Veterans as "Heroes"
Replies
-
There is no point being twisted. But saying that calling the troops heroic is some how approval of the wars is moronic at best. And yes, it is a lack of respect for the troops to be spouting this off at.....Memorial Day. Maybe he should just show up directly at their funerals.
And no, the liberals did not rally around an anti-war protest in large numbers. MSNBC and CNN were just as complacent and fearful in their newscasting in the early 2000s as FOX news, the absolute worst of the bunch. I don't think I ever accused the media of being liberal, I just wonder where the fire of the anti-war rhetoric went. I know of no large or signifigant anti-war protests going on at the moment, especially since Obama, or as I call him, Bushbama, has been elected. Actually, most anti-war stuff going on right now is being ran by veterans. Go figure.
And how can I be mistaken about an event that never happened, like millions marching on Washington? Could have marching hurt? Thing is, they marched on D.C. in the sixites and brought about some degree of change, but that was before really good stuff was on TV and the internet, so I understand our preoccupation.
So maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder, but maybe that is because since I have been back I have seen myself or my friends had their patriotism, heroism, or sacrifices questioned by libs, cons, moderates, and independents depending the politics of the week. I never thought I would think this way before, but I am in complete favor a draft....no deferments except for serious disabilities.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!
I would actually like to disagree here. Calling a cop a hero endorses crime doesn't fit the analogy. Instead, a more fitting analogy would be
"Saying that calling soliders heroes is endorsing war is sort of like saying that calling a cop a hero endoreses the police-goals."
Firefighters do not fit in this analogy. While they do put their lives on the line, they are never called to potentially end the life of another human being. They do not actively kill. Therefore, they don't fit in your analogy. And yes, I would argue that calling cops heroes endorses the police-state goals. Idealizing or demonizing a group instead of looking at individuals and individual action leads to a fallacious conclusion. Look at Vietnam. Those guys didn't come back to parades. No one was proud of them. They were demonized as monsters even though a large portion were drafted (about a third if I recall correctly). While they are well respected now, they weren't hailed as heroes upon their return.
Using a blanket statement like "all soldiers are heroes" is dangerous. Were the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib heroes? No. It is an action that makes one a hero- not a decision. Joining does not entitle one to the title of "hero," it just provides greater opportunities to have that label applied through action.
And yes, I respect our armed forces and work with them every day. I am glad they exist, I am glad they serve, but I think touting them all as heroes by virtue of joining is a dangerous precedent to set and I understand what Chris Hayes was saying, even if it wasn't said in the best of ways. By glorifying them beyond what they deserve (again, great works as a whole, but "hero" is an individual honor which comes down to actions, not decisions), we give greater credence to excessive support for military actions even when we don't agree with the chosen actions. We give unnecessary support to their superior's decisions. I had many friends who joined not out of honor, bravery, or pride- but out of desperation in a rough economic climate. That decision does not entitle my friends to wear the badge of honor and be called "heroes."0 -
What is your justification for being in favor of a draft when there is no threat to our country that requires additional service? It kind makes defending our right to choose our lives a little hollow, doesn't it? You're actually in favor of forcing people to experience the world in a such a way that also forces them to share your perspective? That's one of the most unAmerican sentiments I can think of.There is no point being twisted. But saying that calling the troops heroic is some how approval of the wars is moronic at best.
Umm..yeah, that's his point. That's why it makes him uncomfortable. He recognizes that disconnect. So maybe you're not twisting it,; you just don't get it. Fair enough.
And Bushbama? I kind of want to dare you list the policies that gives any validity to that, or is it just an overall impression based on your gut? Do you really think that if McCain or Bush (even though a third term would have been impossible) would have taken *any* troops out of Iraq? They didn't intend to, by their own admission. Obama's not done some things he said he would do, it's true. But ending DADT? I don't see Bush pushing that through. Economically, Obama has worked fairly hard to go away from failed policies that the Bush administration set, while attempting to adopt bi-partisan measures. He's had limited to success due to an ineffective Congress; we can blame both sides of the aisle for that, though for different reasons.
In the interest of fairness, and having nothing to do vets as heroes but I think you have a certain appreciation for balance, there are a few things Obama has done that I'm significantly not thrilled with. For example, he didn't go far enough with healthcare reform by a long shot, and his reference to community colleges (or colleges in general) as preparation for the private sector was way off. Public education's only concern should ever be creating an educated citizenry capable of critical thinking skills, not primarily supplying private industry with a capable workforce. I digress.0 -
"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."
I believe this is the first post I am going to agree with and thank you Adrian for your service! You too Mike and any other posters on this topic! :flowerforyou:
In general, I see servicemen and women as heros. There are some bad apples in the group, just as their are crooked police officers and arsonist firemen. But even the young guys who just join out of high school because they need a job and benefits to support a baby-mama are heros to me. They do a job more dangerous than jobthan any on US Soil. Even the pencil pushers know there is a chance they could go to war.
I often hear the excuse "well they volunteered/chose to join the military." Why does this make them less heroic?!? IN my opinion it makes them more heroic. If a person VOLUNTEERS to run into a burning building to save a baby, is that not heroic? How is volunteering to leave your family for long periods of time and have your life constatly at risk, even stateside in training, not a brave and heroic act?
No one in my immediate family has served, that tradition died with my grandpa and his 3 brothers who are all Navy vets. But I feel like I have MORE of a sense of patriotism and respect for military than most people.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!
I would actually like to disagree here. Calling a cop a hero endorses crime doesn't fit the analogy. Instead, a more fitting analogy would be
"Saying that calling soliders heroes is endorsing war is sort of like saying that calling a cop a hero endoreses the police-goals."
Firefighters do not fit in this analogy. While they do put their lives on the line, they are never called to potentially end the life of another human being. They do not actively kill. Therefore, they don't fit in your analogy. And yes, I would argue that calling cops heroes endorses the police-state goals. Idealizing or demonizing a group instead of looking at individuals and individual action leads to a fallacious conclusion. Look at Vietnam. Those guys didn't come back to parades. No one was proud of them. They were demonized as monsters even though a large portion were drafted (about a third if I recall correctly). While they are well respected now, they weren't hailed as heroes upon their return.
Using a blanket statement like "all soldiers are heroes" is dangerous. Were the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib heroes? No. It is an action that makes one a hero- not a decision. Joining does not entitle one to the title of "hero," it just provides greater opportunities to have that label applied through action.
And yes, I respect our armed forces and work with them every day. I am glad they exist, I am glad they serve, but I think touting them all as heroes by virtue of joining is a dangerous precedent to set and I understand what Chris Hayes was saying, even if it wasn't said in the best of ways. By glorifying them beyond what they deserve (again, great works as a whole, but "hero" is an individual honor which comes down to actions, not decisions), we give greater credence to excessive support for military actions even when we don't agree with the chosen actions. We give unnecessary support to their superior's decisions. I had many friends who joined not out of honor, bravery, or pride- but out of desperation in a rough economic climate. That decision does not entitle my friends to wear the badge of honor and be called "heroes."
And here lies the problem of our own individual bias. If I were to tell a liberal that I hate public schools and do not consider the teachers to be in it for the right reasons because some of them sleep with their students, are lazy, and have too many perks, a liberal would go ape-crazy because of me lumping degenerate teachers in with other majority of good teachers because of my own bias agains public schools and government ran programs.
I think we could all agree that their are different levels of heroism, but the bias can be shown that people can look to things like Abu Ghraib and see this as a legitimate talking point. Are they heroes? No, they are criminals. Just like that soldier who through those puppies of the cliff, or the one who recently massacred that town. But I'm willing to bet, especially when compared to passed conflicts, that if you took all the atrocities of this war, I could counter it with a story from my 30 man platoon alone. So how about the rest of the military?
As far as people joining for college money or because of a bad economy.....so? I find it hard to believe even if in a recession that their only option was the military. Even if it was, that doesn't negate the rigors of training and discipline that they are going to have to go through in order to stay in and complete basic...let alone the fact they might get their *kitten* shot off. If we use this line of reasoning of questioning the motives of soldiers, then how about every other apsect of life. We give to chairty to make ourselves feel better, not to help our fellow man. Doctors and cancer researchers are in it for the prestige and money. Lawyers could care less about the law and justice and just like to hear themselves talk.
Lastly, yes soldiers are trained to kill. But that is not our purpose. You would be hard pressed to find many veterans who actually wanted to kill anyone. You can't judge the whole based on the small percentage of sociopaths in the military, or the ones who are mentally damaged from watching a friend explode.
But as to your statement of giving them more glory than they deserve.....what glory? A discount at the local movie theater. 2 days of holidays a year? College after being paid peanuts for years? Crap medical coverage for their disablitiies? What glory? Saying we support the troops is nothing but words, and as we see these wars die down, as we see soldiers benefits and VA coverage drop, we see exactly what that support is. Decades from now, I fear we will see that the only difference between these vets and the Nam vets was a few years of half-way decent VA care for these vets and a pat on the back instead of spit to the face.0 -
I do think it's horrible how our country cares for our veterans! The disabled should receive the very best medical care and the state of the art procedures available. Our government should cover all expenses. Not sure about all VA hospitals, but the ones I've seen, I wouldn't want to be treated in.0
-
What is your justification for being in favor of a draft when there is no threat to our country that requires additional service? It kind makes defending our right to choose our lives a little hollow, doesn't it? You're actually in favor of forcing people to experience the world in a such a way that also forces them to share your perspective? That's one of the most unAmerican sentiments I can think of.There is no point being twisted. But saying that calling the troops heroic is some how approval of the wars is moronic at best.
Umm..yeah, that's his point. That's why it makes him uncomfortable. He recognizes that disconnect. So maybe you're not twisting it,; you just don't get it. Fair enough.
And Bushbama? I kind of want to dare you list the policies that gives any validity to that, or is it just an overall impression based on your gut? Do you really think that if McCain or Bush (even though a third term would have been impossible) would have taken *any* troops out of Iraq? They didn't intend to, by their own admission. Obama's not done some things he said he would do, it's true. But ending DADT? I don't see Bush pushing that through. Economically, Obama has worked fairly hard to go away from failed policies that the Bush administration set, while attempting to adopt bi-partisan measures. He's had limited to success due to an ineffective Congress; we can blame both sides of the aisle for that, though for different reasons.
In the interest of fairness, and having nothing to do vets as heroes but I think you have a certain appreciation for balance, there are a few things Obama has done that I'm significantly not thrilled with. For example, he didn't go far enough with healthcare reform by a long shot, and his reference to community colleges (or colleges in general) as preparation for the private sector was way off. Public education's only concern should ever be creating an educated citizenry capable of critical thinking skills, not primarily supplying private industry with a capable workforce. I digress.
No, I'm in favor of a draft not to force the horrors of war on everyone to make myself feel better, but in order to prevent wars from happening. At one point, 70% of the american public thought Saddam was directly linked to 9/11. The media, both liberal and conservative did little to dissuade this. I think that the common american, senator, and journalist would pay a little more attention to foriegn wars if their child had to go and couldn't get out of it 10 deferments like the chickenhawk conservatives did in the Vietnam era. A lot more people might ask why and bring these wars to a quicker end if they ever started if we all shared the responsiblity.
And yes, I get what he is saying.....I just don't think he is right. There is a distinction between honoring the vast majority of noble and honorable service members as heroes and blind nationlism. They are not direclty linked. Sure you can have an idiot who finds no fault in the Iraq war and supports those who fights as heroes. But you could easily find a person who thinks that all soldiers with the exceptions of criminals and deviants, a small minority of the military, are heroes regardless of the current condtitions of the wars we are putting them through. It was not good logic.
As far a Bushbama goes.....almost every hardcore liberal I know is disgusted with the guy. Not that they will vote against him with the specter of Mitt the Tit Romney winning. But he extended the Patriot Act after he campaigned against it. Kept Guantonomo open, has that secret drone program looming, put another Goldman Sachs CEO in as SOT along with several other D.C. insiders when he said he was going to shake things up with new people. The healtcare plan is the republican one. In essence, are foreign policy hasn't changed much. All the democrats and republicans are good at nowadays is fighting about social policies. And why I would never dream of diminishing the end of DADT being ended, realized that the core of the problems with this nation haven't changed. And to prove I am not biased......I voted for him.0 -
I do think it's horrible how our country cares for our veterans! The disabled should receive the very best medical care and the state of the art procedures available. Our government should cover all expenses. Not sure about all VA hospitals, but the ones I've seen, I wouldn't want to be treated in.
I'll second that about the VA hospitals, I had to do a rotation through one for x ray school, their equipment was lousy, and they were pretty much throwing jobs at us for when we graduated. But you could tell this was not a place you wanted to work and if I feel that way about a job I can't imagine how I would feel having to be treated there.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!
I would actually like to disagree here. Calling a cop a hero endorses crime doesn't fit the analogy. Instead, a more fitting analogy would be
"Saying that calling soliders heroes is endorsing war is sort of like saying that calling a cop a hero endoreses the police-goals."
