Veterans as "Heroes"
Replies
-
I gave the quote to a friend and asked for his take. Here's my active-duty co-worker's reply:
"No, I do not believe that by sheer virtue of joining the military one automatically becomes a hero. I know a lot of people in the military who are anything but heroic or anything else positive.
Yes, I do think that specific actions in war and other venues makes one a hero. Firemen, police, how about whistleblowers and journalists who risk their safety and jobs to expose wrong doing. I guess an act of courage can make one a hero. There is physical courage and moral courage, neither more important than the other. I hope to be my daughter's hero, but that's a different discussion. "0 -
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.
This comes from conversations with my boss. I have never served, so I don't know first hand. My boss is one of the very few mental health professionals in the military. He is a retired COL, but still works in a research capacity. When you redeploy (come home), you fill out numerous forms during what is known as the Reverse SRP (soldier readiness program). All of the forms, data points, and information is retained in your record. When you are up for promotions, the content of those forms are available for those making recommendations/decisions for promotion. Because of this, many soldiers down-play the level of alcoholism they experience.
While I do not know the date of the decision, it was declared at some point that PTSD could not be used as a criteria to prohibit promotion. The same is not true for alcohol abuse. As such (plus some other issues I can get into if asked), alcohol abuse is widely under-reported among our armed services. I saw this first hand at our last RSRP event when a good 1/3 of the soldiers declined to take our survey (we are trying to improve the screening methods) simply because they didn't want their alcohol use to "go on record." Even when we told them our study was independent and individual results would not go to command, they did not trust it. They did not want to impact their opportunities.0 -
You don't have to face bullets or conflict to be a hero. My nephew and a few others were nearly killed in a training exercise last year when a shell blew up inside the howitzer they were using. Had he not been so close to Womack, he'd be dead.
Everyone who goes into the military for whatever reason are heroes, plain and simple. If they didn't sign up, who would? I never went into the service(I regret this decision a lot) but I thank God that there are people who do go in because these people give us the choice between enlisting and doing something else.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.
I don't see how my reasoning on the draft is flawed. We were supposed to be a constitutional republic, but ignore those documents and pretend to be a mob ruled democracy most of the time. So if citizens want to continue and unconstitutionally send our young men and women to fight, let them share the burden. Sounds fair to me.
It just cracks me up that as a society, actors, athletes, stay at home moms, and victims of crimes are considered heroes and no one bats and eye, but if a soldier in Iraq dies in a truck accident he isn't a hero now. WTF? Not saying you believe that, but you can understand the fustration. And as I said to someone else earlier, the case for heroic deaths in this war are different than in other wars like WWII since all are soliders do is get ambushed constantly.
Like I said in the beginning of this...very few soliders, if any, consider themselves heroes and for much of this I was playing devils advocate.....but it's a little hard to take the comments on who is and who isn't a hero fromt the average over indulgent civilian who is trying to make some over-intellectual point of not all soldiers being heroes....on a day of honoring the dead ones. Little nutsy.
As to the last paragraph, I'm not sure what you mean? Obama ran on a contitutional platform. He opposed the Patriot Act. He was going to shut down Guantonomo, He was going to end indefinate detention. That is what I voted for. None of it happened. Not even close. It has nothing to do with my thoughts on media bias, and I know Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, and countless other liberal talking heads agree that this president hasn't lived up to his talk. This isn't a rebuke of his entire presidency, I try to be fair and I give him all the credit in the world for thing he has done right in my eyes. But I do get a little sick of the conservative and liberal apologists who can see someone do the same exact thing as the person they hate just did, and suddenly excuse it.0 -
It just cracks me up that as a society, actors, athletes, stay at home moms, and victims of crimes are considered heroes and no one bats and eye, but if a soldier in Iraq dies in a truck accident he isn't a hero now.
I'm sorry, but anyone who says this is a complete and total idiot. Unless you're talking about the hyperbolic statements like "OMG, I LOVE so-and-so, he's my hero," I've never actually heard anyone refer to these people as heroes. I guess the crux of this argument comes down to what is the definition of the word "hero." Apparently, it's highly subjective. Also, just because someone doesn't have a heroic death doesn't mean s/he isn't a hero. It just means they didn't have a heroic death.
I mentioned my granddad earlier. Well, joining didn't make him a hero. His actions in the war did. He died at 84 of cancer. Not a heroic death, but his actions in life make him fit the bill for "hero." That hypothetical soldier may well have been a hero, but he did not die a heroic death. He still deserves full honors and respect, but if it were me, I would be very hurt if I was called a hero because I died in a car accident, and not because I saved lives. Actions are heroic. Death is not, unless it is the direct result of a heroic action. Bottom line, it's unfair to soldiers to say that they are heroes for non-heroic deeds. It cheapens the true heroics.0 -
Maybe we need to come up with a hero rating system. 1-10. Jump on a greande = 10. Shot twice pulling friend to safety =8. Taking fire and not ****ting your pants. 4. Dying in an accident trying to resupply the front, 6. Enlisting 2. Stay at home mom. 1. Wacking off to intenet porn, 1/2.0
-
Unless you're talking about the hyperbolic statements like "OMG, I LOVE so-and-so, he's my hero," I've never actually heard anyone refer to these people as heroes.
"Obama honors Dylan, other 'heroes' for their influence"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/entertainment-us-usa-obama-medal-idUSBRE84S1A8201205290 -
Ah, I heard this on my favorite Xm station this XM. Classic Vinyl.Unless you're talking about the hyperbolic statements like "OMG, I LOVE so-and-so, he's my hero," I've never actually heard anyone refer to these people as heroes.
"Obama honors Dylan, other 'heroes' for their influence"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/entertainment-us-usa-obama-medal-idUSBRE84S1A820120529
0 -
Unless you're talking about the hyperbolic statements like "OMG, I LOVE so-and-so, he's my hero," I've never actually heard anyone refer to these people as heroes.
"Obama honors Dylan, other 'heroes' for their influence"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/entertainment-us-usa-obama-medal-idUSBRE84S1A820120529
I would argue that fits the bill of the hyperbolic statement. A "personal hero" is different from a "hero." Obama honored his personal heroesSo many of these people are my heroes individually,
Take the example of my active duty friend I mentioned earlier. He examined this difference as an aside when he said "I hope to be my daughter's hero, but that's a different discussion. "
His decision to honor these people and call them personal heroes is not out of line when considering the award is for: "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." A personal hero is someone who inspires you to excel, someone who inspires and motivates. These people he listed fit that bill.
The word choice of the title was poorly chosen and I do not think Obama would put these individuals on par with the type of hero we are discussing here. If he would, then he is an idiot.0 -
Ah, I heard this on my favorite Xm station this XM. Classic Vinyl.Unless you're talking about the hyperbolic statements like "OMG, I LOVE so-and-so, he's my hero," I've never actually heard anyone refer to these people as heroes.
"Obama honors Dylan, other 'heroes' for their influence"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/entertainment-us-usa-obama-medal-idUSBRE84S1A820120529
Classic, I love it!0 -
For the record, I voted for Obama. I'm still waiting to see the health care negotiations put on C-SPAN...0
-
Obama honored his personal heroes
... with a Presidential Medal of Freedom. I mean.... come on.... Bob Dylan???0 -
I guess we have come to an impasse. In the end, hero is just word. Who is a hero is an opinion. But as it has been said ealier, while i feel that the discussion here has been level headed. For this dope to drop this on a day where people are weeping over their loved ones who died in service to their country.....my first thought was that if he was a little more extreme he could joint the Westboro baptist church and just go directly to the memorials. Besides, there is no such thing as a heroic death. You either die or you don't. Hero is attatched to make everyone feel better about it. It's the movies and hollywood in us. It's propoganda. it's what we tell grieving widows and children because no one wants to tell them the reality of it, of how their loved one partially exploded, their eyes glazed over as they gasped their last breath muttering for their mothers, wives or children, and then defecated in their pants as their central nervous system shut down. I don't know why anyone would want to take the word "hero" away from the fallen soldier, no matter how they died.0
-
Obama honored his personal heroes
... with a Presidential Medal of Freedom. I mean.... come on.... Bob Dylan???
I will repeat. The award is for "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."
Bob Dylan doesn't fit the bill for having a significant or meritorious contribution to cultural endeavors? His music became the sound track of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement during Vietnam. He's in three "Hall of Fame's." He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for "his profound impact on popular music and American culture, marked by lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power." TIME Magazine listed him as one of the 100 most influential people of the last 100 years.
