General Question

FlyingWolf's avatar

What do we owe veterans of an all volunteer armed force?

Asked by FlyingWolf (2423 points ) 2 months ago

Considering that there is no draft and we currently have an all volunteer military, does the government owe veterans who are injured (or killed) on the job more than anyone else injured (or killed) on the job, say a police officer or fire fighter? Do we owe career armed forces veterans more than we owe career teachers, blue collar workers, nurses, or any other worker? Why or why not?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

76 Answers

El_Cadejo's avatar

I don’t feel like I owe them anything. Them flying halfway across the world to kill “terrorists” and more often than not, civilians, in no way what-so-ever “protects my freedoms”.

bea2345's avatar

What other job description includes the requirement to die for one’s country? This is not a sensible question.

ragingloli's avatar

Nothing. In fact, they should not even be issued equipment. If they want some, they have to buy it themselves. That is one thing the Feudal system got right.

Jaxk's avatar

I’m not sure we owe them more but certainly as much as anyone else. Currently that doesn’t seem to be the case. If you are in any other occupation and you can’t get service/treatment, you can go somewhere else. The VA has a lock on that business for the Veterans.

It should be noted as well that in any other position, if you don’t like the job or the risks your taking, you can quit. That’s not the case in the military. You may agree or disagree with the decisions made by the politicians but in the military you do or go where you’re told. We all hold some responsibility for that..

ragingloli's avatar

Desertion is always an option.

JLeslie's avatar

We should take care of their health care in my opinion. I want that for all Americans, and I certainly don’t have a problem With doing it for veterans. I also think we should have services to help vets transition back after having been on the front lines, and also transition to civilian life when they leave the service. In terms of death benefits, I think firemen and police probably to have reasonable benefits for their spouses, and I think doing that for our military makes perfect sense. All the professions where somene is risking their life to protect another deserves some compensation if they die in the line of duty. That can’t be compared to and teachers and nurses I don’t think. However, I realize many people in the military never are in life threatening situations like the front line, they have agreed to be sent to wherever they are told.

I’m not sure I agree with the housing allowance the military gets, and I think they get extra for having a spouse, but I also can see the rationale behind those things.

@Jaxk Veterans absolutely can go outside of the vet system for health care.

FlyingWolf's avatar

@bea2345 fire fighters and police officers absolutely run a serious risk of dying for their fellow man. Also, not every job description in the military includes the requirement to die for the country. I am fairly certain the fellows working in the recruiting office run about as much risk of dying on the job as a clerk at Macys. The word requirement kind of denotes that no one gets out of the military alive and is a bit of an exaggeration wouldn’t you say? I’d go as far as to say they must be willing to risk their life.

@Jaxk you make a good point about not being able to quit immediately. I guess there are ways to get out but that can dog you for the rest of your life if I understand correctly. But then I go back to the point that it was the soldier’s decision to sign up and commit for a specific amount of time.

LuckyGuy's avatar

Actually the job of President of the United States is considerably higher risk than being a soldier, firefighter or policeman. Of the 44 presidents, 8 died in office! 4 were assassinated and 4 died of natural causes. We will ignore the ones injured in assassination attempts.
That is a pretty high death rate.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

We owe them an education and an apology. Not a college education, an education in understanding how incredibly stupid their choice was to become the armed, jack-booted thugs of a criminally insane wealthy elite which is pulling all the strings.
The apology is a way to say how sorry we are that they were so weak that they succumbed to the brainwashing our country throws at us all ever since we are school children. You know, it starts with that insidious pledge of allegiance which most people blindly recite until it becomes part of their very fiber.

gondwanalon's avatar

We owe them the best medical care available to treat their injuries and rehabilitation. Also we owe them everything that was promised to them as well as day to remember those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

gondwanalon's avatar

@Dan_Lyons Oh like young children in our schools get no brainwashing with liberal/progressive ideas.

