Delay the November Election?

One doesn't 'win' military awards. One *earns* them. Usually.....

Earning implies that you are working for a medal, ie no matter what you do, if you put in the hours you will get a medal.

In England and Australia we always say such and such won the VC, or whatever medal, so perhaps winning is the correct terminology. Remember the medal is awarded for gallantry or bravery, so if it is awarded then you win the medal, conversely if the medal is rewarded for gallantry or bravery (which it never is of course) then the recipient has earned the medal. Or is this semantical argument just a load of....?

Tim Brimelow

I think you hit the operative term: The medals are "awarded" and maybe leave it at that.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

Not entirely. John Masters, DSO, explained his medal this way: "The MC is a medal you earn. The DSO is a medal your men earn for you."

And almost at once the OBE was described as "Other Bastards' Efforts."

Bollocks? Maybe.

Some medals are awarded -- the Congressional Medal of Honor, for instance. Others are earned -- those for longevity of service or certain campaign awards. (Some are even given simply for having the right connections or last name...if you live in; say; Africa, South America or the Middle East...)

Ah, so the distinction is between direct action and delegating authority? Iraqi women and children killed collaterally to the prosecution of the war in Iraq are just as dead, just as innocent (which may mean not very innocent at all, if you recall the realities of Vietnam) and ought to be just as much a weight on conscience as those killed in the Vietnam War. These deaths can be categorized as criminal, a result of gross negligence, simple negligence, or excused by the sad necessity of pursuing our valid national interest. Neither Kerry nor Bush is ever going to be tried for their respective roles in the deaths of children pursuant to the conduct of war. Characterize Kerry's statements (which are obviously hyperbolic, and if he made them, pretty darned stupid) any way you want--it's a fine political tradition, and rest assured Bush (who has also said stupid things) will be equally villified by those on the left who are convinced he is a murderer. Or maybe you can reference some video tape where Kerry is actually emptying a clip or two into a trench full of toddlers? No doubt the Republicans would love to have a copy of that for their next attack ad.

I'll tell you what I don't want in the White House: someone who misues and abuses our armed forces by pre-emptively invading a country whose threat to us was nowhere near as imminent as represented to Congress and the American people, because of a reliance on faulty intelligence, incomplete intelligence, and maybe just plain old wishful thinking. The Bush administration didn't so much lie to the American people as it lied to itself. Never mind the apparent quagmire we now have--it may still work out for the best, and we had better hope so. What concerns me is that our volunteer military may have been fatally injured by this misadventure. The effectiveness of our armed forces has been unsurpassed ever since we abolished the draft, because we have attracted recruits who can be trained and motivated to a high level of performance. I'm worried that far fewer highly qualified recruits will want anything to do with a military career if they think they are going to be used constantly as occupiers of hostile territory with limited rules of engagement, and that their tours of duty in the 'peace' zone will be extended far in excess of the usual standard. It's not going to help re-enlistment rates either.

I didn't care for Reagan, and felt only luke-warm about Bush the Elder, but give their administrations credit for (mostly) not misusing the military. It's the least a president can do.

Mark Schynert