How is all that NOT an example of meritorious contributions to cultural endeavors? The man reeks of culture.0 -
I guess we have come to an impasse. In the end, hero is just word. Who is a hero is an opinion. But as it has been said ealier, while i feel that the discussion here has been level headed. For this dope to drop this on a day where people are weeping over their loved ones who died in service to their country.....my first thought was that if he was a little more extreme he could joint the Westboro baptist church and just go directly to the memorials. Besides, there is no such thing as a heroic death. You either die or you don't. Hero is attatched to make everyone feel better about it. It's the movies and hollywood in us. It's propoganda. it's what we tell grieving widows and children because no one wants to tell them the reality of it, of how their loved one partially exploded, their eyes glazed over as they gasped their last breath muttering for their mothers, wives or children, and then defecated in their pants as their central nervous system shut down. I don't know why anyone would want to take the word "hero" away from the fallen soldier, no matter how they died.
I think you're right about three things.
We're at an impasse.
Taking away that title would be ****ed up. I am not advocating for taking the honorific title "hero" away from anyone. I'm advocating NOT applying it blanket-style to everyone who joins the military. It cheapens those who really are heroes.
And lastly, Chris Hayes chose the worst, most messed up time to say what he said. Memorial day is a day of remembrance. Just like it was inappropriate for Obama to say the following on Father's Day: "But if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing - missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," it was inappropriate for Chris Hayes to say what he did, when he did.
Valid and reasonable points to argue, but the timing is/was disrespectful and inappropriate.0 -
The man reeks of culture.
Perhaps the most overrated "artist" of the 20th century:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HBIjxUT_uc
But we could go on like this all day...0 -
The man reeks of culture.
Perhaps the most overrated "artist" of the 20th century:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HBIjxUT_uc
But we could go on like this all day...
Perhaps most important for you to consider is that he is a "personal" hero of Obama. Seeing as the recipient of the award is based upon the attitudes of the president (not the nation), your opinion of the man is moot. I personally do not like Ronald Reagan at all. What he did to mental health patients and the disabled is deplorable as far as I'm concerned. But... my opinion didn't matter when Bush 1 named him a personal hero. Just like my opinion of the religious "prophet," Gordon B. Hinckley didn't matter when Bust 2 honored him. Similarly, your opinion doesn't matter in who Obama names as personal hero. Your dislike for his music is irrelevant.
EDIT: and no need to post a video, I'm quite familiar with his music, having grown up with it. I rather like it. His voice may not have been the best, but lyrically speaking, the man reeked of culture. Blowin' in the wind is powerful.0 -
Perhaps most important for you to consider is that he is a "personal" hero of Obama. Seeing as the recipient of the award is based upon the attitudes of the president (not the nation), your opinion of the man is moot. I personally do not like Ronald Reagan at all. What he did to mental health patients and the disabled is deplorable as far as I'm concerned. But... my opinion didn't matter when Bush 1 named him a personal hero. Just like my opinion of the religious "prophet," Gordon B. Hinckley didn't matter when Bust 2 honored him. Similarly, your opinion doesn't matter in who Obama names as personal hero. Your dislike for his music is irrelevant.
EDIT: and no need to post a video, I'm quite familiar with his music, having grown up with it. I rather like it. His voice may not have been the best, but lyrically speaking, the man reeked of culture. Blowin' in the wind is powerful.
Are you done with the personal attack? Jesus.
"your opinion of the man is moot"
"your opinion doesn't matter"
"Your dislike for his music is irrelevant."
Yeah, got it.0 -
Here's something else I wanted to add to this. We got side tracked on what heroic deeeds are and aren't, who is and isn't. We could debate the merits of each individual soldier for the next 100 years, and honestly, you wouldn't see me defending too many paper pushers in the military as "heroes" either.
But that isn't my issue. We all agreed about this Chris's dumb tiiming. Fine. But I don't think that this is the crux of his argument. Actually, I think their is a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice coming from these statements. He wasn't talking about not applying the word "hero" to every fallen soldier because it cheapens the term for those who threw themselves on gernades or did something actually and completely heroic. He was worried about the false patriotism and nationalism of blanketly calling all enlisted people heroes because it somehow gave indirect approval to a war he no longer/never approved of.
