Posted on Nov 16, 2015
Do you think someone who has never been in a combat has the right to call themselves a veteran?
220K
2.97K
643
38
20
18
Let me apologize in advance to the people who find this question insulting... I'm just wondering what other people who served viewpoint is.
I personally went many years before I broke down and got "Desert Storm" Veteran tags, and the "Veteran" identifier on my driver's license... I'm still not entirely convinced that I deserve the 101st patch on my right sleeve, for the most part all I did was fix helicopter engines in the sand.
I have a great friend that served in the Air Force, and never left CONUS.
I have a relative that served on Aircraft carriers before Vietnam.
Both proudly stand up when "Veteran's" are asked to at public gatherings, but I always feel strange standing up.
Legal definition of "veteran" aside (someone who served at least six months and received an honorable discharge). I'm wondering more about how those of us that served feel about the term.
When a civilian hears "Veteran" I get the impression that they think we all stormed the beaches at Normandy, and for the most part I was really bored, played Spades and Tetris on my Gameboy during Desert Storm.
Should someone who was in the military during the Vietnam conflict (but never in theater) be allowed "Vietnam Veteran" license plates?
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4", TSgt Hunter Logan , CH (MAJ) William Beaver , COL Ted Mc
I personally went many years before I broke down and got "Desert Storm" Veteran tags, and the "Veteran" identifier on my driver's license... I'm still not entirely convinced that I deserve the 101st patch on my right sleeve, for the most part all I did was fix helicopter engines in the sand.
I have a great friend that served in the Air Force, and never left CONUS.
I have a relative that served on Aircraft carriers before Vietnam.
Both proudly stand up when "Veteran's" are asked to at public gatherings, but I always feel strange standing up.
Legal definition of "veteran" aside (someone who served at least six months and received an honorable discharge). I'm wondering more about how those of us that served feel about the term.
When a civilian hears "Veteran" I get the impression that they think we all stormed the beaches at Normandy, and for the most part I was really bored, played Spades and Tetris on my Gameboy during Desert Storm.
Should someone who was in the military during the Vietnam conflict (but never in theater) be allowed "Vietnam Veteran" license plates?
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4", TSgt Hunter Logan , CH (MAJ) William Beaver , COL Ted Mc
Posted in these groups: 
Military service
Purple Heart
Military service Purple Heart
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 358
1
1
0
Why would a person even bother so serve in anything other than a combat branch if he/she knew that they would be considered "second class" if they never got shot at? Is there career worth of work not worthy of veteran's status?
(1)
(0)
SPC David Hannaman
I don't think anyone is considered "second class", but I do think there is a distinction between "Veteran", "Combat Veteran", "Combat wounded", "Bronze Star", and "Congressional Medal of Honor recipient".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SPC David Hannaman - Spec; ANYONE who has served is a "veteran". Anyone who has served in combat is a "combat veteran".
The situation gets MUCH murkier when there are no "front lines" and anyone deployed to an area is a potential target. Someone whose entire rotation to Iraq was spent inside the confines of "The Green Zone" isn't - to my way of thinking - a "combat veteran"
I think that the division not be so much if the person was fired at, but whether they fired back (or could have fired back) - but even that's a bit loose.
The situation gets MUCH murkier when there are no "front lines" and anyone deployed to an area is a potential target. Someone whose entire rotation to Iraq was spent inside the confines of "The Green Zone" isn't - to my way of thinking - a "combat veteran"
I think that the division not be so much if the person was fired at, but whether they fired back (or could have fired back) - but even that's a bit loose.
(1)
(0)
SPC David Hannaman
IMO the Navy guys have as much "skin in the game" as anyone when it comes to warfare, (remember the USS Cole) not to mention that the deck of a carrier is an inherently dangerous place.
Land based troops don't usually have to worry about getting their home shot out from underneath them.
Land based troops don't usually have to worry about getting their home shot out from underneath them.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC David Hannaman - Spec; I agree that "land based troops don't have to worry about their home being shot out from under them" but, as I said, I make no pretense for being able to define "combat veteran" in anything other than a "land based (and I'll kick in "air based") environment.
Mind you, there have been very few times in human history when any navy has had to deal with an attack involving tens of thousands of pieces of artillery which were mounted on steady bases and had accurate knowledge of the exact position of their targets. The "ground pounders" have.
You could look at naval combat as (essentially) a "duel" while both air and ground combat could be looked at as (essentially) a multi-day football game with hundreds of players on both sides, very few rules, and a playing field that changes from day to day.
Mind you, there have been very few times in human history when any navy has had to deal with an attack involving tens of thousands of pieces of artillery which were mounted on steady bases and had accurate knowledge of the exact position of their targets. The "ground pounders" have.
You could look at naval combat as (essentially) a "duel" while both air and ground combat could be looked at as (essentially) a multi-day football game with hundreds of players on both sides, very few rules, and a playing field that changes from day to day.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
COL Ted Mc - Colonel, if you think Naval warfare, battles in the past, were 'duels', then I submit to you that you are not very familiar with Naval history. The reason the navy doesn't deal with thousands of pieces of artillery is because a single submarine can kill multiple targets. A single aircraft can kill a ship. Nobody needs any artillery to kill ships.
