Viet Nam Veteran Bumper Sticker

[whymememe]

The other day as I was driving to the store I got behind a car with a VIET NAM VETERAN BUMPER STICKER on one side and on the other side there was one that said, IF YOU WEREN'T THERE KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

I was drafted in 1971, and trained in infantry mortars. The training was Viet Nam oriented. I was in mortar training at little Viet Nam AKA Tigerland, Ft Polk, Lousiana. I had orders for Viet Nam and spent two weeks on leave thinking I was going to Viet Nam. At the transfer point, they asked us if we volunteered to go to Viet Nam. The war was winding down and they were only sending volunteers. I told them I had not volunteered, frankly I didn't feel I was trained well enough to survive in Viet Nam. Why would I volunteer to go to Viet Nam when I had not volunteered for the Army and I wasn't given my choice of training. The war had caused social unrest and there were many protesting the war. Their were reports of war crimes and fraggings.

I feel like I have been effected by the war. I had to sacrifice my way of life. My military pay was less than half of my previous civilian pay.

My question is why would a guy have these bumper stickers on his car and who would they be directed at. I know it was one big cluster#$%^. for the grunts over there. I don't know about the other branches.

Would this guy maybe have some unresolved issues? How many guys feel like him?

[permafrost]

The left doesn't have an exclusive lock on morons. They're every where. I wasn't there and i feel free to discuss it as much as I want.

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by permafrost

The left doesn't have an exclusive lock on morons. They're every where. I wasn't there and i feel free to discuss it as much as I want.

thanks for responding, permafrost, it's the superior atittude, its offensive.

[carver]

I run into these guys all the time. There is a motorcycle riding club that is for Viet Nam veterans only, http://www.vnvmcfreedom.com/vnvmcinfo1.html and that means: "The VNVMC is made up of both in-country and Viet Nam-era vets. We are bonded by history, and united by principles to form a proud and unique Biker Brotherhood; The Viet Nam Vets MC". Yet if you were not in country, most of them will treat you like dirt. So as a Viet Nam era vet, I can join, but I wouldn't last long. If there are any members of this club on TFF, and you think that what I have posted is wrong, then PM me. We will discuss it! I think that a part of the problem is that in the past everyone that served was a veteran, no matter how they served. That was changed by our Government right after Viet Nam. From that point forward a service member had to be "in the battle" to be considered a veteran. Today, if you were not "in country" in Iraq, or Afghanistan, you are not a veteran.

[MSGT-R]

Today, if you were not "in country" in Iraq, or Afghanistan, you are not a veteran.

Yes you are, you are just not a combat veteran.

I was around for both. I am a retired Woman Marine. I am a veteran of 27 years, and I will go toe-to-toe with any knuckle dragger that thinks otherwise.

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by whymememe

The other day as I was driving to the store I got behind a car with a VIET NAM VETERAN BUMPER STICKER on one side and on the other side there was one that said, IF YOU WEREN'T THERE KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

I was drafted in 1971, and trained in infantry mortars. The training was Viet Nam oriented. I was in mortar training at little Viet Nam AKA Tigerland, Ft Polk, Lousiana. I had orders for Viet Nam and spent two weeks on leave thinking I was going to Viet Nam. At the transfer point, they asked us if we volunteered to go to Viet Nam. The war was winding down and they were only sending volunteers. I told them I had not volunteered, frankly I didn't feel I was trained well enough to survive in Viet Nam. Why would I volunteer to go to Viet Nam when I had not volunteered for the Army and I wasn't given my choice of training. The war had caused social unrest and there were many protesting the war. Their were reports of war crimes and fraggings.

I feel like I have been effected by the war. I had to sacrifice my way of life. My military pay was less than half of my previous civilian pay.

My question is why would a guy have these bumper stickers on his car and who would they be directed at. I know it was one big cluster#$%^. for the grunts over there. I don't know about the other branches.

Would this guy maybe have some unresolved issues? How many guys feel like him?

I'm in the same situation. I joined in '69 and went to Fort Knox for armor recon. Got shipped to ROK and spent my time there in a 4.2 inch mortar platoon in 2ID. 1ID in an infantry company at Fort Riley to complete my enlistment. I have no problem talking to Nam vets. The ones I have run across that have the type attitude of the bumber sticker guy were probably either REMF's or just have some deep seated problems.

[armoredman]

I was born during Vietnam, would've been hard to be there. I did one day of "combat" in the Persian Gulf in 1988 against the Iranian "Navy", but nobody remembers it or classifies it as combat, although I got the Armed Forces Expeditionary medal for it. Whoopee.
If someone who was in the sandboxes wants to tell me I'm not a veteran, or a Vietnam vet tells me I'm not a vet 'cause I wasn't "in country" during Tet, screw 'em, I volunteered, did my service, and I give a rats ass if anybody thinks different.

[rooter]

It was rather like that for the Navy Seabees too...if you hadn't been to country a couple times back then, you must be 'kissing ass' or exerting political influence...That bled off and then come the post Vietnam deployments for the Seabees...Talking to the younger, active duty troops, you hadn't 'sucked the snake' unless you'd served in Diego Garcia...Chief

DIEGO GARCIA

One of the major projects for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and the major project for the Seabees in the 1970s and early 1980s was the construction of a naval complex on the atoll of Diego Garcia, part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Diego Garcia, one of the 52 coral atolls of the Chagos Archipelago, was located in the Indian Ocean 960 miles south of India and 7 miles south of the equator. The 6,700 acre, heavily vegetated atoll was horseshoe-shaped with a perimeter of approximately 40 miles and average elevations of 3 to 7 feet. The annual rainfall was approximately 100 inches.


On 24 October 1972 the U.S. and British governments signed an agreement concerning the construction of a U.S. Naval Communication station on Diego Garcia. The purpose of the facility was to provide a necessary link in the U.S. defense communications network and furnish improved communications support in the Indian Ocean for ships and aircraft of both governments. The U.S. was to build the facility using Naval Construction Force personnel.


The Diego Garcia base was initially planned as an austere communication station with all necessary supporting facilities, including an airstrip. On 23 January 1971 a nine-man reconnaissance party from landed on the atoll to confirm planning information and carry out a preliminary survey of the beach landing areas. In early March a 50-man party from the same battalion and from Amphibious Construction Battalion 2 as well as other specialist personnel arrived by LST, and was followed by an advance party of 160 men from Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 40. These men were to construct a temporary Seabee camp, water and electrical distribution systems, a dining hall, laundry, refrigeration and storage facilities. Finally, they were to build an interim 3,500-foot airstrip.


In October and November, Detachment CHAGOS of NMCB 71 and the whole of NMCB 1 arrived, marking the beginning of large-scale construction. NMCB 1 built the transmitter and receiver buildings and placed the base course for the permanent runway and parking apron. In July 1972 NMCB 62 relieved NMCB-1 and took over the departing battalion's projects. On 25 December the first C-141J transport landed on the newly completed 6,000 foot runway with the Bob Hope Christmas Troupe. The full 8,000 foot permanent runway with adjoining taxiway and parking apron was completed by March 1973; and on 20 March, exactly two years after construction began, the U.S. Naval Communication Station, Diego Garcia, was officially established.


Worked commenced on the second construction increment, a $6.1 million project which involved the construction of a ship channel and turning basin in the lagoon. This project, however, was contracted to a Taiwanese firm. Seabees, however, continued to work on support and personnel facilities in the cantonment area at the northern tip of the atoll. The second major area of construction was the airfield and its supporting facilities. Revised requirements called for the extension of the original 8,000-foot runway to 12,000 feet and additions were made to the parking apron and taxiways. New hangars and other support facilities were also built. In addition, construction of extensive petroleum, oil and lubricant storage facilities was initiated. The Navy required 480,000 barrels of storage to support ship and aircraft needs and the Air Force required an additional 160,000 barrels. During 1973 and 1974 Seabee units worked on all these projects. Because the final mission of Diego Garcia was still evolving, it was clear that still more construction would take place in the years to come.


In 1975 and 1976 Congress authorized $28.6 million to expand the Diego Garcia facilities to provide minimal logistics support for U.S. task groups operating in the Indian Ocean. This mission expansion called for construction of a fuel pier, airfield expansion, and more petroleum, oil and lubricant storage, and personnel support facilities. Additional projects were undertaken in 1978. Construction was accomplished by both Seabees and private contractor personnel and it was anticipated that the Diego Garcia project would finally be completed in 1980. World events in 1979 and 1980, however, forced a reevaluation of the U.S. defense posture in the Indian Ocean Area which indicated the need for pre-positioned materials to support a rapid deployment force and a more active U.S. presence in the area. It was decided to further expand the facilities at Diego Garcia in order to provide support for several pre-positioned ships, loaded with critical supplies. By the end of 1980 the Naval Facilities Engineering Command had advertised a $100 million contract for initial dredging at Diego Garcia to expand the berthing facilities.