So if this is his opinion, and yours, and the criteria of using the word "hero" should be dependent on the justification of the war, if you are completely against it, think it unjust, evil, misguided, ect., then how can you claim that any sacrifice a military man or woman makes is heroic? He made the word, as have conservatives in the past, political. If you are dead set agains the war and a guy throws himself on a grenade to save his men and you think calling soldiers heroes gives approval to the wars......then great heroic deeds whould garner even more support for the wars.
I'll take it even a step further and really get out there. The Nazi's had heros. Now they, of course were, their heroes, but did heroic deeds. No one could argue that from a historical perspective. But we call them the opposite because they were the enemy....villains. Nationalism does that. But if I can be unbiased and admit that Nazis in fact had heroic people in their armies, it's not tacit approval of the Nazi party, is it?
It just sort of worries me that if you are doing something heroic, and the barometer being set too judge those deeds is a persons political feelings about the appropriateness of the war, then how long until we go from hero to villain?0 -
Are you done with the personal attack? Jesus.
"your opinion of the man is moot"
"your opinion doesn't matter"
"Your dislike for his music is irrelevant."
Yeah, got it.
I also said my opinion was moot. I wasn't trying to attack you personally, and I'm sorry if you read it that way. I was just saying that the opinion of any member of our nation is irrelevant for that award. The only opinion that matters for the award is that of the POTUS.0 -
Here's something else I wanted to add to this. We got side tracked on what heroic deeeds are and aren't, who is and isn't. We could debate the merits of each individual soldier for the next 100 years, and honestly, you wouldn't see me defending too many paper pushers in the military as "heroes" either.
But that isn't my issue. We all agreed about this Chris's dumb tiiming. Fine. But I don't think that this is the crux of his argument. Actually, I think their is a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice coming from these statements. He wasn't talking about not applying the word "hero" to every fallen soldier because it cheapens the term for those who threw themselves on gernades or did something actually and completely heroic. He was worried about the false patriotism and nationalism of blanketly calling all enlisted people heroes because it somehow gave indirect approval to a war he no longer/never approved of.
So if this is his opinion, and yours, and the criteria of using the word "hero" should be dependent on the justification of the war, if you are completely against it, think it unjust, evil, misguided, ect., then how can you claim that any sacrifice a military man or woman makes is heroic? He made the word, as have conservatives in the past, political. If you are dead set agains the war and a guy throws himself on a grenade to save his men and you think calling soldiers heroes gives approval to the wars......then great heroic deeds whould garner even more support for the wars.
I'll take it even a step further and really get out there. The Nazi's had heros. Now they, of course were, their heroes, but did heroic deeds. No one could argue that from a historical perspective. But we call them the opposite because they were the enemy....villains. Nationalism does that. But if I can be unbiased and admit that Nazis in fact had heroic people in their armies, it's not tacit approval of the Nazi party, is it?
It just sort of worries me that if you are doing something heroic, and the barometer being set too judge those deeds is a persons political feelings about the appropriateness of the war, then how long until we go from hero to villain?
I jumped into this debate late, and my primary debate wasn't centered on the initial topic. I had no intention of jumping in until I read the argument comparing soldiers, police, and firemen. I found a flaw in the argument, and that is where my debate lies. I am opposed to war, generally. I think it has a time and place that is appropriate, and I've disagreed with our current conflicts from the start. That being said, I still fully acknowledge that many men and women in our armed services are heroes.
The cheapening part-- that was my argument for why I felt the way I did. Not Chris'. I know that, that's why I'm debating from that perspective. I didn't say I agree with the man, my main debate was with what we can and cannot call a hero, and whether that term automatically applies to one simply because they serve. That's my apolitical stance on heroism.
