The purple heart award is awarded to soldier's who are injured or killed in combat. But some military officials argue what is considered an injury worthy of a Purple Heart. I've seen people receive a Purple Heart for losing a limb or eye. But you have other's get a Purple Heart for something as simple as a scratch. Just recently a angry parent wrote John Kerry in reference to the Purple Heart Award. John Kerry received 3 Purple Heart Awards in the Vietnam War. The doctor that treated John Kerry didn't think his injuries were worthy of a Purple Heart Award. From the 3 different times John Kerry was injured in combat. The doctor only approved one of the incidents to be worthy of being put in for a Purple Heart Award. What are your thoughts on this?
Image from Wikimedia public domain.
Purple Heart Award (Hover)
I think that in WWII and Korea, the Purple Heart really meant something. Even in Vietnam, it meant something, although stories such as John Kerry's certainly cheapen it.
One of the people from his boat claimed that one of his medals came from him shooting a mortar (?) at a rock for target practice, and a tiny piece of shrapnel scratched his arm. It was covered with a band-aid.
In the TV series of MASH, didn't Frank Burns once get a Purple Heart for a splinter, or something like that? Maybe it was from the time he accidentally shot himself in the foot.
I think the medal should be awarded for real injuries in combat.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
I agree with you 100%. I hear the Vietnam Vets talk about this all the time. Trust me I know. My father served in Vietnam and he always brings this up. I think they should do a intense investigation before recommending someone for a Purple Heart. It's like their passing it out like candy these days.