LDRSHIP's avatar

You don’t owe us anything.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

@gondwanalon I don’t know. Do they? I gave an example. Do you have one?

bea2345's avatar

@FlyingWolf…not every job description in the military includes the requirement to die for the country.- This is hair-splitting. From the moment one dons the uniform of the armed forces and takes the oath of allegiance, the understanding is that one may be called upon to die, if necessary, to defend one’s country. All small countries understand this. Ask the Israelis.

stanleybmanly's avatar

We owe them what we promised them. It’s part of the deal required to fill what amounts to a sucky job. Although, increasingly the military looks a lot better than previously when compared to the dismal doings in the private sector.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Health care, education, and assistance finding a good job.

filmfann's avatar

They may have enlisted out of patiotism, or to escape problems at home, or to get training and work in a suffering jobs market. It doesn’t matter. They are working under rotten conditions, trying to do a difficult job that often results in injury and death. What do we owe them? We should make sure the government fulfills their part of the bargan. Health care, and education, and taking care of those they left behind should tragedy strike. And we should not let the government force them into multiple reenlistments.
But most of all, these people deserve our respect.

FlyingWolf's avatar

@bea2345 no I don’t see it as splitting hairs. For example, my brother did a tour with the Air Force. He wrote for the base newspaper, he was never required to give his life for his country.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

When that other German cocksucker tried to take over the world a lot of good people gave their lives so we could be free. And if we send someone on a mission, we owe them big time.

majorrich's avatar

For me, it was an honor to do my part to defend our country from it’s enemies, foreign and domestic. I feel I don’t deserve be berated for volunteering to defend my country. There is a whole lot more that is done by the military than most people would ever know. We provide most of the military force of the united nations (note the small letters for the respect I have for that body). My men and I received fire from rogue militia trying to take humanitarian aid sent for starving people in Mogadishu. I held a friend as he died in my arms while we guarded a truckload of rice. When is rice worth dying for? Do I deserve to wake in the night screaming because of a mission that went wrong, or what I saw witnessing man’s cruelty to man? Did the men I killed on behalf of our country under orders from our President deserve to die? (granted, they were shooting at me first) No.. It wasn’t even a mission on our Countries behalf. All I ask for in return is little respect. Americans, enjoy your freedom, it is a gift from the Men who preceded me, and served after me.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@majorrich Fucking 900 GA’s

JLeslie's avatar

@majorrich Do you think it is worthwhile to go on those missions for peace keeping? Does protecting the rice protect our country? Do we do those things to protect America, or do we do it to help the other people in the world, because it is the right thing to do? I ask your opinion, I am not stating this with a negative tone. I said above I think we should support our veterans in very real ways including healthcare, transition from military to civilian life, etc.

majorrich's avatar

That was a UN mission, and absolutely worthwhile to take help to people who have no means to help themselves. I was happy to be there. It protected our country by degrading the hold a drug dealing warlord held over them. This was prior to 911 but in a time when Anti-American sentiment among Muslims was growing. If only I could show you all the things that can’t be un-seen, and oh boy the smells! Getting attacked came clear out from left field. And Dave getting hit was something that happens when people shoot at people.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

I know this: If it wasn’t for a cordon of US Marines surrounding our tents in Cite Soliel after the 2010 Haitian earthquake, the multinational civilian DMATs could never have done their jobs. They created the stability we required to do our work in a chaotic environment. Their choppers brought in huge bladders of fresh water manufactured aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier offshore, pallets of MREs, and desperately needed drugs. I suspect they enjoyed a truly humanitarian mission for a change and it was a cake gig compared to others they’d seen, and the off-duty nurses were all over them. We could never have done our jobs without them. But never did I see a mention of their service to us on the news.

Heroes all.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

Okay, I will go this far. The US government does in fact owe the veterans every bit of medical attention their wounds from serving in the military demand.
Including medical attention for PTSD, ShellShock, or whatever newfangled term they are using today
It is unfortunate that those volunteering into the armed services of the present apparently have learned nothing from the incredible lack of medical attention our returning wounded vets received (or didn’t receive) back in the 60s – 70s.

johnpowell's avatar

If you get hurt on the job the employer needs to pay your bills. This should apply to the ARMY and Wal*Mart.

jca's avatar

Soldiers risk PTSD, grave injury, death, or getting taken POW. Many people who enlist do so to escape grim economic situations (I think stats show that the majority of enlistees come from lower income households). Rich kids are getting sent to good colleges, and after school use daddy’s connections to get a position at the firm or the friend’s firm or otherwise utilize those college degrees.

@FlyingWolf: Your brother wrote for the base newspaper, but presumably, if the higher ups decided he was going overseas to fight against some country/enemy/group, he would have to go, without question, correct?

El_Cadejo's avatar

@jca Still takes a different type of person to willingly take up arms against another. Especially against an “enemy” that isn’t even invading your homeland.

jca's avatar

@El_Cadejo: You’re preaching to the choir.

