12 myths of 21st century war

[sacase]

Since you have a DD214, you should be further ashamed of yourself for denigrating another soldier's service. You didn't earn this "right" by serving despite your arrogant claim.

Whether you or I agree with any veteran's ploitics or opinion, it is petty, small and unworthy to question another veterans' patriotism or courage.

You embarrass and dishonor yourself and others who've served when you do so.

Whatever I have that right. I mean after all Kerry said I was stuck in the service along with many other Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen because I performed poorly in school. Fact of the matter is myself and many other Veterans think very poorly of him and his military service. So yes, I have earned the right to critcism him just like he criticises the military.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Whatever I have that right. I mean after all Kerry said I was stuck in the service along with many other Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen because I performed poorly in school. Fact of the matter is myself and many other Veterans think very poorly of him and his military service. So yes, I have earned the right to critcism him just like he criticises the military.

I think you missed the point... let me highlight some things for you.

Since you have a DD214, you should be further ashamed of yourself for denigrating another soldier's service. You didn't earn this "right" by serving despite your arrogant claim.

Whether you or I agree with any veteran's ploitics or opinion, it is petty, small and unworthy to question another veterans' patriotism or courage.

You embarrass and dishonor yourself and others who've served when you do so.

Cliff's Notes Summary: Think poorly of the man and his politics all you want, feel free to lay into him if need be, but don't question someone's patriotism or courage if they've willingly stepped up to do what many others would not. :2cents:

[headexplode]

I think you missed the point... let me highlight some things for you.

Cliff's Notes Summary: Think poorly of the man and his politics all you want, feel free to lay into him if need be, but don't question someone's patriotism or courage if they've willingly stepped up to do what many others would not. :2cents:

What's odd to me is those people who claim that every person whose ever put on a uniform is a hero, and we should thank every person in uniform for our freedoms, until they find out one of their own has political views they don't like, at which point it is okay to openly belittle their service.

[JMS]

What's odd to me is those people who claim that every person whose ever put on a uniform is a hero, and we should thank every person in uniform for our freedoms, until they find out one of their own has political views they don't like, at which point it is okay to openly belittle their service.

The reason syracuse is so pissed is he forgot to mention to his commanding officer that he too would like a bronze star and a silver star or numerous purple hearts. It just slipped his mind to request those awards so he kind of stepped on his own crank. Now he wants to just bellittle all those who did have the for sight to demand those awards from their commanding officers.

After all they just hand those things out like party favors. He was in the military.. He knows how the system works....:doh:

Kerry is a "scum bag" for earning, I mean selfishly demanding a bronze star, a silver star, and three purple hearts. Not like Cheney that icon of valor who took his chances in the doldrums of suburbia sweating it out waiting on no fewer than five separate deferments because after all he had "better things to do". Or Bush that icon of service, who had to have his dady and grand father get him into the reserves. Bush who had to show up for flight school for the majority of the time required to learn how to fly outdated planes without any chance of being deployed.

If you don't agree with Kerry's politics, that's all you have to say. Calling the man a "scumbag" and trying to demonize him in order to belittle his many awards of valor as self indulgences is just unreasonable..

[headexplode]

After all they just hand those things out like party favors. :doh:

Hell, even I received a Purple Heart, and I never even served in the military. I guess they're like the trophies you get in grade school sports--everybody gets one.

[The_cavalierman]

'

However it is amazing what happens when you get a competent General leading the effort huh? You do know that violence is going down right? More and more people are getting sick of AQI and are fighting against them. Liberals don't belive in the use of force, they belive in surrender and reward.

The same competent general you are speaking of has said on many ocassions that without diplomacy the military objectives accomplished by the surge will make little difference. Contrary to what you might have been led to believe the Sunnis are most responsible for the defeat of Al Queda.

The Sunnis felt that a US withdrawal was iminent and they stopped funding and assisting Al Queda because they knew the Iran backed Shia majority would simply overwhelm them. That is the real reason why the Sunnis came back to the coalition government and started creating distance between themselves and the remaining AL Queda operatives in Iraq. It had very little to nothing to do with the surge.

Also the Surge despite the hype is a very limited military operation with a very small hand print meaning it is not big enough to make a strategic difference. The surge was intended to quell the violence in certain cities which it has done but the bad guys have simply spread out to do damage in the places the surge cannot reach.

Liberals believe that the surge is just one part of the solution in Iraq. Diplomacy is still needed along with some major infastructure improvements. We have seen the results of the Bush force only approach and Americans are not impressed.

