digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at washingtonpost.com

Female Soldier Gains Silver Star - And Is Pulled From Combat

washingtonpost.com — Vice President Cheney pinned Brown, of Lake Jackson, Tex., with a Silver Star in March for repeatedly risking her life on April 25, 2007, to shield and treat her wounded comrades, displaying bravery and grit. She is the second woman since World War II to receive the nation's third-highest combat medal.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 05/03/2008, -18/+11So this crazy was just continues to get crazier. ... At least she has her medal and the respect of her fellow soldiers.
    • KibibyteBrain, on 05/03/2008, -3/+10Pulling war heroes from combat seems to be another Vietnam tradition that lives on in this conflict...
      • floorman56, on 05/03/2008, -3/+9That happens a lot and not just Nam ..Sgt York , Memphis Belle, Iwo Jima flag raisers... its a common thing
        • mwrl, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2It is US tradition to pull warriors and put them in charge of training programs. They are the best people to bring the real war to those about to go there.
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -4/+5Yeah? What's wrong with that?

        I'm against the war in Iraq for about a dozen different reasons, but I can at least recognize the reason the pentagon would pull a well decorated soldier out of combat. For one, it would be bad publicity to announce a few months later that she was killed. Another reason is this person can be paraded around the country to drum up support for the war, or to get contributions for veteran support charities, etc.

        Besides, a soldier who has risked their life over and over again to help fellow soldiers has probably served to a greater degree in a shorter period. Meaning, they made their contribution, and don't deserve continued risk of death. (I'm not saying anyone without a medal isn't serving honorably and with distinction, I'm just saying that in order to get a serious medal for acts of valor, you had to do some serious stuff, that could be called "above and beyond".)
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462248898 ...
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=eisenhower+w ...
  • TheThirdLevel, on 05/03/2008, -14/+84Props to her for fighting, although I'm sure she, like us, would prefer NO ***** WAR over a silver star.
    • Pake, on 05/03/2008, -16/+7She's 18. She knew where she was going to be shipped off to.
    • erhanaltay, on 05/03/2008, -17/+4Exactly. I could sympathize with Vietnam vets who were drafted and had to fight and bleed against their will but I have 0 sympathy for today's volunteer soldiers. They are all willingly signing up to kill people that had nothing to do with attacking America. In fact, they are slightly worse than Bush and the other war mongers since it is the average soldiers that allow this war to continue -- by enlisting and continuing to serve. "Just following orders" ceased to be an acceptable defense 60+ years ago folks.
      • Y0tsuya, on 05/03/2008, -3/+5The Hippie is strong with this one.
      • Laughsatyou, on 05/03/2008, -8/+1I would have no sympathy for you being executed in front of your family.
        • avaugha4, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8You are sick.
          Get help, please.
        • eir574, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Laughsatyou,

          I find erhanaltay's comments to be ridiculously ignorant, but you've perhaps stooped even lower than he has.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8Yeah, we should just execute anyone who doesn't agree with our world view. That will make the world a much better place when the only people left are the stupid people who agree with each other.
          • opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2You'd be amazed how often stupid people disagree. A little addon to an old classic.."Great minds think alike, and lesser ones try to ask stupid questions at board meetings 3 minutes before the meeting should end."
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8I don't know why you have such a distorted understanding of the military.

        Very few people actually sign up for service in order to kill people. Sure, there are sociopaths or angry hateful people who do look at the military as a chance to kill other people. But for most people who join the military, it isn't about a particular war, or a chance to kill. They are doing it because they believe it is the best way to serve their country. Whether you agree with that way of thinking or not, you should at least understand that it is how they think, and at least respect them for doing what they think is right. Others join because they want a career in the military, and unfortunately, we are in a war that they may or may not agree with, but wanting to serve a career in the military is more important to them. Others may have very few alternative options. The military might be the difference between a homeless shelter, a gang or selling drugs and a respectable income and a future.

        People serving in the miilitary are not what is keeping this war going. That is myopic thinking. We obviously cannot disband our military, so saying that people serving in the military keep a war going is just plain ignorant. We will always have a military, and we will always have politicians who are willing to use our military for ideological, rather than national security, reasons. It is unfortunate, but it has happened before and will happen again many times in the future. You can only blame political leadership for starting a war.

        "Just following orders" is an acceptable defense, still. Up to a point, of course. But that is why we have laws in this country, and why the military has the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
        • kanabiis, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1History is littered with the names of soldiers who followed orders blindly into walls of bullets, led by commanding officers who were either too foolish, too stupid or blinded by their own selfish ambition to realize that what they were asking was not only suicide for their men, but counter productive to the conflict they were involved in. The Uniform Code of Military Justice not only allows for, but compels soldiers to question orders from commanding officers who order their soldiers to perform duties that are illegal or unethical. The UCoMJ has evolved to require this of all soldiers as a direct result of the fact that otherwise entire Armys can be decimated by the actions of a few crazy generals.

          Had more of the top ranking officers of our military had thought of their soldiers and not their own ambition, and done what many generals had done by resigning rather then follow Bush's stupid orders, this war would have never happened. Unfortunately Bush was able to find enough yes men to follow his orders, and we are now engaged in the longest war in American history.

          Ask Custer's men what following orders gets you........
          • ORBAT, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4The military doesn't work by allowing grunts to second-guess the people in charge. It'd be chaos:
            "Uh, dude, hell no. There's like people with guns and ***** there."
          • opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3HA! That quote made my day. I have an uncle who is a vet I will send that to.
          • kanabiis, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1Orbat, you obviously have 1. never read the UMCoJ, 2. have no idea how the chain of command works.