In the early 1980s the construction effort at Diego Garcia rapidly shifted from Seabees to private contractors. The last full Seabee battalion, NMCB 62, departed the atoll in July 1982. While Seabees remained in detachments, contractor personnel took over the projects yet to be accomplished on Diego Garcia. Thus, what began as simply a communication station on a remote atoll became a major fleet and U.S. armed forces support base by the 1980s. By 1983 the only Seabee unit remaining on Diego Garcia was a detachment of NMCB 62. The departure of this detachment in September 1983 ended twelve years of priority effort on the island that included some 220 projects for the Navy and Air Force, valued in excess of $200 million. The work the Seabees completed on Diego Garcia since 1971 represented the largest peacetime construction effort in their history. Diego Garcia was the major Seabee construction effort of the 1970s and they acquitted themselves well under the difficult and isolated conditions that exist there. When the Seabees arrived they lived in tent camps, when they departed they left a fully-developed, modern military facility, capable of supporting thousands of U.S. personnel.

[whymememe]

thanks for posting, Chief, now we are drifting again.

[carver]

http://www.disabilitylawclaims.com/b...ran-status.cfm
November 22, 2010 - Determining who is and who is not a veteran does not seem like it would be that much of a challenge. The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) took it upon itself to define who met the definition of "veteran," and to no surprise, not everybody agreed with the VA's definition.

The VA's definition of who is a veteran is very simple: veterans are enlisted men and women who served at a minimum 180 days of active duty. These 180 days do not include time spent in training environments and that is irrespective of how much time they put into the service.

That definition tends to anger 2 particular groups of soldiers: The National Guard and the Reserves. The old adage of not being able to run a war without National Guard and Reservists is very much true. Guardsmen and Reservists rarely escape duty in Iraq and Afghanistan so the majority of them are likely combat veterans. Because they have never served on extended active duty, however, they are not considered veterans by the VA.

[whymememe]

I'm just saying we need to get these conflicts between the combat vets and non-combat vets resolved. At this time in our history we need to be more unified. We need every swinging Richard. We are in this together. DIVIDED WE FALL

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by carver

http://www.disabilitylawclaims.com/b...ran-status.cfm
November 22, 2010 - Determining who is and who is not a veteran does not seem like it would be that much of a challenge. The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) took it upon itself to define who met the definition of "veteran," and to no surprise, not everybody agreed with the VA's definition.

The VA's definition of who is a veteran is very simple: veterans are enlisted men and women who served at a minimum 180 days of active duty. These 180 days do not include time spent in training environments and that is irrespective of how much time they put into the service.

That definition tends to anger 2 particular groups of soldiers: The National Guard and the Reserves. The old adage of not being able to run a war without National Guard and Reservists is very much true. Guardsmen and Reservists rarely escape duty in Iraq and Afghanistan so the majority of them are likely combat veterans. Because they have never served on extended active duty, however, they are not considered veterans by the VA.

Thanks, Carver I had not considered that.

[MSGT-R]

Originally Posted by carver

The VA's definition of who is a veteran is very simple: veterans are enlisted men and women who served at a minimum 180 days of active duty. These 180 days do not include time spent in training environments and that is irrespective of how much time they put into the service.

That definition tends to anger 2 particular groups of soldiers: The National Guard and the Reserves. The old adage of not being able to run a war without National Guard and Reservists is very much true. Guardsmen and Reservists rarely escape duty in Iraq and Afghanistan so the majority of them are likely combat veterans. Because they have never served on extended active duty, however, they are not considered veterans by the VA.

Any Reservist called up for Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and after 9/11 got more than their share of that 180 days, you can be sure.

[whymememe]

I been thinking about the Reservists and Guard. They might need some special attention, I can see where they would really feel slighted and used. It is really a tricky system. It makes me think of a carnival shell game or a ring toss.

[MSGT-R]

Don't worry, the reservists will get their VA in the end. If you're wounded on active duty, you stay on active duty until fully rehabilitated. If there is any disability, they will be attended to. For those who do not ever suffer disability, they will receive their VA eligibility after they retire, and reach 60 yrs old (when retirement benefits kick in).

No tricks nor shell game to it, you just have to understand the ground rules of being a reservist.

Active duty is active duty, it all adds up in the end when you have 20 "good" years (or more) towards retirement. That 180 day figure is just the point when your ID card turns from pink to green and they pay you from a different pot. You still get a DD-214 for each period of time on active duty, and the total points are applied toward your final retirement benefit percentage.