[JMS]

Hell, even I received a Purple Heart, and I never even served in the military. I guess they're like the trophies you get in grade school sports--everybody gets one.

Headexplode, you idiot. Everybody get's three!! You must have forgot to sign in triplicate.

[headexplode]

Liberals believe that the surge is just one part of the solution in Iraq. Diplomacy is still needed along with some major infastructure improvements. We have seen the results of the Bush force only approach and Americans are not impressed.

I like the idea expressed by Obama, that stability in Iraq is good for the entire region, and therefore its neighbors should have a hand in helping to acheive that stability. As Richard Armitage has pointed out, though, our arrogance and unwillingness to talk to "evildoers" has left us holding our limp dicks in our hands.

[headexplode]

Headexplode, you idiot. Everybody get's three!! You must have forgot to sign in triplicate.

I think I signed in blue ink instead of black.

[JMS]

Once again, you still had the ability to join the military in you choose to. The kids in college could walk down to the local recruiter and have signed on the dotted line. Infact Many Medal of Honor winners did so, and who knows how many other countless medal winners also did so. The military accepts anyone who wanted to join and drafted people in a certain range.

So the discussion we are having is about why college men no longer join the service in mass as they did in WWI and WWII. I have said it's because during Vietnam when the military had complete control over who they wanted they decided they wanted 18 year old high school kids prefferable those who were not college bound. As evidence for those statement I've stated that the average age of vietnam soldiers was almost a decade younger than their WWI and WWII counter parts. I've further stated that those highschool draftee's who could afford college were given defferments and allowed to escape manditory service. As Cheney did ( 5 defferents ) until they reached an age where the military no longer considered them prime candiates for soldiers.

Your response was that they could have still dropped out of college and enlisted, or enlisted after college. That's irrelivent. I am talking about manditory service where the majority of those serving as recruites came from in Vietnam. I'm talking about who the Military identified as the type of soldier they wanted, by defining the draft process. It wasn't the college men or those men bound for college. That's just a fact.

First, it is pretty sad to go to your commander and say hey, I should get an award. Second, when he volunteered for Swift boat duty, it was the safest duty in Viet nam at the time. It wasn't until Operation Overlord that it changed.

:doh: I didn't know bronze stars, silver stars and purple hearts could be requested by soldiers from their commanders...

Of course the military is going to want 18 y/o's. First they are easier to train and offer less resistance and don't ask needless questions and are easier to mold to military life. Second, chances are they have less health issues and are are probably in better shape and can stay that way. The older a person gets the more physical issues they have and the harder it is to get in shape and stay in shape. However, once again, nothing prevented college age students from volunteering for service. You do realize questioning orders under fire is a bad thing right?

Nope.. 18-20 year olds are not at their physical peak as you would have us believe. Professional athletes do not reach their prime during college. An team of college athletes aged 18 wouldn't stand a chance against a pro team aged 28. Fact is if you wanted folks who were at their physical peak you wouldn't choose 18 year olds. You would choose folks closer to 30.

There is definitely a mental attatude an 18 year old pocesses which a 30 year old has lost which was the reasoning behind lowering the average age of soldiers in Vietnam by almost a decade from those who served in WWII. It was an active decision and it wasn't based on health or physical strength.

Again, I showed your proof that Carter was talking to Iraq before Regan. You show a picture that took place during the Regan era....ok and? It doesn't change the fact that Carter supported Iraq.

I think you have already been shown to be in error here several times, so I'll just let it sit. Carter wasn't the major supporter of Iraq during the Iraq Iran war. Reagan was. The war was in it's infancy as Carter left office and didn't even start until after Carter had lost his re-election bid to Reagan. Reagan's support for Iraq was well documented.

The Carter administration began the formation of a Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) to project U.S. military power into the Gulf region. Originally proposed in 1977, the planning did not make much progress until after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The fundamental purpose of the RDF was always, in the words of Carter's National Security Adviser, "helping a friendly government under a subversive attack";<42> nevertheless, to justify the RDF the Soviet threat had to be magnified. Accordingly, Carter spoke in apocalyptic terms about the strategic significance of the invasion of Afghanistan, even though U.S. military experts were aware that a "thrust through Afghanistan would be of marginal advantage to any Soviet movement through Iran or the Gulf.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Guess, Carter lied huh?