            Stop watching hollywood and educate yourself.
          • ORBAT, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3I was in the Finnish military for several years (2nd lt, army) so I could say I have at least an inkling of how the military works in general. I have to say I don't have a clear picture of the US military, though, but I'd think the chain of command works the same way in any country.
          • erhanaltay, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0Why do you think America will always have a military? I don't see 1 good reason for America to have a standing army. In fact, historically, America did not have a standing army during peace time. It was only during war that armies were raised, then disbanded. This is the way it should be. No country on Earth can invade America, with a population of 300,000,000 and the largest number of guns in circulation, all the armies of all the nations in the world could not land and hold America for even a day. Also, don't forget America's nuclear deterrent.

            To cut to the chase -- you assumption that "we can't disband our military" is simply wrong. America can easily reduce its Army to 0 and be JUST as safe, if not safer, than it is today. While we're at it, we can also disband 9 of our 11 Carrier Fleets. One for each Coast would still give us the biggest navy in the world...
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8kanabiis, I agree with what you are saying, on an intellectual level. However, the reality is that our system is set up in a way that a president can send troops to war for reasons that are less than desirable, or strategically or tactically destructive. The Generals who lead the soldiers into battle are not the same ones who advise the President on the strategic level. Their decision to continue to lead their units is based more on their belief that resigning would subject their troops to a less experienced, less concerned and more obedient leader, and thus more of their beloved unit will get killed or injured.

          Our military has evolved and matured to a level where combat leadership is highly professional, very combat oriented and not politically motivated. Those types, the "yes men" and those willing to bend over for a powerful washington type are separated out of combat units and are moved into more administrative leadership positions, eventually, the real ***** floats to the top, and you get Generals like Michael Hayden, the current CIA director and former NSA director. Those are the guys that would be responsible for going along with a political ideology and not standing up to their civilian leadership. However, at that point, it doesn't matter. Colin Powell stood up to them, he made his feelings known, and they quickly shut him out, and he eventually resigned because of it.

          The combat leadership cannot resign in order to prevent a war. If a small band of extremist true believer politicians want to go to war, it is going to happen. Any combat leader who resigns is condemning his soldiers to going to war with a lesser qualified leader.
          • opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Well thought out, very intelligent response. Dugg up.
          • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Thanks, opticwind.

            If it isn't well thought out, it is just either ideology's party line.

            We've got to stop living in a world where we are living the party line. ;)
          • kanabiis, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2You obviously have no idea how the system was originally designed. There is a reason the Constitution did not allow the President to be the one to declare war. To insure that one madman could not send the army off to fight unnecessary wars. Congress is the only body that can declare war, the thinking behind this is many minds will prevail.
          • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3kanabiis, I know exactly how the system was originaly designed. I would love to live in a world where that is how it is.

            But be realistic. Have you ever watched Eisenhower's farewell address?

            The president cannot send troops off to war. No doubt. Yet, the president can send troops to fight "police actions' or to "show force".

            This is where you need to see the reality of a milirary industrial complex and how much power it has.

            Johnson tried to warn us in his farewell address.

            http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462248898 ...
          • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462248898 ...
          • kanabiis, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2It seems PhilLesh that we are at odds to the same point.... I am very much aware of Eisenhower's farewell address. I have quoted him a number of times over the years during various other relevant discussions, and not only a fan, but a believer in his non intervention philosophy. I am also one of what seems to be a small minority in the belief that he was the last true great President.

            There was a time, when the 'police actions' by a President was also limited to 60 days, after which congress was mandated to decide if further action was to be taken, or complete withdrawl. This unfortunately continued to evolve and the time limit extended and further extended until we have the abortion of the constitution that became the War Powers Act, which finally lead to the Resolution to Use Military Force against Iraq, which I fear will ultimately lead to Congress abandoning its Constitutional duty to be the only body which can declare war.

            How prophetic of Eisenhower, who pretty much predicted this in his farewell address.
          • Pake, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3You don't serve your country by standing around doing nothing. If you don't plan on ever partaking in war, then don't join the armed services looking for a paycheck for not doing anything.
          • PhilLesh69, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Kanabiis, thank you for not just attacking me for making the mistake of saying Johnson instead of Eisenhower. At least we are on the same page, ideologically.

            I agree with you more than I disagree with you. Every soldier needs to follow orders with his own understanding of what he swore to defend.

            However, we live in the real world. We live in a world where our military can be sent to invade and occupy a nation that posed no threat to us.

            I would never condemn a soldier for following his orders to attack a nation that we were not at war with or a nation that posed no threat to us, because he was still faced with fighting an army that had every right to oppose him. No nation's military can be wrong in defending themselves against foriegn invaders. It would be stupid to say, "you shouldn't fight back, becuase these guys really aren't our enemy" when they are told to fight against you to prevent you from over running their country. I know that there were probably a good number of Iraqi soldiers who would rather have been friends with American soldiers, but they were told to fight against them. In fact, most of them just couldn't do it, they abandoned their posts, maybe because of our superior firepower, or maybe because they just couldn't fight people they didn't hate, or wanted to be like.
    • Llanowar, on 05/03/2008, -3/+3@ pake and erhanaltay

      You guys are idiots.
      • DesertDude, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4With these four words, you have mercilessly crushed their arguments. Bravo.

