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's your prerogative. Your notion is essentially that based on your perceived problem that we are in danger of overdoing it, we can't give out any blanket benefits.
Sounds great, briefs well, and completely and totally naive on how the American military is organized, fights, and currently operates in theater.
Let's just only give them to people that completely deserve them based on unenforceable standards! Great, then have those guys eliminate welfare fraud and tax deductions while they are at it, I'm sure that will work out well also because they'll be 'fair'.
You are arguing with your distortion of my argument rather than my actual argument.
The problem is real, not perception. If 19 out of 20 troops are in logistics rather than in combat, that means that the majority of veteran benefits are going to people who were never in combat. I think that this should be changed.
My point was that if someone's service to the nation involves risk, that someone deserves our gratitude in the form of a post service pension. If someone spends a couple of years of his or her life in the military doing some job which features no risk, then I don't really feel obliged to this person for preserving my liberties or protecting the American way of life. I feel that when this person leaves the service, he or she should also be leaving the public treasury and making it on their own, just the same as a civilian who had done a similar job for the same length of time.
Your position seems to be that attempting to identify who belongs to which class is somehow or other beyond human capacities. Perhaps it is beyond your capabilities, but I'm confident that a reasonable arrangement, far superior to the current blanket approach, could be established.
My issue are the posers, not the benifits. Lets face it, the majority that went to Vietnam, Iraq, or Afhiganistan, never heard a shot or fired a shot in anger in their life. Their life was spent repairing jeeps or sweeping up the base commissary in at De Nang base, or working in logistics in an airconditioned office building in the green zone in Iraq. I mean, they had a Pizza Hut there. It was probably safer than working in most downtown office buildings. And yes, I realize those otherwise safe zones were subject to rocket and mortar attacks. But most of it was inneffective and your chances of being hurt by one where less than the chance of being killed in a traffic accident in the states.
Now how many that were in the Nam, or wherever, when you ask them their experiences, will shake their head and say "yeah, I was in the sh*t, I saw it all, saw my buddy killed, killed a bunch of *ethnic slur of choice*". What they saw in the green zone was cable TV, live sports events, bluerays and youtube.
Now, that being said, hats off to any veterans. They are away from their families, they are away from their homes, and there deployment could have involved risk. For a minority, for some - they were indeed in dire risk of losing their lives and saw all the horrors that we would expect in war. For a majority, their tour of duty was anything but warlike. But - they served our country, and for that we can thank them. But, don't let the 90% fool yourself, and don't let them fool you, into believing they are battle hardened lost souls or Audie Murphy just because they did a tour in a war zone.
The problem is real, not perception. If 19 out of 20 troops are in logistics rather than in combat, that means that the majority of veteran benefits are going to people who were never in combat. I think that this should be changed.
Well again, you and I can disagree. I believe you are defining a problem where a real one may not exist.
Being 'in logistics' does not, by definition, expose someone to less combat, regardless of how many times you've read Starship Troopers. Brigade combat teams currently have organic supply and transportation troops who in many cases, have more exposure than senior combat arms types-typically convoys in danger areas moving supplies. Doesn't make them less of a soldier or put them in less danger. In some cases, 'combat' troops (infantry, armor) are currently in Kuwait in reserve. That's not the world's most dangerous or unpleasant job. How about the female administrative specialist who gets put on a 'female engagement team?'. Or the chemical guy who for 6 months lives in comfort but then gets grabbed halfway through the tour to replace someone on a training team in a 12-person detachment out in the boondocks because the original guy (a signal specialist) got shot?
Now let me throw you a bone: if what you are trying to say is places like Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait should not be 'combat', I can get behind it. We can probably reasonably pick out places like Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. But trying to restrict it to specialty, which is what you appear to be doing, is foolish and doomed to failure.
Well again, you and I can disagree. I believe you are defining a problem where a real one may not exist.
Being 'in logistics' does not, by definition, expose someone to less combat, regardless of how many times you've read Starship Troopers. Brigade combat teams currently have organic supply and transportation troops who in many cases, have more exposure than senior combat arms types-typically convoys in danger areas moving supplies. Doesn't make them less of a soldier or put them in less danger. In some cases, 'combat' troops (infantry, armor) are currently in Kuwait in reserve. That's not the world's most dangerous or unpleasant job. How about the female administrative specialist who gets put on a 'female engagement team?'. Or the chemical guy who for 6 months lives in comfort but then gets grabbed halfway through the tour to replace someone on a training team in a 12-person detachment out in the boondocks because the original guy (a signal specialist) got shot?
.
Well, there you go, doing what you previously maintained could not be done....discriminating among differing military assignments and identifying the more dangerous ones.
Good thread regarding benefits for combat and non combat veterans. I have an acquaintance who served four years of military service in the 90's and was never in a combat situation.
He was involved in an accident while on active duty and was awarded a partial disability award in the neighborhood of 10%. Currently he works for the telephone company in an outdoor job requiring heavy lifting and climbing poles.
According to him his daughter is now attending college tuition free because of his disability.
Well, there you go, doing what you previously maintained could not be done....discriminating among differing military assignments and identifying the more dangerous ones.
Nope. I'm saying you can't realistically say which roles are more dangerous than others. The 'FOBBIT' people denigrate may leave the base once...and that may be when he gets blown up, dead.
Your solution is naive at best, although your goal is laudable. But it's like saying we ought to only elect the best politicians. Sure, that's a great plan: how the hell are you going to do it? How do you define 'best' (without party rivalries)?
How do YOU (Grandstander) define 'dangerous', or how do you propose we do it? You've said:
'We aren't stupid, are we? We can make a reasonable determination regarding who was in harm's way while in service and who was not at risk outside of remote chance., can we not?'
Well no, in point of fact, we cannot. It is a shame. Love to do it. Your idea is great to only reward those who were truly in harms way. I wish I had a pony, but I'm not getting that, either. To reward those who truly *are* in harms way, we are necessarily having to reward those who are in less danger, because we...can't...tell, in any fair way.
In Iraq, one of the statistically most dangerous jobs was truck driver. A "safe" MOS, right?
My friend was a wheeled vehicle mechanic in Iraq and came home in a wheel chair because of hostile fire. Her ex-husband was an Army grunt who came home physically unscathed.
Your position on this matter is essentially another REMF vs Grunt argument and it's not only pointless, but insulting and demeaning to every non-combat service member who ever put on a uniform.
Everybody takes risks in the armed forces. Nobody is immune from danger because they are all subject to being sent somewhere to do something which can get them killed at the drop of a hat. It is their WILLINGNESS TO TAKE THAT RISK IN YOUR NAME which qualifies them for combat or hazardous duty pay when they are in a theater where it is authorized. This is an all-volunteer force, which means nobody HAS to be there. They are there because they chose to be and to then deny them extra pay is like saying, "Thanks, but you're not worth a few extra bucks to me because you're not doing enough."
Take the friend in Qatar. Yes, nothing happened while he was there...but it could have. Any base, anywhere in the world, is subject to a terrorist attack at any time and just because it didn't happen while he was there does not eliminate the risk. Suppose it had,....say...halfway through his tour. What then? Back pay him for the first 3 months, or only give him combat pay for the one day of an attack?
If you base combat or hazardous duty pay solely on risk, where do you start and stop? Does the grunt get paid only when he's outside the wire? Does the bomb handler on a carrier in the Arabian Sea, where the enemy can't reach him, get paid only when his hand gets crushed mounting the munitions on a plane destined for a combat mission? Would my other friend at a "safe" base deep inside Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War have to give hers back, or does the errant Patriot missile which lost track of the Scud it was chasing and exploded within 50 meters of her tent count for pay purposes?
May suggest that before anyone goes off demeaning the service of those "safe" rear area folks, put on a uniform yourself.
Nope. I'm saying you can't realistically say which roles are more dangerous than others. The 'FOBBIT' people denigrate may leave the base once...and that may be when he gets blown up, dead.
Your solution is naive at best, although your goal is laudable. But it's like saying we ought to only elect the best politicians. Sure, that's a great plan: how the hell are you going to do it? How do you define 'best' (without party rivalries)?
How do YOU (Grandstander) define 'dangerous', or how do you propose we do it? You've said:
'We aren't stupid, are we? We can make a reasonable determination regarding who was in harm's way while in service and who was not at risk outside of remote chance., can we not?'
Well no, in point of fact, we cannot. It is a shame. Love to do it. Your idea is great to only reward those who were truly in harms way. I wish I had a pony, but I'm not getting that, either. To reward those who truly *are* in harms way, we are necessarily having to reward those who are in less danger, because we...can't...tell, in any fair way.
There is no need for you to repeat yourself, I get it.....you are unable to make such distinctions, you are unable to see a difference between military jobs which come with dangers and ones which do not.
My position is that not everyone suffers from this inability and these distinctions can be made. I think that we can probably find someone in America who can tell a rifle from a spatula.
Last edited by Grandstander; 05-12-2012 at 08:03 AM..
There is no need for you to repeat yourself, I get it.....you are unable to make such distinctions, you are unable to see a difference between military jobs which come with dangers and ones which do not.
My position is that not everyone suffers from this inability and these distinctions can be made. I think that we can probably find someone in America who can tell a rifle from a spatula.
Riiiiight.... If you believe simply *being* a rifleman in a combat zone makes your job inherently more dangerous, I suspect you have never served in the uniformed services in an imminent danger area, and your contribution is...less than useful. I can very clearly tell you which military jobs come with dangers: potentially ALL OF THEM. Every single one. Hostile fire pay is designed to reward the potential of being in danger, and opinions on 'I was in the s***' are just that, opinions; the guys in OP Restrepo were in a very harsh environment. Those in some of the FOBs in northern Iraq, not so much, but they are all infantrymen in danger, right? It's not a matter of telling a rifle from a spatula, and your using that as an example is very telling of your mindset.
See the post by Stillkit, above, for a very useful and perhaps better worded example of how this thing really works.
Let us remember Lori Piestewa was in a support group of maintenance and repair personnel.
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.