I don't know what point you are trying to make here. We were talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan. We were talking about who was more responsible for supporting Iraq during the Iraq Iran war. Carter or Regan. Not the RDF and Afghanistan.

[rincewind]

nm................

[sacase]

The reason syracuse is so pissed is he forgot to mention to his commanding officer that he too would like a bronze star and a silver star or numerous purple hearts. It just slipped his mind to request those awards so he kind of stepped on his own crank. Now he wants to just bellittle all those who did have the for sight to demand those awards from their commanding officers.

After all they just hand those things out like party favors. He was in the military.. He knows how the system works....:doh:

Kerry is a "scum bag" for earning, I mean selfishly demanding a bronze star, a silver star, and three purple hearts. Not like Cheney that icon of valor who took his chances in the doldrums of suburbia sweating it out waiting on no fewer than five separate deferments because after all he had "better things to do". Or Bush that icon of service, who had to have his dady and grand father get him into the reserves. Bush who had to show up for flight school for the majority of the time required to learn how to fly outdated planes without any chance of being deployed.

If you don't agree with Kerry's politics, that's all you have to say. Calling the man a "scumbag" and trying to demonize him in order to belittle his many awards of valor as self indulgences is just unreasonable..

Are you ever going to address your lies about germany declaring war on the US before the US declared war on Japan or just simply ignore it? When are you going to stop making crap up that is easily disproved? Why can't you man up? Have the nads not dropped yet?

I question his awards.....all of them as do MANY other veterans. Some veterans are ok with him, his service and his awards, but there are many more who are not.

Personally, I didn't join the Army to win any medal or decoration, I did it to serve my country. If my fellow soldiers or commanders felt I did something to earn an award then so be it. I never, nor would I ever ask anyone to write up an award for me. To me, asking for a rewards speaks poorly of him as a commander. He was obviously seeking glory which is why he kept putting his sailors in danger so he could attempt to get medals.

This isn't about Bush or Cheney its about Kerry, you brough him up so stop trying to compare him to other politicians.

[JMS]

I like the idea expressed by Obama, that stability in Iraq is good for the entire region, and therefore its neighbors should have a hand in helping to acheive that stability. As Richard Armitage has pointed out, though, our arrogance and unwillingness to talk to "evildoers" has left us holding our limp dicks in our hands.

I think Obama scares the hell out of special interests with talk like this. American foreign policy is controlled by special interests. We don't talk to our enemies any longer. Nor do we define enemies today as folks who threaten us. Iraq for instance never attacked America, never even threatenned America. We define enemies as folks with the potential to threaten our allies.

The idea that we would talk to Syria, Iran, or North Korea... ( oops we are talking now to N. Korea... scratch them.... ) as we talked to the Soviet Union through out the cold war is what passes for radical thought today. It's ideas like that which will ensure Obama never gets into office. It's ideas like that which is exactly why we need new political leaders like Obama in office.

Bush(88).... Clinton(92, 96).... Bush(00, 04)....

How does Clinton( 08 ) represent change?

[JMS]

I question his awards.....all of them as do MANY other veterans. Some veterans are ok with him, his service and his awards, but there are many more who are not.

You don't question his awards. Be consistant. You dismiss them. You think he pinned those things on himself. You think he conjoured them. You think everybody in the military with a bronze star, and a silver star are legitamate hero's but believe Kerry somehow manufactured his own.

Personally, I didn't join the Army to win any medal or decoration, I did it to serve my country. If my fellow soldiers or commanders felt I did something to earn an award then so be it. I never, nor would I ever ask anyone to write up an award for me. To me, asking for a rewards speaks poorly of him as a commander. He was obviously seeking glory which is why he kept putting his sailors in danger so he could attempt to get medals.

The controdictions here are rich. Sort them out for me will you? Do you request medals of valor or are they bestowed upon you? Are you heroic for doing your job in a dangerous situation where all the men who serve on the boat you commanded stand up with you 40 years latter. Or are you a hot dog?

This isn't about Bush or Cheney its about Kerry, you brough him up so stop trying to compare him to other politicians.

You called Kerry a scumbag, I was just comparing him to his peers. I understand your discomfort with the comparison. Again I'm not saying 5 defferments makes Cheney a scum bag. I'm not saying Bush using his family pull to land a cushy position in the reserves makes him a scum bag. I'm saying there is nothing in Kerry's heroric service in Vietnam which can reasonable be used to discredit the man. I'm drawing your attention to the unreasonableness of your position. Disagree with the mans politics if you like, but don't unilaterally discredit him for doing about a millions times more dangerous service during war time than those who you find more politically acceptable today.