MollyMcGuire's avatar

Respect and appreciation. We owe them the necessary care they require , especially from military-related injuries. Our veterans have great benefits now. The politicians love to use this as a political thing which makes me sick. What has gone on at the VA hospitals makes me sick too. Maybe it’s time to let vets use private health facilities at the taxpayer’s expense.

El_Cadejo's avatar

@jca Fair enough :P

jerv's avatar

I would settle for not being called an “armed, jack-booted thug”.

Many seem to think of any of us who served as blood-thirsty baby-killers, corporate lapdogs, and otherwise entirely inferior. They have no idea what the military is really like, or the types of people who are actually in it.

Aside from a half-day training course in boot camp, I never touched a weapon the entire time I was in. Some people refuse to grasp that it’s possible to be in the military without taking part in violence, or that much of the violence that does occur is defensive in nature; kill or be killed. I’ve known a few combat vets who have killed, and it really isn’t much easier on them than on the people they shot. But most have been in non-combatant roles, like electricians, mechanics, cooks, medics, and things other than 0311 “bullet sponges”.

A lot of military members are kids that just want that GI Bill to help pay a fraction of what college costs these days. That was why I joined. (That, and nuclear field training is worth 63–66 college credits without ever taking a college course.) Some just want a steady job in an unstable economy full of lay-offs. Can you blame a father of 3 for wanting a stable income instead of worrying about having their job outsourced? So there are quite a few that join for financial reasons. Or maybe they’re following in their father’s (or grandfather’s, or great grandfather’s) footsteps and continuing a family tradition. There are plenty of reasons that people join that have nothing to do with wanting to kill.

And what type of people they? Well, here are the cold-blooded killers of the US Army, and our psychopathic sailors. They just want to be rock stars.(Except the Marines; they like to just dance) The armed forces aren’t full of corporate slaves and murderers; they’re full of regular people. Fathers, frat boys, and just normal folks. Yeah, sometimes our boss tells us to do stuff we don’t agree with, but that’s true in almost any job.

So just treat those who wear or have worn a military uniform as people.
That’s not much to ask for, but it’s a lot more than we get :/

LDRSHIP's avatar

@jerv Your comment made me remember this picture.

http://i.lvme.me/p7fzuap.jpg

JLeslie's avatar

@jerv I have never had someone say something negative to me when I mention my dad is retired from the military. How often do you really hear things like that? I believe you do, I am just curious. I also never take it personally when people say obnoxious negative things about the military, because one, my dad never was in a job that was remotely related to war or killing anyone. I actually let people know that when they start to gush with the “thank you for his service” type line. He was not Army, Navy, Airforce, or Marine, he was Public Health Service and had a desk job in the suburbs of DC. I feel like it is disengenuous for people to think he was laying down his life.

Do you think military men who have put their lives in danger should get different benefits than those who don’t? Should a airplane mechanic in the service for 6 years be eligible for veteran services once he leaves the military?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@jerv “Some people refuse to grasp that it’s possible to be in the military without taking part in violence”

Absolutely. Here’s some help for their grasp: At the height of WWII when we had 9 million men and women in the combined services, there were never more than 100,000 on the front lines at any one time.

majorrich's avatar

@jerv is absolutely right! I was in the Army for 12 years and was only in danger on purpose once. Two other times it was unplanned stuff. My primary job was in the S-1 shop ‘human resources’ kind of stuff. I got to go on ‘tag a longs’ to remain qualified. I regret my knee jerk reaction to the jackboot reference because nothing could be further from what I am or ever was. Revealing details of my personal nightmare was out of line and I also regret that. Accidental contact is devastating on an office pogue and is the root of my particular PTSD. It will never go away. Aside from combat bonus’ everybody pretty much gets the same benefits unless they were injured, or stay long enough to retire from service.

FlyingWolf's avatar

@jca I am fairly sure he knew going in (or at least had a pretty good idea) he wouldn’t see combat. It was during an extended period of peace when everyone I knew who enlisted went in with a pretty good idea of what type of assignment they would end up with. Sure the chance existed, however slim, but he went in knowing that the odds were quite good he would not be required to take up arms, much less die, for his country.

Jaxk's avatar

@jca

It is a common misconception that the military is comprised of the poor and uneducated. It is Not True. The military is actually better educated and from higher income levels than the general population. An exerpt from the link

“Indeed, in many criteria, each year shows advancement, not decline, in measurable qualities of new enlistees. For example, it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pentagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.”

jca's avatar

@Jaxk: This is from their “About” page:

“Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

Of course, any studies or stats from this foundation are going to be slanted.

