Wow, that's pretty harsh. I never heard any of the "Looney Left" spew hatred towards soldiers. In fact they are the ones who point out that the troops do not have enough armor and resources to keep them safe.
So before you start throwing shit around you should figure out who your friends really are - and they ain't in Washington!
Soldiers who are getting limbs blown off are not eligible for the Purple Heart if they did not become injured in combat. That's Bullshit!!!!!!!!
BTW, I heard that from " the Looney Left, the Extreme Left Wingers", not from a press briefing, Scott McClellan, or the Pentagon. The Pentagon doesn't give a shit if you live or die!
Show me someone that has gotten a limb blown off in Iraq due to enemy fire/mortars/IED/etc that HASN'T recieved a Purple Heart. Just one Guy.
I'll bet you can't.
Excellent reading. Thanks for pointing me in their direction....
Van,
The Purple Heart is awarded for Combat Injuries. How does one get a limb blown off, if their not in Combat? I'm sure there is a way though, however, why should one receive a Purple Heart who was NOT injured in Combat?
For Master Gunner:
"I had one other kid, lost both his hands. Blinded. I was praising him, saying how proud we were of him and how much we appreciate his service to the country. "Anything I can do for you?" His mother said get me a -- "Get him a Purple Heart." I said, "What do you mean, get him a Purple Heart?"
He had been wounded in taking care of bomblets, these bomblets that they drop that they have to dismantle. He had been wounded and lost both his hands. The kid behind him was killed.
His mother said, "Because they're friendly bomblets, they wouldn't give him a Purple Heart."
I met with the commandant. I said, "If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine." And they gave him a Purple Heart."
Speech by Congressman John Murtha
(http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/28432/)
BTW -
The rules for a Purple Heart are very clear:
"The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded"
Hey Van,
Just to be clear I do not think you are loony left, just left, and that's okay around here. And yes, I do think there's a loony right, they're just not quite as noisy! 
Master Gunner's article derails a persistent lie and does it skillfully. That's why he's such a good writer!
I love when this kind of debate breaks out. It's good for everybody!
And for what it's worth I used to live in Hampton Roads Va., home to many, many servicemen and what I saw jibed totally with what Master Gunner wrote.
I concur. There is a looney right!
Seriously, there are plenty of looney's to go around.
My beef is with the Pentagon and Rummy, not the soldiers.
Honestly we either need more troops (let the generals decide how many) to secure the region or we need to bring them home.
I appreciate your blog. I feel welcome here - thanks.
@Van:
You left out some very important information at the end of your comment. Namely:
"...or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded;
(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States;
(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged;
(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party;
(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces;
(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force;
(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the department concerned, or jointly by the Secretaries of the departments concerned if persons from more than one department are wounded in the attack; or,
(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations, while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.
(
After 7 December 1941, by weapon fire while directly engaged in armed conflict, regardless of the fire causing the wound.
(9) While held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive.
b. A wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer."
Not being beligerent, just trying to set the record straight. The customs, traditions, and regulations of the US Military, while not always perfect, have been in place long before I was born, and will be in place long after I die. In the end, it's the rules that we live by, and our conduct in obeying them, that define who we are.
Secretary Rumsfeld and our leadership do they best they can with what they have, and I support their decisions 100%.
"It's not for me to question why, it's just for me to do or die."
Hooah.
Master Gunner: Thanks for puting in the entire standard. I left is out becdause it is sort of long. I still think it should be to those hit by friendly fire.
I hope that this doesn't sound trite in any way, but thank you for serving our country. I may not always agree with your leadership, but I will always have deep respect for what you do.
Thanks Van!
Gunner's the shit!
Good debate guys, I enjoyed reading it and I learned a couple of things.
Commenting by HaloScan
