If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Regnirps ) writes:
(B2431) wrote: The "embellishments" are REQUIRED. They are called "devices." If I were still active duty an was not wearing the V on my bronze star or oakleaves on my purple heart, good conduct, longevity etc, stars on my national defense and SEA sevice medal I would have been out of uniform. Yes, the devices embellish the medal. My grandfather received his in the mail in 1935. I guess he was out of uniform for a looong time. Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1. 1935 sounds about right for the retroactive award. Prior to that, he'd only be out of uniform if he failed to wear the wound stripe. Cheers, -- "Cave ab homine unius libri" |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" ) writes:
"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message ... Basically crap, Steven. Army Regulations re the Purple Heart: (b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment. I'd assume the Navy regulations are essentially similar. There apparently was no battle to be in the heat of. Assumed but not proven. In any case irrelevant if the folks -thought- they were in a battle. You think those folks in the Bradley who got zapped by a blue on blue Maverick didn't get PHs? There was no -real- battle, they were just motoring along when the A-10 mistook them for a T-72 or whatever. The A-10 driver -thought- it was a battle. In any case, if I recall correctly, it was freakin' -impossible- to wound oneself by firing an M-79 round "too close". Kerry's experience suggests otherwise. "Purported" experience. The things have to cover a minimum distance before they arm themselves and that distance is sufficient to place the shooter outside of the blast/shrapnel radius. I recall one story from the vietnam conflict where an army surgeon got written up for removing an unexploded M-79 round from an ARVN trooper. -He- got shot by friendly fire but the round hadn't traveled far enough to arm itself. Cheers, -- "Cave ab homine unius libri" |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Jack wrote:
Sam Byrams wrote: [Dr. Joe Bagadonutz is] equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter. Not quite. Even most Dr.s aren't convinced they can fly a MIG or any real fighter -- or at least aren't so willing to disprove it. The Bonanza isn't that tough, after all -- so it's a damn' good thing they are leaving the fighters, for the most part, alone. Hell, my Dad owned and flew a Bonanza, and he was only a Major League baseball player, with a high school education. Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza? That has the rep as the unforgiving GA ship, probably due to lack of training. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 02:38:46 -0500, D. Strang wrote:
[snip] Pretty typical stuff, that killed a lot of troops who weren't so lucky. I know four guys in two tours, who have their name on the wall, who killed themselves doing stuff this stupid. And willfully stupid at that. You try telling them to stop before somebody gets killed and see what thanks you get for it. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:07:11 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:
This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for 16 months: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif It does not show that he was AWOL. No, you have to draw that inference yourself. No, thats not quite true. Thats the inference YOU WANT folks to draw. In fact you belabo(u)r the point into insensibility. Trouble is your thory doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Tough noogies. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:10:05 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:
Vice [sic] President Bush is the issue, and the only issue. Why isn't Kerry the issue? Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not. So, thousands of records have been lost in fires, transit, during media conversion, etc. The regular US Navy was evidently more careful about its records than the ANG. So what? And what credence can we palce in Kerry's records when we know that at least some of the details are not correct. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:13:25 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:
He seems to think that use of an M2 is a war crime. It apparently is. I can well remember hearing that use of the M2 against troops is not allowed. However, use of the M2 against equipment -is- allowed. We were advised to shoot at enemy troops' belt buckles, as that -was- equipment. Smells like BS to me. Its a distinction only a lawyer could love. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:23:46 -0500, D. Strang wrote:
[snip] AWOL is a violation of the UCMJ, you don't infer it, there are records. You'd think so wouldn't you. Walty and his Dimmocreep buddies have however constructed their castle in the air which while disturbing is OK I suppose. Taking up residence therein is grounds to question their mental integrity. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:51:55 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... No, you have to draw that inference yourself. I wouldn't draw that inference. No rational person would. HINT Walty isn't rationale. He's a broken record Dumbocreep. /HINT IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 196 | June 14th 04 11:33 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 05:26 PM |