[elcid1970]

Speaking as one who’s done it all (NG, USAR, active duty), I say why not? After all, “they also serve who only stand and wait.”

[21stCenturion]

I don’t hold with this proposition very well. Full-time ‘Active Duty’ Service — enlistment or commissioned — ought to be the absolute minimum threshold to achieve ‘veteran’ status. Otherwise, what is the ‘distinction’ between some weekend warrior who MIGHT have served and a service member who actually DID serve ?

Some citizen who held a full-time ‘civilian job’ while occasionally training for potential service by spending a few arduous weekends or his summer vacation ‘on maneuvers’ doesn’t equate to the same status of another citizen who left hearth and home for whatever duty as his / her military occupation required.

I’m not demanding actual combat or presence within a combat theater — the divisional wedge still has FAR more REMFs than ‘warriors’ at any given time. But ... there HAS to be a line somewhere that distinguishes between those who MIGHT have been and those who actually ARE ‘veterans’.

There is no ‘shame’ in being a career Reservist; it’s an honorable and commendable and valuable occupation. But it simply ‘ain’t the same’ as being a ‘veteran’.

Frankly, this over-reach feels not too different at all from that of gays who insist their twisted relationships be ‘sanctified’ as marriages. I’m NOT equating the two conditions, merely suggesting that the arguments for or against the one are quite similar to the other.

Q: How many legs does a dog have if you call it’s tail a leg ?

A: Four

One Man’s Opinion

21stCenturion

( USAF ‘65 .. ‘72 )

[Ron H.]

As a former combat veteran and disabled Purple Heart reciepient I can not bring myself to support this piece of legislation either in concept or reality. Sorry. The money that would be set aside for this new entitlement could be better spent on those who served at the ready and those who did serve in actual combat and still in need of VA services.