My nephew wants to join the military. I think only suckers agree to fight Republican wars. Advice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Someone please correct me if I’m missing something, but are veterans eligible for lifetime benefits (health insurance, etc) if they served stateside for 4-5 years and never saw combat? That seems like a huge expense.

Yes, and you are eligible if you were discharged after a few weeks as well in many situations. Basically if you serve 1 day active duty and are honorably discharged you can call yourself a veteran and get veteran benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Interesting. I would have assumed you were a Trump supporter.

But it was surprising when you wrote “I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat.” That is pretty disrespectful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

As a woman who served only 5 years but one of those years in a theater of combat, I agree. You get basically the same benefits for hanging out in San Diego as you do for going into combat. I don't begrudge the people who didn't go to war, but this system isn't equitable. Yes, I got combat pay, but it is a pittance and not commensurate with the risk.

+1, there is a huge difference in your 5 years with one year deployed. That one year is significant. Its annoying listening to guys (don't know any women who do it) who brag about there few years of service where they never were deployed, at a nicer base reliving their military glory years when it was basically no different than a civilian job. Someone like this poster deserves VA status and if anything should get way more and its unfair she gets equal to someone who never deployed or was not even in active duty during war time (there were threats, but no war).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Interesting. I would have assumed you were a Trump supporter.

But it was surprising when you wrote “I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat.” That is pretty disrespectful.

How, if they stayed stateside or at a cushy base, then its no different than any other civilian job for a few years.

[Anonymous]

Memorial Day, a time to think of those who lost their lives in our military. Sorry their sacrifice wasn’t good enough for you, OP. What else can they do for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Interesting. I would have assumed you were a Trump supporter.

But it was surprising when you wrote “I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat.” That is pretty disrespectful.

How, if they stayed stateside or at a cushy base, then its no different than any other civilian job for a few years.

Kinda sh1tty to look down on fellow service men and women based on where they served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Interesting. I would have assumed you were a Trump supporter.

But it was surprising when you wrote “I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat.” That is pretty disrespectful.

How, if they stayed stateside or at a cushy base, then its no different than any other civilian job for a few years.

Kinda sh1tty to look down on fellow service men and women based on where they served.

You think someone who served 3 years state side no combat had the same experience as someone who deployed or was in for much longer? You think someone who served a few weeks should get the same VA benefits as someone who was injured in combat? You think someone who was playing football with friends on a Sunday afternoon and had damage and got out of the military should have the same VA benefits as someone shot or lost their limb?

[Anonymous]

I've never heard ANYONE use the term "Republican wars" or "Democratic wars". OP, do you know your history? Do you know that democratic presidents got us into Vietnam? That Truman (D) dropped the bomb on Hiroshima?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Someone please correct me if I’m missing something, but are veterans eligible for lifetime benefits (health insurance, etc) if they served stateside for 4-5 years and never saw combat? That seems like a huge expense.

Yes, and you are eligible if you were discharged after a few weeks as well in many situations. Basically if you serve 1 day active duty and are honorably discharged you can call yourself a veteran and get veteran benefits.

Being eligible for lifetime health care benefits after one day of active duty would be exceedingly rare. It would only happen if the person was seriously injured in the line of duty on the first day of basic training.

A veteran is generally eligible for health care benefits if they served at least two years of active duty and were honorable discharged after their enlistment was up.
However, there are many exceptions to this general rule. The exceptions generally apply to people who served in the guard or reserve and didn't serve 24 continous months of active duty, and also to military members who got injured while serving and were no longer fit for duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree.[i] Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Someone please correct me if I’m missing something, but are veterans eligible for lifetime benefits (health insurance, etc) if they served stateside for 4-5 years and never saw combat? That seems like a huge expense.

Yes, and you are eligible if you were discharged after a few weeks as well in many situations. Basically if you serve 1 day active duty and are honorably discharged you can call yourself a veteran and get veteran benefits.

Being eligible for lifetime health care benefits after one day of active duty would be exceedingly rare. It would only happen if the person was seriously injured in the line of duty on the first day of basic training.

A veteran is generally eligible for health care benefits if they served at least two years of active duty and were honorable discharged after their enlistment was up.
However, there are many exceptions to this general rule. The exceptions generally apply to people who served in the guard or reserve and didn't serve 24 continous months of active duty, and also to military members who got injured while serving and were no longer fit for duty.

Everyone responding to this poster has missed a key point. This isn't even a service member, but a spouse. Who are you to judge someone else's service when you didn't even serve yourself? Sit down, dependa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Basically if you serve 1 day active duty and are honorably discharged you can call yourself a veteran and get veteran benefits.

that is, in it's entirety, a false statement. Try harder next time.

[Anonymous]

Relevant to this thread:

The Post is running a set of stories about the “Afghanistan Papers”.
Part 1 explains how the government lied to us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

The Post falsely in my view equates the mistakes of Obama and Bush. Obama erred in setting a timeline, and he like Bush didn’t always ensure the military was telling the truth. But some of the stories in here about George W Bush are just shocking — about how he ignored Afghanistan to focus on his war of choice in Iraq.

Obama had few good options in 2008.
But Bush could have gone in, punished Al Qaeda for attacking us, and gotten out in a year. Instead, he .... didn’t do that.

Unlike the Iraq War I do support invading Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda. I don’t take that lightly, as any kind of war is terrible.
But America should have gotten out of Afghanistan quickly.

[Anonymous]

ps Now I know, I think, what the country felt like after the Pentagon Papers.

And to OP. Ugggggggh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Someone please correct me if I’m missing something, but are veterans eligible for lifetime benefits (health insurance, etc) if they served stateside for 4-5 years and never saw combat? That seems like a huge expense.

Do you have any conception how pitifully lousy VA health care typically is? Or that it is rationed according to a priority system that takes account of the nature of the individual's service and whether their medical needs are service connected?

As for expense, lots of things the government does are expensive, like federal pensions and their accompanying health care benefits.

Regardless where they end up, every person who signs up for the military agrees to go get shot at if ordered to do so. Particularly now the likelihood of deployment to an evil place is more likely than ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using the term vet is it could mean the person served one day, 20+ years to retirement or anything in between. I don't really think much of those who served a few years in less they were in active combat as a spouse of a retiree. Most I know in that situation use it as bragging rights vs. most retirees I know rarely mention it in less it comes up.

You don’t think much of vets who just served a few years unless they were in active combat?

Are you a Trump supporter?

No, absolutely not. But those who served a few months or a few years stateside had a very different experience. I get sick of listening to people who served a few years doing a basic job brag about the good old days in the military. You don't seem to understand its a very different kind of service and I think its offensive that they get the same benefits as those who were injured in combat or served 10+ years.

Someone please correct me if I’m missing something, but are veterans eligible for lifetime benefits (health insurance, etc) if they served stateside for 4-5 years and never saw combat? That seems like a huge expense.

Do you have any conception how pitifully lousy VA health care typically is? Or that it is rationed according to a priority system that takes account of the nature of the individual's service and whether their medical needs are service connected?

As for expense, lots of things the government does are expensive, like federal pensions and their accompanying health care benefits.

Regardless where they end up, every person who signs up for the military agrees to go get shot at if ordered to do so. Particularly now the likelihood of deployment to an evil place is more likely than ever.

This is an old thread. What attention are you looking for? Some VA facilities are very good. Others not so good. If active duty are injured they are medically retired and get tricare. Retirees and families get tricare (they also can use VA but most don't in less they don't have a military facility). Only retired military and those medically retired get pensions and if you are enlisted they are very small.

Yes, you agree to fight.. its the military, not boarding school.

My spouse did 20 years. It gave him a good career and an education he would not have had otherwise. Having tricare for the rest of our live is priceless.