Quote:
Originally Posted by abc_123
That statement is horseshit, TS. And you know it.
As a current NG officer who has served over 21 years in total... 16 of those years being SF Qualified and associated with Active and NG SF. I cannot stand silent in the face of that statement...
I resent the broad-brush insinuation that just because someone is serving or has served in the NG that they somehow hold being Special Forces qualified somehow more cheaply than those who are currently "active duty" or those with active duty time that never served in the NG. The NG SF wounded don't deserve it, our dead don't deserve it and those that continue to stand ready in our formations, oftentimes needing to sign volunteer statements simply to be allowed to deploy with their units, don't deserve it.
Besides... if one were to read the article more closely the one person defending Oh, is never reported to be a COL. He is reported to be former SF in Vietnam who then served in 20th. So I guess we need to assume that some other groups beyond "National Guard Special Forces" have a different view of SF Qualification. Right?
Wrong. That would be as horseshit as the first generalization.
|
I think he was being sarcastic...
Great pic of your Boxer BTW. I love Boxers 
__________________
Primum non Nocere
"I have hung out in dangerous places a lot over the years, from combat zones to biker bars, and it is the weak, the unaware, or those looking for it, that usually find trouble.
Ain't no one getting out of this world alive. All you can do is try to have some choice in the way you go. Prepare yourself (and your affairs), and when your number is up, die on your feet fighting rather than on your knees. And make the SOBs pay dearly."
The Reaper-3 Sep 04
|