Are Veterans Better Than The Rest Of Us?

[Dan From Smithville]

For those who think vets are better.....
Is it all vets, just combat vets (no REMFs)?

I have started several times to respond to posts on this thread and reconsidered my words.

I have never been in the armed forces, but I have a family that has a history of service to this country going back 200 years. Between four of my brothers and all of my uncles, my family has had a member in every branch of the armed services for the last two generations. My father served in both WWII and Korea. While in the Marines in Korea he suffered head injuries in combat and was medically discharged from the service as a result. I do not recall him ever thinking he was special or better than anyone else because of this. He was proud of his service in the Marine Corp, but he seemed to view his combat experience more as a really risky job than anything special.

As a family, we appreciated that he was taken care of and that we were too as a result. I know his service allowed me and my siblings to go to college much more economically than we would have otherwise.

It is my bias from personal experience and family history that I hold those that serve honorably and maintain that honor in civilian life with respect, but I see us all equal citizens, philosophically. Still, I think that people that have been injured due to their service should be taken care of as part of that and that survivors should be taken care of for their loss.

I do not think that service makes a person immune to any of the foibles that plague the rest of humanity and they can be as faulty as the rest of us. Service does not elevate an opinion to some special status or make it more valuable than that of a person that never served or never saw combat. Unless it is an opinion about the service, about combat or things related to those conditions.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have started several times to respond to posts on this thread and reconsidered my words.

I have never been in the armed forces, but I have a family that has a history of service to this country going back 200 years. Between four of my brothers and all of my uncles, my family has had a member in every branch of the armed services for the last two generations. My father served in both WWII and Korea. While in the Marines in Korea he suffered head injuries in combat and was medically discharged from the service as a result. I do not recall him ever thinking he was special or better than anyone else because of this. He was proud of his service in the Marine Corp, but he seemed to view his combat experience more as a really risky job than anything special.

As a family, we appreciated that he was taken care of and that we were too as a result. I know his service allowed me and my siblings to go to college much more economically than we would have otherwise.

It is my bias from personal experience and family history that I hold those that serve honorably and maintain that honor in civilian life with respect, but I see us all equal citizens, philosophically. Still, I think that people that have been injured due to their service should be taken care of as part of that and that survivors should be taken care of for their loss.

I do not think that service makes a person immune to any of the foibles that plague the rest of humanity and they can be as faulty as the rest of us. Service does not elevate an opinion to some special status or make it more valuable than that of a person that never served or never saw combat. Unless it is an opinion about the service, about combat or things related to those conditions.

Extending my earlier question...
If injury from service is what elevates one, then would farmers,
lumberjacks, & fishermen be even more vaunted for their service
of greater risk?
They have no culture or PR machine to call them "hero".
So they toil & endure carnage, but without recognition.

Let's give respect to everyone who is worthy, eh.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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 can't believe that you are seriously conflating War, with a civilian job. Why are you denigrating, and inciting derision between those of us who are willing to sacrifice our lives, for a principle that we believe in? FREEDOM. You're not seriously comparing job-related ACCIDENTS, to being wounded or killed by a bullet from an AK-47? Did you mention that civilian workers can always go home when they finish work, and have dinner with their loved ones. You can't do this in the field. Even home is not safe. Did you mention that you can always quit your job, if they left something out of the job description that they forgot to mention? Sorry, not in the field, quitting is not an option. Did you mention what constant stress and fear can do to young impressionable minds? No? How about going out on short, and long range patrols, twice a week for your 9 month deployment, knowing that you might not return? Maybe you can share the experience of being in a tree for two days, or in foxhole for 3 days(LP's), and how every sound and shadow paralyzes you with the fear of dying? Maybe you can share the sounds, sights and smells of your close friends dying, or screaming next to you, telling you not to let him live like this. Finally, exposing young minds to the atrocities that man is capable of doing to man(prisoners, sympathizers, traitors, civilians, etc.). These are the sorts of mental and physical memories, that most young/old combat vets never recover from. What are the principles civilian workers are willing to die for? The fish they catch, the garbage they collect, the vegetables they harvest, the steel and iron they produce, the trees they cut down, or the grounds they maintain? What are the underlying principles that they are willing to risk their lives for?

Instead of denigrating veterans and active military personnel, why don't you write to your congresspersons, and aske them, Why do we have soldiers in harms way, all over the Middle East? Saddam Hussein has been dead for 13 years, so why are we still in Iraq? Osama bin Laden has been dead for 8 years, so why are we still in Afghanistan? Muammar Al Gadhafi has been dead for 8 years, why is there still a small contingent of troops still in Libya? Why because our soldiers are being used to help assist Saudi Arabia in their terrorists campaigns in all these countries. Soldiers don't have a voice, or military PR., but we do, and should exercise it. The US is nobody's *****, and our soldiers lives can't be bought and sacrificed. Why do we have troops deployed in over 150 countries in the world?

Your false equivalencies(accidents to battle-deaths). There are just too many other fallacies to comment on. I have no idea why you have this level of animosity towards those people, that that have chosen to stand in harms way, to protect the security of people like you. Oh, and what special privileges do healthy, or disabled veterans have, that are not available to civilian through civilian agencies? It is always easy to tell half truths, than the whole truth. That is what our government has been doing for decades.

But on a brighter note

 

[We Never Know]

A common thread runs thru society regarding military types, both active & former....
- Special privileges, eg, discounts, free stuff, priority boarding planes.
- Being called "hero".
- Honorary license plates.
- Commercials advertising enlistment, glorifying combat & elite status.
- A thread here proposing that only veterans can vote.
- Denigration of "draft dodgers".

I picked <same status>.

Same. Yes they sign the dotted line with their life but so do police, firefighters, some health workers, loggers, crab and fish boat hands, etc.

Should they be taken care of with benefits after, certainly, they earned it.

As far as hero status, it's a term commonly used in society. I've seen it used for people that have thwarted kidnappings, saved dogs, aiding people at wrecks, gotten a child out of a hot car, helping the homeless, Dr's, etc.

Bottom line, it's a job they chose to do just like everyone else does the job they chose to do.

It's not a job for everyone, same as many jobs aren't for everyone.

 

[We Never Know]

From a (my) Christian perspective, violence is wrong. Therefore being in the military is wrong. I do not think you can love your enemy at gun point. It is not a question of who is "better".

Be glad others didn't feel the same years ago or Hitler would have taken over the world.

 

[Quagmire]

Better or worse aside, I think veterans deserve an extra dose of respect.

Nobody signs away 4+ of the best years of their lives to be screamed at, sleep in a room with 50 other guys, get up at dawn, crawl through dirt, eat dust, get sent somewhere where they're probably not wanted to be shot at and go through who knows how many flavors of hell unless they're sure they're doing the right thing.

a lot of us wouldn't subject ourselves to any of that even if they were certain it was the right thing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

A common thread runs thru society regarding military types, both active & former....
- Special privileges, eg, discounts, free stuff, priority boarding planes.
- Being called "hero".
- Honorary license plates.
- Commercials advertising enlistment, glorifying combat & elite status.
- A thread here proposing that only veterans can vote.
- Denigration of "draft dodgers".

I picked <same status>.

I really can't pick an option.

Are they "better?" No.

Are they entitled to recognition and other perk/benefits for their service? Yes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't believe that you are seriously conflating War, with a civilian job.

That is because I am not doing as you say.
This sentence addresses the rest of your wall of text.
(Use more concise wording & shorter paragraphs, please.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't believe that you are seriously conflating War, with a civilian job. Why are you denigrating, and inciting derision between those of us who are willing to sacrifice our lives, for a principle that we believe in? FREEDOM. You're not seriously comparing job-related ACCIDENTS, to being wounded or killed by a bullet from an AK-47? Did you mention that civilian workers can always go home when they finish work, and have dinner with their loved ones. You can't do this in the field. Even home is not safe. Did you mention that you can always quit your job, if they left something out of the job description that they forgot to mention? Sorry, not in the field, quitting is not an option. Did you mention what constant stress and fear can do to young impressionable minds? No? How about going out on short, and long range patrols, twice a week for your 9 month deployment, knowing that you might not return? Maybe you can share the experience of being in a tree for two days, or in foxhole for 3 days(LP's), and how every sound and shadow paralyzes you with the fear of dying? Maybe you can share the sounds, sights and smells of your close friends dying, or screaming next to you, telling you not to let him live like this. Finally, exposing young minds to the atrocities that man is capable of doing to man(prisoners, sympathizers, traitors, civilians, etc.). These are the sorts of mental and physical memories, that most young/old combat vets never recover from. What are the principles civilian workers are willing to die for? The fish they catch, the garbage they collect, the vegetables they harvest, the steel and iron they produce, the trees they cut down, or the grounds they maintain? What are the underlying principles that they are willing to risk their lives for?

Instead of denigrating veterans and active military personnel, why don't you write to your congresspersons, and aske them, Why do we have soldiers in harms way, all over the Middle East? Saddam Hussein has been dead for 13 years, so why are we still in Iraq? Osama bin Laden has been dead for 8 years, so why are we still in Afghanistan? Muammar Al Gadhafi has been dead for 8 years, why is there still a small contingent of troops still in Libya? Why because our soldiers are being used to help assist Saudi Arabia in their terrorists campaigns in all these countries. Soldiers don't have a voice, or military PR., but we do, and should exercise it. The US is nobody's *****, and our soldiers lives can't be bought and sacrificed. Why do we have troops deployed in over 150 countries in the world?

Your false equivalencies(accidents to battle-deaths). There are just too many other fallacies to comment on. I have no idea why you have this level of animosity towards those people, that that have chosen to stand in harms way, to protect the security of people like you. Oh, and what special privileges do healthy, or disabled veterans have, that are not available to civilian through civilian agencies? It is always easy to tell half truths, than the whole truth. That is what our government has been doing for decades.

But on a brighter note

I do not see that he is denigrating service or those who served by asking questions. In my limited experience with @Revoltingest he usually has a pretty good point that is more than just the face value or first blush understanding of a thing. Just because questions deal with controversial subjects does not mean that a person asking the questions is taking a particular stand for or against the subject.

Does service guarantee special status or are we all equal under the law? Even those who never served? Are the protected somehow less special for needing protection? Are sheep for stepping on by sheepdogs? Does everyone that joins the military do so out of noble character and willingness to sacrifice some or all for others? If the group that served in the military receives benefits and respect for their injuries, how is that different from other people in civilian jobs that take on very similar risks and are injured? A police officer might never have served in the military and still experienced many of the same things that a soldier has experienced. A lumberjack might face death daily, but I am glad he chose to do the job so that I can have wood for the frame of my home.

None of these questions denigrates anyone and I certainly would not be classed in any group that denigrates those who served our country in its defense.

 

[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.

Do people sacrifice themselves for commerce and buildings or is it ideals and other people for which they serve and sacrifice?

 

[Stevicus]

On the general subject of recognizing those who sacrifice in the service of their country, I was wondering if the same sentiment applied to those who work in the intelligence agencies - particularly the spies out in the field risking their lives to get information on adversaries.

 

[Quagmire]

On the general subject of recognizing those who sacrifice in the service of their country, I was wondering if the same sentiment applied to those who work in the intelligence agencies - particularly the spies out in the field risking their lives to get information on adversaries.

I would definitely include them. Can't imagine the nerve it would take.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not see that he is denigrating service or those who served by asking questions. In my limited experience with @Revoltingest he usually has a pretty good point that is more than just the face value or first blush understanding of a thing. Just because questions deal with controversial subjects does not mean that a person asking the questions is taking a particular stand for or against the subject.

Does service guarantee special status or are we all equal under the law? Even those who never served? Are the protected somehow less special for needing protection? Are sheep for stepping on by sheepdogs? Does everyone that joins the military do so out of noble character and willingness to sacrifice some or all for others? If the group that served in the military receives benefits and respect for their injuries, how is that different from other people in civilian jobs that take on very similar risks and are injured? A police officer might never have served in the military and still experienced many of the same things that a soldier has experienced. A lumberjack might face death daily, but I am glad he chose to do the job so that I can have wood for the frame of my home.

None of these questions denigrates anyone and I certainly would not be classed in any group that denigrates those who served our country in its defense.

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.

 

[Valjean]

Better or worse aside, I think veterans deserve an extra dose of respect.

Nobody signs away 4+ of the best years of their lives to be screamed at, sleep in a room with 50 other guys, get up at dawn, crawl through dirt, eat dust, get sent somewhere where they're probably not wanted to be shot at and go through who knows how many flavors of hell unless they're sure they're doing the right thing.

a lot of us wouldn't subject ourselves to any of that even if they were certain it was the right thing.

