Please someone, end this debate--war veteran or not.

[koshergrl]

I honestly don't care about your position, except that it really has no bearing in this particular discussion.

I don't do the "everybody is right and everybody is wrong" thing, just as I don't do the 'relative definition' thing. I think to take such namby pamby stances defeats the purpose of intelligent debate and discourse.

PARTICULARLY when the question is about the DEFINITION of a term.

 

[Kondor3]

I can't help it that other people have misconceptions about what "entitlement program" means. I happen to know what it means, and when I use the term, I use it correctly. In fact, you can count on me to use every term I use correctly.

And people who aren't capable of grasping the fact that words do have meanings, and aren't just whatever we mean them to mean, in the moment we use them... annoy the hell out of me.

Personality-type clash in progress...

People who obsess over Literalism in the face of solid evidence of widespread alternative usages can prove equally annoying...

Linear and Concrete Thinking have their limitations in a broad-ranging and subjective philosophical or perceptive context...

 

[koshergrl]

Meh. Words have meanings. It will be O.K.

 

[Mojo2]

Per the American Legion

PS...I think you're full of shit, kondor:

A VETERAN
-whether Active Duty, Retired, National Guard, or Reserve,
Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine-
is someone who,
at one point in his or her life,
signed a blank check made payable to
"The United States of America"
for an amount
"up to, and including, my life."

American Legion Ernest Peterson Post 228: VETERAN DEFINED​

A veteran is someone who served under oath and in uniform. And a veteran is a veteran.

But, you are going to make a mistake if you advise "Dad" to make the claim of being a Korean War Veteran when in reality he was merely a Korean War era veteran.

A mistake that could turn ugly or serious if revealed to real veterans of that war.

I'm just tellin ya it's not a matter of opinion or personal interpretation.

Kondor3 is absolutely right.

But, with that final warning, you do what you want.

 

[Mojo2]

I can't help it that other people have misconceptions about what "entitlement program" means. I happen to know what it means, and when I use the term, I use it correctly. In fact, you can count on me to use every term I use correctly.

And people who aren't capable of grasping the fact that words do have meanings, and aren't just whatever we mean them to mean, in the moment we use them... annoy the hell out of me.

Call your local Army (Navy, Air Force, USMC, Coast Guard) recruiting office.

You'll see.

 

[lakeview]

Is the father a member of the VFW or could he join the VFW if he wanted to?

 

[Kondor3]

I honestly don't care about your position...

How sad for you... I cared about yours enough to be respectful of it and you.

"...except that it really has no bearing in this particular discussion..."

Well-founded Alternative Usages and Modern Revisionist-Usages and Perceptions have EVERYTHING to do with providing a range of well-considered feedback to the OP, as it pertains to perceptive disputes amongst veterans on the subject, and are every bit as timely and relevant to the discussion as your own Literalist or Traditional position.

"...I don't do the 'everybody is right and everybody is wrong' thing..."

Yes. Your black-and-white intransigence was evident from the very beginning, to be sure.

"...just as I don't do the 'relative definition' thing. I think to take such namby pamby stances defeats the purpose of intelligent debate and discourse..."

I do not believe that the insistence of large numbers of veterans and elements of VA programming which recognize and perpetuate such distinctions constitute some kind of namby-pamby dilution of terminology, but, rather, a clarification; one that has been a long time in the making, which proves quite useful, and which has gained a broad acceptance as a matter of categorization and courtesy amongst veterans themselves.

Oh, and, just for grins and giggles... it may very well be perceived as a truism, that a rigid, inflexible insistence upon black-and-white in a realm of grey which is given over to multiple valid perspectives and customs and usage, is also unhelpful in advancing intelligent dialogue and debate.

"...PARTICULARLY when the question is about the DEFINITION of a term."

The world (the veteran population itself, and the VA, and Congress) all have room for multiple usages and degrees and shades of accuracy in the real world of the grey rather than the rigid and inflexible black-and-white of hyper-literalism. The dominant usage today (and for decades, now) is to make a distinction between a War Veteran and a War-Era Veteran. I'm content to be in good and large and well-considered company on that score.

 

[koshergrl]

I can't help it that other people have misconceptions about what "entitlement program" means. I happen to know what it means, and when I use the term, I use it correctly. In fact, you can count on me to use every term I use correctly.

And people who aren't capable of grasping the fact that words do have meanings, and aren't just whatever we mean them to mean, in the moment we use them... annoy the hell out of me.

