I'm not saying that benefits should be limited to vets. Benefits such as free college should go to all under the GI bill regardless. That's not an issue here. It's the 'extra' benefits such as housing and salary to go to college that I feel should be limited to vets.
And as to how to make the determination? If your life is in danger then you deserve more. If your being shot at you deserve more. If you have to patrol an area where there is a chance of you not getting back alive, you deserve more. And who determines? Those who know better than you and me. Those in the military who have done the patrols, who have been in the ranks and knows who deserves what. Those who know what is needed to get people into the military and how to treat them when they're done. On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:260731 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
