Joel's Rant
A Conservative Blog

Joel's Rant

4 Unlucky Marines

January 16th, 2012 . by joel

I’ve never been in a combat zone and I’ve never been in the military.  I avoided that in the 60’s when I was lucky enough, like many other men my age, to be safely ensconced in school.  Now, in my later years, I’m sorry I didn’t serve but I understand those words ring hollow today when I’m here in the present and some of my college classmates are remembered when I visit their names engraved in a wall. 

But that doesn’t mean I don’t understand war.  I certainly do, as do most thoughtful, thinking people, who similarly never served.  According to that crackpot, Ron Paul, I’d be unqualified to be the president because I didn’t serve.  Some of our greatest wartime presidents, FDR and Lincoln come to mind, didn’t serve either.  Neither did James Madison and James K. Polk, presidents during 2 of our 5 “declared” wars.  And neither did, of course, the greatest president in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan.  But Ron Paul’s an ass, so who of consequence really cares what he thinks? 

This brings me to my point.  By now you know that 4 US Marines were videotaped urinating on some dead Taliban bodies. U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called it “deplorable” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she felt “total dismay” after hearing the story.  There are several investigations underway by the Navy and the Marine Corps and others to see how such a terrible thing could happen.  I suppose there’s no way such a “travesty” could take place in our armed forces, during a period of war mind you, and our political class merely looking the other way, or letting it slide.  No, that could not be possible.

Here’s my take on this story. I’m glad those 4 Marines did what they did.  I’m just sorry they didn’t set those dead barbarian freak bodies on fire or desecrate them in some other way.  I’m just sorry they didn’t cut off their freak barbarian heads and kick them around like soccer balls and then fling them into a river.  They deserved to be desecrated and defiled.  Our soldiers are warriors, sent to a foreign battlefield to kill, conquer and vanquish the enemy. And they should be allowed to do so with speed and dispatch, the same way we fought our war in WWII. War is freaking war and people die and that’s what’s supposed to happen, for crying out loud. 

And how are our warriors supposed to psychologically handle that situation, the war situation, the same one Ron Paul claims I’m not supposed to understand because I’ve never been sent to fight.  How are they supposed to react after being in battle, with their very lives in constant danger?  Our vaunted leaders like Panetta and Clinton think our warriors should go out and kill the people who are trying to kill them first, and then when they’re finished killing the bad people, to apparently just shrug that off, like they would at the Pentagon or the State Department, and go back to nation building and maybe get some coffee.  Are they serious?  How can our warriors be expected to do merely that.  It’s not what reasonable people would do.  How did our warriors of WWII handle that and how did they regard those they had to kill?  With anger?  With depravity?  With worse?  Maybe. Probably.

And that’s as it should be, no?  When you put people, like our warriors, in harm’s way, we need to not be offended when they vent their rage and anger. That venting is exactly what freaking keeps them human beings, for crying out loud.

Civil War general, William Tecumseh Sherman, is well known for his quote that “War is hell.”  But that’s not his best quote.  His best quote would be “War is cruelty.  There is no use trying to reform it.  The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”  Now ain’t that the truth?

Our problem is that we are, through our sanctimonious leaders and the fifth-column mainstream media, trying indeed to reform it into something not quite so bad.  We now demand no collateral damage, no innocent’s being killed, no severity, only proportionality, defenseless rules of engagement that expose our own troops to danger and on and on.  And now we’re at a point where we have to fight a weak and insignificant-in-numbers enemy for a decade or more and still we’re not done. 

I say no.  We need to fight this war, and any war, with ferocity and focus until we have slaughtered our enemies and vanquished them from the field of battle, even if that battlefield is in a village or even a hospital.  Because that’s how wars are fought.  Because the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.  And yes, there will be dead people, and maybe lots of them.

And if we’re not going to fight like that, then let’s not send our precious warriors to fight at all.

And that’s all there is to it.


Liberal’s, Conservative’s and the Tea Party

September 19th, 2010 . by joel

Just before the polls had closed on Tuesday, the great and wise Charles Krauthammer and the ideologically liberal Juan Williams appeared together in a panel on Fox News to discuss the potential for a Christine O’Donnell victory in Delaware.  This was a full 2 hours before Karl Rove appeared on Hannity to pronounce Christine O’Donnell a personality failure of suspect character.  During that panel Krauthammer essentially indicated that the “weak and dubious” O’Donnell had no business taking a certain Republican Senatorial victory away from the liberal Mike Castle, while Williams replied that the excitement generated by the Tea Party is what has introduced new and fresh candidates, bringing an unapologetic conservative ideology to the attention of the voters. 

