Re: The Feminization of the Medal of Honor

>And I too take some exception to his tone.  But he is right in a sense,
charging
a machine gun nest to save your platoon is not the same as dragging a guy away
from his captors.<

I don't know.  They are both selfless acts - putting aside one's own safety/life

to save others. I know the numbers or scale aren' the same but the
moitve/spirit behind them are, I think.

**Absolutely, which is what the real criteria focuses on.  But you have to admit
that one carries a much greater likelihood of dying than the other, which is
what this guy is so narrowly focused on...that and killing I guess.  And even if
he is technically correct, he is still wrong in that he really does not
understand sacrifice and gallantry.



>But what he (the author) fails to consider is that the real criteria of the MOH
has room for both, and I think we are better served by recognizing gallantry in
both areas.<

Yes.  I'm not an expert in how one qualifies for the MOH but I don't begrudge it

to this guy at all, (not that it would matter if I did). 

**I do know of one award I think was wrongfully given, but most I would argue
are no brainers.


I had read a while ago that there was a concern that there had been very few
MOHs awared out of Iraq and that the lack of them may have been due to how
unpopular the war became.  I'm not saying I agree, just that it seems like the
military is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

**well there is a considerable political component here.  Remember the Jessica
Lynch fiasco.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot