U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2015, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Long Neck , DE
4,903 posts, read 2,773,197 times
Reputation: 8002

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by don1945 View Post

Do these people not realize their stories will be checked out ?

Don
I saw this on tv news. he said it so easy without thinking. He does not seem too different than the people who lied and screwed up the VA to begin with. Another great Obama appointment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2015, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, not Paris. #MAGA.
9,693 posts, read 5,286,166 times
Reputation: 9671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Year2525 View Post
Secretary of the VA lied about serving in Special Forces. U.S. Veterans secretary apologizes for misstating military service: ABC News

The liar said he "misstated". Ah, no... he lied. Time to start calling liars what they are, liars.
I really don't understand the need to lie, especially about something as verifiable as military service! The secretary should be ashamed of himself, though I'm not going as far as to call for his resignation if he's an otherwise competent administrator (note, the VA secretaries haven't all been too competent).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
8,887 posts, read 4,838,194 times
Reputation: 7691
Can someone define what "Special Forces" constitutes these days, please?

The article did say he had a Ranger tab and to me, Ranger is special forces though it is more a qualification, to me, than a special service.

Two other things on this matter in general. First might be how definitions change over time. I sometimes "get into trouble" when I talk about what I did in the Navy back in the 80's because it appears what I called "anti terrorism" is neither not what it is called to today nor, if it is, is so much different and is really nothing.....and perhaps a reason why we are so messed up. What I did was coordinate and trained troops, a facility, so we did not appear as an easy target, that anyone observing us got the message to go elsewhere. But it seems these days "anti-terrorism" is some power point annual training that people rush through to be able to go out on liberty, that it is all about things that are "common sense".

That for me to say that I did "anti-terrorism" and then imply what I did as something vital makes me a liar in some peoples' eyes.

BUT WAIT, that's just the example, the illustration. This is not about me but just asking the question that if what we did in the past is now known under different terms, in different ways, do we change saying what we did to seem more truthful in the present even though it would be lying in the past? IE, if one wants to say what I did in the past is now known as counter terrorism, that is quite in opposition to how I knew it in the 80's. In the 80's, counter terrorism was SWAT and Delta and I certainly did not do that.

Secondly, is it "wrong" if you say what you did in a way so you might be understood better by those who were not in or said in manner that is brief as oppose to going into long and perhaps unneeded or even undesirable details? For example, for the various things I did, I have been called a "Spook" and as such, it is usually far easier for me to say I was than to go into details.

In a way, it is being honest to yourself and not leaping through hoops and over hurdles to convince the person you are talking to on the level that they believe. It's like what the law officer, at a job interview for an investigator position in a Secretary's Office, said when I showed him my credentials. "It's understandable why you believe the way you do." Perhaps, the belief, was wrong by the standards of many, perhaps it was right, but what it comes down to that I was being honest when I said it, when I put it down in writing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 01:29 PM
 
Location: USA
7,778 posts, read 9,619,522 times
Reputation: 11672
Our congress members, senators and president lie to us consistently. What's the problem now? Best I can tell, we seem to like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
20,344 posts, read 20,446,632 times
Reputation: 31593
just for the record, I'd like to say I mispoke when I earlier reconted my role in the discovery of the Mississippi River and driving the French out of Missouri
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 04:12 PM
 
2,004 posts, read 1,141,435 times
Reputation: 2904
Simple, Special Forces (capitalized) are an elite group of units within the US Army more commonly known among civilians as "Green Berets" although the soldiers themselves do not use that term to describe themselves. If you hear someone say they are or were a Green Beret, they are posers and liars. "Special Forces" were officially recognized as an established enduring unit by President Kennedy. The other special operations forces like Rangers, LRRP and so on are very different and operate more as conventional forces but for special circumstances. Special Forces operate as unconventional warfare units to implement counter insurgency operations and so on. While Special Forces and special operations forces sound similar in name, they are very different. After having been corrected often enough, even the media now gets it right, just listen to the terms used. If the words operations is included, that is almost certain not to be Special Forces. It is a big difference. Just as you wouldn't call a physician a nurse you would not use Special Forces to describe units like the Rangers. While both have unique capabilities they are completely unlike each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 12:08 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
8,887 posts, read 4,838,194 times
Reputation: 7691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Year2525 View Post
Simple, Special Forces (capitalized) are an elite group of units within the US Army more commonly known among civilians as "Green Berets" although the soldiers themselves do not use that term to describe themselves. If you hear someone say they are or were a Green Beret, they are posers and liars. "Special Forces" were officially recognized as an established enduring unit by President Kennedy. The other special operations forces like Rangers, LRRP and so on are very different and operate more as conventional forces but for special circumstances. Special Forces operate as unconventional warfare units to implement counter insurgency operations and so on. While Special Forces and special operations forces sound similar in name, they are very different. After having been corrected often enough, even the media now gets it right, just listen to the terms used. If the words operations is included, that is almost certain not to be Special Forces. It is a big difference. Just as you wouldn't call a physician a nurse you would not use Special Forces to describe units like the Rangers. While both have unique capabilities they are completely unlike each other.
Accepted.....sort of. You did answer my question but I'd be careful about using the definition, the recognition from one administration to another for definitions change to suit the administration. After all, JFK had a Naval Blockade, which is an act of war, called a quarantine instead.

But at any rate, I asked, you answered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 12:58 AM
 
2,004 posts, read 1,141,435 times
Reputation: 2904
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
Accepted.....sort of. You did answer my question but I'd be careful about using the definition, the recognition from one administration to another for definitions change to suit the administration. After all, JFK had a Naval Blockade, which is an act of war, called a quarantine instead.

But at any rate, I asked, you answered.
While the definition of acts may change with administrations, Special Forces have not. This is one of the reasons another description, special operations forces was coined. In summary Special Forces are special operations forces but not all special operations forces are Special Forces. To date, every President has recognized and followed the proper protocol or having made a mistake, promptly corrected their references. SF has managed to stay out of the limelight far more effectively than the Navy SEALs although that might now change given the medias propensity to dissect everything in the process of reporting about something completely different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 04:23 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,088 posts, read 7,323,159 times
Reputation: 6650
At first sight I thought it was a case of exagerration but the date and Ranger traininig led me to a similar view as TamaraSavannah. In the era in question, mid-1970s, before the plethora of what is now Special Forces, Ranger training would be considered special forces training as in commando which is what Rangers evolved from when reinstituted in WW2. It does make sense to me now. Certainly the now defunct groups from the Vietnam era, LRRPs, MACV-SOG would be considered special forces although the are not in the current TOO.

I recall one Admiral shot himself a few years ago after being hounded for attaching a V device to his Bronze Star. Exagerrating service and decorations is a serious issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 06:47 PM
 
2,004 posts, read 1,141,435 times
Reputation: 2904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
At first sight I thought it was a case of exagerration but the date and Ranger traininig led me to a similar view as TamaraSavannah. In the era in question, mid-1970s, before the plethora of what is now Special Forces, Ranger training would be considered special forces training as in commando which is what Rangers evolved from when reinstituted in WW2. It does make sense to me now. Certainly the now defunct groups from the Vietnam era, LRRPs, MACV-SOG would be considered special forces although the are not in the current TOO.

I recall one Admiral shot himself a few years ago after being hounded for attaching a V device to his Bronze Star. Exagerrating service and decorations is a serious issue.
Special Forces have been around a lot longer than the 70s, a lot longer. There is no special forces in the US Military, there are "Special Forces" a distinct group and there are special operations forces, they are not the same and once being informed of the difference, continuing to confuse the two illustrates an unwillingness to accept facts. LRRP were not considered Special Forces. The same is for MACV SOG although SF were at times attached to them or operated within them and that might be the source of the confusion. Anyone who has any meaningful purpose in life usually takes some care and holds some dignity in their vocation, job or service. Calling a technician a mechanic is really dumb if you know the difference and if you don't, not learning the difference is the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top