 I never thought this could happen, but I take Juan Williams over Charles Krauthammer on this one.  Go figure!

 But without getting too deep in the weeds, let’s all focus on what’s important here for a moment.  If O’Donnell had already been in the Senate she would have voted against Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.  She would have voted against ObamaCare, cap & trade, stimulus spending, government takeovers of GM, student loans and AIG.  She would have voted against bailouts and the latest finance bill and would definitely vote against future Card Check, the Disclosure Law and VAT tax legislation which are sure to be introduced by the Democrats if they maintain control in Congress.  She definitely would vote FOR extending the Bush tax cuts and possibly for eliminating the Departments of Education, Commerce and maybe even Energy, all of which essentially serve no purpose. 

 The fact that she may have suffered a foreclosure means nothing; so have a lot of people.  The fact that she may have defaulted on a loan is immaterial; so have lots of people in this economy.  O’Donnell claims both of those issues are mischaracterizations and explains them both away on her campaign website, which also provides IRS and mortgage bank documents online to support her replies (http://christine2010.com/christine-counters/) for those interested in drawing their own conclusions.

The important point, for those looking for a new direction in this country, is that both Mike Castle and her Democrat opponent Chris Coons would have voted the exact opposite of O’Donnell on the issues that count. 

 A review of Mike Castle’s voting record over the past several years includes the following:

Voted YES on TARP
Voted YES on Cap and Trade
Voted YES on Cash for Clunkers
Voted YES on the auto bailout
Voted YES on bailing out Fannie and Freddie
Voted YES on SCHIP (along with its companion tax increase)
Voted YES to increase taxes on oil and gas companies
Voted YES to increase the minimum wage
Voted YES on the pork-infested 2005 Highway bill
Voted YES to increase funding for PBS
Voted YES on the Medicare drug benefit
Voted YES on No Child Left Behind
Voted YES on McCain-Feingold
Voted NO to end milk subsidies
Voted NO on waiving Davis-Bacon labor rules

Voted NO on Iraqi troop surge

Voted NO to open up ANWR

Voted NO to restrict eminent domain abuse

It doesn’t get more liberal than that.  Mike Castle is a liberal and would have continued voting liberal along with every liberal Democrat in Congress and along with Barack Obama.

This brings us to the issue of liberalism and what they believe and where they want to take the country. 

It was just announced last week that poverty in this country has hit a record high as the rate jumped from 13.2% to 14.3%, translating into 43.6 million people living below the poverty line.  And that doesn’t include those millions living just above the poverty line but are one bad break away from entering that netherworld of despair.  That’s the most people in the history of the nation.  In addition, over 60 million people receive Food Stamps and 50 million people are already on Medicaid.  Once ObamaCare kicks in, that number will jump to 80 million people on Medicaid; that’s fully 25% of the entire nation on medical assistance specifically meant for poor people and those living below the poverty line. 

Those are numbers not seen since at least the 1960’s and reflects the failure of liberal poverty spending programs that have taken over $20 trillion out of the private, job creating, economy since 1964’s so-called “War on Poverty”.  Think of the state of our nation today had that $20 Trillion been invested, by the free market and private enterprise, in general research & development, transportation, medical and pharmaceutical development, bio-engineering, energy assets and development, communications and all the other ventures that have produced the most successful society and highest standard of living for all its citizens in the history or the Earth. 

Just think what the poverty population in this country would be had that $20 Trillion been used to create jobs instead of creating victims and handouts and placing people on lifetime assistance.  We’re already seeing 4th generation welfare recipients in this country.

And what’s the liberal response to these facts?  More spending and blaming George W. Bush for the federal deficit.  Yes, of course, all of this was caused by the Bush tax cuts.  Really?  Let’s cut to the chase and dispel the myth that the Bush tax cuts caused the deficit. 

Actually, in 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion.  In 2007, after the tax cuts had gone into effect, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion, a 39% increase.  Unfortunately, spending by a Republican Congress outpaced treasury revenues and so the deficit grew.  But never, not even one time during the Bush administration, did any Democrat in Congress state that the budget being passed was too high.   Never did any Democrat call for reducing spending during the Bush years, unless, of course, the spending was for the Defense Department.  Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest voted every single time for increased spending and complained only when spending wasn’t higher.  And those are the facts.

