Quote:
Originally posted by Joesho
I mean, I always thought those were suppossed to mean something... (they sure did in the past)
now just to take advantage of another tradgedy in order to look good for the camera this admiistration has tagged the label "HERO" to a guy that got killed by his own troops in a chaotic panic while coming under enemy fire!
I bet the former recipients of this medal are rolling over in their grave, as to how trivial it has become to recieve such a HIGH honor now days..
Call me unpatriotic if you wish, I for one however think only TRUE HERO'S should be called hero's otherwise the word is meaningless.
|
What is your definition of a hero? My definition of a hero...is anyone that is serving...be it peace time...or time for combat operations...since less than 1% of the population choose to suffer the discomfort...and danger...involved in both peace time and combat operations. Medals are issued to those that perform "above and beyond" the call of duty. What exactly does this mean? While there can be many examples of this I will provide a simple one.
A squad is ordered to be on point for a Company size operation. That point squad receives machine gun fire from an enemy postion. The field of fire being layed down by the MG pins the Squad down...maybe members of the Squad have taken hits. A member of the squad sees an opportunity to flank the MG and on his
own initiative decides to flank the MG and takes out the MG crew?
All he has done...in one sense...is to engage the enemy...which is his duty...so why would he be in line for a Medal...which he would be. The key words here are
own initiative. He was not ordered to take out the MG. His Squad Leader was busy on the radio...attempting to call in Mortar...Artillary...or asking for available Air support. He acted on his
own initiative.
I do not know what Tilman's citation reads...but I do know that being killed by friendly fire should not affect...any citation...if he acted "above and beyond" ie...his
own initiative.