Are x-CIA agents Veterans?

[CD3]

Are x-CIA agents Veterans?

This question has annoyed me for a while and I want the opinion of some vets.

I understand they are not servicemen but I also understand they sometimes serve as combatants.

[talidapali]

Are x-CIA agents Veterans?

This question has annoyed me for a while and I want the opinion of some vets.

I understand they are not servicemen but I also understand they sometimes serve as combatants.
In addition to that...can anyone ever really be ex-CIA? How do they forget all the stuff that they know?

[CD3]

In addition to that...can anyone ever really be ex-CIA? How do they forget all the stuff that they know?

What they know becomes obsolete?

[talidapali]

What they know becomes obsolete?
Some of it, but what about the people they know? :tinfoil:

[LJ_IN_NJ]

In order to be a vet you must have served in the Armed Forces. Though other federal agencies are required to do limited combat - they are not vets. The State Department /Diplomatic Corps often times have to mix it up in foreign countries but that does not make them veterans. You must be a combat vet and served in a combat zone to be eligible to join the VFW or to receive 10 point Veterans preference. I am an Viet Nam Era vet that did not go to Viet Nam so I am only entitled to a 5 point veteran preference (for civil service hiring etc).

Yes, you can be an X-CIA. You get debriefed when you leave government service and they tell you what you can and cannot do with the knowledge you have about the agency you were in. I heard somewhere that the debriefing for CIA agents can take up to 10 hours and at the end they must sign a non-disclosure form that could mean serious jail time if not followed. That is why it is so important to get these guys before Congress and under oath so they can tell what they know - if they aren't under oath they can't tell anyone anything. And they want to talk.

[The_Bammo]

In addition to that...can anyone ever really be ex-CIA? How do they forget all the stuff that they know?

Very good point talidapil - Veterans worked for the CIA and still do. Are they CIA - in a way but not entirely. Now is a ex -CIA agent a Vet --like talidapali said, if the X exists -- only if they were in the military --if so - they are Veterans.

Hang Tough~ (Is Daddy Bush an X-CIA - and was Daddy Bush in the military --yup --then he is a Veteran ! - Doubt if Daddy Bush is X though- kind of like a street gang --got to be jumped out and if you survive , you might be an X and if you don't you are definately an X)

[The_Bammo]

In order to be a vet you must have served in the Armed Forces. Though other federal agencies are required to do limited combat - they are not vets. The State Department /Diplomatic Corps often times have to mix it up in foreign countries but that does not make them veterans. You must be a combat vet and served in a combat zone to be eligible to join the VFW or to receive 10 point Veterans preference. I am an Viet Nam Era vet that did not go to Viet Nam so I am only entitled to a 5 point veteran preference (for civil service hiring etc).

Yes, you can be an X-CIA. You get debriefed when you leave government service and they tell you what you can and cannot do with the knowledge you have about the agency you were in. I heard somewhere that the debriefing for CIA agents can take up to 10 hours and at the end they must sign a non-disclosure form that could mean serious jail time if not followed. That is why it is so important to get these guys before Congress and under oath so they can tell what they know - if they aren't under oath they can't tell anyone anything. And they want to talk.

LJ --let me get this straight --you say "You must be a combat vet and served in a combat zone to be eligible to join the VFW or to receive 10 point Veterans preference. " -- so what your saying is anybody that was in a place like say Da Nang Vietnam for example, sat behind a desk the whole year is a Combat Veteran?

I don't think so LJ, big difference. Are they able to join the Right Wing VFW - hell yeah they are, but that does not make them a Combat Veteran. These Vets SERVED in a WAR ZONE so to say and a lot didn't and the free-kin VFW excepts them as being in the theatre. Where the hell is that movie playing. LOL For example my son in law - he was stationed in Gatar for 6 months then he came back. He is able to join the free-kin VFW (which I am a life member of , sorry to say) - is my Son in Law a Combat Vet--HELL NO!

Not a big fan of the VFW for that reason LJ - plus they are more interested in Parades, BS, Dinner Dances, Golf Tournaments, Glorifying War sittin' in their bar stools swillin' their brew with their BS war stories, and in their magazine as well - etc. etc. then helping Veterans out that need help- and they are Right Wing !

Hang Tough~

[dr.strangelove]

Very good point talidapil - Veterans worked for the CIA and still do. Are they CIA - in a way but not entirely. Now is a ex -CIA agent a Vet --like talidapali said, if the X exists -- only if they were in the military --if so - they are Veterans.

Hang Tough~ (Is Daddy Bush an X-CIA - and was Daddy Bush in the military --yup --then he is a Veteran ! - Doubt if Daddy Bush is X though- kind of like a street gang --got to be jumped out and if you survive , you might be an X and if you don't you are definately an X)

I think there is a distinction between a "vet" for government benefit purposes and for "public perception" purposes. If a NOC agent is killed in action while obtaining information that will save the lives of soldiers, I don't see why that agent should get any less respect than a Vet killed in action. The term "vet" may not apply, but the respect I give to vets would also apply to this man. So no, I don't think a CIA agent would be a "vet" but they certainly can get the same respect from me.

[LJ_IN_NJ]

LJ --let me get this straight --you say "You must be a combat vet and served in a combat zone to be eligible to join the VFW or to receive 10 point Veterans preference. " -- so what your saying is anybody that was in a place like say Da Nang Vietnam for example, sat behind a desk the whole year is a Combat Veteran?

Anybody who served in Viet Nam regardless of their job is considered a war veteran.


I don't think so LJ, big difference. Are they able to join the Right Wing VFW - hell yeah they are, but that does not make them a Combat Veteran. These Vets SERVED in a WAR ZONE so to say and a lot didn't and the free-kin VFW excepts them as being in the theatre. Where the hell is that movie playing. LOL For example my son in law - he was stationed in Gatar for 6 months then he came back. He is able to join the free-kin VFW (which I am a life member of , sorry to say) - is my Son in Law a Combat Vet--HELL NO!

If you mean Qatar - that would not qualify him for combat status - Qatar is not a war zone.


Not a big fan of the VFW for that reason LJ - plus they are more interested in Parades, BS, Dinner Dances, Golf Tournaments, Glorifying War sittin' in their bar stools swillin' their brew with their BS war stories, and in their magazine as well - etc. etc. then helping Veterans out that need help- and they are Right Wing ! Hang Tough~

I agree - it took them a long time to allow Viet Nam Vets in because that was not a war.....

[The_Bammo]

I think there is a distinction between a "vet" for government benefit purposes and for "public perception" purposes. If a NOC agent is killed in action while obtaining information that will save the lives of soldiers, I don't see why that agent should get any less respect than a Vet killed in action. The term "vet" may not apply, but the respect I give to vets would also apply to this man. So no, I don't think a CIA agent would be a "vet" but they certainly can get the same respect from me.


Point taken Doc, but the same could hold true to a civilian as well, if such civilian put his way in danger to save American G.I.'S lives and blood. You agree with that Doc?

Hang Tough~

[CD3]

In order to be a vet you must have served in the Armed Forces. Though other federal agencies are required to do limited combat - they are not vets. The State Department /Diplomatic Corps often times have to mix it up in foreign countries but that does not make them veterans. You must be a combat vet and served in a combat zone to be eligible to join the VFW or to receive 10 point Veterans preference. I am an Viet Nam Era vet that did not go to Viet Nam so I am only entitled to a 5 point veteran preference (for civil service hiring etc).

Yes, you can be an X-CIA. You get debriefed when you leave government service and they tell you what you can and cannot do with the knowledge you have about the agency you were in. I heard somewhere that the debriefing for CIA agents can take up to 10 hours and at the end they must sign a non-disclosure form that could mean serious jail time if not followed. That is why it is so important to get these guys before Congress and under oath so they can tell what they know - if they aren't under oath they can't tell anyone anything. And they want to talk.

Yeah but that's the gov.'s official take on things I'm curious what vets (other than the VFW) think.

[101Scout]

LJ --let me get this straight --you say "You must be a combat vet and served in a combat zone to be eligible to join the VFW or to receive 10 point Veterans preference. " -- so what your saying is anybody that was in a place like say Da Nang Vietnam for example, sat behind a desk the whole year is a Combat Veteran?