Barack Obama and his minions somehow believe that “the well off” or “the well connected” people in this country have explicitly conspired to shaft the “middle class”.  Their philosophy of class warfare is right out of the Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and begs the question of where exactly on the income scale does Barack Obama divide the country between “us” and “them”? 

In 2007, the top 1% of income earners were those making $410,000 or more per year, and they paid 40% of all income taxes.  The top 5% were those making over $160,000 per year, and they paid 60% of the income taxes.

Doesn’t the real antidote to poverty lie in getting this top 5% or so to create the jobs to hire the millions presently receiving assistance?  Isn’t that the only way?  The Reagan years tax cuts saw over 21 million new jobs created.  The Bush years (yes, the George W. Bush years) tax cuts saw 8 million new jobs created.  And those numbers are real and don’t include any accounting gimmicks like “jobs saved.” 

Isn’t Conservatism the antidote to Liberalism? 

The lines being drawn in this country could not be clearer and those lines are being highlighted by the Tea Party movement and those that understand what’s at stake.  As the great Mark Levin has stated, those differences are stark and grim and separate the views of Conservative’s from the views of Liberal’s and include the following:

We believe in the Founders, they believe in Karl Marx,

We believe in liberating the individual, they believe in controlling the individual,

We believe in being able to keep what you earn, they believe in stealing what you earn,

We believe in American citizenship, they believe in Global citizenship,

We believe in American greatness, they believe in American arrogance,

We believe in representative government, they believe in big government,

We believe in liberating and protecting victims, they believe we’re colonialists and imperialists,

We believe in limited government, they believe in unfettered government,

We believe in putting people in control, they believe in controlling the people.

We believe in liberty, they believe in tyranny.

And that’s all there is to it.


The Final Solution‏

June 9th, 2010 . by joel

When was the last time all the countries in the world got together to condemn one single country.  Yes, there have been times when the United Nations, that well known cesspool of dictators, thugs, killers, and other assorted miscreants, was able to pass a resolution with the majority of the voting states condemning some nation for something or other.  Usually that denunciation meant bullcrap, and the world went on as usual, the condemned generally not stopping to even take a breath or giving a damn.

But I’m talking here about the entire freaking world voting as a block, even including those genius inventors of socialism, communism, Nazism and fascism, the Europeans, whom we can’t wait to emulate.  Even the United States of America agrees to condemn this one single country.

Maybe that one single country was North Korea.  They certainly deserve to be condemned.  Didn’t they just recently attack another country by deliberately and wantonly destroying a capital warship without any warning, killing 46 sailors and injuring many others, in what was actually an act of war?  And didn’t they secretly try to build a nuclear weapons production plant in Syria?  No, that’s not the one.

Or maybe it was Iran.  They also deserve to be condemned.  Aren’t they in the process of building a nuclear weapon that they will likely use to blackmail the rest of the world and aren’t they, along with North Korea, the most aggressive and transparent supporters of world-wide terrorism, including the proactive killing of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?  And haven’t they stated flat out that their goal is the destruction of a specific western democracy and member of the United Nations?  No, that’s not the one.

Could it be Sudan?  Talk about deserving to be condemned.  Isn’t their leadership responsible for the deliberate killing, starving and actually selling into slavery of about a million of its own citizens in Darfur over the past 20 years and have not yet stopped even to eat a sandwich?  No, not them either?

What about Cuba or Venezuela, subjugating their own people and exporting Communism and supporting terrorism in Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil and other Latin American nations and otherwise attempting to create instability everywhere?  They deserve to be condemned too.  But no, neither of them are “the one.”

Or what about Burma or Belarus or Zimbabwe or any number of other countries led by disgusting and degenerate leaders?  Nope, don’t be a fool, fool!

No, “the one” could only be tiny Israel, the land of the Jews.  So here’s a country of 7.5 million souls, not all of them Jews by the way, that occupies land about the size of perhaps New Jersey, surrounded by 1.5 billion (that’s billion with a “b”) Arabs and Muslims occupying land stretching from the banks of Western Africa to Indonesia, and all those latter people’s fondest wish is to see all the Jews dead.  And with all the malice that can be mustered, now it seems that the rest of the world feels the same way.