I take nothing away from ground forces and what you describe they go through. But to relegate Sailors to non-combat Veterans status does them great injustice. 4 of the 17 MOH's awarded since Iraq went to Sailors or Marines. Countless Seabees served in the sand box. Every time a ship enters the gulf they risk mines, etc etc.
I take nothing away from ground forces and what you describe they go through. But to relegate Sailors to non-combat Veterans status does them great injustice. 4 of the 17 MOH's awarded since Iraq went to Sailors or Marines. Countless Seabees served in the sand box. Every time a ship enters the gulf they risk mines, etc etc.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SN Greg Wright - Seaman; As I said, I make no pretencions to being able to define "combat veteran" in other than the "land environment".
The difference between a "battle" and a "duel" is NOT the probability of a fatal outcome - it is the length of time that it goes on. "Naval combat" is generally over with within hours, the army would consider that type of combat to be a skirmish (regardless of the numbers involved).
PS - My count has it as 4 Marines and one Navy. I also noticed that not one of those MoHs was for "naval combat" as all the relevant actions took place on land.
The difference between a "battle" and a "duel" is NOT the probability of a fatal outcome - it is the length of time that it goes on. "Naval combat" is generally over with within hours, the army would consider that type of combat to be a skirmish (regardless of the numbers involved).
PS - My count has it as 4 Marines and one Navy. I also noticed that not one of those MoHs was for "naval combat" as all the relevant actions took place on land.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I was a dumb ass and miss read the question and voted wrong. Hell yeah you're a Veteran as long as you signed that paper, raised your hand and served honorably. It doesn't matter where you were or what you did.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
During my time in service (the 80s), women were not allowed in combat, so that distinction was not even a consideration (plus the only combat was Grenada/Lebanon). At the time of Grenada & Beirut bombings, I was a member of the 101st, working live missions (but not in either theatre of operations.) During the Persian Gulf Blockade, I was working a live mission; our team was awarded a Joint Chiefs Commendation for our support effort; I was even put forward by the Navy for a temporary assignment aboard a ship in the Persian Gulf. (The Army said, "no female in a possible combat zone.") Am I a Veteran? Hell, yes. Am I proud of my service? Hell, yes. My husband (Retired Air Force) was a Viet Namese Linguist sent to Thailand only weeks before Saigon fell. Neither of us can comment on his other assignments because of our clearances, but does that affect his eligibility or right to be a combat veteran? Of course not. We all had our role in whatever our service's activities were. And EVERY role was honorable.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I feel if you were in the service for any reason and is not your fault for leaving and you passed all your testes and finished basic training should have the right to receive a Honorable with good conduct and should be consider a Veteran.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A Vietnam Veteran is a person that served in Vietnam, a Vietnam era Veteran was a person who was in the Armed Forces during that war and never served in the combat zone area at all. Veteran plates are fine but NOT Vietnam Veteran license plates unless You were physically in the actual war zone. I was in Vietnam 1968-69, I have Vietnam Veteran tabs that were issued for My Veterans plate. I was in during the Persian Gulf War but never in or even near the combat zone, I'm NOT at Veteran of that war and I feel I have no right to display a tab indicating I was.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is a old post but I find a need to respond. So I will answer the question with a question. If you take the spark plugs out of your car does it work as the fine machine that originally bought? What does the regulations say?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think that you are a veteran when you serve. We all have made sacrifices to keep our country safe. As for stickers license and ect.. you should be proud of your service and show it. As for being Vietnam Vet I know its a big controversy with my friends I think to claim being a Vietnam Vet, Desert Storm Vet or anyother conflict you can only claim it only if you were in country. I know now I have seen Vietnam era covers being worn now. But you dont see WWll or Korean era covers I believe that if you werent in actual country you should wear a regular Veteran cover. My friends who were in Vietnam feel that era.. covers makes light of their service and gives ppl the wrong impression. So bottom line is if you actually served in country then you are a Veteran of that conflict if you didnt then your just a Veteran. SEMPER FI
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
That's question just fires me up and makes my blood boil. I am 62 and proudly served from 18 June 79 till 14 Sept 84. For years I have refused to use my benefits because I felt that combat vets deserved it more than myself. I quit going to veteran organizations because i didn't feel worthy surrounded by combat vets. But you know what I was there I was ready and able to put my life on the line like so many others have. By the grace of God there wasn't a war going on and I never got the call to go. But I was just as proud of the units I served in as a combat veteran. We volunteered we trained we prepared we we're ready so I tell you the answer to your question is affirmative we are vets and we deserve that right to be called vets.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I got my own thoughts about that but reg says 180 days of active service and your veterans even chapter cases HOW SAD and they end getting really nice jobs because they are considered veterans. It strange how the world works in amazing ways. They should really categorized the type of veteran you to many dirt bag veterans out there who never did anything for or country but served 180 days and we call them veterans and I bet they even got some kind of disability out of it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google