Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores": "Of course, when I've told that story in the past, grunts will retort that they must have been POGs, or Air Force, or whatever, but I don't know what they were.
There is legitimacy to that statement. Combat arms soldiers, which includes infantrymen, are required to go through combatives classes. Once they complete the course and get their basic certifications, they have combatives competitions during their training cycles.
These are informal competitions, were soldiers just have at it and wrestle each other. This usually happens on an impromptu basis provided that a soldier, certified to a higher level than the combatants, is present to supervise.
Now, your statement said that there were about two or three "Soldiers" there. Had the Soldiers been infantrymen, the guy that you talked about would've gotten his arse handed to him in front of his girlfriend. He more than likely would've ended up in the hospital.
They were being too nice about this when they said that these "Soldiers" could have been POGs, or Air Force. Since it's apparent that you didn't serve, there's a very good possibility that if this event actually did happen, those three people could've been very well nonmilitary.
Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores": There's no reason to assume they weren't Army grunts.
This is one of your main problems. You're making assumptions based on your bias. Until you've actually served in the military, there's no way for you to figure out whether these people were actually in the Army, in the military, or were simply civilians.
Well, you might say, "These guys claimed that they were in the Army."
Given the presence of stolen valor sites, where veterans expose phony service members, there's a good chance that you can't tell the difference between "phony" and "real". If you had served for 10 years in the military, you'd be able to recall that event and say precisely what those guys were.
If you served for 10 years, like you claimed, and you're making that assumption, there's a good chance that you served those years in the reserves. During that time, you had no real active duty time outside of the training courses that you attended.
That's being nice about it.
You claim that you served. However, your comments here indicate that there's a good chance that you're making false claims about your being a veteran.
Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores: I can go to some of the bars I used to haunt when I was younger, throw a pebble into the crowd, and probably hit some drunk redneck who could beat the shit out of the average Army grunt.
Nowhere in your stories did you indicate that you investigated whether those people were in the military or not. Your litmus test here isn't sufficient to tell you whether you could hit somebody that could beat up a soldier.
However, there is a way to test this. Walk into one of the bars that you used to hunt. Toss a pebble into the crowd. Pull aside the person that the pebble hits. Invite him to go to an army base. Have him challenge one of the soldiers, engaged in combatives, to a fight.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people, that you identify as a redneck, would think that you're nuts. They'd probably kick your arse for being stupid enough to throw pebble on them.
If you had any real military experience, you wouldn't have doubts as to who those people were that harassed your friend's girlfriend. It'd be blatantly obvious whether they were military or not given your "military" experience.
You may not have had the military experience back then, but your follow-on military experience would've answered that question.
The fact that you're still guessing at this point, after that supposedly 10 years of service, argues strongly against your claims that you served for 10 years. Again, if you did serve those 10 years, it probably was strictly one weekend a month, two weeks a summer, and whatever course they had to send you two.
No real active duty experience. If you did serve in active duty, your best bet is to not even admit it. You actually make yourself come across as "that guy," the problem child, the incompetent, while "in" the service.
No comments:
Post a Comment