How else can the events of the past two weeks be explained?  How is it that Israel is not universally viewed as the victim here?  Any rational and thoughtful person should normally see it that way, no?  Why is it that Hamas, the Palestinians or the Turks are not being condemned? 

The killers in Hamas and Hezbollah, both proxy armies of Iran, have been engaged in war against the civilian Israeli population for the past several decades.  A summary of the atrocities perpetuated against Israel could literally fill a book, but one need not concentrate on that to get the full flavor of the injustice here.  Hamas and Hezbollah have been firing rockets indiscriminately into Israeli population centers for years with the intent of killing as many innocent civilian men, women and children as possible.  Over 10,000 rockets have been fired by Hamas alone, which makes perverse sense since the Hamas charter calls for the elimination of Israel no matter how long it takes.  It actually says that.  It’s like part of their depraved constitution.

To put that into some perspective, what do you suppose the response of the United States would be if a terrorist army in Tijuana began lobbing hundreds of mortar shells into downtown San Diego?   What is it you would expect the leaders of the United States would do?  Would you expect no action, maybe just talk and negotiation with the bad guys?  I personally would expect, assuming Barack Obama were not president, an American military response, directed by a conservative American Commander-in-Chief that would be immediate and adjudicated with ferocity and maximum prejudice.  That would seem about right to me, and hopefully to you too.

Then why does the world expect Israel to act differently, to not act in self-defense, to not protect their population and sovereignty?   Why is it that Israel must compromise while their enemies do not and, in fact, never have?  Why must Israel unilaterally return land, taken in war to provide a buffer for protection, to those that then immediately use that territory to assault their civilian populations?  Why does the world make excuses for the terrorists and condemns Israel for “atrocities?”   Why isn’t Russia ever held to account for their treatment of the people of Chechnya, or China for the people of Tibet?

The reason is simple.  It’s because the all the world hates the Jews.

Even here in the United States, our leaders and mainstream liberal media condemned Israel with the smartest woman in the world, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying our government supports the UN resolution calling for condemnation and investigations into Israel’s untoward actions, as if we would allow the UN to investigate our actions in Afghanistan, for instance.  In her statement on the subject Clinton asked absolutely nothing of the Turks or their radical Islamist leader.  She only asked Israel to account.  And what I found to be particularly insidious was Clinton’s repeated uses of the phrases “peace activists” and “humanitarian aid” to describe what was supposedly being delivered to the Palestinians.  That was a total fraud.  Only stupid people, or willfully blind people, or those that hate Jews would continue to use those deceitful and duplicitous descriptions since the flotilla represented absolutely nothing of the kind.   

So why would our government buy into this hateful effort to hurt a trusted and long-standing ally?

My guess is the Obama regime has no use for allies or friends or western coalitions.  He’s just simply more comfortable with socialists and Marxists.  Obama’s apology tour of the world, ending with his Cairo speech in which he denounced America, reveals his contempt for the United Sates and its exceptionalism and allows him to seek friendships with enemies and antagonism toward friends.  It’s the Chicago way, or maybe it’s worse.

Maybe that’s why Obama double-crossed the Poles and Czechs by embracing instead Russia’s attitude toward missile defense, for which he received absolutely nothing in return.  Maybe that’s why Obama chose to directly align himself with the dictators Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and against the lawful actions of the democratic Honduras Supreme Court when they ousted their communist leader.   Maybe that’s why Obama had no problem siding with the Argentines, and against the UK, in the recent trouble over the Falkland Islands, and also humiliating Nickolas Sarkozy of France by continually blowing him off instead of meeting with the French as Sarkozy requested.    

And how could anyone forget the humiliation foisted on Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who among other acts of arrogance and disdain for Israel, was left by Obama, alone in a White House anteroom, while Obama went to dinner with his family with instructions that Netanyahu think over his own stubbornness, as if he were a petulant child.  How Netanyahu, a no-nonsense former Israeli commando who has actually faced death straight-out, had the presence of mind not to reach over and smack some sense and manners into Obama is beyond me.

But what we’re seeing here is the serious weakening of the United States, with dangerous implications and consequences for the future.  Brazil and Turkey make a deal to help Iran constitute uranium and neither country doesn’t care a whit what the United States thinks. That would have been unthinkable under either of the Bushes or Reagan or possibly even Bill Clinton.  But our enemies are watching this spectacle unfold; they’re taking notes, they sense weakness of Obama and blood in the water, they know the United States is afraid to act, even in its own self-interest.  Our allies meanwhile sense a lack of trust and commitment and discipline of purpose, and are justifiably very worried.

