Veterans as "Heroes"
Replies
-
Yes, but a truck driver is doing this to benefit himself and his family. A military member does this to the benefit of the entire country. They go so that you don't have to. I don't know what could possibly be more heroic.
I don't think we're really anywhere close to being a draft situation, are we? I don't want to refer to the military as a jobs program because it's probably a little belittling, but let's be honest. For some folks, it's their only option, and if they could they would choose something else; the honor of protecting my freedoms isn't really on their minds. Personally, I think the need for a standing military of our scale is fading away quickly. To paraphrase my father, who enlisted and served as a navy medic in Vietnam patching up shredded marines, our dependence on the bodies we have out in the field speaks more to nation's lack of military efficacy than anything else. Then again, he doesn't have much respect for how Uncle Sam treats his defenders overall to the extent that the told a military recruiter that he'd walk my rear end up to Canada before the government would get ahold of his son. So my perspective may be somewhat biased.0 -
I don't think we're really anywhere close to being a draft situation, are we?
I believe that is only because we have people willing to volunteer. I believe the Military Industrial Complex is too vast and powerful to allow defense spending to shrink appreciably. If the volunteer pool dried up, I definitely believe a draft would follow.I don't want to refer to the military as a jobs program because it's probably a little belittling, but let's be honest. For some folks, it's their only option, and if they could they would choose something else; the honor of protecting my freedoms isn't really on their minds.
Obviously I cannot speak for all 3 million, but I believe why they join ends up having very little to do with why they serve. And I believe there is a difference (there was for me, anyway)....our dependence on the bodies we have out in the field speaks more to nation's lack of military efficacy than anything else.
I guess it depends on the task at hand. I firmly believe the United States military would utterly destroy any force on the planet in equal numbers on land, air, or sea. However, that's really not how these wars are being fought, is it? Much like Vietnam, we're being pulled into a war that's simply not possible to win, regardless of the number of boots on the ground. Afghanistan has been at war for decades.... they're just going to wait us out. If it were up to me, we would have pulled out of Afghanistan years ago.So my perspective may be somewhat biased.
No more than mine
0 -
I would like to point out (and perhaps this is my fault for slightly redirecting the topic), but Chris Hayes was specifically referring to "fallen" veterans as this was Memorial Day, which is specifically about honoring those who have died while serving their country.
It might have been a slightly different issue if he had made the statement on Veteran's Day about all veterans. But he was specifically calling out those who had died as not automatically being heroes.
(edited to add the word "automatically" before "being heroes")
I still agree with him. The timing is definitely provocative, though. The fact that people die in service of this war isn't noble in my eyes. I kind of doubt that there's argument that could convince me that we have a right to be where we are or that what's being done is truly in the defense of my freedom, but who knows. I think that most of these deaths are probably tragic consequences of deplorable politics, global or domestic. They deserve reverence, respect, and to have their sacrifice remembered, but not treasured as heoric. I think for the most part someone who dies in a heroic act would probably do the same thing all over again. Obviously can't take a poll, but if we could take a poll of those who died in this war, I wonder how many would jump up and down say that it was worth it and that they'd do the same thing again if they had a chance.
Some would, I'm sure. I think many would not. That's just my opinion.0 -
Ah. I missed that. Well, I would say that anyone who lost his own life defending someone else's is a hero in my book. That being said, however, I'm referring to those lives lost in direct combat of defending a person or country.I would like to point out (and perhaps this is my fault for slightly redirecting the topic), but Chris Hayes was specifically referring to "fallen" veterans as this was Memorial Day, which is specifically about honoring those who have died while serving their country.
It might have been a slightly different issue if he had made the statement on Veteran's Day about all veterans. But he was specifically calling out those who had died as not automatically being heroes.
(edited to add the word "automatically" before "being heroes")
How would you define "defending.... a country?" Because, arguably, nothing we did in the Pacific theater during WWII could be considered "defending a country" and yet I think the average GI who died fighting at Guadalcanal or Okinawa certainly earned some consideration for being called a hero.
For that matter, would the nature of combat operations make a difference? If the war is noble, the fallen solider is a hero? But if it's a "bad" war, for lack of a better term, those who give their lives are not heroic? (I'm not accusing anyone of making this point, merely asking if this line of logic flows from your 'direct combat of defending a person or country' qualifier).0 -
What I'm saying is just because someone loses his life while in the military, doesn't make him a hero to me. It's what he was doing when he loses his life that makes him a hero. I wouldn't consider a police officer who dies in a car accident while patroling a hero, but I would consider a police officer who is shot while protecting someone a hero.How would you define "defending.... a country?" Because, arguably, nothing we did in the Pacific theater during WWII could be considered "defending a country" and yet I think the average GI who died fighting at Guadalcanal or Okinawa certainly earned some consideration for being called a hero.
For that matter, would the nature of combat operations make a difference? If the war is noble, the fallen solider is a hero? But if it's a "bad" war, for lack of a better term, those who give their lives are not heroic? (I'm not accusing anyone of making this point, merely asking if this line of logic flows from your 'direct combat of defending a person or country' qualifier).0 -
I believe you have either not served yourself or not worked with those who do. I have done one and am currently doing the other, and I believe your position is flawed because of a lack of information. I think what you and Mr. Hayes fail to understand is that joining the military isn't the same thing as "a job." In civilian life, you can quit your job if you want. You can get a tattoo anywhere on your body that you desire. You can get fat. You don't have to exercise. You can move to a new town if you desire. You have freedoms that you take for granted because you've never been without them.
But perhaps more importantly, even those who are not serving in direct combat have to deploy. I work with the Air Force and all of those guys deploy for 6 months at a time to Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa... they are away from their families, they miss the births of their children, they watch their kids grow up on Skype.... you just can't put a price tag on any of that stuff. Regardless of the reason we're there, the fact that they are willing to do that is heroic in my book. It might not be "storm the beaches of Normandy" heroic, but it's still a larger sacrifice than 90% of the country will ever make.
There are bad apples in any group and the military is no exception. But there are over 3 million active duty and reserve military members in the United States. I think the sacrifices made by most of these people goes completely unnoticed by the average citizen.
add to the list the sacrifices made by spouses. just because they aren't in uniform doesn't mean they, too, aren't sacrificing.0 -
What I'm saying is just because someone loses his life while in the military, doesn't make him a hero to me. It's what he was doing when he loses his life that makes him a hero. I wouldn't consider a police officer who dies in a car accident while patroling a hero, but I would consider a police officer who is shot while protecting someone a hero.How would you define "defending.... a country?" Because, arguably, nothing we did in the Pacific theater during WWII could be considered "defending a country" and yet I think the average GI who died fighting at Guadalcanal or Okinawa certainly earned some consideration for being called a hero.
For that matter, would the nature of combat operations make a difference? If the war is noble, the fallen solider is a hero? But if it's a "bad" war, for lack of a better term, those who give their lives are not heroic? (I'm not accusing anyone of making this point, merely asking if this line of logic flows from your 'direct combat of defending a person or country' qualifier).
that officer still died while serving his community. doesn't diminish his sacrifice in my eyes.0 -
Most soldiers would never refer to themselves as a hero. But since I am a vet i guess I'll defend the hero status of my friends. Pointing this out on Memorial day is a bone headed move since it is supposed to be a day in rememberence of the fallen, but hey, whatever.
First....no soldier is responsible for the war he is in. The military is needed. End of story. We could have a endless debate on the lawfulness or just causes of modern warfare, but in the end, the uninterested and often ignorant american civilian and our leadership is responsible. Heroics shouldn't be determined by the popularity of the war. Right after 9/11 we were all heroes....because you needed us.....now everyone is sick of the wars....the soldiers hero status is being debated.....on Memorial Day.
After I was injured in Iraq, one of my best friends in the platoon was in the offensive at Fallujah and had a piece of metal blow his heart out of his chest when an RPG hit him in the gunners hatch of his truck. He used to be a hero. But now I guess he isn't because he wasn' able to return fire. Most americans have this image of what a "hero" does, and it comes from the crap they watch on TV. A lone warrior charging through a hail of gunfire shooting to machinguns and killing 50 enemies. Sorry, never happens. What is the reality is that everyday, in unarmored Humvees, we patrolled, raided, escorted, and much more on roads laced with bombs made for ordinance large enough that the concussion alone could kill you. Every day. I guess that it isn't heroic anymore. We should probably contact the families of the fallen and say we want to revoke their hero status because they didn't die in a popular, heroic way.
"Sorry Johnny got hit by an IED ma'am, but we have decided that your husband who was on his 6th deployment, has spent 6 years away from his family, missed every child's birth, birthday, anniversary, family member death, graduation, and countless other things is no longer a hero because he died in an ambush and you know what, truck drivers work long hours too. Be sure to take the word hero of his tombstone."
Not that any of this surprises me. I never tell anyone that I am a vet in public anymore, but I've noticed that the places that used to slobber all over your veterans status and offer you discounts....but those are quickly disappearing. And just 11 years after our "heroes" marched off to war with our citizens gushing all over us, they just cut the VA by 30% in a time where we have more messed up vets than ever.0 -
It's a good discussion, but I just wanted to add something about Chris Hayes. I think he is one of the good guys out there in media pundit land. He got caught up trying to "overintellectualize" a subject, and, yes, I think it made his remarks extremely ill-timed (and perhaps "ill-worded" as well).
Being the stand up guy he is, Chris apologized in an equally sincere and thoughtful way.
This is the end of the statement:But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry."
