View Full Version: What do you consider a war veteran to be?

The 110 Club > WWI Veterans > What do you consider a war veteran to be?


Title: What do you consider a war veteran to be?


Futurist - October 6, 2011 12:07 AM (GMT)
Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as veterans. Someone who was still in training or who served in the military but not near the front lines should not count as a veteran of a particular war.

ryoung122 - October 6, 2011 12:46 AM (GMT)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

What you are talking about is a "combat" veteran.

The reality is that the majority of veterans do not even serve in war, and the majority of war veterans do not serve in combat. And of those that do, many serve in the back of the lines. The "front-line glory" makes for great movies, but it is not reality.

Also note: the US had 16 million vets serve in WWII; a little over 400,000 died.


Futurist - October 6, 2011 02:53 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

What you are talking about is a "combat" veteran.

The reality is that the majority of veterans do not even serve in war, and the majority of war veterans do not serve in combat. And of those that do, many serve in the back of the lines. The "front-line glory" makes for great movies, but it is not reality.

Also note: the US had 16 million vets serve in WWII; a little over 400,000 died.

Robert, what you're thinking of are military veterans. I'm thinking of war veterans. One does not need to be in combat to be a war veteran. However, at the very least they need to be at or near the front lines, as Frank Buckles was. If you're not close to the action of a war, then you shouldn't be considered a WAR veteran. Someone shouldn't be classified as a WWI veteran if he was still in training when the war ended. He should be classified as a military veteran, though. See the difference?

Chris_Amos - October 6, 2011 03:10 AM (GMT)
Strictly speaking a veteran is someone who has enlisted in a standing army and was allocated a serial number.

But what of the irregulars and guerrilla operations?

One of Australia’s most famous war veterans was Nancy Wake, of the Special Operations Executive, who died recently (August 30 1912 – August 7 2011), nicknamed “The White Mouse” by the Gestapo, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wake.

She was highly decorated by many nations and was one of the bravest of the brave. She could and did kill with her bare hands!

What of those who served in the Merchant Marine and were decorated; or those not enlisted and who were decorated?

The concept of the veteran is not always as clear cut as what may first appear to be the case.

Futurist - October 6, 2011 09:27 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 5 2011, 10:10 PM)
Strictly speaking a veteran is someone who has enlisted in a standing army and was allocated a serial number.

But what of the irregulars and guerrilla operations?

One of Australia’s most famous war veterans was Nancy Wake, of the Special Operations Executive, who died recently (August 30 1912 – August 7 2011), nicknamed “The White Mouse” by the Gestapo, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wake.

She was highly decorated by many nations and was one of the bravest of the brave. She could and did kill with her bare hands!

What of those who served in the Merchant Marine and were decorated; or those not enlisted and who were decorated?

The concept of the veteran is not always as clear cut as what may first appear to be the case.

Allright--let me clarify: A war veteran is someone who was either enlisted in the army and was at or near the front lines of a particular war, OR was someone who was a member of an insurgency and was at or near the front lines of a particular war.

Chris_Amos - October 6, 2011 11:03 PM (GMT)
In most Western countries, by law, a “war veteran” is someone who has served in a standing army, that is been issued with a name, rank and serial number, when that nation’s legislature has passed an Act of War and until hostilities are concluded with a peace treaty, not armistice (see the relevant statutes.) Florence Green is a World War I veteran.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been involved in many wars (eg, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc) where the Congress has not declared war but expenditure has been authorised by the Congress. They are entitled to be called “veterans” (see the relevant sections of the Veteran’s Administration acts referring to overseas service.)

In many countries, similar status is accorded to those that serve overseas in any capacity. Many countries issue service medals for those that serve with United Nations peace keepers.

“Combat veterans” are those that have seen combat in any capacity; but even support personnel behind the lines can call themselves combat veterans.

For the various definitions used by the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs, see the following:
http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsheets/documents/DP07%20Military%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm

Once again, you have to be very specific about what you are talking about, when using the term “veteran”.

For popular usage here, I use the term “veteran” when referring to all the different classifications and sub-categories.

Futurist - October 7, 2011 01:07 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 6 2011, 06:03 PM)
In most Western countries, by law, a “war veteran” is someone who has served in a standing army, that is been issued with a name, rank and serial number, when that nation’s legislature has passed an Act of War and until hostilities are concluded with a peace treaty, not armistice (see the relevant statutes.) Florence Green is a World War I veteran.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been involved in many wars (eg, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc) where the Congress has not declared war but expenditure has been authorised by the Congress. They are entitled to be called “veterans” (see the relevant sections of the Veteran’s Administration acts referring to overseas service.)

In many countries, similar status is accorded to those that serve overseas in any capacity. Many countries issue service medals for those that serve with United Nations peace keepers.

“Combat veterans” are those that have seen combat in any capacity; but even support personnel behind the lines can call themselves combat veterans.

For the various definitions used by the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs, see the following:
http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsheets/documents/DP07%20Military%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm

Once again, you have to be very specific about what you are talking about, when using the term “veteran”.

For popular usage here, I use the term “veteran” when referring to all the different classifications and sub-categories.

Well, I disagree with these definitions of war veteran and combat veteran. A combat veteran should be only someone who fought on the front lines during a war. Thus, Harry Patch is considered a combat veteran while Frank Buckles is not. A war veteran should be only someone who either fought on the front lines or someone in the armed forces who was very close to the front lines during a war. Thus, Frank Buckles would be considered a war veteran. A military veteran should be considered anyone who has served in any country's army or in any insurgent army in any capacity. I understand and agree with the assumption that people who served in the military in any capacity during either war or peacetime should be considered veterans, but they shouldn't be considered war veterans unless they were at or near the front lines of a particular war.

Chris_Amos - October 7, 2011 02:11 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 6 2011, 08:07 PM)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 6 2011, 06:03 PM)
In most Western countries, by law, a “war veteran” is someone who has served in a standing army, that is been issued with a name, rank and serial number, when that nation’s legislature has passed an Act of War and until hostilities are concluded with a peace treaty, not armistice (see the relevant statutes.) Florence Green is a World War I veteran.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been involved in many wars (eg, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc) where the Congress has not declared war but expenditure has been authorised by the Congress. They are entitled to be called “veterans” (see the relevant sections of the Veteran’s Administration acts referring to overseas service.)

In many countries, similar status is accorded to those that serve overseas in any capacity. Many countries issue service medals for those that serve with United Nations peace keepers.

“Combat veterans” are those that have seen combat in any capacity; but even support personnel behind the lines can call themselves combat veterans.

For the various definitions used by the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs, see the following:
http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsheets/documents/DP07%20Military%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm

Once again, you have to be very specific about what you are talking about, when using the term “veteran”.

For popular usage here, I use the term “veteran” when referring to all the different classifications and sub-categories.

Well, I disagree with these definitions of war veteran and combat veteran. A combat veteran should be only someone who fought on the front lines during a war. Thus, Harry Patch is considered a combat veteran while Frank Buckles is not. A war veteran should be only someone who either fought on the front lines or someone in the armed forces who was very close to the front lines during a war. Thus, Frank Buckles would be considered a war veteran. A military veteran should be considered anyone who has served in any country's army or in any insurgent army in any capacity. I understand and agree with the assumption that people who served in the military in any capacity during either war or peacetime should be considered veterans, but they shouldn't be considered war veterans unless they were at or near the front lines of a particular war.

Quite the contrary, note what you have just said above. You have used the terms “war veteran”, “combat veteran” and “military veteran” for your definitions. But they are still all “veterans”.

You have done exactly what most government departments in most countries that deal with veterans do. Define the roles.

Your initial statement was: “Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as veterans. Someone who was still in training or who served in the military but not near the front lines should not count as a veteran of a particular war.”

Now you are talking about “war”, “combat” and “military” veterans.

And to repeat what I said: “The concept of the veteran is not always as clear cut as what may first appear to be the case.”

Futurist - October 7, 2011 08:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 7 2011, 09:11 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 6 2011, 08:07 PM)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 6 2011, 06:03 PM)
In most Western countries, by law, a “war veteran” is someone who has served in a standing army, that is been issued with a name, rank and serial number, when that nation’s legislature has passed an Act of War and until hostilities are concluded with a peace treaty, not armistice (see the relevant statutes.) Florence Green is a World War I veteran.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been involved in many wars (eg, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc) where the Congress has not declared war but expenditure has been authorised by the Congress. They are entitled to be called “veterans” (see the relevant sections of the Veteran’s Administration acts referring to overseas service.)

In many countries, similar status is accorded to those that serve overseas in any capacity. Many countries issue service medals for those that serve with United Nations peace keepers.

“Combat veterans” are those that have seen combat in any capacity; but even support personnel behind the lines can call themselves combat veterans.

For the various definitions used by the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs, see the following:
http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsheets/documents/DP07%20Military%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm

Once again, you have to be very specific about what you are talking about, when using the term “veteran”.

For popular usage here, I use the term “veteran” when referring to all the different classifications and sub-categories.

Well, I disagree with these definitions of war veteran and combat veteran. A combat veteran should be only someone who fought on the front lines during a war. Thus, Harry Patch is considered a combat veteran while Frank Buckles is not. A war veteran should be only someone who either fought on the front lines or someone in the armed forces who was very close to the front lines during a war. Thus, Frank Buckles would be considered a war veteran. A military veteran should be considered anyone who has served in any country's army or in any insurgent army in any capacity. I understand and agree with the assumption that people who served in the military in any capacity during either war or peacetime should be considered veterans, but they shouldn't be considered war veterans unless they were at or near the front lines of a particular war.

Quite the contrary, note what you have just said above. You have used the terms “war veteran”, “combat veteran” and “military veteran” for your definitions. But they are still all “veterans”.

You have done exactly what most government departments in most countries that deal with veterans do. Define the roles.

Your initial statement was: “Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as veterans. Someone who was still in training or who served in the military but not near the front lines should not count as a veteran of a particular war.”

Now you are talking about “war”, “combat” and “military” veterans.

And to repeat what I said: “The concept of the veteran is not always as clear cut as what may first appear to be the case.”

I think that there is some confusion. I said (or implied) that WAR veterans are only those that were members of the armed forces at or near the front lines during a particular war, or those that were members of an insurgency at or near the front lines during a particular war. MILITARY veterans in general are people who served in the armed forces at any time, regardless of whether it was during wartime or peacetime. That was what I meant by war veterans. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, I do consider Claude Choules to be the last surviving verified WWI veteran (unless a new claim is found and verified).

Admin CalvinTy - October 7, 2011 09:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 7 2011, 03:29 PM)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 7 2011, 09:11 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 6 2011, 08:07 PM)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 6 2011, 06:03 PM)
In most Western countries, by law, a “war veteran” is someone who has served in a standing army, that is been issued with a name, rank and serial number, when that nation’s legislature has passed an Act of War and until hostilities are concluded with a peace treaty, not armistice (see the relevant statutes.) Florence Green is a World War I veteran.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been involved in many wars (eg, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc) where the Congress has not declared war but expenditure has been authorised by the Congress. They are entitled to be called “veterans” (see the relevant sections of the Veteran’s Administration acts referring to overseas service.)

In many countries, similar status is accorded to those that serve overseas in any capacity. Many countries issue service medals for those that serve with United Nations peace keepers.

“Combat veterans” are those that have seen combat in any capacity; but even support personnel behind the lines can call themselves combat veterans.

For the various definitions used by the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs, see the following:
http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsheets/documents/DP07%20Military%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm

Once again, you have to be very specific about what you are talking about, when using the term “veteran”.

For popular usage here, I use the term “veteran” when referring to all the different classifications and sub-categories.

Well, I disagree with these definitions of war veteran and combat veteran. A combat veteran should be only someone who fought on the front lines during a war. Thus, Harry Patch is considered a combat veteran while Frank Buckles is not. A war veteran should be only someone who either fought on the front lines or someone in the armed forces who was very close to the front lines during a war. Thus, Frank Buckles would be considered a war veteran. A military veteran should be considered anyone who has served in any country's army or in any insurgent army in any capacity. I understand and agree with the assumption that people who served in the military in any capacity during either war or peacetime should be considered veterans, but they shouldn't be considered war veterans unless they were at or near the front lines of a particular war.

Quite the contrary, note what you have just said above. You have used the terms “war veteran”, “combat veteran” and “military veteran” for your definitions. But they are still all “veterans”.

You have done exactly what most government departments in most countries that deal with veterans do. Define the roles.

Your initial statement was: “Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as veterans. Someone who was still in training or who served in the military but not near the front lines should not count as a veteran of a particular war.”

Now you are talking about “war”, “combat” and “military” veterans.

And to repeat what I said: “The concept of the veteran is not always as clear cut as what may first appear to be the case.”

I think that there is some confusion. I said (or implied) that WAR veterans are only those that were members of the armed forces at or near the front lines during a particular war, or those that were members of an insurgency at or near the front lines during a particular war. MILITARY veterans in general are people who served in the armed forces at any time, regardless of whether it was during wartime or peacetime. That was what I meant by war veterans. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, I do consider Claude Choules to be the last surviving verified WWI veteran (unless a new claim is found and verified).

I have been reading this from a distance -- a fascinating discussion -- Futurist, I have to agree with Chris that it does appear that your position have shifted from the first post. That's why he quoted you in your first post:

"Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as veterans."

Based on your most recent explanation, you now mean to say:

""Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as war veterans."

Correct? That's a very valid opinion and understandable.

You described a military veteran and it probably jives with most official definitions of the word "veteran". That's what most people (media and interested parties) would look at a veteran as, regardless if they never saw combat.

Back to war veteran, my main issue then is the concept of "front lines" as you say. What constitutes as "front lines", then? Are you thinking of the traditional land/water battlefields in where combatants are shooting, being shot at, in line of fire, etcetera? But veterans who are working on a battleship carrier in the distance (away from battlefield but serving the AF planes that are involved in an air strike) are not war veterans?

Imagine, in the future, what if there were cyber attacks on USA's power lines or something like that from a country's government? The hackers are in a secret location in that country. USA declares war on them, and decides to reciprocate by shutting down their power lines through hacking as well. Later, the war is over and peace is restored.

Should we now consider hackers of each country as war veterans of that country? :)

* CalvinTy

Futurist - October 7, 2011 10:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Admin CalvinTy @ Oct 7 2011, 04:58 PM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 7 2011, 03:29 PM)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 7 2011, 09:11 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 6 2011, 08:07 PM)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 6 2011, 06:03 PM)
In most Western countries, by law, a “war veteran” is someone who has served in a standing army, that is been issued with a name, rank and serial number, when that nation’s legislature has passed an Act of War and until hostilities are concluded with a peace treaty, not armistice (see the relevant statutes.) Florence Green is a World War I veteran.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been involved in many wars (eg, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc) where the Congress has not declared war but expenditure has been authorised by the Congress. They are entitled to be called “veterans” (see the relevant sections of the Veteran’s Administration acts referring to overseas service.)

In many countries, similar status is accorded to those that serve overseas in any capacity. Many countries issue service medals for those that serve with United Nations peace keepers.

“Combat veterans” are those that have seen combat in any capacity; but even support personnel behind the lines can call themselves combat veterans.

For the various definitions used by the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs, see the following:
http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsheets/documents/DP07%20Military%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm ://http://factsheets.dva.gov.au/factsh...%20Service.htm

Once again, you have to be very specific about what you are talking about, when using the term “veteran”.

For popular usage here, I use the term “veteran” when referring to all the different classifications and sub-categories.

Well, I disagree with these definitions of war veteran and combat veteran. A combat veteran should be only someone who fought on the front lines during a war. Thus, Harry Patch is considered a combat veteran while Frank Buckles is not. A war veteran should be only someone who either fought on the front lines or someone in the armed forces who was very close to the front lines during a war. Thus, Frank Buckles would be considered a war veteran. A military veteran should be considered anyone who has served in any country's army or in any insurgent army in any capacity. I understand and agree with the assumption that people who served in the military in any capacity during either war or peacetime should be considered veterans, but they shouldn't be considered war veterans unless they were at or near the front lines of a particular war.

Quite the contrary, note what you have just said above. You have used the terms “war veteran”, “combat veteran” and “military veteran” for your definitions. But they are still all “veterans”.

You have done exactly what most government departments in most countries that deal with veterans do. Define the roles.

Your initial statement was: “Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as veterans. Someone who was still in training or who served in the military but not near the front lines should not count as a veteran of a particular war.”

Now you are talking about “war”, “combat” and “military” veterans.

And to repeat what I said: “The concept of the veteran is not always as clear cut as what may first appear to be the case.”

I think that there is some confusion. I said (or implied) that WAR veterans are only those that were members of the armed forces at or near the front lines during a particular war, or those that were members of an insurgency at or near the front lines during a particular war. MILITARY veterans in general are people who served in the armed forces at any time, regardless of whether it was during wartime or peacetime. That was what I meant by war veterans. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, I do consider Claude Choules to be the last surviving verified WWI veteran (unless a new claim is found and verified).

I have been reading this from a distance -- a fascinating discussion -- Futurist, I have to agree with Chris that it does appear that your position have shifted from the first post. That's why he quoted you in your first post:

"Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as veterans."

Based on your most recent explanation, you now mean to say:

""Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as war veterans."

Correct? That's a very valid opinion and understandable.

You described a military veteran and it probably jives with most official definitions of the word "veteran". That's what most people (media and interested parties) would look at a veteran as, regardless if they never saw combat.

Back to war veteran, my main issue then is the concept of "front lines" as you say. What constitutes as "front lines", then? Are you thinking of the traditional land/water battlefields in where combatants are shooting, being shot at, in line of fire, etcetera? But veterans who are working on a battleship carrier in the distance (away from battlefield but serving the AF planes that are involved in an air strike) are not war veterans?

Imagine, in the future, what if there were cyber attacks on USA's power lines or something like that from a country's government? The hackers are in a secret location in that country. USA declares war on them, and decides to reciprocate by shutting down their power lines through hacking as well. Later, the war is over and peace is restored.

Should we now consider hackers of each country as war veterans of that country? :)

* CalvinTy

""Personally, I only consider those who were in the armed forces and were at or near the front lines as war veterans."

The statement above is what I meant to say (and implied) at the very beginning. That's why I asked "What do you consider war veterans to be?" I just forgot to add the word "war" before "veteran" to my first sentence. However, I thought everyone knew what I meant. Apparently not.

By front lines, I generally meant the traditional land/sea war front as the battle lines. Yeah, I wouldn't call veterans working on battleship carriers in the distance war veterans as they are not close to the conflict at hand.

As for the hackers, I would consider them cyber-war veterans of a particular country, but not WAR veterans, as I generally define a regular war to mean fighting in either land or sea.

ryoung122 - October 8, 2011 12:06 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 5 2011, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

What you are talking about is a "combat" veteran.

The reality is that the majority of veterans do not even serve in war, and the majority of war veterans do not serve in combat. And of those that do, many serve in the back of the lines. The "front-line glory" makes for great movies, but it is not reality.

Also note: the US had 16 million vets serve in WWII; a little over 400,000 died.

Robert, what you're thinking of are military veterans. I'm thinking of war veterans. One does not need to be in combat to be a war veteran. However, at the very least they need to be at or near the front lines, as Frank Buckles was. If you're not close to the action of a war, then you shouldn't be considered a WAR veteran. Someone shouldn't be classified as a WWI veteran if he was still in training when the war ended. He should be classified as a military veteran, though. See the difference?

What part of "I disagree" did you not understand? If you are a veteran and your country is at war, then you are a "war veteran."

I'd prefer the term "combat veteran" for those who saw action.

Let's be honest: many men (and women) were called up for "wartime effort" and whether they served on the front lines or not, their contributions were essential. Front lines don't work by themselves. Who supplies the food? Who evacuates the wounded? Frank Buckles was an ambulance driver. So, he was a "war veteran," but not a "combat veteran."

ryoung122 - October 8, 2011 12:07 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 6 2011, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 5 2011, 10:10 PM)
Strictly speaking a veteran is someone who has enlisted in a standing army and was allocated a serial number.

But what of the irregulars and guerrilla operations?

One of Australia’s most famous war veterans was Nancy Wake, of the Special Operations Executive, who died recently (August 30 1912 – August 7 2011), nicknamed “The White Mouse” by the Gestapo, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wake.

She was highly decorated by many nations and was one of the bravest of the brave. She could and did kill with her bare hands!

What of those who served in the Merchant Marine and were decorated; or those not enlisted and who were decorated?

The concept of the veteran is not always as clear cut as what may first appear to be the case.

Allright--let me clarify: A war veteran is someone who was either enlisted in the army and was at or near the front lines of a particular war, OR was someone who was a member of an insurgency and was at or near the front lines of a particular war.

Who died and made you official arbiter? :ph43r:

Futurist - October 8, 2011 12:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 7 2011, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 5 2011, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

What you are talking about is a "combat" veteran.

The reality is that the majority of veterans do not even serve in war, and the majority of war veterans do not serve in combat. And of those that do, many serve in the back of the lines. The "front-line glory" makes for great movies, but it is not reality.

Also note: the US had 16 million vets serve in WWII; a little over 400,000 died.

Robert, what you're thinking of are military veterans. I'm thinking of war veterans. One does not need to be in combat to be a war veteran. However, at the very least they need to be at or near the front lines, as Frank Buckles was. If you're not close to the action of a war, then you shouldn't be considered a WAR veteran. Someone shouldn't be classified as a WWI veteran if he was still in training when the war ended. He should be classified as a military veteran, though. See the difference?

What part of "I disagree" did you not understand? If you are a veteran and your country is at war, then you are a "war veteran."

I'd prefer the term "combat veteran" for those who saw action.

Let's be honest: many men (and women) were called up for "wartime effort" and whether they served on the front lines or not, their contributions were essential. Front lines don't work by themselves. Who supplies the food? Who evacuates the wounded? Frank Buckles was an ambulance driver. So, he was a "war veteran," but not a "combat veteran."

The bolded part is exactly my point. People who provide food and evacuate the wounded often get close to the battle lines, and that are considered war veterans. Since they haven't seen combat, they're not combat veterans, though. I don't think someone who was in training when WWII ended should be counted as a WWII veteran, though, since he was never at or near the front lines. I don't think someone still in training during WWII would say "I was never close to the front lines in WWII, and I was still in training when WWII ended, but I'm still a WWII veteran." That's just generally not how life works. I agree with you about combat veterans being those who saw action. However, I think that there needs to be a clear distinction between military veteran during wartime and war veteran.

Futurist - October 8, 2011 12:26 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 7 2011, 07:07 PM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 6 2011, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE (Chris_Amos @ Oct 5 2011, 10:10 PM)
Strictly speaking a veteran is someone who has enlisted in a standing army and was allocated a serial number.

But what of the irregulars and guerrilla operations?

One of Australia’s most famous war veterans was Nancy Wake, of the Special Operations Executive, who died recently (August 30 1912 – August 7 2011), nicknamed “The White Mouse” by the Gestapo, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wake.

She was highly decorated by many nations and was one of the bravest of the brave. She could and did kill with her bare hands!

What of those who served in the Merchant Marine and were decorated; or those not enlisted and who were decorated?

The concept of the veteran is not always as clear cut as what may first appear to be the case.

Allright--let me clarify: A war veteran is someone who was either enlisted in the army and was at or near the front lines of a particular war, OR was someone who was a member of an insurgency and was at or near the front lines of a particular war.

Who died and made you official arbiter? :ph43r:

Frank Buckles and Claude Choules. B)

Seriously, though, I think that my classification is the fairest and most logical one out there.

Baxi - October 13, 2011 12:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 7 2011, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 5 2011, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

What you are talking about is a "combat" veteran.

The reality is that the majority of veterans do not even serve in war, and the majority of war veterans do not serve in combat. And of those that do, many serve in the back of the lines. The "front-line glory" makes for great movies, but it is not reality.

Also note: the US had 16 million vets serve in WWII; a little over 400,000 died.

Robert, what you're thinking of are military veterans. I'm thinking of war veterans. One does not need to be in combat to be a war veteran. However, at the very least they need to be at or near the front lines, as Frank Buckles was. If you're not close to the action of a war, then you shouldn't be considered a WAR veteran. Someone shouldn't be classified as a WWI veteran if he was still in training when the war ended. He should be classified as a military veteran, though. See the difference?

What part of "I disagree" did you not understand? If you are a veteran and your country is at war, then you are a "war veteran."

I'd prefer the term "combat veteran" for those who saw action.

Let's be honest: many men (and women) were called up for "wartime effort" and whether they served on the front lines or not, their contributions were essential. Front lines don't work by themselves. Who supplies the food? Who evacuates the wounded? Frank Buckles was an ambulance driver. So, he was a "war veteran," but not a "combat veteran."

My grandmother was in the "Women's Land Army" in WWI growing food for the nation and the forces.

Did that make her a war veteran ??

She would have said no because she did not GO to war.ie. she stayed at home in the UK.

Genoa76 - October 13, 2011 01:11 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Baxi @ Oct 13 2011, 07:49 AM)
She would have said no because she did not GO to war.ie. she stayed at home in the UK.

Also for me no.
Veteran, for me, is a person who went to war. My grandfather Giovanni went to war when he was 18 (He lived until he was 93). He was a veteran

Donovan - October 13, 2011 01:16 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 13 2011, 08:11 AM)
QUOTE (Baxi @ Oct 13 2011, 07:49 AM)
She would have said no because she did not GO to war.ie. she stayed at home in the UK.

Also for me no.
Veteran, for me, is a person who went to war. My grandfather Giovanni went to war when he was 18 (He lived until he was 93). He was a veteran

Giovanni Ligato! Same name. :)

Genoa76 - October 13, 2011 01:23 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Donovan @ Oct 13 2011, 08:16 AM)
Veteran, for me, is a person who went to war. My grandfather Giovanni went to war when he was 18 (He lived until he was 93). He was a veteran [/QUOTE]
Giovanni Ligato! Same name. :)

Same name and same hardening. Unfortunately my grandfather had no luck to become a centenarian though he kept it a lot.... (He was very very fine when he was 92, then the cancer....) :ph43r:

Genoa76 - October 13, 2011 01:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 13 2011, 08:23 AM)
[QUOTE=Donovan,Oct 13 2011, 08:16 AM] Veteran, for me, is a person who went to war. My grandfather Giovanni went to war when he was 18 (He lived until he was 93). He was a veteran [/QUOTE]
Giovanni Ligato! Same name. :) [/QUOTE]
Same name and same hardening. Unfortunately my grandfather had no luck to become a centenarian though he kept it a lot.... (He was very very fine when he was 92, then the cancer....) :ph43r:

When he was 92, he ran a lot around Genoa for fun :)

Baxi - October 13, 2011 03:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 13 2011, 08:25 AM)
[QUOTE=Genoa76,Oct 13 2011, 08:23 AM] [QUOTE=Donovan,Oct 13 2011, 08:16 AM] Veteran, for me, is a person who went to war. My grandfather Giovanni went to war when he was 18 (He lived until he was 93). He was a veteran [/QUOTE]
Giovanni Ligato! Same name. :) [/QUOTE]
Same name and same hardening. Unfortunately my grandfather had no luck to become a centenarian though he kept it a lot.... (He was very very fine when he was 92, then the cancer....) :ph43r: [/QUOTE]
When he was 92, he ran a lot around Genoa for fun :)

Maybe that was too much ?

Genoa76 - October 13, 2011 03:46 PM (GMT)
Who can say? However he was extremely fine for his age and he enjoyed life (except for his last month)

Baxi - October 13, 2011 04:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 13 2011, 10:46 AM)
Who can say? However he was extremely fine for his age and he enjoyed life (except for his last month)

I think that's more important than living even longer.

A big loss for everybody though.

Genoa76 - October 14, 2011 10:42 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Baxi @ Oct 13 2011, 11:31 AM)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 13 2011, 10:46 AM)
Who can say? However he was extremely fine for his age and he enjoyed life (except for his last month)

I think that's more important than living even longer.

A big loss for everybody though.

I agree with you.

To see my grandfather, who was active at 92 years (he did much gardening, running, going out with friends, etc.), it was nice :rolleyes:

Futurist - October 15, 2011 05:01 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 14 2011, 05:42 AM)
QUOTE (Baxi @ Oct 13 2011, 11:31 AM)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 13 2011, 10:46 AM)
Who can say? However he was extremely fine for his age and he enjoyed life (except for his last month)

I think that's more important than living even longer.

A big loss for everybody though.

I agree with you.

To see my grandfather, who was active at 92 years (he did much gardening, running, going out with friends, etc.), it was nice :rolleyes:

Alessandro, I'm really sorry about your great-grandpa and his cancer. My paternal grandma died of cancer in 1982, at age 52. As for being active at old ages, my 95-year old great uncle worked and was able to drive a car right up until his death.

And Baxi and Alessandro, thanks for agreeing with my definitions of military veteran, war veteran, and combat veteran.

JalilGul - October 19, 2011 10:19 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Genoa76 - October 19, 2011 02:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 15 2011, 12:01 AM)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 14 2011, 05:42 AM)
QUOTE (Baxi @ Oct 13 2011, 11:31 AM)
QUOTE (Genoa76 @ Oct 13 2011, 10:46 AM)
Who can say? However he was extremely fine for his age and he enjoyed life (except for his last month)

I think that's more important than living even longer.

A big loss for everybody though.

I agree with you.

To see my grandfather, who was active at 92 years (he did much gardening, running, going out with friends, etc.), it was nice :rolleyes:

Alessandro, I'm really sorry about your great-grandpa and his cancer. My paternal grandma died of cancer in 1982, at age 52. As for being active at old ages, my 95-year old great uncle worked and was able to drive a car right up until his death.

And Baxi and Alessandro, thanks for agreeing with my definitions of military veteran, war veteran, and combat veteran.

:)

gijs412 - October 19, 2011 02:33 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (JalilGul @ Oct 19 2011, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Yes I think and say that they count!

Futurist - October 19, 2011 11:19 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 19 2011, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE (JalilGul @ Oct 19 2011, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Yes I think and say that they count!

Why exactly should someone who was still in training (in the U.S.) count as a WWII veteran? He didn't do any fighting or helping out on the battlefield. Therefore he should not take credit for being a veteran of a war which he did nothing for.

gijs412 - October 20, 2011 08:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 19 2011, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 19 2011, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE (JalilGul @ Oct 19 2011, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Yes I think and say that they count!

Why exactly should someone who was still in training (in the U.S.) count as a WWII veteran? He didn't do any fighting or helping out on the battlefield. Therefore he should not take credit for being a veteran of a war which he did nothing for.

He has indeed done something. He signed up in the army, and therefore the one Sat in the army and he participated in the war. That person was planning to give his life for his country. Even though the war ended, he had it planned. And that is something that must be respected. And remember, the army is not just some men with guns separate from everything. The army is óne! So that means that everybody that signed up is a war veteran.

Futurist - October 20, 2011 09:51 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 20 2011, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 19 2011, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 19 2011, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE (JalilGul @ Oct 19 2011, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Yes I think and say that they count!

Why exactly should someone who was still in training (in the U.S.) count as a WWII veteran? He didn't do any fighting or helping out on the battlefield. Therefore he should not take credit for being a veteran of a war which he did nothing for.

He has indeed done something. He signed up in the army, and therefore the one Sat in the army and he participated in the war. That person was planning to give his life for his country. Even though the war ended, he had it planned. And that is something that must be respected. And remember, the army is not just some men with guns separate from everything. The army is óne! So that means that everybody that signed up is a war veteran.

I strongly disagree, Gijs. Someone who was still in training when WWII ended planned to participate in WWII, but he did not actually participate in WWII since the war ended before he got out of training camp. There is a difference between planning to participate and actually participating. Therefore, someone who was still in training when WWII ended should not count as a WWII veteran.

gijs412 - October 21, 2011 05:22 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 20 2011, 04:51 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 20 2011, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 19 2011, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 19 2011, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE (JalilGul @ Oct 19 2011, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Yes I think and say that they count!

Why exactly should someone who was still in training (in the U.S.) count as a WWII veteran? He didn't do any fighting or helping out on the battlefield. Therefore he should not take credit for being a veteran of a war which he did nothing for.

He has indeed done something. He signed up in the army, and therefore the one Sat in the army and he participated in the war. That person was planning to give his life for his country. Even though the war ended, he had it planned. And that is something that must be respected. And remember, the army is not just some men with guns separate from everything. The army is óne! So that means that everybody that signed up is a war veteran.

I strongly disagree, Gijs. Someone who was still in training when WWII ended planned to participate in WWII, but he did not actually participate in WWII since the war ended before he got out of training camp. There is a difference between planning to participate and actually participating. Therefore, someone who was still in training when WWII ended should not count as a WWII veteran.

You can disagree what you want, but at this moment I know best. My dad was in the military also my grandfather and greatgrandfather they have told me this, and this is for as far as i know correct.

Futurist - October 21, 2011 06:28 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 21 2011, 12:22 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 20 2011, 04:51 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 20 2011, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 19 2011, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 19 2011, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE (JalilGul @ Oct 19 2011, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Yes I think and say that they count!

Why exactly should someone who was still in training (in the U.S.) count as a WWII veteran? He didn't do any fighting or helping out on the battlefield. Therefore he should not take credit for being a veteran of a war which he did nothing for.

He has indeed done something. He signed up in the army, and therefore the one Sat in the army and he participated in the war. That person was planning to give his life for his country. Even though the war ended, he had it planned. And that is something that must be respected. And remember, the army is not just some men with guns separate from everything. The army is óne! So that means that everybody that signed up is a war veteran.

I strongly disagree, Gijs. Someone who was still in training when WWII ended planned to participate in WWII, but he did not actually participate in WWII since the war ended before he got out of training camp. There is a difference between planning to participate and actually participating. Therefore, someone who was still in training when WWII ended should not count as a WWII veteran.

You can disagree what you want, but at this moment I know best. My dad was in the military also my grandfather they have told me this, an this is for as far as i know correct.

Gijs, my dad served in the Soviet army between 1978 and 1980. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. I asked my dad if he should be considered an Afghan War veteran, and he said "Of course not", since he hasn't actually went to war in Afghanistan. Your definition might be the official definition of war veteran, but my definition is the correct one and I know so from close family experience.

gijs412 - October 21, 2011 01:42 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 21 2011, 01:28 AM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 21 2011, 12:22 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 20 2011, 04:51 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 20 2011, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 19 2011, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 19 2011, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE (JalilGul @ Oct 19 2011, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Yes I think and say that they count!

Why exactly should someone who was still in training (in the U.S.) count as a WWII veteran? He didn't do any fighting or helping out on the battlefield. Therefore he should not take credit for being a veteran of a war which he did nothing for.

He has indeed done something. He signed up in the army, and therefore the one Sat in the army and he participated in the war. That person was planning to give his life for his country. Even though the war ended, he had it planned. And that is something that must be respected. And remember, the army is not just some men with guns separate from everything. The army is óne! So that means that everybody that signed up is a war veteran.

I strongly disagree, Gijs. Someone who was still in training when WWII ended planned to participate in WWII, but he did not actually participate in WWII since the war ended before he got out of training camp. There is a difference between planning to participate and actually participating. Therefore, someone who was still in training when WWII ended should not count as a WWII veteran.

You can disagree what you want, but at this moment I know best. My dad was in the military also my grandfather they have told me this, an this is for as far as i know correct.

Gijs, my dad served in the Soviet army between 1978 and 1980. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. I asked my dad if he should be considered an Afghan War veteran, and he said "Of course not", since he hasn't actually went to war in Afghanistan. Your definition might be the official definition of war veteran, but my definition is the correct one and I know so from close family experience.

It is not the correct one! It is you're opinion. The correct obe is alsayw the one that is officially correct.

Futurist - October 21, 2011 07:10 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 21 2011, 08:42 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 21 2011, 01:28 AM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 21 2011, 12:22 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 20 2011, 04:51 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 20 2011, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 19 2011, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 19 2011, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE (JalilGul @ Oct 19 2011, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ Oct 5 2011, 07:46 PM)
They are a veteran if they served one hour.

Fully agree with you.
If somebody has joined military forces of country that is involved in some war even a second before official end of war (peace treaty), we must consider him as a war vet.
Thus, we must look for those who was verified to serve in military forces, or on military objects before Treaty of Versailles. I count them as WWI veterans.

Yes I think and say that they count!

Why exactly should someone who was still in training (in the U.S.) count as a WWII veteran? He didn't do any fighting or helping out on the battlefield. Therefore he should not take credit for being a veteran of a war which he did nothing for.

He has indeed done something. He signed up in the army, and therefore the one Sat in the army and he participated in the war. That person was planning to give his life for his country. Even though the war ended, he had it planned. And that is something that must be respected. And remember, the army is not just some men with guns separate from everything. The army is óne! So that means that everybody that signed up is a war veteran.

I strongly disagree, Gijs. Someone who was still in training when WWII ended planned to participate in WWII, but he did not actually participate in WWII since the war ended before he got out of training camp. There is a difference between planning to participate and actually participating. Therefore, someone who was still in training when WWII ended should not count as a WWII veteran.

You can disagree what you want, but at this moment I know best. My dad was in the military also my grandfather they have told me this, an this is for as far as i know correct.

Gijs, my dad served in the Soviet army between 1978 and 1980. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. I asked my dad if he should be considered an Afghan War veteran, and he said "Of course not", since he hasn't actually went to war in Afghanistan. Your definition might be the official definition of war veteran, but my definition is the correct one and I know so from close family experience.

It is not the correct one! It is you're opinion. The correct obe is alsayw the one that is officially correct.

Well, I'm trying to change the correct definition.

vvmanutd - October 22, 2011 02:16 AM (GMT)
Stop the heavy quoting! :P

bac211 - October 22, 2011 02:29 AM (GMT)
Especially when the quoted text is just before your text. ;)

Futurist - October 29, 2011 01:38 AM (GMT)
Gijs, I could plan to attend a party and then arrive at the party scene when the party is already over. Thus, to say that I went to party when I showed up too late (even when I planned to go and made a lot of preparations) would be false. It's the same thing for being a veteran of a particular war.

gijs412 - October 29, 2011 07:28 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 28 2011, 08:38 PM)
Gijs, I could plan to attend a party and then arrive at the party scene when the party is already over. Thus, to say that I went to party when I showed up too late (even when I planned to go and made a lot of preparations) would be false. It's the same thing for being a veteran of a particular war.

I'm not going to discuss this anymore. Those people are concidered as war veterans.

Futurist - October 29, 2011 08:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (gijs412 @ Oct 29 2011, 02:28 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Oct 28 2011, 08:38 PM)
Gijs, I could plan to attend a party and then arrive at the party scene when the party is already over. Thus, to say that I went to party when I showed up too late (even when I planned to go and made a lot of preparations) would be false. It's the same thing for being a veteran of a particular war.

I'm not going to discuss this anymore. Those people are concidered as war veterans.

So, you fail to have a response when I issued a good challenge to the official definition. If someone planned to go to a party, but arrived when the party was already over, then he cannot say that he went to a party, because he didn't. It's the same thing for war veterans.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree