old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
They are different. Both are significant accomplishments. The 75th are SOF & should be recognized as such. It's an inter-service squabble. Nothing new. Had Cotton said "Ranger qualified" or "qualified as a Ranger" (as Jack Reed has) there'd be no issue. Do you think the public would notice or know the difference ? Like the color of the beret, it's an inter-service prestige thing, but a distinction without a difference to the public.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
They are different. Both are significant accomplishments. The 75th are SOF & should be recognized as such. It's an inter-service squabble. Nothing new. Had Cotton said "Ranger qualified" or "qualified as a Ranger" (as Jack Reed has) there'd be no issue. Do you think the public would notice or know the difference ? Like the color of the beret, it's an inter-service prestige thing, but a distinction without a difference to the public.
I know several Rangers from the 75th, I think they'd prefer you not mentioning being a "Ranger" unless you're from the 75th. Why is that? I bet Cotton knows the answer. Is the general public's understanding here the barometer for what is accurate or not? I don't disagree that it's more of an inter-service squabble, but I'm sure you agree that it's not simple a case of semantics.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
They are different. Both are significant accomplishments. The 75th are SOF & should be recognized as such. It's an inter-service squabble. Nothing new. Had Cotton said "Ranger qualified" or "qualified as a Ranger" (as Jack Reed has) there'd be no issue. Do you think the public would notice or know the difference ? Like the color of the beret, it's an inter-service prestige thing, but a distinction without a difference to the public.
I know several Rangers from the 75th, I think they'd prefer you not mentioning being a "Ranger" unless you're from the 75th. Why is that? I bet Cotton knows the answer. Is the general public's understanding here the barometer for what is accurate or not? I don't disagree that it's more of an inter-service squabble, but I'm sure you agree that it's not simple a case of semantics.
Agree. I just don't think that Cotton had an intent to deceive. He's smart enough not to invite the controversy when he could have just said "Ranger qualified" as the Army now recommends, & no one in the general public would have noticed any difference or thought any less of him.
If it bothered Crow, & he wasn't seeking political advantage, he could have taken it up with Cotton privately, as a "Ranger buddy", as the General recommended.
old salt wrote
Agree. I just don't think that Cotton had an intent to deceive. He's smart enough not to invite the controversy when he could have just said "Ranger qualified" as the Army now recommends, & no one in the general public would have noticed any difference or thought any less of him.
That's pretty much the whole point though, salty. I doubt that he had any intent to deceive but like so many other veterans he was exaggerating his military experience a bit knowing full well that the general public (most of them) wouldn't know the difference. He got called out on it and should have known damn well that he would as he's well aware of that inter-service squabble thing.
You'll like this one...recently ran into a Vietnam veteran (so he says). Guy told me he was a cook and corpsman. Cooked most of the time but when the mortars came in he tended to the wounded. I suppose some of the general public will buy that, but me...not so much. Geezuz H!!!
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
They are different. Both are significant accomplishments. The 75th are SOF & should be recognized as such. It's an inter-service squabble. Nothing new. Had Cotton said "Ranger qualified" or "qualified as a Ranger" (as Jack Reed has) there'd be no issue. Do you think the public would notice or know the difference ? Like the color of the beret, it's an inter-service prestige thing, but a distinction without a difference to the public.
I know several Rangers from the 75th, I think they'd prefer you not mentioning being a "Ranger" unless you're from the 75th. Why is that? I bet Cotton knows the answer. Is the general public's understanding here the barometer for what is accurate or not? I don't disagree that it's more of an inter-service squabble, but I'm sure you agree that it's not simply a case of semantics.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
They are different. Both are significant accomplishments. The 75th are SOF & should be recognized as such. It's an inter-service squabble. Nothing new. Had Cotton said "Ranger qualified" or "qualified as a Ranger" (as Jack Reed has) there'd be no issue. Do you think the public would notice or know the difference ? Like the color of the beret, it's an inter-service prestige thing, but a distinction without a difference to the public.
I know several Rangers from the 75th, I think they'd prefer you not mentioning being a "Ranger" unless you're from the 75th. Why is that? I bet Cotton knows the answer. Is the general public's understanding here the barometer for what is accurate or not? I don't disagree that it's more of an inter-service squabble, but I'm sure you agree that it's not simple a case of semantics.
Agree. I just don't think that Cotton had an intent to deceive. He's smart enough not to invite the controversy when he could have just said "Ranger qualified" as the Army now recommends, & no one in the general public would have noticed any difference or thought any less of him.
If it bothered Crow, & he wasn't seeking political advantage, he could have taken it up with Cotton privately, as a "Ranger buddy", as the General recommended.
Oh, so you're saying it's similar to Blumenthal jumping back and forth between saying serving "in" Vietnam and "during" Vietnam.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
They are different. Both are significant accomplishments. The 75th are SOF & should be recognized as such. It's an inter-service squabble. Nothing new. Had Cotton said "Ranger qualified" or "qualified as a Ranger" (as Jack Reed has) there'd be no issue. Do you think the public would notice or know the difference ? Like the color of the beret, it's an inter-service prestige thing, but a distinction without a difference to the public.
I know several Rangers from the 75th, I think they'd prefer you not mentioning being a "Ranger" unless you're from the 75th. Why is that? I bet Cotton knows the answer. Is the general public's understanding here the barometer for what is accurate or not? I don't disagree that it's more of an inter-service squabble, but I'm sure you agree that it's not simple a case of semantics.
Agree. I just don't think that Cotton had an intent to deceive. He's smart enough not to invite the controversy when he could have just said "Ranger qualified" as the Army now recommends, & no one in the general public would have noticed any difference or thought any less of him.
If it bothered Crow, & he wasn't seeking political advantage, he could have taken it up with Cotton privately, as a "Ranger buddy", as the General recommended.
Oh, so you're saying it's similar to Blumenthal jumping back and forth between saying serving "in" Vietnam and "during" Vietnam.
Not that similar. Blumey talked about the hostility he felt as a returning vet.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
They are different. Both are significant accomplishments. The 75th are SOF & should be recognized as such. It's an inter-service squabble. Nothing new. Had Cotton said "Ranger qualified" or "qualified as a Ranger" (as Jack Reed has) there'd be no issue. Do you think the public would notice or know the difference ? Like the color of the beret, it's an inter-service prestige thing, but a distinction without a difference to the public.
I know several Rangers from the 75th, I think they'd prefer you not mentioning being a "Ranger" unless you're from the 75th. Why is that? I bet Cotton knows the answer. Is the general public's understanding here the barometer for what is accurate or not? I don't disagree that it's more of an inter-service squabble, but I'm sure you agree that it's not simple a case of semantics.
Agree. I just don't think that Cotton had an intent to deceive. He's smart enough not to invite the controversy when he could have just said "Ranger qualified" as the Army now recommends, & no one in the general public would have noticed any difference or thought any less of him.
If it bothered Crow, & he wasn't seeking political advantage, he could have taken it up with Cotton privately, as a "Ranger buddy", as the General recommended.
Oh, so you're saying it's similar to Blumenthal jumping back and forth between saying serving "in" Vietnam and "during" Vietnam.
Not that similar. Blumey talked about the hostility he felt as a returning vet.
Sounds like Bloomers is repeating the same bullchit that just is not true. There is not one single Vietnam vet that I ever served under that would not have busted open the face of some long haired, maggot infested hippie that wanted to get in their grill about serving in vietnam. These combat veterans had survived in the jungle fighting the viet cong and the NVA. A stoned out hippie would have been less annoying than a skeeter. How many old hippies walking around today with no teeth would be directly proportional to how many veterans they spit on.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
They are different. Both are significant accomplishments. The 75th are SOF & should be recognized as such. It's an inter-service squabble. Nothing new. Had Cotton said "Ranger qualified" or "qualified as a Ranger" (as Jack Reed has) there'd be no issue. Do you think the public would notice or know the difference ? Like the color of the beret, it's an inter-service prestige thing, but a distinction without a difference to the public.
I know several Rangers from the 75th, I think they'd prefer you not mentioning being a "Ranger" unless you're from the 75th. Why is that? I bet Cotton knows the answer. Is the general public's understanding here the barometer for what is accurate or not? I don't disagree that it's more of an inter-service squabble, but I'm sure you agree that it's not simple a case of semantics.
Agree. I just don't think that Cotton had an intent to deceive. He's smart enough not to invite the controversy when he could have just said "Ranger qualified" as the Army now recommends, & no one in the general public would have noticed any difference or thought any less of him.
If it bothered Crow, & he wasn't seeking political advantage, he could have taken it up with Cotton privately, as a "Ranger buddy", as the General recommended.
Oh, so you're saying it's similar to Blumenthal jumping back and forth between saying serving "in" Vietnam and "during" Vietnam.
Not that similar. Blumey talked about the hostility he felt as a returning vet.
Cotton has in fact suggested that he served with those Rangers. A 2014 campaign ad from his first Senate run, for instance, features Cotton telling the viewing audience that he "made tough decisions as an Army Ranger in Iraq." Perhaps most egregiously, a 2012 congressional campaign ad approved and paid for by Cotton even claims that "as a Ranger, Tom Cotton earned the Bronze Star."
…
Two Republican Ranger School grads sparred over the issue in last year's New Hampshire's GOP Senate primary. Colorado lawyer Bryant "Corky" Messner claimed he "served as a Ranger," but his opponent, retired Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc, disagreed.