I don't think so LJ, big difference. Are they able to join the Right Wing VFW - hell yeah they are, but that does not make them a Combat Veteran. These Vets SERVED in a WAR ZONE so to say and a lot didn't and the free-kin VFW excepts them as being in the theatre. Where the hell is that movie playing. LOL For example my son in law - he was stationed in Gatar for 6 months then he came back. He is able to join the free-kin VFW (which I am a life member of , sorry to say) - is my Son in Law a Combat Vet--HELL NO!


Here I agree with you Bammo about the Combat Vet deal. I know that for a couple of decades after we came home, there was a big deal about how in country vets were determined if they were combat vets or simply vets. In most cases it's as you explained... combat vets were involved with operations in the field. Desk jockies or pure REMFs were simply war vets.

Here the word 'veteran' falls under various terms depending on who uses the word. For me.... I've learned to hear many civil service jobs refer to themselves as veterans after being in that line of work for a few years I suppose. For example cops.... firemen.... and probably CIA agents as well. So when I hear one of them called a veteran, it only means to me them being a veteran because of their line of work x amount of years and called veterans by their own. I certaily would not tag a CIA agent as a war vet or combat vet... or even a military vet per say. A govt/civil service veteran...... something along those lines.

Now to complicate things further, what would we call Homeland Security Officers after their yrs of service? I still think of them as civil service and then veterans respectfully to their yrs of service in that position. Here's the trick question. Bush refers to these guys fighting terrorism.... that global thingie. It's almost like he's drawn our national civil service jobs into war like scenarios. That may be where some sees civil service officers as war vets as in military war vets...... I particulary don't. They are Homeland Security veterans as far as I am concerned.

[The_Bammo]

LOL--you really want a piece of me? --LOL--Lets get it on LJ - Lets go to Gatar or like I spell it Guitar - [mod edit]

My son in law served in GATAR (LOL) whatever - Al Udeid Air Base - his job--he was part of the crew that was on a free-ken KC-135 Stratotankers which refueled War Planes which were striking Afghanistan. He never flew near Afghanistan but helped fuel the Bombers that banged the shit out of the rubble in Afghanistan. Starting to get the drift LJ - hope the hell so. LJ--get his now--
The United States may station beaucoup warplanes and several thousand US troops permanently. Qatar has offered to spend about $400 million for upgrades at the base, including permanent housing, storage tanks with a capacity of one million gallons of aviation fuel, and a command-and-control facility.
In 2002, about 2,000 G.I.'S were living in the desert in a large military tent city known as "Camp Andy" and named after Air Force Master Sgt Evander Andrews, the first US casualty of "OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM" [Admin Edit.] who died as a result of a forklift accident in October 2001. By mid-June 2002 over 3,000 Americans were stationed at Al-Udeid.

[mod edit] Anybody that served in Vietnam is a Combat Veteran??? Give me a damn break. Al Gore -- he is a Combat Veteran of the U.S. Army? Hell no, where is his CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) CMB (Combat Medic Badge) any Combat Badge if you know what a Combat Badge is. A quartermaster who was in DaNang is a Combat Veteran? LJ -[mod edit]. What makes this quartermaster a Combat Veteran -- you tell me LJ ! This should be free-ken good. Same with a Marine - no CAB --Combat Action Badge -- not a Combat Vet - plain and simple. Navy has its Combat badges --same with USAF, and I bet the CG has as well. You have to have a Infantry MOS and meet the qualifications to get a CIB, etc. LJ - Oh yeah pilots are usually considered Combat Vets, if they fly Cmbat Missions or assaults.

[mod edit]

[Trap]

The CIA has its own 'Club' in both the figurative and literal sense.

When a agent is killed in the field....all he gets is a star on the wall of CIA HQ.

Remember, the CIA is an intelligence gathering orgnization....they leave the heavy lifting to others who are more qualified in that field.

However, Rummy seems to have created his own CIA/Special Forces that serves at his discression. This is a bad thing, on many levels.

[The_Bammo]

More "SHRUB" BS and misuse of power !
------------

Bush admits secret CIA terror detentions
06 Sep 2006 21:42:13 GMT
Source: Reuters



By Steve Holland and Will Dunham
WASHINGTON, Sept 6 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush acknowledged on Wednesday the CIA had interrogated dozens of terrorism suspects at secret overseas locations and said 14 of those held had been sent to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Bush made the surprise admission as he prodded the U.S. Congress to approve rules for military commissions to try such detainees and with national security a key issue for Republicans who face the possibility of losses in the November congressional elections.
"The need for this legislation is urgent," Bush said. "We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limit of the law to get information that can save American lives."
Bush was forced to come up with a new method to try foreign terrorist suspects after the U.S. Supreme Court in June rejected the military tribunal system his administration set up to try Guantanamo prisoners, most captured in Afghanistan.
The Pentagon said the 14 detainees arrived at Guantanamo, where they could face prosecution, on Monday from undisclosed locations. Among them were the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and two other al Qaeda leaders, Ramzi Binalshibh and Abu Zubaydah.
Bush strongly defended the secret detention and questioning of terrorism suspects and said the CIA treated them humanely and did not torture. His announcement was greeted with some skepticism by human rights activists. The detention program, disclosed last year by The Washington Post, provoked an international outcry.
Citing gains made under the secret program, Bush said information provided by Zubaydah, described as a close associate of Osama bin Laden, helped foil an attack being planned inside the United States.
Intelligence gained from Mohammed led to the capture of a suspected terrorist named Zubair and provided information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons, Bush said.
With the fifth anniversary of the hijacked airliner attacks looming, Bush called the legislation a top priority for Congress in coming weeks and sent up a bill that rivaled an effort by several key Republicans that affords detainees greater rights.
Bush said he wanted the legislation to clarify the rules that interrogators may use and make explicit that they are meeting the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.
Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the major sticking point was over allowing defendants access to classified evidence, which the White House plan would limit.
SECRET PRISONS
The Bush administration previously declined to admit the existence of the secret CIA prisons. The U.N. committee against torture in May called on the United States to close any such facilities, but senior administration officials said the program was essential and would remain open.
Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, welcomed the transfer of the 14 suspects but said, "We are appalled that the Bush administration will further undermine its moral leadership" by continuing to use them.
U.S. officials said the CIA had held less than 100 suspects and after the transfer of the 14, the agency held none.
Bush would not say where the CIA secret prisons were located overseas but there have been reports of such facilities in Eastern Europe.
Bush's current focus on terrorism comes not only as the Sept. 11 anniversary approaches but as his Republican Party faces stiff challenges in the midterm elections in two months. A vote on Bush's plan to establish such commissions could put Democrats on the defensive on the national security issue just weeks before the voting that could change control of Congress.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Democrats welcomed Bush's "long-overdue decision" to try Sept. 11 suspects and called on Republicans to accept a bipartisan approach.
"The last thing we need is a repeat of the arrogant, go-it-alone behavior that has jeopardized and delayed efforts to bring these terrorists to justice for five years," Reid said.
The Pentagon also tried to soothe concerns about the Guantanamo facility.
It said it had prohibited eight abusive interrogation practices and allowed three new ones as part of long-awaited changes to the Army Field Manual governing the interrogation of prisoners held by the military.
Interrogators may not force a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner, and cannot place hoods or sacks over a detainee's head or use duct tape over his eyes. They cannot beat or electrically shock or burn a detainee or inflict other forms of physical pain

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[The_Bammo]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Dowhill Spiral Continues While Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) issues a resolution supporting the "SHRUB" and the fiasco in Iraq

Major Robert Hannafin

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[The_Bammo]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Perseverence and Patience Keys to Victory Rumsfeld Says

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
After receiving the VFW's Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award, the Secretary of Defense addressed the audience of 1,500 attendees. (VFW photo by Gloria Montgomery)


Reno, Nev., Aug. 28, 2006--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told attendees at Monday night's convention banquet that two virtues must prevail to achieve victory in the war against Islamic terrorism.

“History has shown time and again that if Americans have the patience and perseverance to see an effort through that we prevail,” he said. “And the result of that perseverance is a safer and more secure world.”

He reminded the audience that veterans have a vital role to play in winning the war.

“You not only have lived history, you have made history,” Rumsfeld emphasized. “You not only understand the nature of warfare, but many of you helped to transform the way wars are fought. And you know the price of freedom, because you risked your lives, shed blood and lost friends in freedom’s defense.”

On hand to receive VFW’s Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award, Rumsfeld appropriately paid tribute to President Dwight Eisenhower throughout his speech. He reminded attendees of Eisenhower’s words that wars are won “on the initiative, the fidelity, and the strength of many thousands of individuals, known only to their immediate comrades in the battle, their names forgotten today.”