There are plenty of places to read the full statement. Here is one:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-chris-hayes-heroesmt1thewrap41841-20120529,0,3802054.story0 -
Not all police officers are heroes. I'm trying to disassociate a heroic act from a hero, but I don't thinkthat officer still died while serving his community. doesn't diminish his sacrifice in my eyes.
I'm doing a fair job. I have a huge amount of respect, admiration, and gratitude for those who spend their lives defending and protecting mine. The word "hero" I reserve for true acts of heroism and true heroes.0 -
This is a tough subject for me. I'm not from a military family nor have I ever been exposed to the military in any shape, form or directly link to anyone in the military until I married my husband. Before I met my husband, I was completely ignorant to the struggles military personnel and their families went through.
After we married, for two years I traveled every single weekend to San Antonio/Fort Sam Houston, where my husband was stationed and there, I saw many wounded warriors, many. It is very saddening to see these young men and women with 3 degree burns all over their bodies, missing limbs, paralyzed, etc. While I agree that wearing a military uniform doesn't automatically make you a hero, there are most definitely many heroes in the military and any service that offers protection to people. I think people tend to forget that even though some join to cover their *kitten* for knocking up some girl, it's not like any other service where you can just quit. In my eyes, men and women in the military are heroes regardless of the reason for which they joined and I try to show them the respect and gratitude every single time I come across one.
Gratitude because I know now, all the sacrifices they have to go through.
Oh, and I should mentioned, I show the same respect and gratitude to people serving in the police dept., fire dept., etc.0 -
Being the stand up guy he is, Chris apologized in an equally sincere and thoughtful way.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with both of those points... I do not believe he is either a "stand up guy" nor was his apology remotely sincere.0 -
I have a long line of military from my mothers side, grandpa was in WWII, and a medic. My mother gave me one letter that my grandfather wrote to my grandma and his daughter (my mother whom he had never met!) and it seriously brought tears to my eyes. My grandpa was a "mean old goat", but at that very moment, back on May 10th 1945, he became my hero. And no, he didn't die in the war, and do anything heroic, just threw on some bandaids I suspect most people would say. I am so f*cking proud to have Adrian and Opus on my FL... cheers to you guys! :drinker:0
-
Saying that calling soliders heroes is endorsing war is sort of like saying that calling a cop a hero endoreses crime, or that calling fire fighters heroes endorses fire or arson. It's stupid. Soldiers solider. If anyone here is trying to convince me that these wars are bull crap....save your breath. I'm right there with you and might have had that view for longer than you have. I think most people who ever read these posts can safely assume I will never be a conservative.
But I can never be a liberal either because of garbage like this. These men and women are there on YOUR behalf. You voted the men into office that put them there. What I find offensive to the point it maddens me is the fact that the libs like this Chis guy all thought these wars were illegal, nazi-like, Bush was the devil....and on and on and on. Well, I agree. But what happened when Obama got elected. Just like the neo-cons, they back their man Obama.
Where are the protests now? Where is the concern for our service members lives as well of the lives of the innocent arabs? It's crap like this that make even Independents like me despise our public, because here my brothers in arms are in a life and death struggle not of their choosing and now the very citizens who elected the Presidents who put them/keep them there are debating who amonst our veterans deserve to be called heroes. If these wars are so unjust, if our presence there is so uncalled for in the Middle East, get off your *kitten* and protest like you did under Bush and get the these service men out of these wars instead of insulting the people YOUR leaders, YOUR votes, YOUR tax money screwed over.0 -
Saying that calling soliders heroes is endorsing war is sort of like saying that calling a cop a hero endoreses crime, or that calling fire fighters heroes endorses fire or arson. It's stupid.
That's so perfect I wish I had thought of it first!0 -
Saying that calling soliders heroes is endorsing war is sort of like saying that calling a cop a hero endoreses crime, or that calling fire fighters heroes endorses fire or arson. It's stupid.
Agreed!That's so perfect I wish I had thought of it first!0 -
I'll just say that I think it's fairly clear from his original statement that he's uncomfortable referring to fallen soldiers as heroes because he believes it mistakenly reinforces a notion that the reason for their death is likewise a heroic and just one. He believes there is very real disconnect between how civilians think of war and how people who experience it think of war.There was no confusion on my part that what he was talking about was exactly what everyone is getting up in arms about, that when we as civilians who have never served use the word "hero" it may often mean something very different compared to those who experience the acts of heroism. Heroism in the context of war must be by necessity, I think, too complex emotionally and philosophically for one word to carry such a weight of many meanings.
Perhaps he would have done better by simply stating that sometimes dying in service to one's country is not heroic. Sometimes it just sucks. That's the meaning I got from him.
I think Chris Hayes might have done better to quote Wilfred Own, So I'll do it for him. The last lines when translated should read something like, "..the old lie, it is sweet and right to die for your country."
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If 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
8 October 1917 - March, 19180 -
Saying that calling soliders heroes is endorsing war is sort of like saying that calling a cop a hero endoreses crime, or that calling fire fighters heroes endorses fire or arson. It's stupid. Soldiers solider. If anyone here is trying to convince me that these wars are bull crap....save your breath. I'm right there with you and might have had that view for longer than you have. I think most people who ever read these posts can safely assume I will never be a conservative.
But I can never be a liberal either because of garbage like this. These men and women are there on YOUR behalf. You voted the men into office that put them there. What I find offensive to the point it maddens me is the fact that the libs like this Chis guy all thought these wars were illegal, nazi-like, Bush was the devil....and on and on and on. Well, I agree. But what happened when Obama got elected. Just like the neo-cons, they back their man Obama.
Where are the protests now? Where is the concern for our service members lives as well of the lives of the innocent arabs? It's crap like this that make even Independents like me despise our public, because here my brothers in arms are in a life and death struggle not of their choosing and now the very citizens who elected the Presidents who put them/keep them there are debating who amonst our veterans deserve to be called heroes. If these wars are so unjust, if our presence there is so uncalled for in the Middle East, get off your *kitten* and protest like you did under Bush and get the these service men out of these wars instead of insulting the people YOUR leaders, YOUR votes, YOUR tax money screwed over.
exactly - well said. being married to a vet I know it means a lot to him that the military men and women that serve are respected for what they do. Our current soldiers volunteer to serve their country - no matter if it is for a stable job, patriotism or whatever - they have gotten off their butts and are doing something. not like the slackers that are sitting at home complaining about what our country is doing. our veterans benefits are being pillaged by the current administration. it is a shame that people are just sitting back and letting it happen.0 -
I'll just say that I think it's fairly clear from his original statement that he's uncomfortable referring to fallen soldiers as heroes because he believes it mistakenly reinforces a notion that the reason for their death is likewise a heroic and just one. He believes there is very real disconnect between how civilians think of war and how people who experience it think of war.There was no confusion on my part that what he was talking about was exactly what everyone is getting up in arms about, that when we as civilians who have never served use the word "hero" it may often mean something very different compared to those who experience the acts of heroism. Heroism in the context of war must be by necessity, I think, too complex emotionally and philosophically for one word to carry such a weight of many meanings.
Perhaps he would have done better by simply stating that sometimes dying in service to one's country is not heroic. Sometimes it just sucks. That's the meaning I got from him.
I think Chris Hayes might have done better to quote Wilfred Own, So I'll do it for him. The last lines when translated should read something like, "..the old lie, it is sweet and right to die for your country."
Wilfred Owen
8 October 1917 - March, 1918
Did Chris think that military deaths were heroic in 2001? 2002? 2003? 2011? When did these deaths stop being heroic for him? Bottom line is, these men and women answer the call of their nation to go to war for whatever reasons. It is complete and utter bull**** simply because now that we can look back with our 20/20 hindsight and think...oh Iraq wasn't a good idea, we are going to revoke hero status to the fallen because we no longer feel the war is just. Not really fair to the fallen or those who miss them to suddenly decide "Oops, we decided as a nation that we were wrong sending you into Iraq, and that your loved ones service wasn't really all that heroic. Actually, it was sort of a waste." Signed USA.
Besides, maybe if journalists who seem so comfortable in determining which and what wars we should be in now had a spine in 2001 and actually asked hard questions of the Bush administration, maybe we would have never went into Iraq in the first place. Maybe. Then again, I'm probably just sounding bitter. I think everyones support of the troops overall has been outstanding. I mean, everyone constantly says they support the troops, and a big bumper sticker is enough to convince me. Sure, we are cutting services to our wounded vets because the economy is tight, but most people I know went the extra step at least once in 11 years and sent a care package to a random service member. I know how much it meant to me to get beef jerky and kleenex. Hell, if the person sending that care package was wearing a shirt with the american flag on it, that's almost as patriotic as serving in combat.0 -
You can twist his point if you like, obviously, but his premise is that calling the deaths heroic should not lend some sort of rhetorical approval of the conflict itself. From his perspective, he may have seen evidence of that happening in civilian discourse, and it made him uncomfortable. It's not a condemnation or lack of respect for troops--that interpretation is a little simplistic and too easy. As far people speaking out at the time, they did. Liberals like myself knew invading a sovereign nation for the reasons we had was a bad idea, and we weren't silent about it. For the last 10 years for every American Flag bumper sticker I saw I've also seen "Support the Trroops, bring them home." if you want to attack the liberal media, you're going to need more backing you up than a chip on your shoulder about how silent you think the media has been. And If you think a million people marching on washington would have changed events, you're mistaken.
If you want to see offense where none is intended and attack his support of troops, that's your call, but I think you're seeing offense because you want to.0
