recceguy said:It is a VETERANS organisation. I appreciate that civilians wish to support us. However, civilians, should not have a vote or be qble to hold executive positkons.
If you need a reason why Veterans won't join, it's because the Legion is not ours. It's now a civilian club that uses veteran support as their raison dêtre for existence.
You want Veterans back? Revert back to past practice where you need to be a Veteran to vote. I have a history of over 40 years of Legion membership as an Ordinary (Veteran) member. I go in at the NY Levee and pay my dues. I go in the following NY levee and pick up my expired cards and pay for the.next year.
It used to be where you could find me. It would, now, be the last place to look for me.
Restore ownership to us that own the title of Veteran and the RCL will restore itself.
Lightguns said:Agree completely with the additional proviso that a veteran is defined as someone who completed his engagement honourably, or medically released or not NES with a reserve unit.
ArmyDoc said:The RCL definition of "veteran" is anyone who has served and has completed basic training ie BMQ.
Lightguns said:Agree completely with the additional proviso that a veteran is defined as someone who completed his engagement honourably, or medically released or not NES with a reserve unit.
Halifax Tar said:I don't know, is someone who completes their BMQ and 3 or 5 year BE really a veteran ?
I find the term, personally, veteran thrown around allot for people who "meet the standard" per say but that I have a hard time viewing as veterans.
I don't know maybe I'm a dick or something but a 20 year old kid with veteran plates who's never been outside the local armouries or training area irks me somewhat.
In my mind their has to be more added to the "qual", i.e. must have the CD or at least 1 6 month deployment (e.g. NATO, UN ct).
I am sure I will get flak for the above so fire away...
Halifax Tar said:I don't know, is someone who completes their BMQ and 3 or 5 year BE really a veteran ?
I find the term, personally, veteran thrown around allot for people who "meet the standard" per say but that I have a hard time viewing as veterans.
I don't know maybe I'm a dick or something but a 20 year old kid with veteran plates who's never been outside the local armouries or training area irks me somewhat.
In my mind their has to be more added to the "qual", i.e. must have the CD or at least 1 6 month deployment (e.g. NATO, UN ct).
I am sure I will get flak for the above so fire away...
CountDC said:and just for fun the USA: http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/whatvet.htm
A veteran is defined by federal law, moral code and military service as "Any, Any, Any"... A military veteran is Any person who served for Any length of time in Any military service branch
CountDC said:So regardless of our own opinions that reservist that joins in April, completes basic over the summer and releases in Sept is considered a vet.
runormal said:Which is also why I'd never even consider joining the legion. At least not for the next 40 or so years. Maybe when I'm retied.
Teager said:And some legions want to figure out what is going on. This is a survey from Branch 15 on this very question.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MJvDCVgnAL11I-dCXF3i2NVkxDcps23L1efPPxgmG68/viewform
PuckChaser said:Its a fantastic executive summary, and provides a lot of solid comments to the Dominion Command. After looking at the guys who have more Legion bling than real medals on the executive (or any actual military service), I highly doubt they'll entertain canning all Legion medals as recommended.
Lightguns said:There is a pattern of the legion attempting in immortalize the WW1 and WW2 vets as the only true veterans.
CountDC said:So regardless of our own opinions that reservist that joins in April, completes basic over the summer and releases in Sept is considered a vet.