Call your local Army (Navy, Air Force, USMC, Coast Guard) recruiting office.

You'll see.

I'll see...what?

And since when did RECRUITERS become the arbiters of correct terminology? Don't make me laugh...whoops, too late!

 

[Mojo2]

I can't help it that other people have misconceptions about what "entitlement program" means. I happen to know what it means, and when I use the term, I use it correctly. In fact, you can count on me to use every term I use correctly.

And people who aren't capable of grasping the fact that words do have meanings, and aren't just whatever we mean them to mean, in the moment we use them... annoy the hell out of me.

Call your local Army (Navy, Air Force, USMC, Coast Guard) recruiting office.

You'll see.

I'll see...what?

And since when did RECRUITERS become the arbiters of correct terminology? Don't make me laugh...whoops, too late!

koshergrl, you are some piece of work!

But hey, you do what you do.

 

[longknife]

Why oh why did this thread about a simple question turn into such a massive pile of male bovine excrement?

Bye

 

[koshergrl]

There, it's better now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Out of respect to those who were in combat, I would never pretend to be one of them. They are at a "higher level" and deserve to be placed on a pedestal. They deserve whatever the country can do for them. Including health care and help getting an education and a job.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...million-veterans-say-happy-veteran-s-day.html

Thank you for posting this. I don't think it can be repeated often enough that we owe our vets the very existence of our country. Right or left, any congress person who votes to shit on our vets should be voted out of office.

================

As to the OP -

Just because someone did not see combat, they did give up a chunk of their life. They disrupted and put on hold their own plans, their job or education and their family. I have very good reason to say that I would not ever want to demean or take away from the experience of combat but, giving up several years of your life is a huge sacrifice in its self.

 

[Kondor3]

"...As to the OP... ust because someone did not see combat, they did give up a chunk of their life. They disrupted and put on hold their own plans, their job or education and their family. I have very good reason to say that I would not ever want to demean or take away from the experience of combat but, giving up several years of your life is a huge sacrifice in its self."

And yet, to give someone who spent their service-time behind the wheel of a semi-tractor-trailer truck or a personnel desk - the way that I did - thousands of miles from the war-zone - the same honors and labeling as someone who served in a War Ops theater or who actually saw combat, does a grave disservice to those who risked or lost more.

Heckuva quandry, but, not everyone can win at the honors-game, just for showing up.

I (and most non-combat vets) I know are perfectly content to categorize ourselves as -Era Vets rather than War-Vets for the reasons outlined earlier in the thread.

We 'others' did, indeed, put our hat into the ring as well, during wartime, but were not chosen to be sent into the war-zone, and, of course, we proudly wear the appellation 'Veteran', and get nearly the same benefits and honors that combat-vets do, but it is fitting and proper and just to give them (combat vets) that slight distinguishing boost in appellation and the rendering of higher-order honors, in order to recognize their greater risk and sacrifice.

Or so my own thinking goes, and that of most of the several dozen veterans that I am reasonably-well acquainted with.

In the final analysis, adherence to this widely accepted and voluntary classification system between veterans, may be more a matter of a personal sense of right-and-wrong, and honor, than it is anything else, even if it is fairly soundly backed by a variety of veterans organizations and, to some modest extent, the VA and Congress themselves.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[rdean]

You're both wrong, however.
A vet is anyone who served during conflict, whether they saw action or not. There is no separation out of war vets who saw action, and war vets who for whatever reason, didn't.

There are technical differences between different types of vets for the purposes of entitlement programs they are potentially eligible for...housing, education and medical, for example...probably retirement...but these are just slight differences conjured up by our government in order to reduce the $$ they have to spend.

I have never met a vet who devoted much time or energy worrying about who is a *real* vet and who is just a vet. "War veteran" refers not to what you did, but WHEN you served. If you served during conflict, that makes you a war veteran.

Like I said, those who served during a time of war should have the respect an not try to take credit for those who actually saw combat. Bush Jr. was in what was called the "Champagne" unit because it was filled with Dallas Cowboys and the sons of the rich and powerful. He spent his time looking up at the bottom of a bar stool. His father saw combat.

Why is that important? Because there are those who drop and run at the first sign of danger. Until you are actually in combat, you can't know what someone is willing to sacrifice.

 

[Kondor3]

You're both wrong, however.
A vet is anyone who served during conflict, whether they saw action or not. There is no separation out of war vets who saw action, and war vets who for whatever reason, didn't.