I think a lot of teens dream of a military career. It's romantic and adventurous; tough, manly and cool. You get to play with guns and travel the world. Everyone respects you when they see you in your uniform, and in disadvantaged regions it might be the best career move going. Of course, there's also the usual vocational, educational other social and economic perquisites.

 

[Quagmire]

I think a lot of teens dream of a military career. It's romantic and adventurous; tough, manly and cool. You get to play with guns and travel the world. Everyone respects you when they see you in your uniform, and in disadvantaged regions it might be the best career move going. Of course, there's also the usual vocational, educational other social and economic perquisites.

Sure, there can be any number of incentives, but you have to weigh them all against "I could get shot" (not to mention the other stuff i n my last post).

 

[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.

It is inevitable that these subjects have emotional attachment and that attachment can cloud the issues.

I do not know if it is something that makes you happy, sad or raises no interest at all, but I have identified you as someone whose opinion I respect and pay attention to. Maybe it is me, but I see more to your questions than an emotional response is sufficient to address.

I was a longtime member of another forum, that included a troll that claimed to have served 20 years in the military. He was obnoxious, several times threatened other posters with violence to the point of trying to set up meetings. He followed other posters around different forums and threads so that he could harass them. His responses were very emotional and invested. He flaunted his service as if it gave him special permission to be some sort of rogue police officer. That sort of attitude seems to be against the idea of service that most of us have. Certainly, he did not have special rights and was just a troll. I have no idea if he even served. People can say anything.

I see respect for anyone that served, but respect does not have to entail special privileges. However, taking care of people that have taken on risks that some of the rest of us either cannot, choose not to or won't is not a special privilege in my mind, but an earned benefit of service.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That is because I am not doing as you say.
This sentence addresses the rest of your wall of text.
(Use more concise wording & shorter paragraphs, please.)

Just so that I am not misunderstanding or misrepresenting you, maybe you can answer these few questions?

Do you feel that soldiers disabled, wounded, or killed in the illegal wars they are sent to, should receive no more, or no less respect, than civilians working in other dangerous jobs(less than 0.1% fatalities) here at home?

What are these special benefits, privileges, services, and special exemption that are available only to Vets, disable vets, or military personnel, that are not also available to civilians, through other civilian means? Don't make the same TSA and special discount mistakes again. We've been down this debunked road before.

Are there not recognized civilian heroes, as well as military heroes? So why would you object to military heroes "Being called "hero"?

Do you think the roughly 2 million soldiers who died in all US wars since 1812(not counting injured, death other than combat, MIA's, enemy, or civilian deaths) should be honored and respected for their sacrifice and service?


Do you think that there is any difference between doing a job where people ARE actually trying to kill you, and a job where there is a 99.9% chance that you will NOT accidently die at work? Remember those occupational death accident totals, are per every 100,000 workers.

When you ask, "Are veterans better than the rest of us?", are you assuming that the fact in question is true? Specifically, that veterans ARE better than the rest of us. Its like asking, "Are you still beating your wife, and when did you stop?". It assumes in the question, an assumption that hasn't been determined as fact. A true question would be OPEN ended, like "Do you think that veterans are better than the rest of us?". Not closed. If you are simply asking our opinions, then veterans are not better than the rest of us, but their actions deserve our respect, honour, admiration, support, and remembrance for their service.

You are correct that only special people willing to put service before self, to protect an ideal, and will face people trying to kill them, to prove it. It is certainly not the right vocation for many people. How does this vocation compare with your list of dangerous jobs? 42 Million people have served in the military since 1812. Roughly 2 Million people have died DIRECTLY from battle(not from the above mentioned). Now lets do the math. 2 million dead soldiers/ 42 million military personnel x 100,000 = 4,761.9 combat soldiers killed per every 100,000 military personnel, in all wars since 1812. This is the results one would expect in a vocation where people are really trying to kill you. Which again is the most dangerous vocation on your list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Hopefully, I am being more concise, and I hope you will do the same.





​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I do not see that he is denigrating service or those who served by asking questions. In my limited experience with @Revoltingest he usually has a pretty good point that is more than just the face value or first blush understanding of a thing. Just because questions deal with controversial subjects does not mean that a person asking the questions is taking a particular stand for or against the subject.

