Obviously, National Guardsmen can be sent to battle, and come into combat situations. I don't think anyone would begrudge them the term "veteran." Now if a Guardsman stays home, and never sees combat, but just trains in peacetime, then he isn't a veteran? Then why is someone in a war situation who never got shot at a veteran?
Of course, this is a ridiculous argument. ANYONE who signs up with the military in any aspect, has the right to call themselves a veteran. If you want to be specific about "combat veteran," that's another story. I will readily concede that Kerry is a combat veteran, and Bush is not. This does not make Bush's tour of duty worthless, or flying planes as safe as being on a golf course.
A tour of duty cleaning a ship is no less important or honorable than a tour of duty in combat. But pretending that both are hazardous duty is misleading at best. I have an older Kerry quote where he actually says he did both tours on Swift Boats. The story changes every damn day. I can't keep up with the holes that keep opening in it.
Current Events » in reply to Dunno. Does the current re-classification of service going on here count the National Guardsmen as Vets? :-)
You set up the statement, not me.
The whole thread (46 posts)
- Hollywood preparing massive anti-Bush siege
- cheap-film-wise, I think lots of folks are drooling over F911's success
- Hollywood makes what people will pay to see. Capitalism at work.
- Movie Title: Kerry's long war...Now that's funny
- Oh... the Evil
- 2 tours of duty Scott. Try to keep up. (n/t)
- re: You can't be serious...
- OKaaaay
- Not all 'tours of duty' are created equal
- You just insulted pretty much a whole Navy-full of Viet Nam Vets (n/t)
- OK
- You forgot Christmas in Cambodia ;-)
- Not all 'tours of duty' are created equal
- OKaaaay
- re: 2 tours of duty
- re: You can't be serious...
- "Then there's the media, which has dedicated itself to a Kerry victory." should be "Then there's the media, which have dedicated themselves to a Kerry victory."