Jaxk's avatar

@jca

So your position is that you have no data of your own but unless it comes from some liberal, it’s not believable. OK, I guess I’m finished here.

FlyingWolf's avatar

Here is an interesting analysis of the report linked by @Jaxk. This article doesn’t dispute the numbers as much as it disputes the author’s conclusions about what they prove, it does seem to indicate that the report linked does prove @Jaxk‘s point that the military is not necessarily a last resort made up of poverty stricken people with no other options.

Both of my brothers, my nephew, and several friends who joined the military were middle to upper middle class kids without enough money to pay for college. They joined primarily for the benefits of the GI Bill (one brother now has a PhD and the other is a lawyer, so their service paid off for them).

So yeah, the military is more than just a magnet for the poor.

jca's avatar

@Jaxk: You are correct, I have no data of my own and right now, limited time to google.

I am not saying I want the data to be from some place liberal. I would prefer it to be from someplace objective (for example, stats from the military, if they have such data, showing household income from recruits).

JLeslie's avatar

Is that report @Jaxk linked stating what income goes to what position at timeof recruitment? I tried to skim it, the whole article is not loading right for me and keeps closing. It’s probably my iPad I have a lot of trouble with it. My dad had joined the military with a college degree. He actually left for about 8 years and when he went back to the military he had his PhD by then. But, he never risked any chance of going to any far away place during war time or even trying to do any peacekeeping, or anything of the sort. Are they counting people like my dad? Or, the officers who work for NOAA? I have a feeling they are. When we worry about the poor joining the military in greater numbers than the middle clas and rich, we want to know who is risking their lives. What rank they join at. My dad was an officer from day one. Maybe that article does divide it up that way.

If most if the military never sees combat and never has their life in danger then they are just doing a job. I ave no problem with them getting benefits like medical and pensions, I am just saying they are doing a job like most Americans do their job every day. I don’t see how someone who served as a lawyer can compare themselves to the kid who had his leg blown off. The lawyer can certainly be proud to be an American, to serve their country, to be in the Navy or whatever branch of service, but should they get the credit for having given military service like the guy who participated in a war?

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

You may be trying to over analyze the report. You can’t really use the income of an 18 year old as their economic status, most haven’t started working yet whether from Belair or Watts. What they did was to take the neighborhood’s economic level. for example if you live in Watts you are from a poor neighborhood, if from Bel Air, not so much.

I think the example of your Dad is not typical. And it’s been a long time since I joined but back then (1965), you told them what you wanted to do and after you were in they told you what you would do (not necessarily the same thing, or even close).

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk A rare moment of agreement between us. Also, I wanted ET, but I got EM. “Needs of the Navy!”.

@jca A typical Navy “A”-school will get a bunch of your core academic requirements and a few courses towards a rating-relevant major out of the way right off the bat with zero additional education. In my case, that’s Electrical Engineering, and also means that I could skip most of the normal apprenticeship training required for civilian electrician certification if I chose to change careers again. And while I had a rough childhood, I was middle-class years before I joined. Many of the people I served with came from normal families, not especially impoverished. A few already had degrees before joining.

While I’m normally at least as skeptical of @Jaxk and his sources as you are, this time he’s right. If nothing else, the more stringent academic requirements to be allowed to enlist shows that they’re not just after warm bodies; they want brains as well. The reason the school I went to was so difficult was because it was figured that most people could learn the stuff they taught in 6 years, but only the best could do it in 6 months, and the Navy wanted the best of the best operating their nuclear reactors. While standards for other ratings are lower, the military still wants the best.

jca's avatar

@jerv: He may be right, he may be wrong. I am very open to the idea that I may be wrong. I would just prefer to have data from an objective source, and not a conservative one. Not a liberal one, either. I am more interested in the truth (now say it, “You can’t handle the truth!” haha).

@Jaxk: An 18 year old’s household income is not going to be from his contributions, in large part. It’s most likely going to be from his mommy or his daddy’s income, lack of income, etc. However, I am thinking (and again, looking for definitive answers) that someone with little prospects in life except maybe a Walmart job is going to be a good target for the recruiters. Not saying they don’t want brains, not saying that politicians’ children don’t join, not saying that geniuses and college kids don’t join (and would be happy to, as they may make it into West Point or the Air Force Academy). I would like to see objective stats, that’s all.

