VIRGINIA BEACH, VA- An anonymous Public Affairs Officer (PAO) for Seal Team Six says the movie “Zero Dark Thirty” is factually inaccurate, portraying Seal Team Six members like the douchebags from Seal Team Two.
“At one point Joel Edgarton’s character wears a polo shirt with a popped collar,” the PAO said. “Team Six doesn’t do that. We’re the baddest motherfuckers on the planet. We don’t wear shit like Tapout shirts, Ed Hardy jeans, or fedoras. That’s Team Two.”
The members of Seal Team Two, who the rest of the Special Warfare community calls “very special operators,” gained their reputation in the last decade as the Navy’s demand for SEALs skyrocketed. Not enough sailors were passing Basic Underwater Demolition/Seal (BUD/S) training, so SEAL Team Two began recruiting civilians from local tanning salons and UFC parties. Actual SEALs in Team Two were transferred to other units, including the illustrious Team 11
“Team Two is a joke,” the PAO from SEAL Team Six said. “Their PT uniform is a sleeveless t-shirt with slits down the side so people can check out their rib tats. On their last deployment they petitioned the White House to open a Hooters in Afghanistan. A few years ago they spent their entire training budget to make a calendar,” the PAO paused. “What’s up with that guy second from the right?”
Read the rest on the Duffle Blog.
So funny. I want to see SEAL Team Two's response LMAO
That team 11 link is a joke right
@majrod " When and who mentioned the Domino theory before we invaded? Where they key decision makers in the administration? Again, you fall prey to revisionist history. " Wolfowitz and gang mentioned it, but I don't think the gang really bought into it, it was part of their ever evolving rationale to invade Iraq. If you track Wolfowitz' thought process from the early 90s and on, you can see these justifications being stacked on top of each other. There's more in the gang's memoirs, but I'd have to re-borrow these books over again--the evolution of this rationale. Samantha Power and gang, now those crazy folks believe in democracy. " How does the spat between Wolfowitz and Shinseki support we wanted to install a democracy in Iraq? It doesn’t from my reading. He pooh poohed the numbers. " He pooh poohed the numbers citing the Iraqi professional middle class were going to take up the slack as soon as the regime fell. You're right "regime change" didn't necessarily mean Democracy, but who in 2003 would convince others that another Saddam in Iraq would be a great idea, after regime change? " Even more so if one ignores that one is over a DECADE and the other over FIVE years BEFORE the Iraq invasion and you were trying to make the case that Clinton wanted a Democracy in Iraq. " Clinton didn't want anything to do with Iraq. I shared those links to showcase Wolfowitz' evolving rationale to go into Iraq, they finally got their best reasons after 9/11. But he and others have been wanting to fuck that poodle, since getting blue balls after the Gulf War I, is my point. " While many whole heartedly condemn Iraq what would the world situation look like if Saddam had remained in power. Afghanistan would be the same unless we made a decision to take on nuclear armed Pakistan. Iran may not be as influential in Iraq but what’s to say that Saddam may have not come to an accommodation or worse, restarted his own nuke program seeing how ineffectively we’ve dealt with Iran. " Agree with Af-Pak and Iran. I gotta feeling the world situation would've been more manageable had Saddam been left alone, and less of our boys (and girls) dead. The juice just wasn't worth the squeeze, but that's neither here or there. I like your perspective though, and agree with you that BW wasn't conservative, hell more Hispanics voted for that guy than Romney could ever wish for. " We really need to carry this on elsewhere though and just to be clear I don't think your a lefty or blame America hippie. " Great talk, thanks truly. As for hippie, I prefer the term metrosexual, my go to site when logging online is Uncrate.com and the Art of Manliness. ps~ I'll keep looking for more on the democracy domino theory, you can see bits and pieces of this though in Bush's speeches pre-invasion, but you're right I don't think there was an actual white paper laid out, like the Kirkpatrick doctrine, etc. I still owe you that one. Again thanks for this talk. @ArcticWarrior @LauraKinCA
@TheAtrium BTW & FTR I'm not "pro Bush". The guy like his daddy was NEVER a conservative. I think he did an overall great job with a unique enemy. The Patriot Act is necessary but highly flawed. He gave drunken sailors a bad name ref his spending and his fiscal policies e.g TARP made us all the worse and served as an excuse for even worse spending to the point that it's a national security issue. I defend him at times because the onslaught is ridiculous in its slant and largely iuncontested effforts to rewrite history. Ever heard the "two wars" line? We really need to carry this on elsewhere though and just to be clear I don't think your a lefty or blame America hippie. @ArcticWarrior @LauraKinCA
@TheAtrium “After there were no WMDs found they REVERTED to their original premise was the point of that Bush Nov '03 speech.” (emphasis added) No. “Revert” means you have to have the original premise sometime previously. There is no evidence that before we invaded we had espoused the spreading of Democracy as one of the reasons to invade. “A new regime” is far from a democratic one. When and who mentioned the Domino theory before we invaded? Where they key decision makers in the administration? Again, you fall prey to revisionist history. There was substantial evidence that Saddam had WMD and it was not just the US and BOTH its political parties that accepted it as credible. I won’t belabor you with the very recognizable names and quotes. Curveball, Plame etc. all gained notoriety AFTER the fact with the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight. How does the spat between Wolfowitz and Shinseki support we wanted to install a democracy in Iraq? It doesn’t from my reading. He pooh poohed the numbers. “I understand we can chase each others' tails on semantics and what was said and how it was said, but the point is the Iraq War was 10 yrs in the making when we finally went into Iraq in 2003.” Agree but that mutually agreed upon fact coupled with Democrat agreement on what a threat Saddam was should cause pause in anyone exercising independent thought that spreading democracy wasn’t one of the reasons to invade Iraq. Your links to the 1992 Def Planning Guidance and the letter written Clinton are interesting . Even more so if one ignores that one is over a DECADE and the other over FIVE years BEFORE the Iraq invasion and you were trying to make the case that Clinton wanted a Democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately like the overwhelming majority of analysis into “why Iraq” it ignores the singular most important reason for why OIF happened, that being 9-11. Pundits and historians singularly ignore the mood of the nation, an overwhelming threat, concern, evidence for the capability of an attack and flush with what appeared a resounding defeat of Al Qeada, all serve as driving factors to eliminate an adversary (contrary to any analysis of any other conflict we’ve entered, hmmmmmm). Then there’s the untouched subjects that unlike Pakistan, Iran, Libya etc. Saddam underestimated the US again and instead of defusing the situation held firm and even racheted up tensions. I’m always entertained by the “blame America first” crowd’s slanted “analysis” (not saying you are one though you have bought into their HEAVILY slanted and incomplete analysis) which isn’t so much analysis (an effort to learn) as it is placing blame to achieve some sort of vicarious sense of supremacy over a deeply hated president they thought illegitimate and not up to the task at hand. Yet a decade later we are still using almost all his policies and a highly capable military he largely is responsible for creating. If we applied the same rigor and slanted analysis to WWII (or a slew of other wars) we had little justification for going to war against the Nazis except for the fact they declared war on us. There is little to learn from that approach and hence why I reject it. I try to base my analysis of Iraq from a military professionals professional perspective and not a political one. If I was in the decision makers shoes without 20/20 hindsight what did I know or could I have known to make the best decision possible? That’s how we learn from history vs. just repeat it. Since you brought up the largely unrelated domino theory, never a pre OIF reason for invasion I’d like to plant a seed. While many whole heartedly condemn Iraq what would the world situation look like if Saddam had remained in power. Afghanistan would be the same unless we made a decision to take on nuclear armed Pakistan. Iran may not be as influential in Iraq but what’s to say that Saddam may have not come to an accommodation or worse, restarted his own nuke program seeing how ineffectively we’ve dealt with Iran. These are issues never addressed by the Bush Derangement crowd but none the less make an impact on today’s decisions. Mom told me, “everything happens for a reason”. I didn’t like it much but no doubt I learned… There’s a lesson there… :) Being this thread has gotten so long I suggest we continue the conversation elsewhere or at some other time. @ArcticWarrior@LauraKinCA