Bio not provided
@BrandonWebb @EdShahzade I have to agree with Sergei on this one. When I first read Draiman's response to the article I became fired up with indignant rage at Rolling Stones for their cheap ploy to sell magazines, but reading this article really snaps things back into perspective.
I see many people who have done the exact same thing in the Zimmerman case (media/public opinion presenting a guilty image) leading (to quote shagstar) a "Salem Witch Hunt mentality".
It is easy to allow our emotions to take us down a tide of zealous rage, but history has shown that falling for such knee-jerk reactions and emotions never ends well for the psyche of society, or the people who suffer unjustly because of the consequences.
And I concur with Sergei that we can't lose sight of our country's core ideals. The Second Amendment is relatively straight forward to fight for because it is so black and white an issue; but it is so much easier to fall into the grey areas of morality when it comes to things like free speech, and due process. It takes a clear and conscious effort to take a step back and think clearly, because it is so easy to justify away any slips we might make in the name of "justice" or "security".
7 months, 1 week ago on The Russian Gulag And A Phony SEAL Charity
'and all the sheep blindly cheered the idea because it was “for the children” '
"so this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause"
An extremely accurate social commentary if I've ever hear one. Not exactly the most uplifting way to start a morning, but thanks for the share. Always good to get a different perspective.
7 months, 2 weeks ago on Dear Friends in America…
@EmilioLizardo @Motojunky27 I don't really see a problem with women in combat. Virtually any human being can pull a 4lbs. trigger. The bullets will fly down range either way. But expecting the same results from an all female unit physically as an all male unit is unrealistic.
Trying to shove women into slots in the Rangers and SEALs and mixing the units seem like a disaster.
But mentally what is going to hamstring women the most for combat slots is the social psychology of modern society. Gender stereotypes in society mold our foundations as individuals, and women will be fighting virtually every basic idea they were told means to be a woman (at least, I believe, to be extremely effective warriors). I would imagine that the results would be much different if we lived in a war like society where we drank the blood of our enemies, made sacrifices to God(s), etc. (a hypothetical scenario merely meant to highlight the difference mentality can make. In no way a suggested or desired outcome).
As for "breeders in combat" I don't see that as much of an issue. If the units are segregated, and when back at base two individuals decide to blow off steam, I see no reason, living in modern times, why this would be an issue. There would be some problematic instances here and there, but I do not believe it would be anything crippling (or something that should bar all women from serving in a combat role). Modern medicine solves situations that might have been problematic in the past. And as is (in my understanding) sex already happens whether the military desires it or not.
Overall I don't think women should be integrated into male combat units. As social psychology and gender stereotypes stand (not including the physical differences), the dynamic would just be too foreign to the average modern individual to effectively operate as a team (though there are, as always, exceptions to every rule).
But I do believe that there should be a combat unit for those women who feel called to such action, and to be able to aspire to. Every individual has the right to make that sacrifice if they are so willing, and far be it from me or anyone else to dictate otherwise. In the end, isn't the main concern that standards will drop for established units? If female warriors have their own unit to aspire to, then the original concern is a moot point.
But my guess is that the idea of segregating combat units by gender isn't Politically Correct enough for the top to earn the political points they desire.
8 months, 2 weeks ago on Rangers and SEALs to Train Women By 2015/2016
So do we cross our fingers and just hope someone has a brain; (READ) "lack of enough political motivation" (yeah right) to hold the standard? Or do we just expect a potential disaster and lives lost in whichever conflict we become embroiled in next?
Note: I am not against the idea of letting women serve in combat roles, but who really expects the DOD to implement a policy correctly and efficiently?
Haha, seriously entertaining!
9 months ago on War Stories: Lessons Learned In South Korea
@JackMurphyRGR @chipe I also question the message of this trailer. Though it was short, I get this whole "oppressed people rising up to overthrow their tyrannical government" vibe. I am no subject matter expert on the Middle East or Syria, but from the information I have gathered (including from articles on this sight) I see this "civil war" more as a proxy war for sectarian violence and religious conservatism than as the oppressed overthrowing their government.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with the people who want no part of tyrannical regimes or war, and who have to endure the suffering that they entail; but I question this whole "oppressed rising up" motif that is played throughout the media. It almost seems like a narrative written by those who want the West (and America specifically) to intervene. As Americans how can that story not pull at our heart strings, at least in the slightest? It resonates with our very identity.
And then you read things about the Al-Nusra Front, their atrocities and their ties to Al Qaeda. Or about the sectarian divisions in the Middle East. Or even looking back on what occurred in Lybia, or in Afghanistan with Bin Laden.
I feel for these people and the suffering they have to endure, but I question foreign intervention because of its extremely checkered past. And though in a perfect world it would be great if no more people lost their lives as a result of this conflict; what damage would our intervention cause? Both to us and them? In the short term and the long? And how would America be different today if the French and the English had been able to help secure the South's victory during the Civil War?