        Moron.
    • DesertDude, on 05/03/2008, -6/+4If she preferred no war, she would not have participated in this massive war crime called the Iraq war.

      But of course, Americans will continue to "support their troops" even though they are occupying another country, finding every (lame) excuse for their presence. The Germans who did this during WW2 would be bad! Bad German bad! Good American good!

      Why? It just is. Any country that invades another country = evil. America invading another country = well, they didn't want to go; see the troops are really good people; committed war crimes? Well, those are good people but war did this to them; there are a lot of good excuses for them participating in this war; etc etc etc.

      Americans = most hypocritical people on Earth.
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4I dated a German girl back in 1993, whose grandfather never came back from the Russian POW camps. She was probably the only girl I really loved. I had a great time visiting her mother, father and grandmother in Bremerhaven, Germany.

        She wasn't a Nazi. Her parents were not Nazis. Her grandfather wasn't a Nazi. Her grandfather served in the military because it was the duty of all able bodied males to fight for the country.

        They didn't know their leadership was evil. They didn't know their leadership was shipping jews, invalids, gypsies and intellectuals off to concentration camps. All they knew was that they were Germans, and their nationalistic leaders needed them to fight to defend the homeland or fatherland from all the enemies who wanted to destroy them, or hated them for their freedoms.
        • DesertDude, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2The "following orders" excuse might work if a person was fighting armies invading his country, but it's seldom convincing if the soldier is part of an invasion. Plus, back then there was WW2. To be part of an invasion in peace time (like the Iraq war) makes the moral ground of the already-questionable "following orders" excuse shakier and shakier.
        • Radan, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Though, while I'm not saying that all soldiers are war addicted maniacs, you can't really compare the second world war with the Iraq war. In WWII Germany had been completely ruined by the rest of the world after the first world war and all that the people saw was a chance to redeem their former glory that was taken by them by everyone else.

          Today is another time. We have (or at least should) different morals, and we have access to way more information than they had in the thirties and forties. There's no questions about what is happening. Today, a war like the Iraq "war" shouldn't happen.
          • earthforce1, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2I believe the average US soldier's primary motivation in going to Iraq was to preemptively stop the next 9/11. Saddam was an incredibly evil guy, but any connections between him and Al Queda were somebody's crack fantasy. This war was pointless and unnecessary; they should have finished cleaning up in Afghanistan instead. The Taliban allowing Al Queda to set up a base of operation was an obvious threat, (9/11 was only the last and greatest in a series of attacks on US interests) and it could be reasonably be said that the US was acting in self defense there, as they acted after the Pearl Harbour sneak attack. Not so with Iraq. The Iraq war was worse than pointless - it only served to aid the political interests of their enemies. Bin Laden could say "Look, we were right - the big, bad US is beating up on all Muslim states, one after the other"
        • earthforce1, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3And that is why "for king and country" just doesn't do it for me anymore. (And I was in the military) This crap has been going on since the time of theancient Greeks and earlier. There are things I will fight and die for, but the government isn't one of them.

      • earthforce1, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4During the opening days of the first gulf war, there was a brief news item that caught my eye:
        A number of Iraqi army officers were executed for treason by Saddam for refusing to follow orders - they had decided they morally could not attack their brothers in Kuwait without provocation. They paid the ultimate price, and I am sure their families paid heavily for it as well.

        I don't know their names, but they are the greatest heroes of that war.
    • nonymous666, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4She's in Afghanistan, which is the war we ARE supposed to be in.
  • Starks, on 05/03/2008, -25/+4Cheney actually did something good for once?
    • TremorX, on 05/03/2008, -0/+28No. Spc Monica Brown did something good. Cheney just gave her a medal.
    • jj2me, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4Cheney, like most of the perpetrators of this war, is what is called a Headquarters Hero. A tough-talking pussy.
      • withears, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1What I really hate is a pussy with a gun in his hand.
    • nonymous666, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Cheney just showed up to pin the medal because the ceremony got on his daily agenda carried around by his aids.
  • Alix7, on 05/03/2008, -20/+127Lets just hope she isn't raped in the barracks by Halliburton employees
    • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -33/+6Get A Life!
      • ahuxley, on 05/03/2008, -3/+8Get some "news"
      • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4Get an Education!
      • toshibu, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Get boobs! And a camera and internet connection!
        Read: ***** or gtfo
      • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1There is a time and a place for certain comments, More News, Education, and Boobs wont help you figure it out. But I wish you luck, Peace
    • dan222555, on 05/03/2008, -7/+15+26 diggs on that says a lot about Digg.com....
      • ojk007, on 05/03/2008, -5/+35yeah we dont like haliburton, and we dont like rape.
        • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1 "WE" People, Don't know what they don't like until others say what they don't like.
    • hittnrun, on 05/03/2008, -16/+5Yes, I wouldn't want her traumatized before you PATHETIC PIECES OF SH!T have a chance to spit on her and call her a baby killer.
      • TheThirdLevel, on 05/03/2008, -5/+3Buried for attempted censor.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Correction, that was you we were planning on doing that to.
      • gregsamsa222, on 05/03/2008, -2/+11That comment makes no sense.
      • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1I understand it loud and clear! But some people only understand what gives them up diggs
    • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -1/+8Happy Birthday Alix7!, Lets just hope you don't get food poisoning from your Birthday Cake.
    • opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -2/+5I understand what the joke is, but that's a little bad taste.
  • Stuart750, on 05/03/2008, -13/+9In any war, whilst there are casualties, there are also heroes.
    • Nhmarine, on 05/03/2008, -3/+23the casualties ARE the heroes
      • Alix7, on 05/03/2008, -0/+13the heroes ARE the casualties
        • alexforcefive, on 05/03/2008, -1/+12the heroes SAVED the cheerleader
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -1/+12the cheerleader DID the heroes
        • AAK15, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8Hayden Panettiere is so hot
          • AtiimKiambu, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3True, but you can't deny that she's an absolutely atrocious actress. Although I liked her performance in "Remember the Titans."
  • gregsamsa222, on 05/03/2008, -5/+68I never want to read the words, "Vice President Cheney pinned Brown" ever again.
  • supras, on 05/03/2008, -2/+13Probably because its Army policy not to allow women to do frontline work. Not that I agree with it..
    • consoneo, on 05/03/2008, -2/+13I worked with a female Medic who received a Combat Medical Badge (CMB) for doing exactly this kind of work. They would have let it slide if it hadn't gotten so much publicity, because we need them just as much as we need men. They can do the care job just as well as men, but they can't quite shoulder the weight that a man can. Though, when working with infantry, or other combat arms, female medics can be used because the men will carry their own wounded, saving the Medic's strength for when it's really needed, no matter the gender.

      So I'm with you. It's policy, but it's not necessary. It needs to be limited, but not prohibited.
    • Zuljin, on 05/03/2008, -6/+2It makes sense. Men are (I'm not being arbitrarily sexist here, these are general facts) stronger and more pain-tolerant than women. Political correctness takes the back when lives are on the line.
      Secondly, units with women involved are shown to act a lot, well, stupider. This is the men's fault, but unless you suddenly and completely replace your male military with a predominantly female one, you're going to have mixed-gender units that fight stupidly.
      Not that women who serve in combat scenarios aren't competent or brave, it's just the necessary abilities of a front-line soldier are far more common in men.
      • avaugha4, on 05/03/2008, -2/+7Both of your first two 'facts' are patently false. Women typically have much more dense muscle, and are able to withstand much more pain. Ever hear of childbirth?
        • rabidg00se, on 05/03/2008, -2/+5Having more dense muscle doesn't make them stronger (unless you're trying to make the argument that, in general, women are stronger than men, which is very false), and childbirth is a necessity. It says nothing about the tolerance for pain, just like storing ejaculate doesn't say anything about a man's liquid carrying capacity.
        • TheCasablancan, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2Childbirth is not a good example, just as telling a woman that nothing hurts more than being kicked in the balls is not either. The opposite sex can't experience it, and thusly cannot compare who feels "more" pain.

          Out of curiosity, why do they have denser muscle? What makes it more dense? Which muscles are more dense or is it evenly distributed? How much denser are they?

          Sources, plz.
          • Zekarus, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1 No, no, I do anatomy.

            An impact to the cervix, contrary to what many /h/ and /d/ materials [I lurk 4chan, you got a problem?] may tell you, technically would hurt like you've been kicked in the nuts.

            No way to test first-hand, however. Much regret.

            P.S. No comment about more dense muscles. I've never heard about it until like... now.
          • TheCasablancan, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1That's my whole point. There isn't a way to compare the two, so the usage of childbirth as an example of pain tolerance is invalid.

            I didn't even know what /h/ and /d/ were. I'd have rather kept it that way.
            /x/, /b/, and /ck/ FTW.

        • Zuljin, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Denser muscle? That's your argument?
          MEN ARE GENERALLY STRONGER THAN WOMEN.
          It can't be denied. It's fact.
          It's a different kind of pain-tolerance from childbirth. That's bearing internal lasting pain without losing your sanity, not pushing through external pain to try and remain capable of preforming.
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6I can introduce you to women that could probably pound you into the ground.

        That being said, there is some truth in that overall, in general, on average, men are stronger than women. Not by ultimate potential, because there are many women who are stronger than the average man. But the average man and the average women compared side-by-side, yes, the man will probably be a little bit stronger, especially in upper body strength.

        But I would never say that all men are stronger than all women.

        avaugha4, I agree with the idea that you can't claim that just by being a man you are stronger than all women, but childbirth is not a great defense. Childbirth is, I'm told, a very painful process, however there are some physiological mechanisms that allow women to go through this pain and most of the time forget the detail and severity after the fact (in order for them to still want to have another baby). Pain tolerance is not a sign of strength. No matter how much pain you can take, if you can't lift a 500 pound rock, you still can't lift a 500 pound rock.

        But, I don't think strength is a reason to exclude women from combat. There are male soldiers who are weaker than some of the stronger females serving in combat. Pure strength is not the be-all and end-all of being a soldier, after all.

        Though, I think that, maybe, women shouldn't serve in combat for more traditional reasons. Men fight, women make peace. Maybe I'm wrong, and I grew up on a forward deployed combat infantry division base where my father hosted the first female West Point cadets as a battalion commander, so I have always been comfortable with women serving in the military. I'm just a little uncomfortable with them being in combat, not because they couldn't handle it, but because it seems like we should not subject women to combat when they serve a different purpose in the "life and death struggle" concept. (being on the life portion of it.)
        • omegared, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2huh? I never realized that women and men have set roles in society, Where does that logic come from?
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1omegared, where has your logic of women impregnating men, and men giving birth to children come from???

          I'm not saying that women wear dishdashas, or they should be barefoot and pregnant. I'm saying that in the greater context, men fight wars, women produce babies.