Firefighters do not fit in this analogy. While they do put their lives on the line, they are never called to potentially end the life of another human being. They do not actively kill. Therefore, they don't fit in your analogy. And yes, I would argue that calling cops heroes endorses the police-state goals. Idealizing or demonizing a group instead of looking at individuals and individual action leads to a fallacious conclusion. Look at Vietnam. Those guys didn't come back to parades. No one was proud of them. They were demonized as monsters even though a large portion were drafted (about a third if I recall correctly). While they are well respected now, they weren't hailed as heroes upon their return.
Using a blanket statement like "all soldiers are heroes" is dangerous. Were the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib heroes? No. It is an action that makes one a hero- not a decision. Joining does not entitle one to the title of "hero," it just provides greater opportunities to have that label applied through action.
And yes, I respect our armed forces and work with them every day. I am glad they exist, I am glad they serve, but I think touting them all as heroes by virtue of joining is a dangerous precedent to set and I understand what Chris Hayes was saying, even if it wasn't said in the best of ways. By glorifying them beyond what they deserve (again, great works as a whole, but "hero" is an individual honor which comes down to actions, not decisions), we give greater credence to excessive support for military actions even when we don't agree with the chosen actions. We give unnecessary support to their superior's decisions. I had many friends who joined not out of honor, bravery, or pride- but out of desperation in a rough economic climate. That decision does not entitle my friends to wear the badge of honor and be called "heroes."
And here lies the problem of our own individual bias. If I were to tell a liberal that I hate public schools and do not consider the teachers to be in it for the right reasons because some of them sleep with their students, are lazy, and have too many perks, a liberal would go ape-crazy because of me lumping degenerate teachers in with other majority of good teachers because of my own bias agains public schools and government ran programs.
I think we could all agree that their are different levels of heroism, but the bias can be shown that people can look to things like Abu Ghraib and see this as a legitimate talking point. Are they heroes? No, they are criminals. Just like that soldier who through those puppies of the cliff, or the one who recently massacred that town. But I'm willing to bet, especially when compared to passed conflicts, that if you took all the atrocities of this war, I could counter it with a story from my 30 man platoon alone. So how about the rest of the military?
As far as people joining for college money or because of a bad economy.....so? I find it hard to believe even if in a recession that their only option was the military. Even if it was, that doesn't negate the rigors of training and discipline that they are going to have to go through in order to stay in and complete basic...let alone the fact they might get their *kitten* shot off. If we use this line of reasoning of questioning the motives of soldiers, then how about every other apsect of life. We give to chairty to make ourselves feel better, not to help our fellow man. Doctors and cancer researchers are in it for the prestige and money. Lawyers could care less about the law and justice and just like to hear themselves talk.
Lastly, yes soldiers are trained to kill. But that is not our purpose. You would be hard pressed to find many veterans who actually wanted to kill anyone. You can't judge the whole based on the small percentage of sociopaths in the military, or the ones who are mentally damaged from watching a friend explode.
But as to your statement of giving them more glory than they deserve.....what glory? A discount at the local movie theater. 2 days of holidays a year? College after being paid peanuts for years? Crap medical coverage for their disablitiies? What glory? Saying we support the troops is nothing but words, and as we see these wars die down, as we see soldiers benefits and VA coverage drop, we see exactly what that support is. Decades from now, I fear we will see that the only difference between these vets and the Nam vets was a few years of half-way decent VA care for these vets and a pat on the back instead of spit to the face.
I think you may have misinterpreted some of what I was saying. I am not saying the military has some *kitten*, so we must assume that they are all *kitten*. Quite the contrary. I am saying you cannot apply blanket terms to an entire group of people. Most soldiers ARE heroes. But not all of them are. Like I said, being in the military provides one with greater opportunities to BECOME a hero. (I'm not trying to yell, I just don't know how to italicize). The idea that joining the military automatically makes you a hero is silly to me. Just like when people tell me I'm a hero or I'm brave because I work for the Department of Defense or because I deal with the mental health of our soldiers. That's silly. I do my job. It provides me with opportunities to give back to heroes, but non of my actions are heroic.
Soldiers have opportunities for heroics that normal people simply don't have. I guess my closest brush with being a hero is running back into a building I assumed was on fire to wake my neighbors (alarms going off at 3AM, no ability to see the back side of the building- therefore the assumption is it was on fire and I was unable to see it). That was an opportunity for heroism. Because they have more opportunities for heroism, of course they are more likely to be heroes! But that doesn't mean that you can go around and say "Oh, you joined the military? Congrats, you're a hero in my book." That doesn't sit right with me. Blanket statements like that are exactly why I brought up Abu Ghraib- and why it's a valid point to bring up. Because if you use a blanket statement, you're going to include twisted *kitten* like that. I do not intend to make the mistake to sully the honor of true heroes by saying that joining is what made them a hero.
My granddad was a hero. He joined the Army Air Corps as a Ball Turret Gunner in WWII at the age of 17. He had to have his nose broken and repaired just so he could join. That alone didn't make him a hero. What made him a hero was when he saved his pilot in a fire fight. When he bombed the rail roads which were taking Jews to concentration camps. When he saved lives, and defended freedoms. Were he alive, and I were to call him a hero just because he joined, I do believe he would be very upset. His decision to join should never be equated with his heroic actions in the war.
Lastly, I also never used the word "glory." Glory is quite different from Honor. I was speaking of Honor. The title "hero" is an honorific titled bestowed upon a PERSON (not a group) for an ACTION. Joining the military doesn't count as an action to me. That's a decision. Our soldiers are unbelievably neglected post-service. I am appalled at how we treat these men and women, and I am grateful for their service. Part of why I took on the job I did was to improve mental health services to our men and women in uniform. They may not get glory, but honor, they are certainly treated with honor by most they meet. Not all, but most.0 -
I do think it's horrible how our country cares for our veterans! The disabled should receive the very best medical care and the state of the art procedures available. Our government should cover all expenses. Not sure about all VA hospitals, but the ones I've seen, I wouldn't want to be treated in.
I'll second that about the VA hospitals, I had to do a rotation through one for x ray school, their equipment was lousy, and they were pretty much throwing jobs at us for when we graduated. But you could tell this was not a place you wanted to work and if I feel that way about a job I can't imagine how I would feel having to be treated there.
That is because we horrible miscalculated the injured and the disabled from these wars.....and then cut 30% from their budget. I go to what is considered one of the best here in Indy and it is sliding fast. Disablitity claims are backed up at least 2 years. In some parts of the nation, mental health appointments are on an 80 day wait. It is horse crap.0 -
I do think it's horrible how our country cares for our veterans! The disabled should receive the very best medical care and the state of the art procedures available. Our government should cover all expenses. Not sure about all VA hospitals, but the ones I've seen, I wouldn't want to be treated in.
I'll second that about the VA hospitals, I had to do a rotation through one for x ray school, their equipment was lousy, and they were pretty much throwing jobs at us for when we graduated. But you could tell this was not a place you wanted to work and if I feel that way about a job I can't imagine how I would feel having to be treated there.
That is because we horrible miscalculated the injured and the disabled from these wars.....and then cut 30% from their budget. I go to what is considered one of the best here in Indy and it is sliding fast. Disablitity claims are backed up at least 2 years. In some parts of the nation, mental health appointments are on an 80 day wait. It is horse crap.
It certainly doesn't help that the military has a cap on the number of licensed psychologists they can hire each year. Not to mention the fact that certain diagnoses (specifically alcoholism) go on your permanent record and can influence your chances for promotion. Those are my two biggest frustrations with mental health services in the military. Thanks to technology, more and more are coming back alive- which means more and more are in need of quality mental health services (as well as medical services, that's just not my area). TBI is also a much bigger problem now, since IEDs are so common these days.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!
I would actually like to disagree here. Calling a cop a hero endorses crime doesn't fit the analogy. Instead, a more fitting analogy would be
"Saying that calling soliders heroes is endorsing war is sort of like saying that calling a cop a hero endoreses the police-goals."
Firefighters do not fit in this analogy. While they do put their lives on the line, they are never called to potentially end the life of another human being. They do not actively kill. Therefore, they don't fit in your analogy. And yes, I would argue that calling cops heroes endorses the police-state goals. Idealizing or demonizing a group instead of looking at individuals and individual action leads to a fallacious conclusion. Look at Vietnam. Those guys didn't come back to parades. No one was proud of them. They were demonized as monsters even though a large portion were drafted (about a third if I recall correctly). While they are well respected now, they weren't hailed as heroes upon their return.
Using a blanket statement like "all soldiers are heroes" is dangerous. Were the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib heroes? No. It is an action that makes one a hero- not a decision. Joining does not entitle one to the title of "hero," it just provides greater opportunities to have that label applied through action.
And yes, I respect our armed forces and work with them every day. I am glad they exist, I am glad they serve, but I think touting them all as heroes by virtue of joining is a dangerous precedent to set and I understand what Chris Hayes was saying, even if it wasn't said in the best of ways. By glorifying them beyond what they deserve (again, great works as a whole, but "hero" is an individual honor which comes down to actions, not decisions), we give greater credence to excessive support for military actions even when we don't agree with the chosen actions. We give unnecessary support to their superior's decisions. I had many friends who joined not out of honor, bravery, or pride- but out of desperation in a rough economic climate. That decision does not entitle my friends to wear the badge of honor and be called "heroes."
And here lies the problem of our own individual bias. If I were to tell a liberal that I hate public schools and do not consider the teachers to be in it for the right reasons because some of them sleep with their students, are lazy, and have too many perks, a liberal would go ape-crazy because of me lumping degenerate teachers in with other majority of good teachers because of my own bias agains public schools and government ran programs.
I think we could all agree that their are different levels of heroism, but the bias can be shown that people can look to things like Abu Ghraib and see this as a legitimate talking point. Are they heroes? No, they are criminals. Just like that soldier who through those puppies of the cliff, or the one who recently massacred that town. But I'm willing to bet, especially when compared to passed conflicts, that if you took all the atrocities of this war, I could counter it with a story from my 30 man platoon alone. So how about the rest of the military?
As far as people joining for college money or because of a bad economy.....so? I find it hard to believe even if in a recession that their only option was the military. Even if it was, that doesn't negate the rigors of training and discipline that they are going to have to go through in order to stay in and complete basic...let alone the fact they might get their *kitten* shot off. If we use this line of reasoning of questioning the motives of soldiers, then how about every other apsect of life. We give to chairty to make ourselves feel better, not to help our fellow man. Doctors and cancer researchers are in it for the prestige and money. Lawyers could care less about the law and justice and just like to hear themselves talk.
Lastly, yes soldiers are trained to kill. But that is not our purpose. You would be hard pressed to find many veterans who actually wanted to kill anyone. You can't judge the whole based on the small percentage of sociopaths in the military, or the ones who are mentally damaged from watching a friend explode.
But as to your statement of giving them more glory than they deserve.....what glory? A discount at the local movie theater. 2 days of holidays a year? College after being paid peanuts for years? Crap medical coverage for their disablitiies? What glory? Saying we support the troops is nothing but words, and as we see these wars die down, as we see soldiers benefits and VA coverage drop, we see exactly what that support is. Decades from now, I fear we will see that the only difference between these vets and the Nam vets was a few years of half-way decent VA care for these vets and a pat on the back instead of spit to the face.
I think you may have misinterpreted some of what I was saying. I am not saying the military has some *kitten*, so we must assume that they are all *kitten*. Quite the contrary. I am saying you cannot apply blanket terms to an entire group of people. Most soldiers ARE heroes. But not all of them are. Like I said, being in the military provides one with greater opportunities to BECOME a hero. (I'm not trying to yell, I just don't know how to italicize). The idea that joining the military automatically makes you a hero is silly to me. Just like when people tell me I'm a hero or I'm brave because I work for the Department of Defense or because I deal with the mental health of our soldiers. That's silly. I do my job. It provides me with opportunities to give back to heroes, but non of my actions are heroic.
Soldiers have opportunities for heroics that normal people simply don't have. I guess my closest brush with being a hero is running back into a building I assumed was on fire to wake my neighbors (alarms going off at 3AM, no ability to see the back side of the building- therefore the assumption is it was on fire and I was unable to see it). That was an opportunity for heroism. Because they have more opportunities for heroism, of course they are more likely to be heroes! But that doesn't mean that you can go around and say "Oh, you joined the military? Congrats, you're a hero in my book." That doesn't sit right with me. Blanket statements like that are exactly why I brought up Abu Ghraib- and why it's a valid point to bring up. Because if you use a blanket statement, you're going to include twisted *kitten* like that. I do not intend to make the mistake to sully the honor of true heroes by saying that joining is what made them a hero.
My granddad was a hero. He joined the Army Air Corps as a Ball Turret Gunner in WWII at the age of 17. He had to have his nose broken and repaired just so he could join. That alone didn't make him a hero. What made him a hero was when he saved his pilot in a fire fight. When he bombed the rail roads which were taking Jews to concentration camps. When he saved lives, and defended freedoms. Were he alive, and I were to call him a hero just because he joined, I do believe he would be very upset. His decision to join should never be equated with his heroic actions in the war.
Lastly, I also never used the word "glory." Glory is quite different from Honor. I was speaking of Honor. The title "hero" is an honorific titled bestowed upon a PERSON (not a group) for an ACTION. Joining the military doesn't count as an action to me. That's a decision. Our soldiers are unbelievably neglected post-service. I am appalled at how we treat these men and women, and I am grateful for their service. Part of why I took on the job I did was to improve mental health services to our men and women in uniform. They may not get glory, but honor, they are certainly treated with honor by most they meet. Not all, but most.
No worries, I know you are not calling soliders jack *kitten*, that is not what I took away from this. I guess the difference to me is that I think that service members are to a degree heroes unless they dishonor themselves with negative actions. You think that soliders are not heroes unless they do something "heroic" like rush a machine gun nest or bomb a rail road. Thing is.....war has changed. Very few opportunities for those types of heroics in a war like this. Being there is heroic itself because all these deployments were, at least when I was there, was a game of russian roulette.0 -
I do think it's horrible how our country cares for our veterans! The disabled should receive the very best medical care and the state of the art procedures available. Our government should cover all expenses. Not sure about all VA hospitals, but the ones I've seen, I wouldn't want to be treated in.
I'll second that about the VA hospitals, I had to do a rotation through one for x ray school, their equipment was lousy, and they were pretty much throwing jobs at us for when we graduated. But you could tell this was not a place you wanted to work and if I feel that way about a job I can't imagine how I would feel having to be treated there.
That is because we horrible miscalculated the injured and the disabled from these wars.....and then cut 30% from their budget. I go to what is considered one of the best here in Indy and it is sliding fast. Disablitity claims are backed up at least 2 years. In some parts of the nation, mental health appointments are on an 80 day wait. It is horse crap.
It certainly doesn't help that the military has a cap on the number of licensed psychologists they can hire each year. Not to mention the fact that certain diagnoses (specifically alcoholism) go on your permanent record and can influence your chances for promotion. Those are my two biggest frustrations with mental health services in the military. Thanks to technology, more and more are coming back alive- which means more and more are in need of quality mental health services (as well as medical services, that's just not my area). TBI is also a much bigger problem now, since IEDs are so common these days.
Yup. I know several Psychologists who quit because the work load is impossible.0 -
No, I'm in favor of a draft not to force the horrors of war on everyone to make myself feel better, but in order to prevent wars from happening. At one point, 70% of the american public thought Saddam was directly linked to 9/11. The media, both liberal and conservative did little to dissuade this. I think that the common american, senator, and journalist would pay a little more attention to foriegn wars if their child had to go and couldn't get out of it 10 deferments like the chickenhawk conservatives did in the Vietnam era. A lot more people might ask why and bring these wars to a quicker end if they ever started if we all shared the responsiblity.
And yes, I get what he is saying.....I just don't think he is right. There is a distinction between honoring the vast majority of noble and honorable service members as heroes and blind nationlism. They are not direclty linked. Sure you can have an idiot who finds no fault in the Iraq war and supports those who fights as heroes. But you could easily find a person who thinks that all soldiers with the exceptions of criminals and deviants, a small minority of the military, are heroes regardless of the current condtitions of the wars we are putting them through. It was not good logic.
As far a Bushbama goes.....almost every hardcore liberal I know is disgusted with the guy. Not that they will vote against him with the specter of Mitt the Tit Romney winning. But he extended the Patriot Act after he campaigned against it. Kept Guantonomo open, has that secret drone program looming, put another Goldman Sachs CEO in as SOT along with several other D.C. insiders when he said he was going to shake things up with new people. The healtcare plan is the republican one. In essence, are foreign policy hasn't changed much. All the democrats and republicans are good at nowadays is fighting about social policies. And why I would never dream of diminishing the end of DADT being ended, realized that the core of the problems with this nation haven't changed. And to prove I am not biased......I voted for him.
Your reasons for enforcing a draft are flawed, and I think you know that. It would only serve to diminish freedom. The ends cannot justify the means.
