Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?

I think the term "Combat Veteran" is over-used and extremely hard to define. I wish the Army had never started with the CIB and CAB. I know of people who wear them who didn't see any more combat than I did in Iraq (I don't wear one). There are thousands of stories we have all heard of people doing stupid things, and risking lives (especially other people's lives) to get some silly ass badge. People who took the "oath" and served honorably, wherever. It was.. are Veterans, IMHO. Getting VA benefits is another matter. I have never registered with the VA, even though I served 29 years and deployed overseas twice as a Guard Soldier. i don't need the VA but some folks do. I consider myself and my buddies, Veterans. Period.

Yes! They stepped up and forward...committing all and willing to give all...to service to the nation. I am a combat veteran Marine and honor all who raised their hand and honorably served.

Veteran us veteran. Just because someone never deployed to a war zone doesn't tarnish their service to our country. We all signed up knowing that we may have just given our life.

As long as you serve and receive honorable discharge you are a Veteran, if you deploy to a combat/war zone you become a war veteran. Anyone that tells you otherwise is full of it.

I ran into this once. A young kid that did one tour, got hurt and sent home. He had a chip on his shoulder. I set him straight in a clear conscience military fashion

Garbage.

Under federal law, a veteran is considered any person who has served honorably in the Armed Forces. Going by this definition, as long as you fulfilled your obligations and was not dishonorably discharged, than you should be considered a veteran, regardless if you deployed or not.

I'm not sure how you say NG and USAR don't deploy. I've been in for 12 years and had 4 opportunities to deploy. To answer your question, I don't call anyone who hasn't deployed to a combat zone a veteran. What would they be a veteran of exactly? Thanks for serving, you did more than 99% of people, but no you are 100% not a veteran.

How about a Soldier who was on active duty for over 19 years before applying for the early retirement program and despite volunteering numerous times was never deployed anywhere but a training center?

I understand the mindset of only identifying veterans who have served in combat as " veterans." Throughout the course of our nation's history there have (fortunately) been periods when our nation was not at war. Are we to disenfranchise those who served during those periods? Men and women have volunteered to serve in the defense of democracy and our nation, training to be prepared in the event of the outbreak of war. Serving in peacekeeping missions in hotspots where wars have been suppressed or fear to breakout, guarding against totalitarian empires who would aspire to rule the world, and supplying humanitarian aid to people and countries who have no means to provide for themselves. They too, were sent to foreign countries for extended periods without their families. Some died in the defense of freedom, when their aircraft fell or ships sank without combat action. Was their sacrifice any less? Do their families greive any less?
Was it lass significant when they missed births, deaths, graduations and other milestones away from their loves ones? What of cold warriors who died over the long truce without peace on the Korean peninsula to hostile action when there was no "war on." Many kept the world safe through 50+ years of " Cold War" Shall we disregard the deaths of embassy security staff murdered in terrorist bombings. Are those who volunteered and served on the 38th parallel or the Berlin Wall, less veterans than those draft dodgers who were hunted down by law enforcement and forced to serve, being escorted by MP's to their departure point and doing everything they could in theater to resist doing their duty-- shall we honor them with the title veteran while disrespecting an active duty soldier who served honorably with multiple peacetime overseas tours simply because our nation was not at war at the time? What message do we send to future soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines if we only honor those deployed to war? How are we prepared to defend ourselves if no one signs up until the shooting starts when they see that no one respects the soldier when there is no war? We saw this in the 70's and 80's when service members were treated with disdain and avoided wearing the uniform off duty and amongst civillians. When parents told there young adult children not to date or associate with soldiers. When members if congress referred to the military as a "Job Corps with nuclear weapons," please, let's not return to this culture.