There are technical differences between different types of vets for the purposes of entitlement programs they are potentially eligible for...housing, education and medical, for example...probably retirement...but these are just slight differences conjured up by our government in order to reduce the $$ they have to spend.

I have never met a vet who devoted much time or energy worrying about who is a *real* vet and who is just a vet. "War veteran" refers not to what you did, but WHEN you served. If you served during conflict, that makes you a war veteran.

Like I said, those who served during a time of war should have the respect an not try to take credit for those who actually saw combat. Bush Jr. was in what was called the "Champagne" unit because it was filled with Dallas Cowboys and the sons of the rich and powerful. He spent his time looking up at the bottom of a bar stool. His father saw combat.

Why is that important? Because there are those who drop and run at the first sign of danger. Until you are actually in combat, you can't know what someone is willing to sacrifice.

One of the few things that I am likely to agree with you on.

REMFs [ R(ear) E(schelon) M(other) F(uckers) ] who try to pad their resumes by calling themselves War Veterans in their later years are not the kind of veterans that I want to be associated with...

And this coming from an REMF, no less !

It's a matter of courtesy, and respect, and personal honor, and rendering honors where they are due...

And keeping faith with our Younger Selves, stretching backwards over the years, and the way we viewed such things during a period in our lives when it counted the most, and the understandings that we carried forward with us from those times...

 

[sharkow53]

Thank you all for your input on this post! I didn't want to create a firestorm here, but now I see that this isn't just a bone of contention within my family, but with vets everywhere. My husband saw combat and was wounded; my dad was an aircraft mechanic. I think as long as my dad stops wearing the hat it should keep the peace. I thank you all for your service, in whatever capacity it may have been!

 

[SFC Ollie]

After 22 years in Uniform, I will tell you that if you wore the uniform you are a veteran and deserving of respect. I don't give a shit if there was a war or not, I don't care if your name came up on a movement order to go to that war zone or not. You wore the uniform and you were ready to go when called upon.

The American Legion is the largest Veterans group in the united States. To be a member you must have served a minimum of one day on active duty, not for training, during time of war.

The term War veteran means no more to me than Veteran alone.......

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The OP's husband is an asshat...

I'll let the OP speak to this.


I believe you to be wrong on two levels, in connection with the father:

1. the more subjective level on which veterans categorize and interact with each other.

2. the more objective level on which the US Dept of Veterans Affairs provides healthcare.

Re: (2) above...

I invite you to examine the VA's own list of Priority Groups for providing healthcare, and to discern the Combat Vet (or Combat-Theater Vet) from the rest, as may be seen on the following VA website page...

Health Benefits :: Priority Groups Table

With special attention to Priority Group 6.

Given (a) commonly-accepted protocols amongst veterans in support of (1) and (b) empirical evidence from an authoritative source (the VA) in support of (2), a solid case can be made for distinguishing between various categorizations of veterans (combat, non-combat [and out-of-theater).

This is a Priory List approved-by and funded-by Congress.

"...They served during a war. Whether or not they both saw action, both were enlisted during times of conflict."

Which is why provision is made for according non-combat/non-combat-theater wartime veterans the special status of -ERA veterans, to set them apart from those who served during a purely peacetime timeframe, yet not on a par with actual combat and combat-theater veterans. An appropriate and righteous distinction.

I have a dog in this fight myself.

I am an -ERA veteran who, as he gets older, finds the idea of calling myself a WAR veteran becoming more attractive and requiring less accountability that it would have in earlier times.

But I keep an honorable faith with both my Younger Self and my brothers and sisters who did either (1) actually fight or (2) serve in a combat zone (war-ops theater), by calling myself what I am... a war -ERA veteran... deserving of any honors or prerogatives applying to such, but acknowledging another and higher class of honors beyond what I earned.

That, too, is an honorable and accurate and correct and righteous stance.

Vietnam Era veteran shit popped up as an ideological and political move.

There were Vietnam Vets before the new label Vietnam Era Vets was created.

Whether one saw combat or not, in country or not .. there is a distinction between hostilities and .....ugh, why bother? The draft versus volunteer ... criminals who joined per court order versus true patriotic volunteerism during draft ... could go on... faux service related disability claims ...

Open secret: many of these "era" vets are frauds and parasites

very true story
D

 

[Kondor3]

"...Open secret: many of these 'era' vets are frauds and parasites very true story D"

First time I've run across the idea... frauds? how so?... parasites? in what way? Seriously. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doesn't matter what any of us say: they will both continue to argue.

That is probably the smartest thing you ever said.