Are Veterans Better Than The Rest Of Us?

[Curious George]

The burger flipper, trash man, fireman, auto mechanic, city engineer, soldier, entrepreneur, and politician. We all depend on each other in different ways to make this world work.

Then equal pay?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think you have to worry about snipers, land mines, or missile attacks, while you are safe at home maintaining the infrastructure, and keeping corporate America happy. I don't think that the wives/husbands and the families of these soldiers would agree with your "team effort" characterization. Especially, the families of those that have come home in body bags, or with terrible mental and physical injuries.

Anyone who is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect your infrastructure and commerce, is the real patriot. And, deserves all the respect and benefits we can give them. This is certainly not about who is better than the other. That's silly. It is about the few who are willing to die to protect the many who are not. So, civilians are not the same as military personnel, in the specific sense. Are they physically the same as any other humans? Yes. Maybe even better.

I grew up with a WWII vet that spent four years sucking fumes in the bowels of a fleet oiler or on deck shooting at planes that were trying to kill him. Later he served in the Marines during Korea where he suffered head injuries that he had to deal with for the rest of his life. Near the end, he only had about 30% of his lung capacity that I think was the result of breathing those fumes and maybe asbestos in those old ships. We all experienced his condition while he was alive. I grew up with nothing but respect for the military. I still have it. That man had special status to me, but was he better than someone that did not serve, just for his service? I do not think he would have said so, even though he was very proud to have served.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will try to answer your concerns from both posts. People join the Armed Forces for many reasons. Some noble, some criminal, and some just out of ignorance. This becomes irrelevant after basic training and AIT. You are trained to follow orders, and to kill those that are trained to kill you. The military is not a diplomatic agency for peace.​

Why does it become irrelevant? I am aware of the role of the military, but how does that differentiate members of the service from other, equally dangerous professions? I can see a difference for those that chose service over those that were conscripted. There is a difference in choice.

Your subjective attachment to the poster, is totally irrelevant. As a veteran, the implication of preferential treatment for veterans was plain and distorted. This was not an open question. This was a question that assumed that the facts in question to be true. They are not true. What is the evidence, that supports this claim? I also have no idea what groups you choose to align yourself with.

I have come to respect his opinion, just as I have come to respect yours. That does not mean that I will agree with it on the broader or, more often, the finite levels. But there are differences in how people are treated based on their status of military service. Whether this is an expectation by them or something that others thrust on them, may make a difference, but it exists. The group that has a long family history of service and personal and direct relationship with those that served and respect for them. That would be the group I align myself with. I thought it would have been obvious from the details I have mentioned.

Who is claiming that service personnel are NOT equal under the law? Who is claiming that service guarantees special status? Why would you think that veterans operate under a different law than civilians? Who is claiming that civilians are less special, because soldiers are fighting to protect their freedoms? You are simply arguing with your own straw man. People in the military that receive treatment for their injuries at a VA hospital, have nothing to do with civilians receiving treatment at any of the thousands of civilian hospitals. Another straw man. Although I have experience in both vocations, being under fire in the military, is certainly not a one dimensional comparison.

Actually, these were all questions and not straw man arguments. I made no claims. The questions arise from observations that are related to the questions. I am not nor have I ever said that soldiers do not deserve benefits for having suffered injuries due to their service. I am an indirect and very appreciative recipient of some of those benefits.

Since you have never served, or seen any combat, or willingly put yourself in harms way, you will never understand why veterans themselves, don't feel that they are special.

Now you just said that I am not special and without any knowledge of what I have or have not done to put myself in harms way for myself or anyone else. Only that I have never served and thus not had the opportunity to do it in that context. At this point you have no idea if I have put myself in the way of some harm or any circumstance around that if I have. The implication seems to be that I would have a special place if I had served. By the way, I have put myself in harms way for others. I received thanks and no further recognition for it. You are correct. I am not special. I did what needed to be done and I did it without thinking about it at the time.

Or, think that they should be. Many of them must re-live the nightmare of death, betrayal, and loss of innocence, over and over again. This will haunt them their entire life. Do you really think that they care what you think about their benefits, why you feel so threatened, or if they should be called heroes? Do you really think they care about you, projecting your envy, guilt, or jealousy, after what they have gone through?