Rumsfeld returned to his central theme—Americans are not quitters.

“Tossing in the towel” is not in our nature, he said. “Grit, determination and victory” constitute the story of America.

But, he added, that we as a nation must provide the resources and support for the armed forces to "finish the job” in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one knows this better than Vietnam veterans who made important contributions in battling Communist aggression, he said. He also cited America’s success in South Korea and Europe during the Cold War as examples of what the nation can achieve by staying strong under arduous circumstances.

“A new generation of heroes is inspired to carry forward” because of VFW members, Rumsfeld concluded. Read Rumsfeld's speech ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (If you want to read BS and lies)

------------------------
Lucky SOB'S hey? LMAO

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[The_Bammo]

Team Bush could use a few more history lessons


By MARTIN SCHRAM
It is time for some straight talk about the latest incendiary missiles the U.S. high command is launching at the enemy _ politically-loaded phrases such as "cut-and-run."
Also a very different weapon of mass derision that paints Iraq war critics with memories of those who thought Adolf Hitler could be "appeased."
"Cut-and-run" is a hard-hitting warning that probably is accurate when aimed at those urging a total withdrawal from Iraq. (Because there is now no good option, whenever U.S. troops leave, Iraq could collapse into a terrorist haven.) But "cut-and-run" is also on target in ways Team Bush doesn't intend _ when it is applied to those who, in effect' did just that in America's earlier, other war _ against the terrorists who attacked us five years ago. The War on Terror has been a sadly mixed result _ due to massive misjudgments for which we are all paying a fearsome price today.
President Bush's forceful response to 9/11 _ his 2001 invasion of Afghanistan to remove the ruling Taliban and crush al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us _ was supported by just about every nation and every thinking person on the planet. But then President Bush cut the military resources that might have been used to victoriously finish that war _ so he could run to invade Iraq.
Cut-and-run: President Bush chose to topple Saddam Hussein before he finished the job in Afghanistan, before his troops crushed al Qaeda forever, before he was sure the Taliban could not regroup, and before Osama bin Laden was captured (either "dead or alive").
Indeed, U.S. forces came close to fulfilling Bush's boast when bin Laden was in the caves of the Tora Bora mountain range in the last weeks of 2001. But bin Laden eluded a U.S. force that we now know was under-manned.
Here is what we now know: The CIA's top man at Tora Bora, Gary Bernsten, leader of the CIA paramilitary team pursuing bin Laden, requested more troops. He explained in a fine CNN investigative piece last month that his unit monitored bin Laden talking to his men on a radio. "We listened to him apologizing them for having lead them into this trap and for having lead them into a location where they would be having air strikes called on them just relentlessly," he said. But he also determined more ground troops were needed to close off all bin Laden's escape routes. "In the first two or three days of December, I would write a message back to Washington recommending the insertion of U.S. forces on the ground. I was looking for 600 to 800 Rangers, roughly, a battalion. They never came."
Again, we know why _ this time from investigative reporter Ron Suskind's excellent new book, "The One Percent Doctrine" (Simon & Schuster). The CIA's Hank Crumpton briefed Bush and Cheney in November 2001. After discovering the Pentagon never told Bush of the CIA's troop request, Crumpton strongly urged Bush to send more troops. But Bush reportedly said Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf promised his troops would seal all escapes into north Pakistan. Crumpton explained Pakistani troops couldn't control that tribal region and satellite photos showed Pakistan's troops weren't there and wouldn't arrive in time.
"We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," Crumpton reportedly warned the president. But this time Bush asked if the Afghani forces could do the job. "Definitely not, Mr. President," said Crumpton. "Definitely not."
Still, additional U.S. troops never arrived. Bin Laden escaped. Now he is a Muslim martyr in hiding, making al Qaeda recruiting videos.
Today, just 20,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. NATO was given the military lead there and it is not going well. The Taliban is retaking areas once under U.S. or government control. Afghanistan's opium crop is again thriving; it will wind up as heroin in U.S. addicts' veins. Meanwhile, back in the homeland, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld seems to be waging a campaign to secure forever the political low ground.
Rumsfeld has likened critics urging a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq to those who never learned "history's lessons" and believed "vicious extremists can be appeased." As in Hitler's appeasers. Democrats quickly criticized Rumsfeld for that. But they don't realize Rumsfeld has historic expertise on appeasement. In the summer and fall of 1983, once-classified Reagan national security documents show, officials confirmed Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and "Kurdish insurgents." But on Dec. 20, 1983, President Reagan's emissary arrived in Baghdad. Yup, Rumsfeld. An eager pleaser if not an appeaser, Rummy greeted Iraq's dictator/gasser with a warm handshake and a smile.



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[LJ_IN_NJ]

LOL--you really want a piece of me? --LOL--Lets get it on LJ - Lets go to Gatar or like I spell it Guitar - [mod edit]

I didn't mean that in the "you made a boo boo" way, I meant it in a "I know there is a Qatar but I was not aware of a Gatar" kind of way. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


My son in law served in GATAR (LOL) whatever - Al Udeid Air Base - his job--he was part of the crew that was on a free-ken KC-135 Stratotankers which refueled War Planes which were striking Afghanistan. He never flew near Afghanistan but helped fuel the Bombers that banged the shit out of the rubble in Afghanistan. Starting to get the drift LJ - hope the hell so. LJ--get his now--
The United States may station beaucoup warplanes and several thousand US troops permanently. Qatar has offered to spend about $400 million for upgrades at the base, including permanent housing, storage tanks with a capacity of one million gallons of aviation fuel, and a command-and-control facility.
In 2002, about 2,000 G.I.'S were living in the desert in a large military tent city known as "Camp Andy" and named after Air Force Master Sgt Evander Andrews, the first US casualty of "OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM" [Admin Edit.] who died as a result of a forklift accident in October 2001. By mid-June 2002 over 3,000 Americans were stationed at Al-Udeid.

I am quite aware of the situation in that area and about Enduring Freedom - I am responsible for the logistics of equipment that is being used in OIF and OEF - I understand your point, but just because troops are there does not solely qualify it as a combat zone. Clearly your son in law's mission qualifys him as a combat soldier/airman. At least in certain aspects (combat pay, combat ribbons, etc). Don't think all those serving in Qatar have that same qualifying conditions - but I don't know that for sure - just historical insight.



[mod edit] Anybody that served in Vietnam is a Combat Veteran??? Give me a damn break. Al Gore -- he is a Combat Veteran of the U.S. Army? Hell no, where is his CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) CMB (Combat Medic Badge) any Combat Badge if you know what a Combat Badge is. A quartermaster who was in DaNang is a Combat Veteran? LJ -[mod edit]. What makes this quartermaster a Combat Veteran -- you tell me LJ ! This should be free-ken good. Same with a Marine - no CAB --Combat Action Badge -- not a Combat Vet - plain and simple. Navy has its Combat badges --same with USAF, and I bet the CG has as well. You have to have a Infantry MOS and meet the qualifications to get a CIB, etc. LJ - Oh yeah pilots are usually considered Combat Vets, if they fly Cmbat Missions or assaults.

You got me there - I did not mean "combat" vet, but for lack of a better term for someone in a combat zone, maybe it is just a veteran of the war (whichever one that is). I have a few friends that served in Viet Nam as nurses who qualify for a 10 point veterans preference. As I said I have a 5 point veterans preference as a Viet Nam era vet. I did not go to Viet Nam, I just served during the war. I am a woman and therefore could not serve in a combat MOS, but my friends couldn't either so I just assumed it was considered "combat" duty even though they didn't have a combat mission. My experience in the military was mostly during peacetime - and women in the Army were prohibited from taking certain training opportunities because of our gender. Training opportunities that would give us additional promotion points (like jungle training, mountain training, cold weather training, etc), so for my experience it is where you do your job not necessarily what you do that makes you a war vet.

[The_Bammo]

Bring it somewhere else. Serious, your a woman and I'll show you respect under one condition - take your logistical equipment and Vietnam Era BS and bring it somewhere else.

Your going somewhere that may earn you combat status! Woman or not.

[Mod Edit] READ THE LINK --ENDURING FREEDOM --whats that tell ya', more members that don't deserve campaign trinkett that can join your VFW right wingnuts fraternity like my REMF son in law. You know what a REMF is? [Mod Edit]

Serious LJ - let it be. Think that there would be a wise thing to do. Nobody will think less of ya'.

[Mod Edit]