I don't think that the definition of hero is dependent upon how just the conflict was. People who were never in combat can be heroes. Had I managed to actually save anyone by banging on doors at 3AM because of a fire, I'd be a big damn hero. Combat has nothing to do with the definition of hero. But using the term hero to justify future wars and instill nationalistic pride, that's a very real issue. And by calling ALL soldiers heroes as if "hero" was in the job description, that language lends itself to unnecessary nationalistic pride. Just because I don't think they are all heroes doesn't mean I don't think that most of them are.0 -
So if this is his opinion, and yours, and the criteria of using the word "hero" should be dependent on the justification of the war, if you are completely against it, think it unjust, evil, misguided, ect., then how can you claim that any sacrifice a military man or woman makes is heroic? He made the word, as have conservatives in the past, political. If you are dead set agains the war and a guy throws himself on a grenade to save his men and you think calling soldiers heroes gives approval to the wars......then great heroic deeds whould garner even more support for the wars.
I'll take it even a step further and really get out there. The Nazi's had heros. Now they, of course were, their heroes, but did heroic deeds. No one could argue that from a historical perspective. But we call them the opposite because they were the enemy....villains. Nationalism does that. But if I can be unbiased and admit that Nazis in fact had heroic people in their armies, it's not tacit approval of the Nazi party, is it?
It just sort of worries me that if you are doing something heroic, and the barometer being set too judge those deeds is a persons political feelings about the appropriateness of the war, then how long until we go from hero to villain?
While I understand the words you're using to ask the question, I'm not sure I'm understanding the question fully, but I'll try to answer as best as I can. Let's take the example of Nazi's. We could even make things more relevant and take an example of Afghans shooting at our troops now if we wanted.
I think when we call someone a Hero we must understand what context it's being used in. There is no universal here for me. If we say that both the US and the Nazis had heroes, we also must realize our benchmarks for what constitutes a Hero is dependent on perspective and the actions taken.
Suppose either or both soldiers save orphans from a building that's under fire. I think either side would probably call the opposing force's actions Hero worthy even if they oppose the other country's military; that's just a guess because I think both sides probably value the lives of innocent children.Now, there's a different kind of Hero who dies in the advancement of an agenda. The Nazi hero kills 1000 British soldiers with his bare hands in the name of the Fatherland until finally someone gets a lucky shot and kills him, and just reverse that for the Brits. Either side would consider their own fighter a Hero because they're directly representing the Nation and goals of that nation--which are not only not universal but in direct opposition. In that instance, either say can I say, "Yes I'm sure the other side thinks their person is a Hero, but we think he's a butcher." We can say the Nazi's had Heroes without approving of the Nazi's actions. I can say the US has Heroes without approving our actions.
The concept of individual Heroism fueling blind patriotism does exist but it doesn't have to--it just does sometimes. Let's say Random Guy (RG) is just a 20 year old kid with national pride in his heart and a sense of duty and obligation to his country, and he gets killed because he stepped on an explosive device while patrolling hostile territory. I don't automatically think he's a Hero. I might think he's a Hero if I think his death was necessary, if I think that sacrifice in the name of service is necessary or even made a difference. If I I say he wasn't necessarily a Hero, I'm not diminishing him or his willingness to die for his country. I'm saying we should think about what difference his death makes and is the cause he died for worth his death. I'm saying he died for the wrong reason.The response that I've been hearing is that it doesn't matter, he died for his country. Things aren't that simple for me. I think he died as a pawn by people who may have taken advantage of his youth, ignorance, and willingness. It might seem like an equivocation to say he didn't die a Hero, instead he died with a Hero's heart, but it's an important point to me.
Service and sacrifice to one's country is not always Heroic even though it can be, but that doesn't mean I'm not grateful to those who do serve. And because service and sacrifice to one's country is not always heroic, dying in service to one's country is not always heroic. There is nothing about good intentions or death that mitigate or justify a crappy reason to send people to die.
Obviously people just disagree with me about some of those points, and that's fine. It's just how I have to think about things (even things other than war) to get through the day/week/year/decade sometimes.
EDIT for TLDR:So if this is his opinion, and yours, and the criteria of using the word "hero" should be dependent on the justification of the war, if you are completely against it, think it unjust, evil, misguided, ect., then how can you claim that any sacrifice a military man or woman makes is heroic?
Because people die for all kinds of reasons in war, and it merits discussion. Likewise wars are fought for all kinds of reasons, some could arguably more just than others. In my example above RG dying because he stepped on mine may not be Heroic-though i suppose it might be depending-, but if he died because he pushed someone out of the way of danger and stepped on a land mine, I could call him a Hero. He saved a life. It's unlikely that anyone is going to convince me that people dying right now are dying for my freedom. Their service, through no fault or mal intention of their own, is a lie, and they are affected by that.0 -
Here's something else I wanted to add to this. We got side tracked on what heroic deeeds are and aren't, who is and isn't. We could debate the merits of each individual soldier for the next 100 years, and honestly, you wouldn't see me defending too many paper pushers in the military as "heroes" either.
But that isn't my issue. We all agreed about this Chris's dumb tiiming. Fine. But I don't think that this is the crux of his argument. Actually, I think their is a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice coming from these statements. He wasn't talking about not applying the word "hero" to every fallen soldier because it cheapens the term for those who threw themselves on gernades or did something actually and completely heroic. He was worried about the false patriotism and nationalism of blanketly calling all enlisted people heroes because it somehow gave indirect approval to a war he no longer/never approved of.
So if this is his opinion, and yours, and the criteria of using the word "hero" should be dependent on the justification of the war, if you are completely against it, think it unjust, evil, misguided, ect., then how can you claim that any sacrifice a military man or woman makes is heroic? He made the word, as have conservatives in the past, political. If you are dead set agains the war and a guy throws himself on a grenade to save his men and you think calling soldiers heroes gives approval to the wars......then great heroic deeds whould garner even more support for the wars.
I'll take it even a step further and really get out there. The Nazi's had heros. Now they, of course were, their heroes, but did heroic deeds. No one could argue that from a historical perspective. But we call them the opposite because they were the enemy....villains. Nationalism does that. But if I can be unbiased and admit that Nazis in fact had heroic people in their armies, it's not tacit approval of the Nazi party, is it?
It just sort of worries me that if you are doing something heroic, and the barometer being set too judge those deeds is a persons political feelings about the appropriateness of the war, then how long until we go from hero to villain?
I jumped into this debate late, and my primary debate wasn't centered on the initial topic. I had no intention of jumping in until I read the argument comparing soldiers, police, and firemen. I found a flaw in the argument, and that is where my debate lies. I am opposed to war, generally. I think it has a time and place that is appropriate, and I've disagreed with our current conflicts from the start. That being said, I still fully acknowledge that many men and women in our armed services are heroes.
The cheapening part-- that was my argument for why I felt the way I did. Not Chris'. I know that, that's why I'm debating from that perspective. I didn't say I agree with the man, my main debate was with what we can and cannot call a hero, and whether that term automatically applies to one simply because they serve. That's my apolitical stance on heroism.
I don't think that the definition of hero is dependent upon how just the conflict was. People who were never in combat can be heroes. Had I managed to actually save anyone by banging on doors at 3AM because of a fire, I'd be a big damn hero. Combat has nothing to do with the definition of hero. But using the term hero to justify future wars and instill nationalistic pride, that's a very real issue. And by calling ALL soldiers heroes as if "hero" was in the job description, that language lends itself to unnecessary nationalistic pride. Just because I don't think they are all heroes doesn't mean I don't think that most of them are.
No, I understood what you were saying and knew about where you came into the conversation, I wasn't equating what you said with what Chris said. I agree with much of what you said, but I still don't think that calling soldiers heroes blanketly, whether you agree with it or not, would some how legitimize unjust wars. Maybe I'm just weird. I'm anti-Iraq war, but I don't see how endosing current soldiers in Iraq as a hero would change mine or anyone elses mind on the subject.0 -
So if this is his opinion, and yours, and the criteria of using the word "hero" should be dependent on the justification of the war, if you are completely against it, think it unjust, evil, misguided, ect., then how can you claim that any sacrifice a military man or woman makes is heroic? He made the word, as have conservatives in the past, political. If you are dead set agains the war and a guy throws himself on a grenade to save his men and you think calling soldiers heroes gives approval to the wars......then great heroic deeds whould garner even more support for the wars.
I'll take it even a step further and really get out there. The Nazi's had heros. Now they, of course were, their heroes, but did heroic deeds. No one could argue that from a historical perspective. But we call them the opposite because they were the enemy....villains. Nationalism does that. But if I can be unbiased and admit that Nazis in fact had heroic people in their armies, it's not tacit approval of the Nazi party, is it?
It just sort of worries me that if you are doing something heroic, and the barometer being set too judge those deeds is a persons political feelings about the appropriateness of the war, then how long until we go from hero to villain?
While I understand the words you're using to ask the question, I'm not sure I'm understanding the question fully, but I'll try to answer as best as I can. Let's take the example of Nazi's. We could even make things more relevant and take an example of Afghans shooting at our troops now if we wanted.
I think when we call someone a Hero we must understand what context it's being used in. There is no universal here for me. If we say that both the US and the Nazis had heroes, we also must realize our benchmarks for what constitutes a Hero is dependent on perspective and the actions taken.
Suppose either or both soldiers save orphans from a building that's under fire. I think either side would probably call the opposing force's actions Hero worthy even if they oppose the other country's military; that's just a guess because I think both sides probably value the lives of innocent children.Now, there's a different kind of Hero who dies in the advancement of an agenda. The Nazi hero kills 1000 British soldiers with his bare hands in the name of the Fatherland until finally someone gets a lucky shot and kills him, and just reverse that for the Brits. Either side would consider their own fighter a Hero because they're directly representing the Nation and goals of that nation--which are not only not universal but in direct opposition. In that instance, either say can I say, "Yes I'm sure the other side thinks their person is a Hero, but we think he's a butcher." We can say the Nazi's had Heroes without approving of the Nazi's actions. I can say the US has Heroes without approving our actions.
The concept of individual Heroism fueling blind patriotism does exist but it doesn't have to--it just does sometimes. Let's say Random Guy (RG) is just a 20 year old kid with national pride in his heart and a sense of duty and obligation to his country, and he gets killed because he stepped on an explosive device while patrolling hostile territory. I don't automatically think he's a Hero. I might think he's a Hero if I think his death was necessary, if I think that sacrifice in the name of service is necessary or even made a difference. If I I say he wasn't necessarily a Hero, I'm not diminishing him or his willingness to die for his country. I'm saying we should think about what difference his death makes and is the cause he died for worth his death. I'm saying he died for the wrong reason.The response that I've been hearing is that it doesn't matter, he died for his country. Things aren't that simple for me. I think he died as a pawn by people who may have taken advantage of his youth, ignorance, and willingness. It might seem like an equivocation to say he didn't die a Hero, instead he died with a Hero's heart, but it's an important point to me.
Service and sacrifice to one's country is not always Heroic even though it can be, but that doesn't mean I'm not grateful to those who do serve. And because service and sacrifice to one's country is not always heroic, dying in service to one's country is not always heroic. There is nothing about good intentions or death that mitigate or justify a crappy reason to send people to die.
Obviously people just disagree with me about some of those points, and that's fine. It's just how I have to think about things (even things other than war) to get through the day/week/year/decade sometimes.
lots of good stuff in that post, but I will contine later. I got another one of my wicked headaches. Later.0 -
Maybe we need to come up with a hero rating system. 1-10. Jump on a greande = 10. Shot twice pulling friend to safety =8. Taking fire and not ****ting your pants. 4. Dying in an accident trying to resupply the front, 6. Enlisting 2. Stay at home mom. 1. Wacking off to intenet porn, 1/2.
If it's based on points, with enough volume, you could still earn a Presidential Medal of Freedom for #1.0 -
Unless you're talking about the hyperbolic statements like "OMG, I LOVE so-and-so, he's my hero," I've never actually heard anyone refer to these people as heroes.
"Obama honors Dylan, other 'heroes' for their influence"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/entertainment-us-usa-obama-medal-idUSBRE84S1A820120529
I would argue that fits the bill of the hyperbolic statement. A "personal hero" is different from a "hero." Obama honored his personal heroesSo many of these people are my heroes individually,
Take the example of my active duty friend I mentioned earlier. He examined this difference as an aside when he said "I hope to be my daughter's hero, but that's a different discussion. "
His decision to honor these people and call them personal heroes is not out of line when considering the award is for: "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." A personal hero is someone who inspires you to excel, someone who inspires and motivates. These people he listed fit that bill.
The word choice of the title was poorly chosen and I do not think Obama would put these individuals on par with the type of hero we are discussing here. If he would, then he is an idiot.
Only the most delusional partisan would try to spin it that way. We all have different "heroes" who inspire us in different ways. Trying to reserve the word, for example, just for someone in the miliary, is pretty shallow. Like any leader, the office of the President is as much about symbolism as anything else. Honor and recognition of fellow citizens are an important part of identifying the many parts that make us a great nation. The choices of each President will reflect his (and someday Hers) values and cultural upbringing.
Not every choice will have universal agreement, but almost every choice will resonate with at least one segment of the population, and that is important.0 -
Ok, so I have had some time to sit back and think about the things being said here and reflect on my responses. Although all who have been debating with me over the last several months if not longer know, I love a good spirited debate. I like em fiery and passionate, but even that being said, I never really get emotional over a debate. However, this time I believe that my responses were a bit emotional and I'll try my hardest to explain why.
My view on was never a very popular one during the initial phases of the wars. I could go on and detail all of the flawed thinking that I think got us into them, especially Iraq, but we could be here all day, but I can sum it all up with saying I have always had the gut feeling, a feeling that eventually backed up by lots of evidence and a feeling that I think most americans moved to, that our soldiers got screwed.
I can understand wanting to reserve the word "hero" for people who do actual heroic things like sacrificing their own life by jumping on the grenade and things of that nature. Logically it makes sense, sure. Nothing very heroic about being a Airforce guy who does paper work stateside for 20 years. But I dare say it's more heroic than most civilian jobs. And I don't think many vets or their families are trying to monopolize the word hero. If some one thinks Bob Dylan is a great personal hero...I don't have much of a problem with that.
But the celebrity worship in this nation is disgusting, and I do think many people do get irrate when the constant sacrifices made in one way or another by are service members are so forgotten, but we have hourly updates on Snooki's drunk *kitten*. I don't fell good about the war that our nation sent us to. Many of my friends do, still do, but I sometimes wonder if they have no choice because actually thinking that we were in Iraq for big money is more than they can handle emotionally so they cling the notion that we were their for some greater good. And maybe we were, I really don't feel like debating that at this time.
But when I look at the original thread of this debate, on who we should or should not apply the word "hero" to, you have to understand the automatic emotional response you are going to get from any veteran, especially on or around memorial day. Take my examples of my friend that died in Fallujah. That is a real story. And while I can understand that if you looked at the way he died, ambushed by an RPG and dying almost instantaneously, you are technically correct, that is not heroic. But he didn't have to die a heroic death to be a hero, because he lived like one. He, as were most the guys who died in our unit, heroic everyday in my eyes.
I don't think the average civilian possible knows what it is like to be in an actual combat zone. You could watch it on TV or read about it, you can even have people tell you about it, but until you live it it can't be descibed. Sure, people go through dangerous situations all the time in every aspect of life, but imagine being under the constant threat of death, of IED, of sniper fire, mortar attack, of not having enough men to secure your own fob and having insurgents creeping on to your base at night........now imaging all of that every day for a year, and being able to function and function well. Imagine waking up everyday while deployed with a smile and a joke, of burying your anxiety and fears for the sake of your buddies so you all could feel a little better. That's what my buds did.
So yes, I can see the point of not wanting to call a Navy accountant or any other multitude of paper pushers in the military a hero automatically by membership, but I think you have to see mine that whether or not you agree of disagree with the war or wars in general, so many of our combat guys deal with heroic stresses daily. The way they died almost is irrelevant at that point. And I think to take that away from them or their families just for fear of politically advancing the war is BS.0 -
I agree with him. Being in the military is a job just like anything else. It's not a volunteer position.0
-
So yes, I can see the point of not wanting to call a Navy accountant or any other multitude of paper pushers in the military a hero automatically by membership, but I think you have to see mine that whether or not you agree of disagree with the war or wars in general, so many of our combat guys deal with heroic stresses daily. The way they died almost is irrelevant at that point. And I think to take that away from them or their families just for fear of politically advancing the war is BS.
I'm happy to leave the conversation agreeing that vets aren't supported the way they should be given what they experience. This may just be a semantic problem because I have issues with a certain type of compartmentalizing.0 -
I have never seen army men as heroes. Never.
The wars are largely political, and innocent people pay the price for the greed of America and the UK.
I feel for the men who get killed, and I guess they're brave for going, but I don't see them as heroes.
And I don't think this guy should have apologised.0