          I'm not saying that women can only produce babies, I'm just saying they are the only gender that CAN. THEY ARE THE ONLY GENDER THAT CAN!!!!

          In other words, to answer you question, "Where does that logic come from?", I would have to say, FROM BIOLOGY.
          • omegared, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1so women should not fight because they can have babies? So what you think if women go to war the human race will be no more? Again there is no set roles for men or women, nothing says that women MUST have babies and men go to war. Women can do anything they want it is not their duty to have babies. and yes i agree with you that women can have babies.
          • PhilLesh69, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1omegard, If we sacrifice women to defend our current society, and end up with no women at the end of a war that we win, how well off are we?

            Think about it. If we man our ramparts with men and women, and the siege lasts long enough to kill off all of our women, we will have no future.

            Women are the future.

            We need to fight against our enemies, in order to protect our future. When we bring our women into the fight, we are fighting an existential battle.
    • SpookyET, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Israeli soldiers fight together -- men & women. It's fine.
    • Black6x, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1The problem is, there is no front line anymore, like there was in WWI and WWII. At least not while you're in country. The only real "rear' is Kuwait and Qatar.
    • Zuljin, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Did you people not notice that I did say that these ARE just vague generalities?
      When you have mixed-gender units fighting worse (A verified fact backed up by pretty much everyone who actually researches it), a gender that is GENERALLY more suited to fighting that the other gender (not to mention often more willing. That's just the way our society is) sticking with an all-male main fighting force makes sense.
      I'm not saying an all-female fighting force couldn't be as good. I'm just pointing out that mixed gender units get themselves killed trying to impress the other gender, or any number of other stupid things.
  • Lokithx, on 05/03/2008, -3/+29You deserve a medal, doc!
  • obxjdt, on 05/03/2008, -22/+3I understand why they don't want women side by side with men (and I agree with it), but it seems to me that she's proved herself as being "Army strong".
    • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -1/+7I understand why they don't also. Because the people in charge of deciding this are men. (Yeah, I'm a guy, but seriously, how is this not the reason why?)
      • obxjdt, on 05/03/2008, -6/+1It's not that women can't fight, I know they can. But...(like you didn't see this coming)...
        1- It's natural for a man to feel he has to protect a woman.
        2- Yes, she saved those troops with her own body, and I don't doubt her courage! But could a 120-150 pound woman carry a 200+ pound casualty out of harms way??? Yes, I know some could, but most can't.
        3- There is the sex thing that gets in the way... If 2 troops start having a love affair, and another gets jelouse..... Well that's going to cause combat issues don't you think?
        Jim- "I'm going in Bill, cover me!!!"
        Bill- (thinking: You stole my girl) "I got your back buddy....."
        4- No room for maternity wards in a war zone!
        I take no issue with women in the military, or in combat. Just with coed troops. I think having 500+ women PMSing would be a force to reckon with!!!
        I have a time with my wife & 3 daughter!!!
        • Zekarus, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2 Because men are pigs only ruled by impulses and desires to breed like a ***** rabbit.

          You are a ***** hypocrite.
          • obxjdt, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1"You are a ***** hypocrite."
            You shouldn't use words that you don't know the meaning of.
    • Kennerk, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2had he left out the part in parentheses, he probably wouldn't have been buried....
  • jakethelake, on 05/03/2008, -2/+48Women are cool. :)
  • Nhmarine, on 05/03/2008, -19/+14The sexism in our military is indeed sad..... Any soldier no matter what their gender should be allowed to kill for their country.
    • Nhmarine, on 05/03/2008, -11/+0Why am I being buried?
      • Jeffler, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8Because the thumbs down button has BALLS OF STEEL
    • 42Vindictive, on 05/03/2008, -1/+19Because you should never have to kill for your country.
      • Nhmarine, on 05/03/2008, -7/+0Why do we have infantry?
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1Because we have soldiers.
        • TheThirdLevel, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Because you touch yourself at night.
      • opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4*****. Sometimes you have to fight for your country. There's nothing wrong with defending your country. This war, however, is not that situation.
    • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -4/+2I lol'd
    • phybere, on 05/03/2008, -0/+13"should be allowed to kill for their country"
      As if it's a ***** privilege?
      • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Some people believe that for some reason. Don't ask me...
      • Nhmarine, on 05/03/2008, -6/+2Yes it is a privelige! To be in the military is a privelige! I didn't mean it negatively.....
        • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Oh wait, I just noticed you're screenname. I thought your original comment was sarcastic. That's disgusting.
        • ru1dt, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Being in the military is a privilege, killing is not. Being in the military does not and should not automatically equate to killing for your country. That you're confusing the two and haven't yet realized the mistake is a bit off-putting...
          At best, you should be reluctantly resolved to killing someone if they are directly threatening your life or country. You should never be happy about it, unless your a sociopath, and I'd hope most would argue that it's not the primary goal.
    • trutek, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1i got the sarcastic tone.
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4There are more complicated reasons besides "men vs women" or "women's liberation" when it comes to the question of whether or not to allow women to fight wars.

      For one thing, until men can get pregnant, there's the whole "life and death" division of labor. Men went out to fight off the threats to the family, while women took care of the offspring. Only the most militant feminist would think that is sexist, it is just a division of labor that makes sense. If we send off all our women to go fight alongside the men, how does a society built on family and new generations continue? Israel allows women to fight in combat because to them, every battle and every war is an existential struggle. To them, winning war is the only thing they can think about, growing the nation through families and new children can happen later (plus, they can take in Jewish people from around the world in the meantime).

      I know some feminist is going to turn my comments into a "women make babies? the man haters now hate you too" *****, but that's not what I'm saying.

      On a national/societal level, women have more value for a forward growth in population, men have more value for the defense against external threats. To include women in the defense against external threats is a last ditch effort. (and when it is a last ditch effort, of course women should fight alongside men)
      • omegared, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2***** which century do you live in? Guess what you have no damn right to tell women what they can do and can not. Women's purpose is not to have children, raise them and be loyal to husbands. Women should have the same opportunities as men and be able to define what THEY do with their life. A view and world that limits womens opportunities is a sexist one.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Hey, if that makes you believe that you'll eventually get laid, more power to you.

          Those of us who have had intimate relationships with great women will still tell you that you have no understanding that men and women play different roles in life.

          Men do their thing, hunters, and women do their thing, gatherers and nurturers.

          Until you can give birth to a child, you are only a nerd who cannot get laid

          if you say we shouldn't be realistic by ackowledging the natural differences between men and women.
    • Nhmarine, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Idiot, we aren't sending "all our women off to fight," being in the infantry is a choice, and it should be an available choice to women or men.
  • dignation, on 05/03/2008, -7/+5MEDIC!!!
  • TGMD, on 05/03/2008, -5/+67Christ Guys, Why all the negative comments? Can't we just be positive for one ***** MOMENT!?
    Look, she did a good job, we don't have to support the war to support the soldiers. She did a good job, beyond the call of duty, isn't that enough for this story?
    • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -26/+3No, murdering is murdering is murdering. War has never been restricted to self-defense.
      • jgzman, on 05/03/2008, -1/+10...we are the kings subjects: if
        his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
        the crime of it out of us.

        But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
        a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
        arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
        together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at
        such a place;... Now, if these men do not die well, it
        will be a black matter for the king that led them to
        it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of
        subjection.
        -Henry V, 4:1
        A soldier is bound to obey his orders that are not directly illegal. The broad strokes, the morality of the army's presence in Iraq is not the concern of the individual soldier, except when the time comes to vote.
        • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -10/+1Tell that to the people they killed. Nobody forced him /her to kill innocent people. They knew what they were getting into when joining the military.
          • opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5She's a medic, her job is to save people. You're job, however, seems to be winning the Miss Douchiest contest. And hey, you won!
          • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1Is saving the lives of murderers respectable? Hardly.
          • Zekarus, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2You are a ***** douche and you ***** disgust me with your sick, dillusional and misguided beliefs.

            In event of medical emergency, however, I will do whatever I can to save lives of others. Including your sorry ass.

            I say this as a medical scientist in training. I shall do no harm.
          • opticwind, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1So the Red Cross is a group of murderers too for not selecting who they help? Nice logic.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -2/+8Yeah, lets all be pussy hippies instead of joining the military.
          • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -6/+1If a pussy hippy is someone who doesn't kill innocent people, then I wouldn't want to be anything else.
          • lpse2000, on 05/03/2008, -2/+4@afruff23:
            Innocent people died in World War II at the hands of Allied Forces. Would you rather us be speaking German right now?
          • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1@Ipse2000

            Thanks for the Godwin. But why is German a bad language and English better? From what little I know of German, the language is a whole lot more structured and consistent than English.

            FYI, we were in WWII before we actually fought it. It was a wholly avoidable war.
          • lpse2000, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Well afruff23, I must say, I think I know where you are coming from. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that no one will ever thank you or anyone like you your for their freedoms. Probably likewise, you don't truly cherish your own.
          • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1@lpse2000

            Tell that to the innocent people killed.
          • jgzman, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Methinks either you hit the wrong reply, or you didn't read close enough.
      • Kennerk, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5i dont think she killed anyone, unless i missed a page on the article...?
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4I couldn't find any mention of her murdering people, in that article.

        But if you are saying the soldiers in Iraq are murderers, stop being a neocon shill troll trying to make people believe that anyone against the Iraq war hates the soldiers. Because you are obviously doing so for that exact reason. Nobody has ever accused the soldiers of being anything other than honorably serving members of the military who happened to be sent to a war that three quarters of the country disagrees with.

        This is a new thing, suddenly, calling the soldiers murderers. I know it was a great narrative back during the Vietnam war, and most people believe the story about people spitting on soldiers as they arrived home, but the truth is, that probably rarely happened, and it was more to paint any and all war protestors as "hating the troops".

        Go back to your General Dynamics contract manager and tell him that people have figured out that your psyops contract is going to fail, the people who are against the Iraq war are not against the soldiers, and your attempts to paint them that way will fail.
        • opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Truly spoken as a man never living in the time of the Vietnam conflict. Soldiers were regularly called murderers then, this is nothing new.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1opticwind, I lived in that time. My father was a platoon lieutenant in the 101st ABN, the first North American based combat units sent to Vietnam.

          Before my father went to Camh Ranh Bay, the only other officially declared combat troops were Marines from the Philippines. When Johnson signed the order to send combat troops after the Gulf of Tonkin in 1965, the Marines went in first. Then my father went in with the First of the 101st.