Fine, you think he's wrong. I think you're wrong. Dying while serving is not automatically heroic. It can be. As I said before, sometimes dying with heroic intentions and bad luck, just means you had a really, really bad day. It doesn't make you a hero by default. Was the service noteworthy and should the person be honored for their sacrifice? Of course. There seems to be this impression that a refusal to acknowledge all dead soldiers as automatic heroes is somehow a critique of their service or somehow diminishes their memory, but it doesn't. If people just flat out refuse to accept that stance, so be it. There can be no resolution if the two parties can't agree on what the terms mean.
I think referring to all dead soldiers as heroes automatically, and again I believe that's what Chris was talking about, is something we do to make ourselves feel better. And we don't need to do that. The service itself enough to garner respect, whether or not you think vets are actually getting it. Not only do we not need to paint all dead soldiers as heroes, but it does something to the meaning of the war in a general way that isn't appropriate. If someone thinks that interpretation is inaccurate, I disagree. If you think it shouldn't be that way because it's illogical, I would agree. You state there's no link between honoring fallen soldiers [as heroes] and blind nationalism. It would be nice if you were right, but assuming that's the case just doesn't ring true to my experience with people.
And if you want to view any president through a lens of wrong doings without bothering to look at everything they've done, because you think it somehow brings balance to the universe of media bias, by all means, do so. It doesn't make you right, though. You didn't say that's what you do, but I think that's why you see things the way you do.0 -
Economically, Obama has worked fairly hard to go away from failed policies that the Bush administration set, while attempting to adopt bi-partisan measures. He's had limited to success due to an ineffective Congress; we can blame both sides of the aisle for that, though for different reasons.
The Democrats took over Congress in 2006... two years before Obama took office. It's funny how Bush continues to get blamed for everything that happened while Pelosi and Reid were running Congress. And the Dems controlled the White House, Senate (with a supermajority), and House of Reps from 2008 to 2010. The idea that it was *still* the GOP's fault that Congress was ineffective is insane.
The GOP sucks for many reasons. But this whole "obstructionist" line is complete fiction. The Dems had control of EVERYTHING and have nowhere to point the finger but inward. /rant0 -
Dying while serving is not automatically heroic. It can be. As I said before, sometimes dying with heroic intentions and bad luck, just means you had a really, really bad day. It doesn't make you a hero by default. Was the service noteworthy and should the person be honored for their sacrifice? Of course.
So you acknowledge that the person's life was sacrificed BUT that's not heroic?
I'd say sacrificing one'se life while serving their coutnry is heroic...0 -
Not to mention the fact that certain diagnoses (specifically alcoholism) go on your permanent record and can influence your chances for promotion.
I have been either enlisted or a DoD civilian working with the military for 16 years. I would like to know about this "permanent record" that influences promotion, because I've never heard of such a thing.0 -
I'd say sacrificing one'se life while serving their coutnry is heroic...
I agree.0 -
Economically, Obama has worked fairly hard to go away from failed policies that the Bush administration set, while attempting to adopt bi-partisan measures. He's had limited to success due to an ineffective Congress; we can blame both sides of the aisle for that, though for different reasons.
The Democrats took over Congress in 2006... two years before Obama took office. It's funny how Bush continues to get blamed for everything that happened while Pelosi and Reid were running Congress. And the Dems controlled the White House, Senate (with a supermajority), and House of Reps from 2008 to 2010. The idea that it was *still* the GOP's fault that Congress was ineffective is insane.
The GOP sucks for many reasons. But this whole "obstructionist" line is complete fiction. The Dems had control of EVERYTHING and have nowhere to point the finger but inward. /rant
1. You can't actually not call the GOP obstructionist because they didn't have control for 2 years. They've systematically and intentionally blocked all discourse that didn't favor a radical section of their base even when Obama proposes compromises that were GOP ideas in the first place.
2. You'll note the part where I said "we can blame both sides of the aisle for that, though for different reasons. " the GOP obstruct, while the Dems are fault for not forcing action with a super majority...which I'm sure would garner more fault finding, but at least it would have been action.0 -
Dying while serving is not automatically heroic. It can be. As I said before, sometimes dying with heroic intentions and bad luck, just means you had a really, really bad day. It doesn't make you a hero by default. Was the service noteworthy and should the person be honored for their sacrifice? Of course.
So you acknowledge that the person's life was sacrificed BUT that's not heroic?
I'd say sacrificing one'se life while serving their coutnry is heroic...
Precisely. I think your view on that particular word is over-simplified. Heroism obviously means something different to me than it does to you. As I noted, it's hard to have a conversation about a topic where we acknowledge that are definitions our different but we try to talk as if they were compatible anyway.0
