He would have to be in direct support of that mission to be designated a Korean War era veteran.He would be a veteran of the Korean War Era.
European theater veterans and stateside vets are not given that designation.
He would have to be in direct support of that mission to be designated a Korean War era veteran.He would be a veteran of the Korean War Era.
He would have to be in direct support of that mission to be designated a Korean War era veteran.
European theater veterans and stateside vets are not given that designation.[/QUOT
So you're saying he wasn't really **** then, so why is he getting a ship named after him?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're right you don't understand at all. You don't understand that it's politicians like this SECNAV that make these dumbass decisions just to put a little flower in their cap. They don't give a **** about the military. This isn't about naming a ship after a gay man. Gays have been in the military forever. It's about someone that has an agenda and is shoving it down the throats of our military. Our military has hard enough jobs without having to be ****** with by a bunch of politicians with their heads up their asses.
If the Navy wants to honor homosexuals they should name tug boats after them.
If the Navy wants to honor homosexuals they should name tug boats after them.
Wondering what the next ship's name will be...
Your ignorance on the subject is understandable, considering your lack of exposure to the U.S. Navy. You could Google United States ship naming conventions to learn more. In this case, oilers should be named after rivers with American Indian names. Frigates and Destroyers are named after U.S. Navy and Marine Corps heroes. If H. Milk distinguished himself in the Korean War with valorous service, using his name on a oiler is a huge disservice. If he merely served without distinguishing himself, then naming any ship after him is improper and begs the question, why?if they can do their job, why care?
Enter your email address to join: