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.
Well, that might be a case of her not having a veteran's license plate. I would not park in a reserved slot unless my car was so identified.
The U.S. pioneered the concept of using the word "veteran" to describe every single person who ever walked into an induction center when they might have only used the washroom.
No wonder the respect that was historically reserved for those who actually served during a time of legitimate conflict and described thusly is on the wane.
The U.S. pioneered the concept of using the word "veteran" to describe every single person who ever walked into an induction center when they might have only used the washroom.
No wonder the respect that was historically reserved for those who actually served during a time of legitimate conflict and described thusly is on the wane.
I must say, this does embarrass me sometimes.
I served 6 + 2 in the Army National Guard in the 1980s and 1990s. It seems that every Veterans Day, someone wherever I've worked has thank me for my 'service' or something along those lines. No, I'm not ashamed of what I did. But I also don't put in on par with those who faced IEDs in recent wars, or who spent a year on patrols in Vietnam, or who went ashore at Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Hell, even peacetime service far from home can be its own deprivation: months in the field on the DMZ, or waiting to be a speedbump if the Red Army ever decided to come poring through the Fulda Gap. Those are the soldiers that come to mind when I hear the word 'veteran'. Me? I did a weekend a month and two weeks each summer. It's nowhere near the same.
On the other hand, short of fraud for some tangible gain, I don't care about those who lie about their service. The less attention they receive, the better. Sometimes silence and ostracization are far better solutions than flipping out and demanding new laws and the subsequent prosecutions.
Did you read the article? It is illegal to obtain anything tangible from lying about being a veteran.
In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which made lying about military honors a crime. It was replaced with the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which makes it illegal to “obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit” from military awards.
Just this past March, my auto dealership knocked off $500 on a new truck because I wore my baseball cap with "101st Airborne, Screaming Eagles" inscribed on it. It was all volunteer on his part; I never mentioned anything about my service.
Fact is that I was attached to the 101st, but my particular unit didn't go in country to 'Nam until 11 months after I was separated from active duty. Hope I didn't violate the law referenced above.
Anyway, he probably offset the $500 by giving me $500 (or less) credit than he should have for the trade-in of the old truck.
Just this past March, my auto dealership knocked off $500 on a new truck because I wore my baseball cap with "101st Airborne, Screaming Eagles" inscribed on it. It was all volunteer on his part; I never mentioned anything about my service.
Fact is that I was attached to the 101st, but my particular unit didn't go in country to 'Nam until 11 months after I was separated from active duty. Hope I didn't violate the law referenced above.
Anyway, he probably offset the $500 by giving me $500 (or less) credit than he should have for the trade-in of the old truck.
Should've added.... Even though there was no VietNam, I did serve in 1960's riots while in reserve status. In those days, the scheme was two years active duty; two years active reserve; and two years inactive reserve.
The U.S. pioneered the concept of using the word "veteran" to describe every single person who ever walked into an induction center when they might have only used the washroom.
If by "pioneered" you mean "was the first," the answer to that is "no."
Quote:
No wonder the respect that was historically reserved for those who actually served during a time of legitimate conflict and described thusly is on the wane.
There has not been a time of no conflict for the US since 1941. You might not have heard of all of it, but there has been combat and the threat of combat every year since then. The soldier guarding the gate is as much a "veteran" as the soldier walking patrol--they have all signed that "unlimited liability contract." If you don't get that, you don't get it, period.
And it should certainly not be "on the wane" today, when the US has been in open combat for a decade and a half.
I served 6 + 2 in the Army National Guard in the 1980s and 1990s. It seems that every Veterans Day, someone wherever I've worked has thank me for my 'service' or something along those lines. No, I'm not ashamed of what I did. But I also don't put in on par with those who faced IEDs in recent wars, or who spent a year on patrols in Vietnam, or who went ashore at Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Hell, even peacetime service far from home can be its own deprivation: months in the field on the DMZ, or waiting to be a speedbump if the Red Army ever decided to come poring through the Fulda Gap. Those are the soldiers that come to mind when I hear the word 'veteran'. Me? I did a weekend a month and two weeks each summer. It's nowhere near the same.
On the other hand, short of fraud for some tangible gain, I don't care about those who lie about their service. The less attention they receive, the better. Sometimes silence and ostracization are far better solutions than flipping out and demanding new laws and the subsequent prosecutions.
I very much agree with the bolded. The people who do the 'stolen valor' thing are doing it for attention. Don't reward them by giving it to them. Laws against it aren't necessary. Not getting what they crave is enough.
Speaking as a combat veteran (Vietnam), I consider anyone who served in the military, in combat or not, to be a 'veteran'. You may not have served in combat, but it doesn't make any difference. You were there and could have been deployed at any time, so you faced the same risks as everyone else in uniform. Military service is not easy, even in peacetime. The fact that you served deserves respect IMO.
Just my 2 cents.
Speaking as a combat veteran (Vietnam), I consider anyone who served in the military, in combat or not, to be a 'veteran'. You may not have served in combat, but it doesn't make any difference. You were there and could have been deployed at any time, so you faced the same risks as everyone else in uniform. Military service is not easy, even in peacetime. The fact that you served deserves respect IMO.
Just my 2 cents.
There is a difference between "combat veteran" and "veteran," and "combat" is an incredibly huge deal--for which the military gives its own due--but for sure, a veteran is still a veteran.
There is a difference between "combat veteran" and "veteran," and "combat" is an incredibly huge deal--for which the military gives its own due--but for sure, a veteran is still a veteran.
I agree with that also. There is that distinction, of course. And rightfully so.
.......There has not been a time of no conflict for the US since 1941. You might not have heard of all of it, but there has been combat and the threat of combat every year since then. The soldier guarding the gate is as much a "veteran" as the soldier walking patrol--they have all signed that "unlimited liability contract." If you don't get that, you don't get it, period.........
Agreed!
Doing UNREPS off the Atlantic coast may not have someone shooting at you (t'was the Cold War), may even be "routine", but two (or three) multi thousand ton ships tied together by steel cables under high tension while moving at 20-30 knots happens to be dangerous.
Or working with a helicopter on a small ship. There is a reason why the extra money is called hazardous duty pay. Of course, the curious thing about that was that one only got the pay if the copter landed like 6 times in a month (as I recall, it was over 25 years ago); working with it hovering didn't count for the cash but it still was dangerous. It was nice to know the facts of the matter that if said copter crashed, I could be buried under it (small ship, no control booth, out there on the deck) and odds were decent that the Captain could order up turns, a hard rudder, and slide bird, me & whoever else off the deck, into the sea, if the ship was threatened.
That's the way it was.
As to the subject, I don't think it matters to those who accuse since in their mind, they are right, regardless.
When one is accused, it depends on the situation if it is a brush off or if it hurts or if it is frustrating or for that matter, ironic in that one's camouflage is so perfect in that they are not to be believed.
But that's the A and B of it. A: People who have not been in the military probably can't believe all the things that might go inside the military, good, bad, or otherwise.
B: Even if one was willing to prove it to them, I doubt they would understand anything but an ID card or a DD214. Ie, if someone ever challenged me at my bank for parking in a veteran spot, I might show them my USAA proof of insurance. But once again, unless one has been in, they may not understand what it means.
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.
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.