[sacase]

So the discussion we are having is about why college men no longer join the service in mass as they did in WWI and WWII. I have said it's because during Vietnam when the military had complete control over who they wanted they decided they wanted 18 year old high school kids prefferable those who were not college bound. As evidence for those statement I've stated that the average age of vietnam soldiers was almost a decade younger than their WWI and WWII counter parts. I've further stated that those highschool draftee's who could afford college were given defferments and allowed to escape manditory service. As Cheney did ( 5 defferents ) until they reached an age where the military no longer considered them prime candiates for soldiers.

Your response was that they could have still dropped out of college and enlisted, or enlisted after college. That's irrelivent. I am talking about manditory service where the majority of those serving as recruites came from in Vietnam. I'm talking about who the Military identified as the type of soldier they wanted, by defining the draft process. It wasn't the college men or those men bound for college. That's just a fact.

:doh: I didn't know bronze stars, silver stars and purple hearts could be requested by soldiers from their commanders...

Nope.. 18-20 year olds are not at their physical peak as you would have us believe. Professional athletes do not reach their prime during college. An team of college athletes aged 18-22 wouldn't stand a chance against a pro team aged 22-35. Fact is if you wanted folks who were at their physical peak you wouldn't choose 18 year olds. You would choose folks closer to 24-26.

There is definitely a mental attatude an 18 year old pocesses which a 30 year old has lost which was the reasoning behind lowing the average age of soldiers in Vietnam by almost a decade from those who served in WWII. It was an active decision and it wasn't based on health or physical strength.

I think you have already been shown to be in error here several times, so I'll just let it sit. Carter wasn't the major supporter of Iraq during the Iraq Iran war. Reagan was. The war was in it's infancy as Carter left office and didn't even start until after Carter had lost his re-election bid to Reagan. Reagan's support for Iraq was well documented.

I don't know what point you are trying to make here. We were talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan. We were talking about who was more responsible for supporting Iraq during the Iraq Iran war. Carter or Regan. Not the RDF and Afghanistan.

Yeah, let's compare professional athletes to Joe :doh: You do realize the draft age in WWII was 17 right? You do know that 10 million people were drafted in WWII? what about only 33% percent of the people in vietnam were drafted? How about 26% of the deaths in vietnam came from families in the top 1/3 of all income earners in the US? How about 80% of the draftee's had high school diploma's? wow 80% of the people who served in vietnam were eligable for a deferment...Average age of of someone killed in Vietnam? 22.8.

Your goodle-fu is weak!

The whole point of all of this, is that you are just making crap up. The military did not change the draft requirements from WWII to viet nam. They stayed the same. About 55% of the draftee's in WWII didn't have a high school diploma. Viet nam at the time had the most educated force in history and of course it has only got better. Did you ever think that when 10 million people are needed that the average age is going to go up?

So now we have another qualifier. MAJOR supporter. Originally it was support, now its major support since you can't make your arguement. Fact of the matter is Carter supported Iraq prior to Regan. Regan continued and increased the support. Why do you keep lying? The war started in September the General election was on November 4th. I never said Regan didn't support Iraq, I said that Carter supported Iraq first. Obviously you only decided to pick out key words and not read what was provided.

[sacase]

You don't question his awards. Be consistant. You dismiss them. You think he pinned those things on himself. You think he conjoured them. You think everybody in the military with a bronze star, and a silver star are legitamate hero's but believe Kerry somehow manufactured his own.

The controdictions here are rich. Sort them out for me will you? Do you request medals of valor or are they bestowed upon you? Are you heroic for doing your job in a dangerous situation where all the men who serve on the boat you commanded stand up with you 40 years latter. Or are you a hot dog?

You called Kerry a scumbag, I was just comparing him to his peers. I understand your discomfort with the comparison. Again I'm not saying 5 defferments makes Cheney a scum bag. I'm not saying Bush using his family pull to land a cushy position in the reserves makes him a scum bag. I'm saying there is nothing in Kerry's heroric service in Vietnam which can reasonable be used to discredit the man. I'm drawing your attention to the unreasonableness of your position. Disagree with the mans politics if you like, but don't unilaterally discredit him for doing about a millions times more dangerous service during war time than those who you find more politically acceptable today.

You are to much, you quote my post but leave out the part specifically asking to address your lies.

Do some research on Kerry, he went to his commander and told him he qualified for a Purple heart. He negotiated with his commander to get it! By the way, anyone can reccommend you for an award if they saw you do something. The lowest private and reccommend the top general for an award if he chose to. So no one he served with said anything bad about him?

[WinSkins]

Whatever I have that right. I mean after all Kerry said I was stuck in the service along with many other Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen because I performed poorly in school. Fact of the matter is myself and many other Veterans think very poorly of him and his military service. So yes, I have earned the right to critcism him just like he criticises the military.

I specifically stated that you and anyone else has the right to disagree with any politician. However, when you denigrate a veteran's military service you embarass and dishonor yourself and the uniform you wore.

I've heard many of your ilk claim to represent other veterans in these forums. In a quick survey of friends and family who've proudly served our nation in the armed forces, we 200+ wish to say, while we thank you for your service, you do not represent us and we respectfully request that you honor the service of all veterans, whether they march in lockstep with your ideology and opinion, or not.

[JMS]

Yeah, let's compare professional athletes to Joe :doh: You do realize the draft age in WWII was 17 right? You do know that 10 million people were drafted in WWII? what about only 33% percent of the people in vietnam were drafted? How about 26% of the deaths in vietnam came from families in the top 1/3 of all income earners in the US? How about 80% of the draftee's had high school diploma's? wow 80% of the people who served in vietnam were eligable for a deferment...Average age of of someone killed in Vietnam? 22.8.

Your goodle-fu is weak!

80% of the people who served in Vietnam were eligable for a deferment? What are you talking about... Anybody could apply for a deferment. Sick mother, only son, sole bread winner, new child (Cheney)...

You do realize that a highschool deploma didn't make one eligable for a deferment.

The whole point of all of this, is that you are just making crap up. The military did not change the draft requirements from WWII to viet nam. They stayed the same. About 55% of the draftee's in WWII didn't have a high school diploma. Viet nam at the time had the most educated force in history and of course it has only got better. Did you ever think that when 10 million people are needed that the average age is going to go up?

The average age of the Vietnamese soldier was about a decade younger than that of the average WWII soldier. Your logic doesn't address the central point. The central point being that when the Military had a choice between older soldiers or younger soldiers. The military chose younger soldiers specifically younger soldiers not college bound during the Vietnam war. The age difference between WWI, WWII and Vietnam era soldiers isn't a coincidence or a fluke. If the military was interested in older soldiers then they certainly were availible in Veitnam.

If your point was the military was never interested in college men even in WWII and only had to draft them because of the necessity; then your logic fits. Poorly, but it still fits. Fact is college deferments during WWII weren't the norm they were in Vietnam. Fact is college men were stripped from Universities during WWII. As evidence of this I stated Army won the college football national title in 1944, 45, 46 largely because not many other universities could feild a team. Also largely because the teams feilded by other Universities were not up to their normal standards because of those serving in the military.

What other period did Army win the national Football title.. 1914 during the Americna lead up to WWI.

So now we have another qualifier. MAJOR supporter. Originally it was support, now its major support since you can't make your arguement. Fact of the matter is Carter supported Iraq prior to Regan. Regan continued and increased the support. Why do you keep lying? The war started in September the General election was on November 4th. I never said Regan didn't support Iraq, I said that Carter supported Iraq first. Obviously you only decided to pick out key words and not read what was provided.

:doh:, How exactly did Carter support Iraq in his last few months in office? Did he give Iraq weapons? money? How exactly?

[PeterMP]

Again, I showed your proof that Carter was talking to Iraq before Regan. You show a picture that took place during the Regan era....ok and? It doesn't change the fact that Carter supported Iraq. As far as providing US forces against the soviet's....WRONG.

Brown indicated that the greatest threat was not Soviet expansionism but uncontrolled turbulence in the third world. "In a world of disputes and violence, we cannot afford to go abroad unarmed," he warned. "The particular manner in which our economy has expanded means that we have come to depend to no small degree on imports, exports and the earnings from overseas investments for our material well-being." Specifically, Brown identified the "protection of the oil flow from the Middle East" as "clearly part of our vital interest," in defense of which "we'll take any action that's appropriate, including the use of military force."

Brown did not explicitly state that the United States would intervene militarily in response to internal threats, like revolution, but after he left office he explained what could be said openly and what could not: "One sensitive issue is whether the United States should plan to protect the oil fields against internal or regional threats. Any explicit commitment of this sort is more likely to upset and anger the oil suppliers than to reassure them.

The Carter administration began the formation of a Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) to project U.S. military power into the Gulf region. Originally proposed in 1977, the planning did not make much progress until after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The fundamental purpose of the RDF was always, in the words of Carter's National Security Adviser, "helping a friendly government under a subversive attack";<42> nevertheless, to justify the RDF the Soviet threat had to be magnified. Accordingly, Carter spoke in apocalyptic terms about the strategic significance of the invasion of Afghanistan, even though U.S. military experts were aware that a "thrust through Afghanistan would be of marginal advantage to any Soviet movement through Iran or the Gulf.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Guess, Carter lied huh?

Where in any of this does it say that Carter supported Iraq? In terms of the points that I think you are trying to make:

""One sensitive issue is whether the United States should plan to protect the oil fields against internal or regional threats. Any explicit commitment of this sort is more likely to upset and anger the oil suppliers than to reassure them."

The Soviets would not have been an internal or regional threat. Iraq attacking Iran would have been a regional thread.

"Brown indicated that the greatest threat was not Soviet expansionism but uncontrolled turbulence in the third world."

Who started the Iraq/Iran war?

[Predicto]

Why do you lie so much?

Will you STOP doing this? You have made several mistakes or overstatements in this thread, and several people have pointed them out.

Yet you are the one with the gall to call other people Liars rather than just dispute their arguments.

It doesn't say much for your message board character, IMO.

[PeterMP]

I agree 100% with everything you just said. One thing though, the Kurds know they will not be allowed an independant state. If they went that route they would have Turkey breathing down their neck in a heartbeat and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

But yes, we can only give the Iraqi's the time and oppertunity to suceed. We cannot make them succeed.

Care to explain those terrorist attacks the Turks are claiming originated from inside Kurdish controlled areas in Iraq?

[Predicto]

Are you ever going to address your lies about germany declaring war on the US before the US declared war on Japan or just simply ignore it? When are you going to stop making crap up that is easily disproved? Why can't you man up? Have the nads not dropped yet?

.

Again. You have fixated on a minor point and are being remarkably offensive about it. You are acting like a petulant child.

[JMS]

Do some research on Kerry, he went to his commander and told him he qualified for a Purple heart. He negotiated with his commander to get it!

:doh: Like you can negotiate for a Purple Heart, much less a Bronze or Silver Star. A purple heart is an award one recieves for a wound recieved in combat. The guidelines for recieving it are specific. You are either eligable or not. You don't barter for it.

A soldier is eligable for a purple heart if he has been wounded or killed, 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 Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.
   
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart

By the way, anyone can reccommend you for an award if they saw you do something. The lowest private and reccommend the top general for an award if he chose to.

Yeah that's it. He put himself in for those awards. That's exactly how you stated it before...:doh:

So no one he served with said anything bad about him?

That's right. The members of Kerry's swiftboat crew did support him and appeared with him on stage as he accepted the Democratic nonimation for President.

Kerry's critics ( mud slingers ) were themselves paid operatives of the Republicans who mostly did not serve with Kerry. They served in different units from Kerry or after Kerry left Vietnam.

I did find a refference to a Swift Boat critic of Kerry, who recieved a bronze star on the same mission Kerry did..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

[sacase]

Again. You have fixated on a minor point and are being remarkably offensive about it. You are acting like a petulant child.

Will you STOP doing this? You have made several mistakes or overstatements in this thread, and several people have pointed them out.

Yet you are the one with the gall to call other people Liars rather than just dispute their arguments.

It doesn't say much for your message board character, IMO.

Predicto, Go back and read what JMS writes. There are several statements that are out and out lies. I can understand mistakes we all make them, hell sometimes we are blatently wrong, I have been and I can admit to as much. But JMS is on a whole new level. In almost every single post he has written in this thread he has done this. He steers clear of it instead of saying, my mistake. In this thread I have gone back and further explained something that may have seemed like an overstatement. If I have not please point it out and I will be more than happy to either address it or say I was wrong. Things that are based on perspective and opinion I don't expect people to say they are wrong on, but things that are fact are hard to argue.

[sacase]

Care to explain those terrorist attacks the Turks are claiming originated from inside Kurdish controlled areas in Iraq?

What's to explain, there are Kurds that want their own country, however there are not very many countries that would back that as it would cause huge problems in the area and the turks are not going to go for that. So yes, there are some attacks from Kurdish groups on Turkey that are originating out of Iraq.