When I was two and too small to remember, I am told that before going back to the VA hospital, my father had an episode where he marched the entire family outside and ordered us stationed around the house in case an enemy patrol was in the area. He and my mother both told us younger kids about this episode when we were older, and how she got him to come to his senses and go back for treatment. My older siblings never mentioned it. No further incidence like that occurred during my childhood and my father was quite embarrassed about it, but thought it was something we should know.

Since you have never been in any combat situation where running away is not an option, you will never understand.

Why would you say that? Running away is always an option and even in battle some have been known to take it. You are assuming special status again. That those that serve will respond only honorably and those that have not are lesser for it.

So, of course from your perspective, a soldier dying on the battlefield, is no different than someone dying from an accident at work. I obviously disagree, and outlined my reasoning.

You seem to be providing my perspective for me. It is true. I chose not to serve after spending two years considering the idea and going through introductory training and education that would have prepared me for it. When I started college, I mentioned to my dad that they had an ROTC program and I was interested. He told me that if I were to join, he thought going in as an officer was the way to do it. In his opinion, officers had it better and he thought I could do it if I wanted. After two years, I decided for myself that it was not a career I wanted to pursue. My choice. I am not less of a person for having chose that, though, from what I am reading here, perhaps some might consider me so for it.

Obviously others have a higher level of empathy.

I think I have empathy enough and at a very high level.
​

Sorry, I don't understand this non sequitur weird mixed metaphor. Why would anyone sacrifice their life for money or a building? Seems just a bit silly to me.

You brought it up. These were your words. "Anyone who is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect your infrastructure and commerce, is the real patriot". If you do not understand it, you can understand why I did not.

Here is a little history about me so that you can have some information to make claims about me. My family has served this country for over 200 years. I have ancestors and relatives that have served in every major conflict and war since and including the Revolution. I am a 7X great grandson of John Hart, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Jersey. I am an 8X great grandson of Daniel Boone. Both noteworthy in their service to this country in different capacities. I have had three uncles that served in WWII in the Army and survived. One uncle that served in the Army during Korea, but saw only limited combat and was not injured. One brother served in the Navy. One nephew now serving in the Navy. One brother that served in the Coast Guard. One brother that retired after 20 years in the Air Force. One brother that served in the Army Honor Guard Company. I chose not to serve, because I did not find it compatible with my aspirations and not, because I am a coward that would run from a fight and need to be protected. Considering all this, should my family believe they are better than other families that do not have this history? Are we special?

I mention all of this, since you seem to have applied a status to me and I wanted you to have some actual information for your decision. I think these questions are asked to understand things that go beyond deserved and earned respect and they also cover status that is thrust at people also under no effort of their own. You might even say, though it would be untrue, that I am thrusting special status at myself for being a member of a family that respects, promotes and engages in service. I have seen people do that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will try to answer your concerns from both posts. People join the Armed Forces for many reasons. Some noble, some criminal, and some just out of ignorance. This becomes irrelevant after basic training and AIT. You are trained to follow orders, and to kill those that are trained to kill you. The military is not a diplomatic agency for peace.

Your subjective attachment to the poster, is totally irrelevant. As a veteran, the implication of preferential treatment for veterans was plain and distorted. This was not an open question. This was a question that assumed that the facts in question to be true. They are not true. What is the evidence, that supports this claim? I also have no idea what groups you choose to align yourself with.

Who is claiming that service personnel are NOT equal under the law? Who is claiming that service guarantees special status? Why would you think that veterans operate under a different law than civilians? Who is claiming that civilians are less special, because soldiers are fighting to protect their freedoms? You are simply arguing with your own straw man. People in the military that receive treatment for their injuries at a VA hospital, have nothing to do with civilians receiving treatment at any of the thousands of civilian hospitals. Another straw man. Although I have experience in both vocations, being under fire in the military, is certainly not a one dimensional comparison.

Since you have never served, or seen any combat, or willingly put yourself in harms way, you will never understand why veterans themselves, don't feel that they are special. Or, think that they should be. Many of them must re-live the nightmare of death, betrayal, and loss of innocence, over and over again. This will haunt them their entire life. Do you really think that they care what you think about their benefits, why you feel so threatened, or if they should be called heroes? Do you really think they care about you, projecting your envy, guilt, or jealousy, after what they have gone through? Since you have never been in any combat situation where running away is not an option, you will never understand. So, of course from your perspective, a soldier dying on the battlefield, is no different than someone dying from an accident at work. I obviously disagree, and outlined my reasoning. Obviously others have a higher level of empathy.
​

Sorry, I don't understand this non sequitur weird mixed metaphor. Why would anyone sacrifice their life for money or a building? Seems just a bit silly to me.

I do agree with you. Having never served and not experienced combat, I cannot know what that is like. I admit it. It is not something I can even imagine and come close to what must be a terrible reality. It is not something I can change either. But does it make me less of a person for lacking the experience? I have never saved a life on the operating table either, though I am thankful for doctors who do. I suppose, in your view, I must not be very special at all.

 

[Enoch07]

Then equal pay?

Most of those occupations make more than soldiers....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not good at anticipating the emotional baggage brought by others to a discussion.
I'll deal with an aspect of a collection of issues, not taking measures to prevent
mistaken presumptions. People will read things which aren't there.
Both I & they can work on that.

I am not trying to antagonize or disrespect anyone, but what I am seeing is one vote for special status. Obviously, this is an emotional issue for some. I can understand that even though I cannot put myself in their shoes.

I am not sure how to best phrase my interests I have in your questions. It is not to disrespect honorable service and sacrifice. Personally, I think that a career in the military is an honorable and worthwhile pursuit for those that choose it. I once considered it as a choice for myself, though ultimately, I decided against it for my own reasons. No one should be looked down on for making the choice to serve or not receive benefits for serving.

I think these are serious questions that deserve thoughtful and serious consideration and in doing so, have the conversations in a way that is respectful. I know that sometimes raising certain questions automatically places the one asking the questions in a certain light for some whether that is true or not. But how are we to learn anything if we do not ask tough questions too?

While I know nothing of your own status of service, if any, it is none of my business one way or the other outside of what you would voluntarily decide to share. Given what I do know of the political views you have supported, comments you have made about your career and the support of the Constitution you have voiced, it is reasonable to assume that you are pro-military and supportive of those that serve and have served this country. Posing these questions is not in my mind, disrespectful or in opposition to my assumptions.

Since people will view the attributes of a group and use that negatively, I do not see it as unreasonable to ask questions about the positive attributes of a group to determine how other perceive that group or categorize its status. Further, what are the implications of continuing to do that for a group. We see some of it in the rise of hate groups against people based on race, religion or even political position. Does the possibility of creating special status for a valued and respected group have negative implications for the continued elevation of that status, even if it is external to that group and not of their own making?

Perhaps I am getting too deep into this, but it touches on what I am actually interested in this for. Not to marginalize anyone or lead a campaign to reduce their status, but to ponder the possibilities of something taken too far.

To all reading this thread and post, I spent a long time making this post and the other recent posts I made so that I was clear on my interest and my personal position regarding the subject. If I have not been clear, I apologize for that. No disrespect or putting words in others mouths was intended and I would be happy to retract, revise or restate my thoughts to clarify them if there is an issue. I am very much interested in the opinions that people have about this subject, but I am did not join the thread to attack anyone.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just posted one somewhere.
Here you go....
The Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in America
Most Dangerous Jobs in 2016
Rank Occupation Fatal injuries per 100,000 workers Total deaths
1 Logging workers 135.9 91
2 Fishers and related fishing workers 86 24
3 Aircraft pilots and flight engineers 55.5 75
4 Roofers 48.6 101
5 Trash and recycling collectors 34.1 31
6 Iron and steel wokers 25.1 16
7 Truck and sales drivers 24.7 918
8 Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers 23.1 260
9 First-line supervisors of construction trades and extraction workers 18 134
10 Grounds maintenance workers 17.4 217
Source: Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2016

Here's a newer one....
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-ga.../25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/109193204/
Cops are #14.
Soldiers didn't even make the list.
But they appear to have it better than cops....
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-more-dangerous-to-be-a-cop-or-a-soldier-in-the-USA

Clearly, military personnel have much better PR agents
than lumberjacks, fishermen, groundskeepers, etc.
Perhaps their image is based upon the greater danger
of earlier wars.

I, 2, and 8 have been occupations of people in this land for far longer than this land has been a country. I would expect that earlier in our history, the risk was sometimes higher and the fatality rate higher for those jobs. Though mechanization in those industries comes with its own set of risks and possibilities of fatality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are the same as everyone else.

Whilst they go to war to protect us, our freedoms, and our way of life. We stay here and maintain the infrastructure, commerce, etc that keep the gears of civilized society turning. It's a team effort, everyone has different roles to play, but all equally important. The burger flipper, trash man, fireman, auto mechanic, city engineer, soldier, entrepreneur, and politician. We all depend on each other in different ways to make this world work.

But we should take better care of during and after they have served, especially the ones who have physical/mental trauma. We need better programs to help vets reintegrate into civilian life, help them find gainful employment etc.

This is a more expansive view of service, but not without merit. Being an honest, hardworking and upright citizen is service in a sense. We do all depend on people doing these jobs.

Agreed. We need to take better care of each other. Especially those that have risked more and often with little increase in gain for doing so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Those who have served in combat deserve the benefits they receive. Of course, those injured in combat deserve the benefits they receive.

Better is a nebulous term. In general no one is better than anyone else.

However, some have had experiences that differentiate them from other people, and sometimes those experiences deserve recognition.

I think that is a good way to put it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We should note that not all military types are soldiers....even if
perhaps called that. I've known REMFs who have had jobs which
didn't sound so sacrificie. One can be a clerk, cook, chauffeur, etc.

Even many of those have to go through training and can be exposed to activities that are high risk. Even a perceived low risk job can be carried out in a high risk environment too. But I agree, there are low risk jobs in the military that are carried out in very low risk environments.

 

[Curious George]

Most of those occupations make more than soldiers....

But you are suggesting that all of these professions should get equal pay?

 

[Curious George]

I think that is a good way to put it.

No, that is a terribly vague way to put it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that is a terribly vague way to put it.

I did not find it so vague.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you are suggesting that all of these professions should get equal pay?

As long as we use the highest paid professions as the benchmark, I am all for it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you are suggesting that all of these professions should get equal pay?

It is an interesting world that we live in. A world where a person living in safety, security, luxury and celebrity can pretend to be a soldier, a policeman, firefighter, lumberjack or fishing boat captain and make extraordinary amounts of money compared to the people that are actually soldiers, policemen, firefighters, lumberjacks and commercial fishermen.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that is a terribly vague way to put it.

We will have to disagree. I went back and reread @shmogie post and I still like how he summarized it. It was to the point, covered his view and was less wordy than my posts in doing so.

 

[Curious George]

It is an interesting world that we live in. A world where a person living in safety, security, luxury and celebrity can pretend to be a soldier, a policeman, firefighter, lumberjack or fishing boat captain and make extraordinary amounts of money compared to the people that are actually soldiers, policemen, firefighters, lumberjacks and commercial fishermen.

The point was that this is not realistic. We do not mean equal in every sense when we say or profess equality.

 

[Phaedrus]

From my interactions with veterans, they do not consider themselves better than anyone else. In fact, what I like most about them is how adamant most of them are in opposing conservative ideas relating to denying rights to people.

 

[Curious George]

We will have to disagree. I went back and reread @shmogie post and I still like how he summarized it. It was to the point, covered his view and was less wordy than my posts in doing so.

Except what benefits, and why are they deserving?

Are they deserving of more? Less? Just that amount? Still no why?

Veteran benefits are varied, constantly in flux, and subject to change through debated legislation. But the post says nothing. Just "yeah, they deserve what they get." There is literally no substance. It is just more hollow words "supporting our vets."

Well cheers and thank you for your service.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The point was that this is not realistic. We do not mean equal in every sense when we say or profess equality.

I know. I was just waxing a little philosophical about the disproportions between certain professions and a little humorous in my previous response about where I thought the line should be drawn.

Obviously, becoming a physician requires certain aptitudes that are not equally shared as well as costly training, and significant time investment and effort. While certain aptitudes and skills are required to make McDonald's food, they are not equivalent to the demands of becoming a physician and it would be unreasonable to justify equal compensation for both occupations.