[fr_freak]

I’m Indian and a veteran. I can tell you she’s not a real Indian. I say the Medals should stand. It’s not her and the others place to take back.

It depends on what the medals were for. However, I have never heard of the MoH being given for massacring women and children, but only for unusual courage under fire.

If we suppose that the campaign these men were sent on was unjust, it still would not negate their courage if they acted above and beyond on that campaign's behalf. Heck, knowing what we know of the globalists that infest our government now, we have to ask ourselves how many of our military ventures since WWII were just, especially those recently in the middle east, in one of which I was a participant. If none were, should all MoHs be rescinded?

I would say hell no, because the medals are awarded for courage and action which go beyond what one might expect of a regular man, in a circumstance that was not of that man's making, regardless of whether he understood the "true" nature of the campaign at the time. A warrior is called and he does what he must.

The idea of rescinding these awards is merely a continuation of the effort to revise the history of the US so that there is nothing for current Americans to believe in or respect. F that.

[jarwulf]

If you read into the incident its really unclear what exactly happened. The indians did attack the soldiers, by some accounts first, so there was a battle. But on the other hand women and children were killed as well. I’m not sure anyone knows the details such as how many were killed simply accidentally and which if any soldiers did it. It may be that there were some soldiers that did behave heroically while others took part in the massacre. Even some soldiers may have been casualties of friendly fire.