a junior reporter, so my picture didn't come with any of my articles. I wrote well enough to stay on for free during my freshman year. Over the summer, I interviewed for what was something I happened to be passionate about. I wrote about some really cool things, but I also found myself hindered by the politics of a dip shit editor.
Then one day everything changed. I wrote an entire article. Not just in my basement, but I traveled throughout my entire state to get the information. Unfortunately our copy editor had been sick on our review day so our assistant editor in chief reviewed the article. Normally this person doesn't review copy articles. That goes to the copy editor who doesn't get any credit for their work. The only glory for a copy editor is they get paid more than the editor themselves. They hold one of the highest positions, and most of the time keep the editor in chief from writing something really bad.
But I digress...back to my article that I had written. I wrote the article and had kind of blogged it. I didn't really think about which way the stories were going. I didn't write to a point. I wrote with many points which is really hard to close. Sometimes in the newspaper industries writers will start a point and never finish it. We call this the cliff hanger. I left about three cliff hangers all dealing with several college food reviews. My assistant editor in chief reviewed the article and closed the gaps. But when this person did this, he was stepping off of his authority chair and onto his writing chair. Thus when the article came out, his name was listed first on the article with my name as a contributor. This was so far from the truth because he never even left the building for the article.
When I saw this I was pissed. I typed a letter and signed it for him. I told him that stealing someone's work is not acceptable, and that plagiarism is against university policy. The next day my EIC called me in and told me that I was to never speak to our assistant editor in chief again. He was a nice guy, but I think he was intimidated by me. I don't know why, maybe my military service.
Either way, that was the last article that I wrote free hand too. The assistant editor in chief was also in charge of all the editorials. So I lost my editorial as I wasn't allowed to talk to the boss of them. I went to sports and found university sports to be absolute bullshit. I interviewed a coach who insisted that I refer to him as coach in my story. I didn't like him, I didn't respect him and he didn't like that.
I left sports, to the dismay of the sports editor who really liked me, and went to work for the EIC on investigative reporting. Unfortunately our school didn't have any good scandals going for it. So I was shit out of luck and ended up covering bullshit stories. My EIC got a lead that our IT department was not archiving old emails. This meant that if John Smith had gone to school and graduated, if someone else came to the school as John Smith this person would immediately have access to the previous John Smith's files because the actual folder for this name stayed open. That wasn't the case. Emails stayed open for 2 years after the student graduated or left school. This gave each former student the ability and time to transition to a new email. Then after that time, their entire folder was deleted. This meant that if the government or anyone else asked for record, our school wouldn't have them.
I told my EIC to go fuck her self with a nice sized dildo. I was fired, and sent to the employment office where I was informed that I was not allowed to work for club organizations in a paid manner ever again.
Too bad. I really didn't care.
But with blogging, I don't have this problem. If you don't like my blogs, you can leave at any time. You could with the newspaper too, but I was writing under my universities mast head.
But the real point is that I write so that I can be free. These last 20 minutes on this computer have been solitude for me. I hope they are for the reader as well, but I guess I'll just hope you made it this far in my blog.
My goal in my blog is me. But I hope that you might get to the bottom of this blog and like what you see. Enough to follow my blog....pretty please?
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Seals vs Delta vs Devgru vs Recon vs Rangers
For the last few days I've been trolling pages which attempt to set the record straight regarding which one of our elite special operations forces is the best in the business. I've heard countless tales of hard charging Seals who did everything right put up against the meanest operators delta has to offer. All of this only ends in " well I can't really choose one because they might find me". That's about the lamest excuse I've ever heard.
If you are going to compare something, then fucking compare it. Don't act like you are actually going to make a statement and then all of a sudden back off. You're only proving you are full of shit.
From the get go I will tell you that I'm not comparing Delta and Devgru. I don't know shit about either, and anyone who has not served in either of those units is full of shit when they start listing which one does what better or more.
Having served in the military, I have first hand experience with Rangers and Navy Seals. I don't recall working with Recon folks, but I could be wrong. I've worked with CIA operatives on one occasion and it wasn't for a mission. I had to sit through a briefing and nobody in the room was allowed to ask any questions. So that's my CIA experience.
Whenever I hear about Special Ops, the first thing I hear is this god forsaken Tier Chart. If you're not familiar with this chart, I'll write it out here:
Tier 1: Delta, Devgru
Tier 2: Rangers, Seals, 160th Soar
Tier 3:Special Forces (Green Berets), Force Recon, Air Force Combat Controllers
People often look at this and immediately say that Tier 3 is where the shittiest of the spec ops fall. Or even better, that Tier 3 is where regular Marines and Army soldiers fall.
The one thing you should know is that this is not a list of who is most bad ass. This is a list of who get's what based on funding from the government. I don't know how the funding is broken down, but I do know that the outfits in Tier 3 are in that tier because they require very little to get going. Controllers land before anyone and line up landings, drop zones, and quite a few other things that make them pretty bad ass. Force Recon is a special unit of the Marines that identify land targets which will slow down a conventional force such as the Marines or the Army. They are in the middle of the worst of it trying to give advise. Special Forces often fall in on local militia's that just need guidance to attack enemies of the United States. They help locals revolt, among other things.
Tier 2 is an interesting group. Some folks like to call this "Grey Ops". Truth is, it's just a funding standpoint. Rangers will do their own missions often killing many enemies in the process. I've trained with these folks, and let's just say if they find you trying to shoot them they will be wildly disappointed when it's only you and not 500 more. Seals don't need an introduction. They have books written by multiple people which outline what they do. Launching from Naval ships, Subs, and Planes they obviously require quite a bit of money. Not included is the their wild training after indoctrination courses.
160th is a whole different animal. They have regular black hawks and chinooks just like any other Army aviation unit. Then they have the little birds, specially fitted long rang black hawks and after the killing of Bin Laden, it appears they are proud owners of a black hawk helicopter which is radar resistant. With all of that, and who know's what else, you can imagine the price of maintenance is higher than a regular unit. Aviation isn't cheap, and neither is the 160th.
Tier 1 I really don't know anything about. But one could imagine the price of covering up their non-public missions. That's a lot of money to keep expensive missions on the down low.
So where do these units stand and how do they stack up?
RANGERS:
Rangers vs. Seals: Well, this one doesn't make sense. Rangers tend to work in no less than platoon level organizations. Army platoons range from 24 soldiers on up. Seals work as low as 1. I'm not real sure how to compare 24 to 1.
When it comes to not being heard, both are incredibly good at hiding what they do. Rangers spend quite a large portion of their time providing security over watch for seals. So they work hand in hand. As outlined in "Lone Survivor", Operation Red Wings had 4 members on the ground. Still 20 less than an average Ranger platoon, so I don't know how to compare. I've heard though that Seals will work together in company formations. Rangers do this too. So in an equal setting, you are still comparing apples to oranges. When it comes to Rangers vs Seals, I'd take the Rangers over the Seals. But if it were a simple mission to get someone out, I'd take the seals. As I go on, you'll start to realize that these are all different units and they all have specialties that make them unique.
Rangers vs. Green Berets: Here is a good one. Rangers don't go into foreign countries to train local militia's. They go into foreign countries to kill. Green Berets will go in as small teams to blow shit up, but I've never heard of company level (100-200) going in together for a mission. Green Beret's form A teams which specialize in the exact mission at hand. Others follow for the additional tasks. From an administrative position, I'd take the Green Beret's. I don't see the benefit in dropping off 200 Rangers in a foreign land all by themselves. They would be found quickly and likely run out of ammo. Having locals revolt with their own ammunition, like the Green Beret's do, would be much more beneficial. Starting to add up a little more what rangers do......
Rangers vs Recon: Rangers generally don't do recon for the Army. The Army has scout's for that. The Marines do to, but the Marines are also about killing the enemy. I think Rangers vs Recon is the fairest playing field. Recon and Rangers both jump out of planes. Recon and Rangers both kill lot's of enemies. The thing is, you almost never hear about Recon missions. That's because most of them are special operations capable, not special operations full time. When it comes to this category you have to really pick what you want. If you are storming an airfield: Rangers. If you are lining up targets for a full invasion: Recon. If you want to pick which one is more reliable: I'd again go with the Rangers. Purely from a spec ops point of view. Otherwise their is no difference other than branch of service.
RECON:
Recon vs Seals: Most recon units, when running spec ops, will be in and out pretty quick. Seals run in the same sort of manner. Seals are better trained and have more access to higher grade weapons than recon. I'd take the Seals.
Recon vs Green Berets: If the Recon unit is a full fledged unit part of an assault team, and thus not in a spec ops role, I'd take Recon. If the Recon unit is in a spec ops role, I'd take the Green Berets. Army SF is fully aware of their surroundings. They train for certain area's of the world both in language and culture. Furthermore, they are stationed in places where they likely won't ever leave or transition to other bases. So they spend their entire time off duty studying what the area will look like on duty. As GI Joe would say: Knowing is half the battle. Snake Eaters!
Recon vs Rangers: See above
SEALS:
Seals vs Rangers: See above
Seals vs Recon: See above
Seals vs Green Berets: I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS ONE! Navy SEALS were born from UDT divers. At one time, UDT's wouldn't leave the water. They would clear everything for Navy ships to advance, troops to get to shore, or Marines to clear a beach. Once the water met the sand, they swam back the other way.
Green Beret's were designed to be the on land version of the UDT's. They would go on land and destroy everything. Not only in their own battles, but with locals as well. They were the perfect complement.
Seals were born to bring the Green Beret's ass kicking ability and the UDT's water skills together. As one, the SEALS are probably the best spec ops unit available. On land or sea, I'd take the Seals.
GREEN BERETS:
SF vs Rangers: See above
SF vs Recon: See above
SF vs Seals: See above
So in conclusion, outside of our tier 1 units, which one is the best: As most point out, these are apples and oranges situations. Not to mention, not a single one of these spec ops units can survive without their main counterparts. The seal's won't survive long without the Marines. The Rangers won't survive long without the rest of the Army and Recon certainly will need the support of the Marines to continue their mission.
I've laid out above what each unit can do and compared them. But in the end, it only makes sense that I'd pick one out. My choice would be the SEALS. Pound for pound, you don't get much better and kicking ass than a Navy Seal. While they all are capable of fully humiliating any enemy at home or abroad, Seals bring the water and land together which makes them so much more bad ass.
If you are going to compare something, then fucking compare it. Don't act like you are actually going to make a statement and then all of a sudden back off. You're only proving you are full of shit.
From the get go I will tell you that I'm not comparing Delta and Devgru. I don't know shit about either, and anyone who has not served in either of those units is full of shit when they start listing which one does what better or more.
Having served in the military, I have first hand experience with Rangers and Navy Seals. I don't recall working with Recon folks, but I could be wrong. I've worked with CIA operatives on one occasion and it wasn't for a mission. I had to sit through a briefing and nobody in the room was allowed to ask any questions. So that's my CIA experience.
Whenever I hear about Special Ops, the first thing I hear is this god forsaken Tier Chart. If you're not familiar with this chart, I'll write it out here:
Tier 1: Delta, Devgru
Tier 2: Rangers, Seals, 160th Soar
Tier 3:Special Forces (Green Berets), Force Recon, Air Force Combat Controllers
People often look at this and immediately say that Tier 3 is where the shittiest of the spec ops fall. Or even better, that Tier 3 is where regular Marines and Army soldiers fall.
The one thing you should know is that this is not a list of who is most bad ass. This is a list of who get's what based on funding from the government. I don't know how the funding is broken down, but I do know that the outfits in Tier 3 are in that tier because they require very little to get going. Controllers land before anyone and line up landings, drop zones, and quite a few other things that make them pretty bad ass. Force Recon is a special unit of the Marines that identify land targets which will slow down a conventional force such as the Marines or the Army. They are in the middle of the worst of it trying to give advise. Special Forces often fall in on local militia's that just need guidance to attack enemies of the United States. They help locals revolt, among other things.
Tier 2 is an interesting group. Some folks like to call this "Grey Ops". Truth is, it's just a funding standpoint. Rangers will do their own missions often killing many enemies in the process. I've trained with these folks, and let's just say if they find you trying to shoot them they will be wildly disappointed when it's only you and not 500 more. Seals don't need an introduction. They have books written by multiple people which outline what they do. Launching from Naval ships, Subs, and Planes they obviously require quite a bit of money. Not included is the their wild training after indoctrination courses.
160th is a whole different animal. They have regular black hawks and chinooks just like any other Army aviation unit. Then they have the little birds, specially fitted long rang black hawks and after the killing of Bin Laden, it appears they are proud owners of a black hawk helicopter which is radar resistant. With all of that, and who know's what else, you can imagine the price of maintenance is higher than a regular unit. Aviation isn't cheap, and neither is the 160th.
Tier 1 I really don't know anything about. But one could imagine the price of covering up their non-public missions. That's a lot of money to keep expensive missions on the down low.
So where do these units stand and how do they stack up?
RANGERS:
Rangers vs. Seals: Well, this one doesn't make sense. Rangers tend to work in no less than platoon level organizations. Army platoons range from 24 soldiers on up. Seals work as low as 1. I'm not real sure how to compare 24 to 1.
When it comes to not being heard, both are incredibly good at hiding what they do. Rangers spend quite a large portion of their time providing security over watch for seals. So they work hand in hand. As outlined in "Lone Survivor", Operation Red Wings had 4 members on the ground. Still 20 less than an average Ranger platoon, so I don't know how to compare. I've heard though that Seals will work together in company formations. Rangers do this too. So in an equal setting, you are still comparing apples to oranges. When it comes to Rangers vs Seals, I'd take the Rangers over the Seals. But if it were a simple mission to get someone out, I'd take the seals. As I go on, you'll start to realize that these are all different units and they all have specialties that make them unique.