I guess it comes down to a simple moral question:
Do we really have the right to interfere?
9 months, 1 week ago on Not Anymore: A Story of Revolution
I really like the Kryptec patterns, any idea how they are standing up to the tests?
10 months ago on What’s Been ‘Camouflaged’ About Camouflaged Uniforms?
Good read. It's good to see it from the perspective of someone who was there.
10 months, 3 weeks ago on War Stories: Hurricane Katrina
Cool read. I've done a GORUCK Challenge (a 10-12 hour endurance event that generally starts at 1 am), and have been thinking about their Selection (48 hours of non-stop pain and harassment). That he has been to Selection, and voluntarily did 6 hours of burpees.... just damn impressive! He has some serious cojones!
11 months ago on Six Hours of Burpees
I have been wondering about how our troops would deploy, if this all came to a head. Thanks for laying it out for those of us who don't have the experience or knowledge to guesstimate accurately.
11 months ago on How Would Our SOF Perform in North Korea?
@Txazz @ArcticWarrior @JHR @Motojunky27 yea, had an idea about where that one was going with the mention of cartels... a first for me (never went out of my way to look for this stuff) but it's the world we live in, and it doesn't pay to keep your head in the sand...
11 months, 3 weeks ago on Syria and Chemical Weapons
... a dire crisis indeed...
@ArcticWarrior I hope that's a rhetorical question, because in all honesty I couldn't say. I try to keep up on at least all the broad strokes of our foreign policy decisions, but I know very little about OEF-P and the going-ons of that area (besides the occasional posts on SOFREP of course).
But I would gladly hear your opinion to become more enlightened on the matter.
@ArcticWarrior I have to say, though I am in awe of such a descriptive analogy, I have become somewhat lost on the relation between transnational global networks and... headcheese. I'm also now feeling somewhat nauseous as well...
I am honestly having trouble deducing the long term goals of our current foreign "policy". It seems that the current administration's goal is to destabilize the Middle East. Ok, theoretically, I get it. The more unstable the area, the less likely nations in said area will have the ability to oppose US interests. The destabilization of Syria leaves Iran all alone with no allies to turn to to withstand pressure from the West. But in reality? All we have seen from these destabilization efforts (Egypt, Lybia, now Syria) is the destruction of stable, secular countries who we have at one point or another supported (even potentially called "friend").
What does this really gain us? Other countries look to our ousting of Mubarak as a betrayal, thus decreasing the likelihood of willful cooperation with the US in the future; and in the wake of their destruction, conservative and radical movements take hold. And to the best of my recollection nation states have not been the target of the "GWOT". With our current interventionism all we are doing is empowering those who have been a thorn in US national interests/security for the past decade. We engender more hatred through our intervention and perceived double standards. And now we are actively supporting the opposition who will only take our support as long as it fits their needs and objectives, leaving us with another OBL type situation to deal with down the road.
I honestly can't pinpoint the purpose of our actions for long term success. Than again, politicians rarely seem to think in the long term so maybe my assumptions that someone else is thinking that was are naive. And don't get me wrong, I and not an isolationist by any means, but this constant interventionism and (perceived?) hypocrisy is causing blow back, and it seems like with current foreign policy we are only repeating our mistakes. If we are going to have such an interventionist policy, we should at least be overt about our short and long term policy objects. And if we are going to try to influence policy in a covert manner, our actions should be clandestine, not these hush-hush open secrets that earn us the label of meddlesome big brother and/or hypocritical a**hole (thus creating more blow back in the future).
I would love to hear all of your opinions on the matter. And please don't take this as some unpatriotic rant. It just seems to me that US destabilization efforts are doing the exact opposite; creating a region of the world united in its radicalism and creating an even more dangerous enemy of the future to contend with. And a Middle East vs. West scenario sounds much more dangerous and threatening than a few errant nation states that disagree with current US globalism/policy.
We have a big stick, but we no longer walk quietly; and a carrot is much more conducive to long term peaceful & bountiful relations than the stick.
I hope that doesn't put me on the no fly list or ruin my chances for a security clearance, haha
Great story man, glad you made it back in one piece!
11 months, 3 weeks ago on War Stories: Insurgent Roadblock, Baghdad 2006
Haha, I loved hearing these stories! Thanks for the share.
11 months, 4 weeks ago on War Stories: Hallucinating on Patrol Phase
Thank you for your service. Best wishes to the friends and family of the fallen. RIP
11 months, 4 weeks ago on Wardak: ANSF Turn on SOF?
Awesome post! Been dying to know more (or even see) something about these guys!
12 months ago on Rare 75th RRC (RRD) Recruiting Material!
Thank You for your service, RIP.
1 year ago on Our Fallen Heroes: Jason Dahlke