Even those that join "only for the benefits" still serve, therefore, they're just as deserving of the educational benefits as those that joined with more noble intentions. It's not like they can join and then choose not to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, etc. simply because they joined "only for the benefits," no? Not without consequences that essentially disqualify them from GI Bill-type benefits.
How would you make a determination of qualification for benefits based on joined for benefits vs. joined for responsibilities? On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have two different groups of people here - vets and non-vets. Vets > deserve it because they've "done their duty". I'm referring to those who > join the military only for the benefits, not for the responsibilities. For > them, it is unreasonable. -- will "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; and that would just be unacceptable." - Carrie Fisher ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:260730 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