Rangers vs. Green Berets: Here is a good one. Rangers don't go into foreign countries to train local militia's. They go into foreign countries to kill. Green Berets will go in as small teams to blow shit up, but I've never heard of company level (100-200) going in together for a mission. Green Beret's form A teams which specialize in the exact mission at hand. Others follow for the additional tasks. From an administrative position, I'd take the Green Beret's. I don't see the benefit in dropping off 200 Rangers in a foreign land all by themselves. They would be found quickly and likely run out of ammo. Having locals revolt with their own ammunition, like the Green Beret's do, would be much more beneficial. Starting to add up a little more what rangers do......
Rangers vs Recon: Rangers generally don't do recon for the Army. The Army has scout's for that. The Marines do to, but the Marines are also about killing the enemy. I think Rangers vs Recon is the fairest playing field. Recon and Rangers both jump out of planes. Recon and Rangers both kill lot's of enemies. The thing is, you almost never hear about Recon missions. That's because most of them are special operations capable, not special operations full time. When it comes to this category you have to really pick what you want. If you are storming an airfield: Rangers. If you are lining up targets for a full invasion: Recon. If you want to pick which one is more reliable: I'd again go with the Rangers. Purely from a spec ops point of view. Otherwise their is no difference other than branch of service.
RECON:
Recon vs Seals: Most recon units, when running spec ops, will be in and out pretty quick. Seals run in the same sort of manner. Seals are better trained and have more access to higher grade weapons than recon. I'd take the Seals.
Recon vs Green Berets: If the Recon unit is a full fledged unit part of an assault team, and thus not in a spec ops role, I'd take Recon. If the Recon unit is in a spec ops role, I'd take the Green Berets. Army SF is fully aware of their surroundings. They train for certain area's of the world both in language and culture. Furthermore, they are stationed in places where they likely won't ever leave or transition to other bases. So they spend their entire time off duty studying what the area will look like on duty. As GI Joe would say: Knowing is half the battle. Snake Eaters!
Recon vs Rangers: See above
SEALS:
Seals vs Rangers: See above
Seals vs Recon: See above
Seals vs Green Berets: I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS ONE! Navy SEALS were born from UDT divers. At one time, UDT's wouldn't leave the water. They would clear everything for Navy ships to advance, troops to get to shore, or Marines to clear a beach. Once the water met the sand, they swam back the other way.
Green Beret's were designed to be the on land version of the UDT's. They would go on land and destroy everything. Not only in their own battles, but with locals as well. They were the perfect complement.
Seals were born to bring the Green Beret's ass kicking ability and the UDT's water skills together. As one, the SEALS are probably the best spec ops unit available. On land or sea, I'd take the Seals.
GREEN BERETS:
SF vs Rangers: See above
SF vs Recon: See above
SF vs Seals: See above
So in conclusion, outside of our tier 1 units, which one is the best: As most point out, these are apples and oranges situations. Not to mention, not a single one of these spec ops units can survive without their main counterparts. The seal's won't survive long without the Marines. The Rangers won't survive long without the rest of the Army and Recon certainly will need the support of the Marines to continue their mission.
I've laid out above what each unit can do and compared them. But in the end, it only makes sense that I'd pick one out. My choice would be the SEALS. Pound for pound, you don't get much better and kicking ass than a Navy Seal. While they all are capable of fully humiliating any enemy at home or abroad, Seals bring the water and land together which makes them so much more bad ass.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Marshawn Lynch: Defining how low ball he is
Marshawn Lynch is a funny guy. He acts like he is a man who just doesn't like the media. He pretends to be a socially awkward guy who wants to be left alone.
The problem is, Marshawn Lynch or "ML" from here on out, he doesn't follow through.
Notice how ML only makes a big deal in front of multiple camera's? Or maybe when it's just ML and the fans?
He's two different people. That's because ML is full of shit.
Who the hell says: I'm just here so I won't get fined, and then roughly a month later files for a patent? ML is craving the media attention like Linsay Lohan is craving heroin. He want's it, and he wants to control it.
Here's the facts: when ML was playing in Buffalo, you didn't hear this shit. ML played the game and did it well. He also gave interviews. The key was: Buffalo never had any post season success. Seattle has, and all of a sudden this man who just doesn't like the media is snaking his way into side money.
Here's what I think of ML: He's full of shit.
The problem is, Marshawn Lynch or "ML" from here on out, he doesn't follow through.
Notice how ML only makes a big deal in front of multiple camera's? Or maybe when it's just ML and the fans?
He's two different people. That's because ML is full of shit.
Who the hell says: I'm just here so I won't get fined, and then roughly a month later files for a patent? ML is craving the media attention like Linsay Lohan is craving heroin. He want's it, and he wants to control it.
Here's the facts: when ML was playing in Buffalo, you didn't hear this shit. ML played the game and did it well. He also gave interviews. The key was: Buffalo never had any post season success. Seattle has, and all of a sudden this man who just doesn't like the media is snaking his way into side money.
Here's what I think of ML: He's full of shit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)