Does service guarantee special status or are we all equal under the law? Even those who never served? Are the protected somehow less special for needing protection? Are sheep for stepping on by sheepdogs? Does everyone that joins the military do so out of noble character and willingness to sacrifice some or all for others? If the group that served in the military receives benefits and respect for their injuries, how is that different from other people in civilian jobs that take on very similar risks and are injured? A police officer might never have served in the military and still experienced many of the same things that a soldier has experienced. A lumberjack might face death daily, but I am glad he chose to do the job so that I can have wood for the frame of my home.

None of these questions denigrates anyone and I certainly would not be classed in any group that denigrates those who served our country in its defense.

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.
​

Do people sacrifice themselves for commerce and buildings or is it ideals and other people for which they serve and sacrifice?

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you feel that soldiers disabled, wounded, or killed in the illegal wars they are sent to, should receive no more, or no less respect, than civilians working in other dangerous jobs(less than 0.1% fatalities) here at home?
​

No more nor less respect generally.
Respect should depend upon judging the individual.

What are these special benefits, privileges, services, and special exemption that are available only to Vets, disable vets, or military personnel, that are not also available to civilians, through other civilian means?

Some...
- Discounts at movies, restaurants, etc.
- Priority seating on airlines.
- And now waived student loan balances with waived tax liability.

Don't make the same TSA and special discount mistakes again. We've been down this debunked road before.

I didn't pay attention to that objection.

Are there not recognized civilian heroes, as well as military heroes? So why would you object to military heroes "Being called "hero"?

Heroes are those who do heroic things.
It's not a function of one's profession, generally.

Do you think the roughly 2 million soldiers who died in all US wars since 1812(not counting injured, death other than combat, MIA's, enemy, or civilian deaths) should be honored and respected for their sacrifice and service?

There is no "should".
Each person may do what calls to them.

Do you think that there is any difference between doing a job where people ARE actually trying to kill you, and a job where there is a 99.9% chance that you will NOT accidently die at work? Remember those occupational death accident totals, are per every 100,000 workers.

Danger is a matter of what actually happens.

k
When you ask, "Are veterans better than the rest of us?", are you assuming that the fact in question is true?

It is a question....neither true nor false.
Posters' answers are just opinions, & neither true nor false.

Specifically, that veterans ARE better than the rest of us.

I disagree.

Ikts like asking, "Are you still beating your wife, and when did you stop?". It assumes in the question, an assumption that hasn't been determined as fact. A true question would be OPEN ended, like "Do you think that veterans are better than the rest of us?". Not closed. If you are simply asking our opinions, then veterans are not better than the rest of us, but their actions deserve our respect, honour, admiration, support, and remembrance for their service.

You question is not analogous.
My question assumed no such premise.

You are correct that only special people willing to put service before self, to protect an ideal, and will face people trying to kill them, to prove it. It is certainly not the right vocation for many people. How does this vocation compare with your list of dangerous jobs? 42 Million people have served in the military since 1812. Roughly 2 Million people have died DIRECTLY from battle(not from the above mentioned). Now lets do the math. 2 million dead soldiers/ 42 million military personnel x 100,000 = 4,761.9 combat soldiers killed per every 100,000 military personnel, in all wars since 1812. This is the results one would expect in a vocation where people are really trying to kill you. Which again is the most dangerous vocation on your list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Hopefully, I am being more concise, and I hope you will do the same.

Your statistical view is not based upon
current data, which is what I've addressed.


This post might have technical problems.
I'm experiencing editing function corruptions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Extending my earlier question...
If injury from service is what elevates one, then would farmers,
lumberjacks, & fishermen be even more vaunted for their service
of greater risk?
They have no culture or PR machine to call them "hero".
So they toil & endure carnage, but without recognition.

Let's give respect to everyone who is worthy, eh.

I knew going in that posting on this thread would draw a lot of fire. But these are points that interest me for a number of reasons. I see that my status as "never served" has already been used to relegate me as different and outside of "served" status. This was something that I expected as highly likely to occur. Just receiving that response indicates the person providing it feels they have special status. It has already been claimed that I have not put my life on some line and couldn't understand, though this was not based on any evidence I have provided and nothing that the respondent could have knowledge of. You do not need to be or have been a soldier to do something dangerous or life threatening or to do it for the benefit of someone else.

I think the members of those professions, like anyone that chooses to do a dangerous job, have earned a measure of respect and compensation for injuries and loss due to those jobs should be a benefit of the work. They are no more special than anyone that has not served in those positions.

It is an interesting and important question. That is the best answer I can come up with right now.