          My father and his platoon guarded a fire support base that shelled the enemy depicted in the movie "We were soldiers". I've only heard three stories about my father's time in Vietnam. The first was that he shot a guy who was running from a village, in the ass at 400 yards and how pissed the guy was when they brought him back. The second was that he picked up the M60 machine gun from his squad gunner who had been shot in the head and pointed it at the helicopter that had just dropped them into an ambush, and got on the radio and said "IMy squad gunner has a bullet through the head, get down here right now to medevac him or I will shoot you down" and then shot several rounds into the chin of the UH1. The last story he told me was how he has hearing problems because he slept beneath 105mm howitzers that fired continuously for 3 days. until the barrels glowed red, supporting the battalion fighting the NVA division in a battle that recently became the "we were soldiers" movie.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1***** you opticwind.

          I lived through the Vietnam conflict. I also understand it.

          Are your parents friends with Admiral Fallon, General McAffrey, and William Westmoreland? Did you grow up in the military?
  • shyboy2008, on 05/03/2008, -39/+7Wtf is she doing in IRAQ. shes suppose to be in the kitchen.
    • Alix7, on 05/03/2008, -19/+2This comment...is the best comment ever.
    • gryphon50, on 05/03/2008, -0/+10is that all you can come up with? It's too obvious. Try harder next time.
    • Paheej, on 05/03/2008, -15/+1Best Comment Evar.
    • TGMD, on 05/03/2008, -2/+11Die in a fire...
      Not for being sexist, no, but for not coming up with a better sexist joke
    • schnikies79, on 05/03/2008, -0/+20Wtf are you doing on Digg? You are supposed to be in daycare.
    • everabsurd, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2real funny.
    • JeffroTa, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4She wasn't in IRAQ. She was in Afghanistan.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1It's not that bad of a joke, but it's incredibly overused.
    • thunderbird, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4I'm sorry did you think this was 4chan? This kind of comment may be common and even praised over there but I'd like to think Digg is at least a bit more mature than that.
    • nonymous666, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1.
  • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -21/+18She is one of the many reasons, I Am Proud To Be An American!
    • roboticrickshaw, on 05/03/2008, -10/+3What about this makes you proud to be an American pray?
      • dan222555, on 05/03/2008, -4/+11How about the fact that Americans are willing to put their lives at risk fighting for our country?
        • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -10/+4So intentions matter? Well, what would you say to someone who intended to kill innocent people? "You're a hero" or "you're a sadist"? Killing for a "country" is like killing for unicorns. Countries don't demand anything because they don't exist. Neither do unicorns.
          • Laughsatyou, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4she didnt get an award for killing, she got it for saving and protecting others. but your too much of a fairy to realize that.
          • TheCasablancan, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1It would depend on the reason they were killing innocent people. What if they were zombies?
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/03/2008, -2/+6Go start a country that doesn't have wars and tell us how it goes.
          • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -5/+1Did I say I imagined a world without war? That is being unrealistic. You can however form a country (or enclave or neighborhood or home or person) without INITIATING force. Defensive wars do not entail killing innocent people.
          • Laughsatyou, on 05/03/2008, -3/+3@afruff23, the only outcome of an defensive war is surrender. ask france.
          • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -3/+2@Laughsatyou

            Yes, the American Revolution was a total failure and offensive wars like the 2003 invasion of Iraq are total successes.
          • ru1dt, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2"We're doing quite well in Sweden. Thank you for asking."
            "Finland's still cold as *****, but we're pretty good here, too."
            "Greenland's apparently made of ice. Someone tricked me..."
          • pettdog78, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1afruff23, there are plenty of other countries you could move to if you wanted to live the life of a pacifist. I'm sure Sweden or Canada would love to have you.
          • afruff23, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1@petdog78