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by MSGT-R

Don't worry, the reservists will get their VA in the end. If you're wounded on active duty, you stay on active duty until fully rehabilitated. If there is any disability, they will be attended to. For those who do not ever suffer disability, they will receive their VA eligibility after they retire, and reach 60 yrs old (when retirement benefits kick in).

No tricks nor shell game to it, you just have to understand the ground rules of being a reservist.

Active duty is active duty, it all adds up in the end when you have 20 "good" years (or more) towards retirement. That 180 day figure is just the point when your ID card turns from pink to green and they pay you from a different pot. You still get a DD-214 for each period of time on active duty, and the total points are applied toward your final retirement benefit percentage.

Were they subject to the stop loss program?

[whymememe]

MSGT-R would you mind disclosing your military job title?

[red14]

Originally Posted by carver

http://www.disabilitylawclaims.com/b...ran-status.cfm
November 22, 2010 - Determining who is and who is not a veteran does not seem like it would be that much of a challenge. The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) took it upon itself to define who met the definition of "veteran," and to no surprise, not everybody agreed with the VA's definition.

The VA's definition of who is a veteran is very simple: veterans are enlisted men and women who served at a minimum 180 days of active duty. These 180 days do not include time spent in training environments and that is irrespective of how much time they put into the service.

That definition tends to anger 2 particular groups of soldiers: The National Guard and the Reserves. The old adage of not being able to run a war without National Guard and Reservists is very much true. Guardsmen and Reservists rarely escape duty in Iraq and Afghanistan so the majority of them are likely combat veterans. Because they have never served on extended active duty, however, they are not considered veterans by the VA.

Back in the 80s my company started a program for Viet Nam era vets for promotions.
I signed up, I needed a raise. I was informed I was not a vet. It still hurts, and was
sure embarassing back them, I was accused of lying by my company. All I have is a
hearing loss in my left ear to show for my tour of duty (7 24 69 - 7 25 75).

[MSGT-R]

Originally Posted by whymememe

Were they subject to the stop loss program?

Yeah, a lot of them were stop loss, me too.

I am a retired Marine Reservist, Master Sergeant, Helicopter Maintenance Chief with 27 years of service. I'm awaiting age 60 so I can start collecting my retirement.

My husband is already collecting his since he's older than me, and all his benefits have kicked in, including any VA eligibility. We have Tri-Care that trumps VA care for now.

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by MSGT-R

Yeah, a lot of them were stop loss, me too.

I am a retired Marine Reservist, Master Sergeant, Helicopter Maintenance Chief with 27 years of service. I'm awaiting age 60 so I can start collecting my retirement.

My husband is already collecting his since he's older than me, and all his benefits have kicked in, including any VA eligibility. We have Tri-Care that trumps VA care for now.

thanks for replying and THANKS FOR SERVING.

[MSGT-R]

You're welcome.

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by whymememe

The other day as I was driving to the store I got behind a car with a VIET NAM VETERAN BUMPER STICKER on one side and on the other side there was one that said, IF YOU WEREN'T THERE KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

Could that just be a warning to the liberal peaceniks to just stay out of it, not bring up the war or the US involvement there or anywhere else? Are they saying "Don't start any arguments. Don't call me bad for serving my country in the armed forces. If you don't I won't call you a chicken livered coward who is disloyal to his country."?

I'm sure they get tired of idiots attacking them because they served our country in the armed forces and fought to protect the privelage of free speech in the US.

[berto64]

The one service that always seem to be left out of this type of conversation is the US Coast Guard.
The Coasties have been participants in every armed conflict that the US has been involved in since their creation. Got a couple of young men here in town tha5t are Coasties vets and I'm proud to know them both. Their dad is my computer guru.

You are exactly right Blackeagle.

[MSGT-R]

The Coasties are in this fight, but their pay doesn't come from the Dept of Defense. I'm not really sure how their VA would work. My best guess is that when deployed in a combat zone (like they have been doing), they are subject to a completely different set of rules.

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

Could that just be a warning to the liberal peaceniks to just stay out of it, not bring up the war or the US involvement there or anywhere else? Are they saying "Don't start any arguments. Don't call me bad for serving my country in the armed forces. If you don't I won't call you a chicken livered coward who is disloyal to his country."?

I'm sure they get tired of idiots attacking them because they served our country in the armed forces and fought to protect the privelage of free speech in the US.

I don't believe that is the case. He is looking for an argument, otherwise he would not have those kind of stickers on his car. He just perpetuates the falacy that Viet Nam vets are maniacs. It makes all veterans of the era look bad.

They were fighting for South Viet Nam at that time we had already won the Revolutionary War in 1776, which is when we wrote the constitution.