And that American weakness is what leads to efforts by the forces of evil to send flotillas to arm Hamas right out in the open, or sink ally warships, or kill American soldiers, because the entire world knows the United States has become a paper tiger under Barack Obama.  The entire world knows we will do absolutely nothing.

Does the world believe the United States would retaliate or come to the aid of Israel if it’s attacked with nuclear weapons by Iran?  The answer would have to be no, no?  Does anyone actually believe Obama would lift a finger to save the Jewish State from total destruction (or for that matter, save Taiwan from a Chinese invasion)?

And that’s what the bad guys think too.  And that’s what makes Iran becoming a nuclear power so dangerous.  And don’t the Jews really deserve universal and world-wide condemnation anyway?

So what Hitler ultimately failed to do, the Iranians might actually get away with.  All the green lights point that way.  The runway is being cleared.  No one will try to stop them.   The world has reconciled their hatred of the Jews.  The Final Solution is only moments away.

And that’s all there is to it.


We ignore this reality at our peril

February 12th, 2010 . by joel

Did you know that as late as 1938 France and Great Britain were far more powerful than Germany?  At the time of the Munich disaster of “peace in our time” fame, either France or Great Britain alone could have kicked Germany’s butt had hostilities been declared.  Both of those countries had larger armies, formidable air forces, more tanks and heavy weapons and more experienced commanders with battlefield experience.

Unfortunately, both France and Great Britain did nothing to stop Germany, and by September 1, 1939 the balance of power had shifted, and the rest is history.  Very bad history, made all the worse by the fact that it all could have been prevented had those with power stood up earlier to their eventual adversary, who while talking trash and acting ultra-tough, was actually rather weak in comparison.

I love history.  You can learn so much, and even better, if you missed it on the first go-round you can catch it again later because it actually does repeat itself.  Just take a look at what’s happening with Iran today.  What are you willing to bet we’ll act in our own best interests while our eventual adversary is weak?  Hmmmmmmm, is that a bet you want to take?

In just the past two weeks Iran has taken the following steps:

  • Launched a rocket carrying a small satellite into space. (Clearly their rocket is not yet capable of launching a nuclear weapon, but continuing to develop this working technology is their plan, no?),
  • Completed an agreement with Russia for the delivery and installation of an advanced air defense system. (Yes, backstabbing our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic really got Russia to cooperate with us big-time.),
  • Declared they have succeeded in enriching uranium to 19.75% purity, making the creation a nuclear bomb a foregone conclusion.  (Only the willfully blind, logarithmically stupid or leader of the free world could continue to hope this enrichment is for peaceful purposes.)

What has Barack Obama been doing in the meantime to mitigate these provocative acts?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Oh yes, he did make a statement that tough sanctions will be necessary and blah, blah, blah……   Oh, and he did say he was happy to see Russia blah, blah, blah…….

This is nothing.  We’re France and Great Britain, looking on while knowing that a military confrontation is going to happen, but still taking no action.

But why should we care if Iran becomes a nuclear nation?  The Soviet Union was a nuclear nation and we lived with them, right?  So what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that it’s possible that Iran will not be contained the way the Soviet’s were.  The Soviet’s wanted to protect their populations.  The Soviet leaders liked the good life themselves and planned to live long and comfortable lives. 

Conversely, the Iranians are obsessed with death.  Their leaders have even made statements to the effect that death is what life’s all about.  They glory in death.  They recruit suicide bombers.  They advocate strapping bombs to children and sending them into crowded pizza restaurants, for crying out loud.  Here’s a glimpse of what could happen:

Remember when Saddam marched into Kuwait, thereby taking control of their oil fields and threatening the energy supplies of the free world?  Would we have taken those fields back and destroyed Saddam’s military if he’d had nuclear weapons?  What will the world be like if Iran has that nuclear prowess?  What kind of blackmail will they demand?

Other countries in the Middle East, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan fear an Iranian hegemony.  If Iran goes nuclear, those countries will develop their own nuclear capabilities.  What kind of world will that be when every country in the Middle East is nuclear armed?  You think the Middle East is a dysfunctional tinderbox now?

Iran has at least two proxy “terrorist armies” in Hamas and Hezbollah.  What are the chances those barbarians will eventually become armed with nuclear weapons?  What about other terrorists like Al-Qaida and the Taliban?  Will they become nuclear armed?  What about outlaw countries like Venezuela and Syria and perhaps others?  Will they look to develop their own capabilities?

And what about Israel?  Iran has actually sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.  Will the rest of the world stand by while a western democracy and ally of the United States is attacked with nuclear weapons?

In other words, the calculus of risk is hyper-inflated if these people are allowed to possess the most devastating and destructive weapons of all time.  While the scenario of a preemptive military strike is extraordinarily unattractive, the alternative is much less attractive, much worse and requires us to do what needs to be done.

We ignore this reality at our peril.

And that’s all there is to it.


The Best Americans

December 25th, 2009 . by joel

How many people know the name Tiger Woods and can describe in pretty good detail the stories that have been in the news about him over the past couple of weeks?  Or how many people know the exploits of that idiot couple that crashed the White House state dinner a short while ago?  Or how many people refer to sports players as “heroes” because they bring entertainment to those that might be interested in their game?

Obviously the details of the “everyday” are with us and often stare us in the face even when we’re not concerned or don’t want to be bothered, or even are aghast that we even know their names.  Why do I know the name Jermaine Jackson, for instance?  Or even Jesse Jackson?  Why aren’t these people forgotten even before they make their way into our brains.

On the other end of the spectrum are people we don’t know, whose names mean nothing to us, yet they represent all that is great with America, that their souls are entwined with ours, that their very existence make us better, yet they live and die in complete anonymity.

Why aren’t the exploits of these people made known to us, and cheered by our leaders and taught in our schools?   Here are 6 of those people, whose gallantry and selfless courage make us better and represent what our country is all about.  These are the 6 Congressional Medal of Honor awardees from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.  These are people whose names everyone should know.

The links provide the exact citations but a summary of their unmitigated valor are as follows.  In this, our national holiday season, we should take a moment and remember these men and the others who have sacrificed so much for us:

Jared C. Monti, United States Army (Afghanistan)

Sgt. Monti commanded a platoon of 16 soldiers that was ambushed by about 50 enemy fighters.  While his men took cover to continue the fight, Sgt. Monti left his men to move forward to within about 175 feet of the enemy to direct artillery fire, when he spotted one of his men wounded and in the open.  Without regard to himself, Sgt. Monti tried to get the man to safety and was killed while running in the open.

Michael P. Murphy, United States Navy (Afghanistan)

While leading a 4-man team in search of a specific terrorist his men were ambushed by about 50 enemy fighters.  While he and all of his men were wounded, they fought the enemy and killed or wounded many, at which point the team’s communicator became unable to continue his effort to gain command HQ support.  Lt. Murphy at that point tried to raise HQ himself but realized he could not communicate unless he had a better position which could only be gained by moving into an open and unprotected area.  While mortally wounded, Lt. Murphy continued to fight and eventually was able to get support from HQ.  He continued the fight until he died.

Jason L. Dunham, United States Marine Corp. (Iraq)

While searching a vehicle Cpl. Dunham was attacked by an insurgent.  While wrestling with the enemy combatant, the insurgent opened a grenade.  Cpl. Dunham, without hesitation, leaped onto the grenade, and with his body shielded the blast from his comrades, saving at least 2 other Marines from certain death.  Cpl. Dunham was killed.

Ross A. McGinnis, United States Army (Iraq)

Pvt. McGinnis was manning a 50-calibre machine gun when a grenade was tossed into his 5-man armored vehicle.  Without hesitation Pvt. McGinnis leaped onto the grenade, thereby saving the lives of his 4 other comrades.  Pvt. McGinnis was killed.

Michael A. Monsoor, United States Navy SEAL (Iraq)

While engaging the enemy a grenade bounced off the chest of PO. Monsoor, who without hesitation, leaped onto the grenade and thereby saving the lives of the 2 comrades with him.  Although PO. Monsoor was the only one of the 3 SEALs that could have escaped the grenade; he instead gave his life so the others could be spared.

Paul R. Smith, United States Army (Iraq)

While under attack, Sgt. Smith jumped into a fighting vehicle to man a 50-calibre machine gun so that his comrades could withdraw and take many other wounded soldiers with them.  While completely exposed Sgt. Smith continued his fire until he was hit and killed.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/afghanistan.html

http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/iraq.html


« Previous Entries