"Unless you served in a Ranger battalion, I think you're overstretching your claim," Bolduc told Messner last spring, reported Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler. "I'm Ranger-qualified, and I always stipulate that. I never served in a Ranger battalion." Kessler, after several conversations with Army officials, rated it a two-Pinocchio lie on Messner's part.
CU77 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:49 pm
Cotton has more 'splainin to do:
Cotton has in fact suggested that he served with those Rangers. A 2014 campaign ad from his first Senate run, for instance, features Cotton telling the viewing audience that he "made tough decisions as an Army Ranger in Iraq." Perhaps most egregiously, a 2012 congressional campaign ad approved and paid for by Cotton even claims that "as a Ranger, Tom Cotton earned the Bronze Star."
…
Did Cotton make any reference to the 75th ? Was the 75th even part of the discussion ? If not, how was he "suggesting" he served in the 75th.
He was Ranger qualified. He saw combat in Iraq. He made tough decisions. Were members of the 75th the only ones who made tough decisions ?
You're putting Messner's words in Cotton's mouth. You guys are trying too hard to make something of this.
ToastDunk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:43 pm
Right. And I'm sure all Rangers from the 75th would appreciate Cotton clarifying this matter for the public. Just so there's no confusion.
Cotton has clarified it, as have several other soldiers.
Note Newsweek's weasel move going back to update their 2015 report when they referred to the first 2 women graduates of the Ranger school as
"Rangers".
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
I was not certain where to insert my 2 cents on this topic, this is as good a spot as any. My 2nd lieutenant earned his ranger tab and used that training to pass on to all of us. He could have transferred to the 1st or 2nd ranger battalion that is a huge step for any soldier. There is a huge difference between graduating from Ranger school and joining a Ranger battalion. The important part is what you learn when you are at Ranger school. I could make similar argument about parachute training. There are quite a few members of the military that complete the airborne course, they make their 5 Hollywood jumps, they pin on their wings and carry on with their careers. That does not make them PARATROOPERS, it makes them airborne qualified. You do not earn the title of a paratrooper until you make your first jump with your unit. The Hollywood BS goes out the window. You now have to be trained how to rig up with your main chute, your reserve chute, your ruck sack and your weapons case. You have to learn how to S fold your lowering lines for your weapons case and ruck sack and attach them to your harness. You can forget about daylight, because once you start making tactical jumps you will only be jumping at night. You then have to learn ASAP to release your canopy from your harness so the wind does not drag you halfway across the drop zone. When that is all done you have to orient yourself as to where your rally point is on the drop zone. if you don't do so you will be wandering around the drop zone all night long trying to find your unit. I made 38 static line jumps and each and every one was a learning experience.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:35 pm
He's publicly calling BS on Crow for gratuitously politicizing a unit in his former command.
Which he would not have done if Cotton was a Democrat and Crow was a Republican. Then he would have been on the other side.
We've all seen this movie before. There's no great principle here, just counting up Rs and Ds.
What's your basis for that ? What are your indicators of the General's political leanings ?
He doesn't want to see a petty "dumb" debate over Ranger quals.
What's your basis for assuming otherwise? Using social media.
Yes, I checked his record.
My basis is what the General said.
You are accusing the General of political bias without any evidence to support it.
He is chastising one soldier for publicly taking a cheap shot at a fellow soldier for political purposes.
on social media.
He was replying to Crow's social media cheap shot.
He was inserting himself politically to a politician on behalf of another politician and using social media to do it.
Pick up the phone if you think you actually have any authority. Simple.
Cotton is a man of honor, I'm sure he'll clarify for his constituents the distinction between obtaining the Ranger tab at US Army Ranger School, and serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Or are you suggesting Old Salt they are one in the same?
I was not certain where to insert my 2 cents on this topic, this is as good a spot as any. My 2nd lieutenant earned his ranger tab and used that training to pass on to all of us. He could have transferred to the 1st or 2nd ranger battalion that is a huge step for any soldier. There is a huge difference between graduating from Ranger school and joining a Ranger battalion. The important part is what you learn when you are at Ranger school. I could make similar argument about parachute training. There are quite a few members of the military that complete the airborne course, they make their 5 Hollywood jumps, they pin on their wings and carry on with their careers. That does not make them PARATROOPERS, it makes them airborne qualified. You do not earn the title of a paratrooper until you make your first jump with your unit. The Hollywood BS goes out the window. You now have to be trained how to rig up with your main chute, your reserve chute, your ruck sack and your weapons case. You have to learn how to S fold your lowering lines for your weapons case and ruck sack and attach them to your harness. You can forget about daylight, because once you start making tactical jumps you will only be jumping at night. You then have to learn ASAP to release your canopy from your harness so the wind does not drag you halfway across the drop zone. When that is all done you have to orient yourself as to where your rally point is on the drop zone. if you don't do so you will be wandering around the drop zone all night long trying to find your unit. I made 38 static line jumps and each and every one was a learning experience.