            Jailing people for not paying taxes they never agreed to is not pacifist. All government is violent.
      • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -1/+11Her Bravery! And her thinking of the lives of others over her own.
        • roboticrickshaw, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Bravery is an American trait now is it?
          • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1No its an individually trait, But remember you don't qualify.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/03/2008, -3/+13Wow, being proud to be an American gets you buried at Digg. That says alot.
      • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -4/+11That will never stop me from saying it.
        • itsthemechanic, on 05/03/2008, -3/+4Be proud of something you did, not of something you are. Being born on U.S. soil is not an achievement, merely a coincidence.
          "Pride only hurts.. it never helps.. you feel that sting?That's pride.. *****' wit'cha."
          • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Hey that's your feelings and I respect that, And no one should be able change them but you.
          • ru1dt, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1pride's still one of them, uh, whatchamacallits...there's seven of 'em, and they're deadly...
      • angelschambers, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3It probably has a lot to do with them capitalizing every letter in the second half of a sentence for no purpose whatsoever. And it sounded cheesy as hell.
  • Elliottx, on 05/03/2008, -4/+10Girl power indeed.
  • specialK16, on 05/03/2008, -13/+3I was just wondering. Are there any non-native americans that has been awarded with this things?
    • specialK16, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1No one answered me, instead they buried me. Why is it that difficult to answer one simple question.
  • doughboy334, on 05/03/2008, -7/+5God loves medics.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3God loves the Infantry.
      • armydrummer42R, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0How do you know that? The sky is blue.
    • ru1dt, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1God loves us all. And don't you ***** forget it!
  • roboticrickshaw, on 05/03/2008, -8/+5If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori -Wilfred Owen
    • TripcodeMel, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Anyone digging that down has NO class. Dulce et Decorum Est is an excellent poem.
  • OffPiste, on 05/03/2008, -7/+1Corimec Love.......
  • krnldmp, on 05/03/2008, -10/+15If she were truly brave she would have socked Cheney in the gut.
    • Laughsatyou, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5she holds herself to a higher standard of bravery, than those of the coward who would sucker punch someone and call it brave.
  • Upperdeck, on 05/03/2008, -3/+21I think it's pretty obvious that the ones who are making the negative comments are the ones at home playing GT4 and don't have a clue as to what the hell is going on in this world. Like someone before said you don't have to support the war to support the troops. At least she has the commitment to stand up for what she believes in as you pussies sit around and bitch about the war.... You know be part of the solution and STOP being part of the ***** problem!
    • diggnitarial, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Maybe everyone knows that what she believes in, no matter how strongly or no matter with how much convcition, is still *****....
      If you were living in nazi germany in the 1940's, you would be expected to hail on the war heros and ignore the politics if it occurred in modern days, you would see the same argument on german digg, well, does it make it right? perhaps, maybe we can appreciate the bravery, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that the larger cause being represented is *****.
  • taradisiac, on 05/03/2008, -7/+0And this has nothing to do with forced equality... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
  • Lane, on 05/03/2008, -2/+5I love Texas women, most are like that.
    • TheCasablancan, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Personally, I love Chinese and Black women.
    • atgmac, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1If by "most" you mean "a few", then yes.
  • haylel, on 05/03/2008, -0/+7Doc Brown
    A+
  • lou672, on 05/03/2008, -7/+2 I don't believe woman should be in the front lines.
  • dankpants, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2dugg for madd props to another great patriot from Lake Jackson
  • NelsonR, on 05/03/2008, -3/+5Yes, congrats to her and her bravery but it's disgusting for that man Cheney, the coward who avoided Vietnam at all cost, to be the one bestowing the medal. He is a chimp.
  • Geekiest, on 05/03/2008, -3/+7I'd hit it.
  • Observer001, on 05/03/2008, -1/+11Women of the same capability can serve just as adequately as dude soldiers. SPC Brown is an exemplar of the courage and competence that being a combat medic requires, and should be treated as any other medic, gender not factoring in.
  • kraniac, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4It's really stupid and sexist that she got removed from combat duty for being female, especially when she displays such skill and bravery.

    At the same time though, if I were in her situation, I think I'd feel like I'd have earned my way out... but that's why I'd make a terrible soldier.
  • robthom, on 05/03/2008, -4/+3I think we should have an ALL WOMEN army! Seeing as they are reaping all the benefits in this country these days, let them put forth some effort!
    LET THE WOMEN FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM!
    • itsthemechanic, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2And what are you gonna ***** when they all get blown up? Pumpkins?
  • opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6Before anyone else goes on a rant about soldiers murdering innocent Iraqis and whatnot...this is in Afghanistan. Remember? The country that we ARE supposed to be in?
  • MrESaulved, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3How dare Cheney foul that medal by his soulless touch.
  • pettdog78, on 05/03/2008, -5/+0I can kind of understand why they pulled her from combat. With all the pictures of American soldiers being maimed and killed I don't recall ever seeing any women with any disfigurements of any kinds. I wouldn't be surprised if the military has been going out of it's way to protect it's female soldiers from such atrocities.

    Though personally I'd say that if women really want to get out on the front line and fight then let them. If they find themselves regretting their decisions after being maimed like their male counterparts then so be it. In either case the ones that do gain the chance to fight America's enemies head on will atleast be an example of courage to all of us.
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2I have seen many photos and news footage of women who have lost a leg or two, a few arms, etc.

      I know they don't want to make it overly prominent, but it is happening, and it can be seen.
  • nycmac247, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3People will start to understand the true stupidity of all this when they see _women_ with legs and half of their faces blown off.
    Until then, macho BS will rule the roost
  • heystoopid, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1So why do the real unsung heroes get no medals , others who are shot in the face at point blank range by fellow soldiers do in order to cover up the stain , a truly crazy reward system indeed !
  • banderwocky, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Good for her on getting a medal. Hopefully her unit won't rape her.
  • securitymonkey, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2She really is an army of "one". Congrats on a well deserved honor from an Army veteran.
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1What she did was really awesome. I don't even know if what she did deserves a medal, or if what she did was just too far beyond what a person would do.

      Sure, she did something that nobody else could imagine doing. Or there would have been other soldiers by her side. Not to talk ***** about the other soldiers in that fight, but she put herself out in the middle of the ambush or firefight, to protect a downed soldier. She ran out for him, hoping he could be saved.
  • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -5/+2http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=eisenhower+w ...
  • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -7/+1http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462248898 ...
  • DarkKnight209, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1IF a women wants to fight and die in the name of her country.... let her do it damn it!
  • toshibu, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Cheney: "So?"
  • mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1This story has about the same amount of diggs as the cat in a bathtub story. :- (

  • DarkSideWRX, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Who's Bill? ** rim-shot **
  • foreigner, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0RON PAUL IS FROM LAKE JACKSON!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Smaugrens, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1This story would've been even better if she spit in Cheney's face as he pinned it on.
  • wexmajor, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2***** sexism. "Women are weaker than men" is the last sexist sentiment that still has a hold on our common beliefs and it needs to go. Maybe it would go faster if the government didn't feel the need to enforce it as truth.
  • grason1129, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2When it comes down to it she was a person how ran into a field of bullets to save two people's lives. People who can go home to their families and their children.

    Unless you have done the same shut the ***** up and show some respect.
    ***** the war and ***** bush but she deserves that star.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2The only heroes in the USA Wars of Aggression are those that oppose them with every fiber of their existence.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.