FlyingWolf's avatar

@jca my kids go to one of the most affluent high schools in our area and my son estimates he saw recruiters on campus at least ten tens. I worked in an inner city high school this past year with a huge minority population and saw recruiters maybe twice. I went to a monied high school in an upper middle class suburb of LA thirty years ago and I saw recruiters on campus at least a couple of times a month.

Just an observation, not a peer reviewed scholarly article, but some real world experience nonetheless.

jca's avatar

@FlyingWolf: Yes, good stuff. However, I know people that smoke and never got lung cancer, and there are people who got lung cancer but never smoked. Statistics are overwhelmingly showing something different, so my lucky smoker friends are not really good examples, nor are the cancerous non-smokers.

Jaxk's avatar

@jca

I tried giving you data but you rejected it. So how about this, it should fit your preconceived notion of the military. And as an added bonus, it’s a liberal talking point. No data, no reference, just liberalism run amuck. Should be easy to believe.

jca's avatar

@Jaxk: Don’t sound so angry. I made it clear in my posts that I am totally open to being wrong. I will look at your links now, but in the meantime, why do you seem so angry?

jca's avatar

@Jaxk: Are those statistics about the household income of military recruits? No. It’s a quote from John Kerry. I fail to see how that shows the household income of military recruits. Please explain.

Jaxk's avatar

@jca

I told you there was no data. Just like your original post. it was a liberal talking point and is quite likely the source for your original post. You are right though that I am aggravated. I get that way when opinion and talking points get stated as fact and facts get dismissed simply because you don’t like them.

jca's avatar

@Jaxk: I am not dismissing something because I don’t like it. I am dismissing it because it came from someplace that is not objective. The other thing was a quote by John Kerry. That does not substantiate what we have been talking about.

I did not state anything as fact. I made it clear in everything that I wrote here that it’s my feeling and that I may be wrong.

jca's avatar

http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/military-recruitment-2010/

Thank you.

Look at the recruitment rates of the poor southern states compared to relatively affluent NY, NJ, California.

jca's avatar

@Jaxk: What I did was google “Household income military recruits” or something like that.

Jaxk's avatar

@jca

Why are you looking at states when you could just scroll down to the ‘Recruitment by income Decile’. If you do that you get very similar results to what I had earlier. Different years so they are slightly different but quite similar.

I’m ignoring the Washington Post per your rules that a liberal rag can’t be anymore trusted than a conservative one and therefore must be summarily dismissed..

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk 18 year olds don’t have college degrees. It makes sense to use family income for 18 year olds. My father was dirt poor growing up, or as they say in the city, piss poor. He grew up in a one bedroom apartment in the Bronx with his parents and a sister. His father, who came here when he was 14, sewed slippers in a factory when factories really sucked. My dad joined the service after college. He was actually 23–24 years old at the time. Possibly my parents were considered to be below the poverty line at that time, it wouldn’t surprise me. He had his bachelors by 20. Doesn’t matter. The point is being 18 and poor and being 22 with a college degree and poor are two different things. They are different because your payscale in the military has to do with your job and rank and he was ranked according to the job he was qualified for. I’m not sure how he got his first job with the military, in fact I am going to ask him next time I talk to him.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

It makes sense to use household incomes for everybody, whether you just graduated from HS or college. Since there are 10 times more enlisted than officers, I tend to use the enlisted examples more. If you have graduated from Medical school, it is likely that you will get a medical assignment. On the enlisted side, that doesn’t hold true to the same extent.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk I can agree with all of that. What I wonder is, who dies? Who is more likely to die in combat? Which income level? I don’t know the answer. I absolutely have middle class friends who have children in the uniformed services who have seen combat, I am not saying it doesn’t happen.

My mom used to say, join the Navy, in the Army you are more likely to die. So, this also has me wondering if they divide the different branches up what do the statistics look like? Who is joining what branch? As you know stats can be manipulated all sorts of ways. Both sides can manipulate them. We would have to see stats presented in many different ways to have a clear picture I think.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

I think I saw something about deaths by income group but I’m not sure where. Since we have an all volunteer military, the branch is an individual choice and there are lots of reasons pro and con for each branch. If it is an important political point to show that the military is populated by the poor and stupid, I will go ahead and bow out of the discussion because I don’t believe it, nor does anything I’ve seen show that.

JLeslie's avatar

No one said stupid! Who said stupid? I certainly never said stupid. I am tired of Republicans thinking liberals equate poor to stupid, or military to stupid. My dad is genius level and grew up extremely poor and was in the military. Why would I equate poor or uniformed services to stupid? A close girlfriend of mine was a JAG lawyer and her husband just retired from the Navy and neither of them are stupid, very far from stupid.

jerv's avatar

@JLeslie Who dies? E3 and below, regardless of intelligence or economics.

In the Navy,they’re used as a secondary detection system after CBR attacks. If the tests show negative, send a non-rate out there to see if the test is correct.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

It’s the Democratic talking point. Go back and listen to John Kerry, if you don’t get an education you end up in Iraq. OK, I used ‘stupid’ for effect, it’s actually uneducated. Still I don’t understand the desire to manipulate the data to try and show it is the poor that join the service when clearly it isn’t. From what I’ve heard hear and elsewhere, it’s one of the basic tenets of liberalism, that you must be stupid to join the military.

It may have had some credibility back when I was in since they were drafting into all four branches of the service. About the only way out was to get a college deferment. that may be the root of whole liberal debate. A lot of their stuff goes back to Viet Nam. I think they need to update they’re play list.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk I honestly never hear stupid from Democrats, I hear poor. The Republicans inject stupid like they are hearing it, they put words in the mouths of Democrats. Democrates when they worry about the poor being preyed upon for service, are actually worried about the poor. That their circumstance gives them fewer choices in life in general. If anyone calls the poor stupid and let’s go ahead and add lazy, it’s Republicans. I am not saying all Republicans, but certainly the Republicans more than Democrats talk about the poor and those who “work the system” in a very negative way….unless they join the military I guess. Plenty of people are poor from circumstance and it has nothing to do with intelligence.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

I feel I have to point out a misconception here. I didn’t say the poor are stupid nor did I say the liberals say that. If you look back I said the poor and stupid. The “AND’ indicates two separate groups, other wise it wouldn’t be needed. I’ve already conceded that I should have used ignorant or uneducated so I don’t feel I need to restate that but I guess I have.

The democrats/liberals need to sustain the idea that the poor and uneducated are disadvantaged by military service. They also need to make the rich the ones that are taking advantage of them. So if the recruitment statistics show a fairly proportional relationship their argument falls apart. That’s why people like John Kerry and Rosie O’Donnel and many others have continued to promote that false narrative. You seem to want to promote the idea that the poor are disadvantaged by the military but take exception with the ignorant.

Last point. I saw a link to CNN.com then search ‘coalition casualties’. There is a bunch of information about the makeup of those casualties. I don’t know if there is anything about economic status but you may find what you’re looking for.

majorrich's avatar

@jerv LOL human canaries! Funny part is it’s in PLDC’s NBC manual!

jerv's avatar

@majorrich And given some of the non-rates that I dealt with, I wouldn’t have been above using them to verify an electrical circuit de-energized either. “Hey, Bootcamp! Grab these wires!”. While the Navy has standards, my time in Nuke school proved that even smart people can be dumb.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Fair enough. I feel like neither you nor me is the extreme left or right and we are interested in the actual statistics, whatever they are. I think both the republicans and democrats use bullshit talking points on this matter, and I do not buy into either, I am just curious about the facts.

Chey97's avatar

I believe we owe all veterans our lives. They went across seas, leaving their families and loved ones behind to fight for our country. If it wouldn’t have been for the people who died on the battle field, where would we be as a country? These veterans go off and fight not because they want to, but because they feel its the right thing to do. Not only for their families, but also for the unfortunate. My boyfriend, my grandpa, all my moms brothers, and many more of relatives have been in the military. I thank them every day for putting their lives on the line for our freedom. I feel blessed to be in a military family. My uncle was in the military, and now he is in the FBI and the Sheriff of his county in North Carolina. I want so bad to follow in his foot steps. Thank you veterans. God bless evey single one, and protect them on the battle fields.

El_Cadejo's avatar

” If it wouldn’t have been for the people who died on the battle field, where would we be as a country?”
Well, for one, I imagine a lot more of the world would like our country.

ragingloli's avatar

there would be a lot more native americans

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
zainety's avatar

People owe us veterans a lot of respect cause if it wasn’t for us there would be no such thing as freedom cause just like everything else in this world it comes with a price.

Chey97's avatar

You’re right baby. And thank you so much. I’ll never be able to say thank you enough. i love you

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther