I'm kind of in the middle of a debate. This thread might piss people off, but I'm just telling a couple sides. My father and uncle both served in Vietnam, both are mid 60's in age, both retired, and both hardcore military till the end. I also know of 2 guys, both were only in the military for a short period. Here goes... My uncle and father consider these guys "leeches" to the system. One was discharged after 2 or 3 years (I think) due to medical conditions he had growing up that didn't surface till later (seizures). The other was injured in Kuwait, but he was in less than a year. They say these guys shouldn't receive the same benefits they do because the didn't go thru the same stuff they did. I think they are just pissed off grumpy old men. My uncle saw combat for a short period, and has some good scars on his left arm/shoulder, and recieves $3000 a month and free medical care. He hasn't has a job in 25 years. My father has a bum knee but only retired from security last year. They both act like every "civilian" in the world in a piece of shit . And they will tell you that to your face. At every family dinner in fact. What do you think are the qualifications of lifetime benefits and pay after service? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 1 combat mission? 5? 20?