Are Veterans Better Than The Rest Of Us?

[Revoltingest]

Better how?

Better at fighting.
Better social status.
Better patriots.

Sure a civilian can be really good at fighting or have a high social status or be a good patriot,
but probably not.

Also, maybe people who have not served are better at some other very important things like raising a family, which is not something a person can do if he has to go fight somewhere.

You get to decide what "better" means to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Better how?

Better at fighting.
Better social status.
Better patriots.

Sure a civilian can be really good at fighting or have a high social status or be a good patriot,
but probably not.

Also, maybe people who have not served are better at some other very important things like raising a family, which is not something a person can do if he has to go fight somewhere.

The United States has 2,165,000 active and reserve duty military personnel representing .66% of the population. The US has about 20,400,000 veterans or about 6.23% of the population. Combined, this group is only 6.9% of the population. I find it difficult to believe that the other 93.1% does not have individuals that express strong patriotism that is equivalent of that of the most patriotic soldier or veteran.

I am glad that we have the most well-trained and well-equipped military out there and would expect that on average, they are more skilled at combat than the average citizen. That makes them better at their job, but it does not mean they have special status as citizens.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You get to decide what "better" means to you.

It is a difficult subject to ask questions about. To do it and be sensitive to people that have had much different and much more intense experiences makes it especially difficult territory to explore. Personally, I think a veteran should feel good about their service and not be made to feel otherwise just for serving. I do not see that is as big a problem these days as it was during the 1960's and 1970's. I think they have earned a measure of respect equal to the sacrifice they have made, whether it resulted in potential or actual exposure to greater risk so that we all could maintain our freedom and lifestyle. But part of the rights they fought for was so that people could have any opinion and express it. So that questions could be asked, whether any was comfortable with the subject of those questions or not.

 

[Ponder This]

You get to decide what "better" means to you.

Do I also get to decide what "better" means to you?

 

[Ponder This]

The United States has 2,165,000 active and reserve duty military personnel representing .66% of the population. The US has about 20,400,000 veterans or about 6.23% of the population. Combined, this group is only 6.9% of the population. I find it difficult to believe that the other 93.1% does not have individuals that express strong patriotism that is equivalent of that of the most patriotic soldier or veteran.

I am glad that we have the most well-trained and well-equipped military out there and would expect that on average, they are more skilled at combat than the average citizen. That makes them better at their job, but it does not mean they have special status as citizens.

The question is about groups of people as opposed to individual members of a group.
Are patriotic individuals of the 93.1 % sufficient to outweigh the rest of the 93.1%?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The question is about groups of people as opposed to individual members of a group.
Are patriotic individuals of the 93.1 % sufficient to outweigh the rest of the 93.1%?

I don't know, but that gives me the benefit that others do not know either. I find it difficult to believe that a large percentage of the general population are not patriotic. But patriotism is not a requisite condition for citizenship or the freedoms we possess as American citizens. Plus, it is difficult to define patriotism and it can mean different things to different people. It is not limited to only exaggerated external displays.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do I also get to decide what "better" means to you?

I think that is the foundation for asking such questions about the status of groups within this country. When does the status of a group supersede the position of others. Keeping in mind that status does not have to derive from the group being elevated and may even be against their wishes or views.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do I also get to decide what "better" means to you?

It is difficult to say that deciding what is better for someone else is not an overt display of patriotism in some misguided sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do I also get to decide what "better" means to you?

No.
Ever poster who votes, does so based upon their own view of what is "better".
You would want me to narrow it down to some definition which suits me,
but not your or others? Then we'd be awash in @Curious George's quibbling.

There's a problem with over-specifying all the possible objections to the
premise, to the questions, to the possibilities, & to the....who knows what.
Were I to address everything which might arise, you'd face a dense wall
of text which would scare off some. And my briefer approach allows you
to explore what "better" might, could, or should mean. Feel free to do so.

 

[Stevicus]

It is a difficult subject to ask questions about. To do it and be sensitive to people that have had much different and much more intense experiences makes it especially difficult territory to explore. Personally, I think a veteran should feel good about their service and not be made to feel otherwise just for serving. I do not see that is as big a problem these days as it was during the 1960's and 1970's. I think they have earned a measure of respect equal to the sacrifice they have made, whether it resulted in potential or actual exposure to greater risk so that we all could maintain our freedom and lifestyle. But part of the rights they fought for was so that people could have any opinion and express it. So that questions could be asked, whether any was comfortable with the subject of those questions or not.

I would acknowledge that such a job entails a great deal of personal risk, as well as some degree of sacrifice, up to and including the ultimate sacrifice.

However, depending on which war one is referring to, I might question whether any of the actions of the military had anything to do with me, protecting my freedom, or the freedom and sovereignty of America. That's where it gets a bit tricky, since praising veterans on the basis of "fighting for our freedom" would imply agreement with the government's decision to go to war - and that the country was truly in danger of losing its freedom (which would give us no other choice but war).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would acknowledge that such a job entails a great deal of personal risk, as well as some degree of sacrifice, up to and including the ultimate sacrifice.

However, depending on which war one is referring to, I might question whether any of the actions of the military had anything to do with me, protecting my freedom, or the freedom and sovereignty of America. That's where it gets a bit tricky, since praising veterans on the basis of "fighting for our freedom" would imply agreement with the government's decision to go to war - and that the country was truly in danger of losing its freedom (which would give us no other choice but war).

That is a good point. But the soldiers themselves are not responsible for how they are deployed and to where. That is the will of politicians and other leadership. That they risk and sacrifice still remains under those conditions you describe as it does for wars where real threats to our liberty are a stake.

Protecting freedom was not very high on my list of reasons to join or not join when I was struggling with that as a young man. I was looking at it with more pragmatism. But we were not at war nor were we to be in a serious conflict for another 8 years. So I had the luxury to view it thus.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Hello. Many things which are right and good are surely viewed as "unrealistic" by many. I do not care what they (you) think. I know our military (how it is used) has often been a force for evil.

Sure you do care, otherwise you would not engage in a discussion which also allows others to impart their ideas.

 

[Stevicus]

That is a good point. But the soldiers themselves are not responsible for how they are deployed and to where. That is the will of politicians and other leadership. That they risk and sacrifice still remains under those conditions you describe as it does for wars where real threats to our liberty are a stake.

Protecting freedom was not very high on my list of reasons to join or not join when I was struggling with that as a young man. I was looking at it with more pragmatism. But we were not at war nor were we to be in a serious conflict for another 8 years. So I had the luxury to view it thus.

Again, this is all true. But when our military is deployed, they're not just risking and sacrificing - but they're also inflicting pain and death upon other people...in our name...under the guise of "protecting our freedom."

I don't think it would be right to blame any individual soldiers personally for this. After all, you're absolutely right in that they have no say as to where they're sent - or why - or what they're supposed to do when they get there. It is what it is.

But on the other hand, if people express dissatisfaction or disapproval of the decisions made by the politicians in our government, then I see no particular reason why any veterans should take offense at that. Such a position does not imply denial of the risks and dangers faced by US military personnel, nor does it hold them personally responsible for any questionable decisions made by our national leaders.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, this is all true. But when our military is deployed, they're not just risking and sacrificing - but they're also inflicting pain and death upon other people...in our name...under the guise of "protecting our freedom."

I don't think it would be right to blame any individual soldiers personally for this. After all, you're absolutely right in that they have no say as to where they're sent - or why - or what they're supposed to do when they get there. It is what it is.

But on the other hand, if people express dissatisfaction or disapproval of the decisions made by the politicians in our government, then I see no particular reason why any veterans should take offense at that. Such a position does not imply denial of the risks and dangers faced by US military personnel, nor does it hold them personally responsible for any questionable decisions made by our national leaders.

Has anyone claimed the latter? At least on here. Veterans have their own political views too. They do not all vote the same or have the same politics. My father was a veteran and conservative in many ways, but he identified as a Democrat. This did not prevent him from voting for a Republican if he felt that was the right way to go. Of course, his Democratic Party is not entirely the same party as it is today. He challenged politicians with his vote.

In other words, I agree that challenging politicians is not a denial of the value of our military or veterans.

 

[Stevicus]

Has anyone claimed the latter?

I've seen some of that go on to some degree. Such as whenever anyone expresses their disapproval of the government by not showing respect to the flag - there are veterans who take umbrage at that and claim that they're personally being disrespected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've seen some of that go on to some degree. Such as whenever anyone expresses their disapproval of the government by not showing respect to the flag - there are veterans who take umbrage at that and claim that they're personally being disrespected.

Interesting. Now that you mention it, I have seen comments about people not standing at the Pledge. They are pretty common, now that I think about it. Celebrity football players have even taken heat for exercising their rights under the Constitution by not standing at the Pledge. I do not agree with the opinion that it disrespects veterans or the service. It could be argued that such an opinion is disrespectful of the laws of this land.

 

[Ponder This]

No.
Ever poster who votes, does so based upon their own view of what is "better".
You would want me to narrow it down to some definition which suits me,
but not your or others? Then we'd be awash in @Curious George's quibbling.

There's a problem with over-specifying all the possible objections to the
premise, to the questions, to the possibilities, & to the....who knows what.
Were I to address anything which might arise, you'd face a dense wall
of text which would scare off some. And my briefer approach allows you
to explore what "better" might, could, or should mean. Feel free to do so.

In that case, I think that the quality of each individual's military service determines whether or not that person is better relative to the others who served. If someone didn't serve, then that person is not comparable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wasn't there at the time, so I was just taking someone's word for it.

I think it's a bit over the top to call it a myth, since public opinion against the war was very strong. There were quite a number of people taking an activist stance against it. Even if they can't find much documentary evidence about "spitting" specifically, it still doesn't negate the fact that there was a very widespread and prominent anti-war and anti-military attitude dominating the era.

My uncle, a Vietnam veteran, was indeed spit on when he got back to the states.