Veterans as "Heroes"
Replies
-
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 -
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.
But what if a soldier ran into a burning building and saved a homosexual puppy?0 -
But what if a soldier ran into a burning building and saved a homosexual puppy?
Gee thanks for stealing my idea for new gay porn script. It does require an alternate definition of puppy, but I could have made millions. Job killer.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.
Wow, you do realize that soldiers don't decided what wars we are in and what orders they are given right? They are bound and forced to carrie out their orders whether they argree with them or not or they could be court marshalled and imprisoned.
Do you have any idea what life is like for a soldier and their family? Imagine the worst possible employer scenarios: you don't get your paycheck, you don't get you benefits set up how you are supposed to. You can't go to a lawyer or the government for help because THEY are your employer. Not to mention their entire life serves the post or base they live on. Their housing, food, everything! If a woman gets robbed off base/post and don't have their ID, and their husband is deployed, do you know what she has to go through just to get back inside her home. If a woman is down to her last dollar and the government screws up her husbands payday, how is she going to get food for her kids. It is a mess.
For those who live off base/post, they have the fear of everyday knowing their spouse could be killed, and the chance of that happening is high. Just yesterday we had a 23 year old Marine die. He was married for 7 months. Having to go months or a year or more without seeing their spouse and the hardships that come with that for their children.
These people choose, for whatever reason, to take this risk and enter a rough career and life. Before anyone bashes what a military person does, I dare them to spend one day on the job.0 -
Well, when your country is in fear of losing its freedom, I'm sure you'll think differently of our American soldiers.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 -
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.
you 'guess?'
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.
you 'guess?'
Yes, I 'guess'.
Just because you, and/or others, see it as brave, it doesn't make it a fact. 'Brave' is subjective.0 -
Well, when your country is in fear of losing its freedom, I'm sure you'll think differently of our American soldiers.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.
Oh, the old American patrioism, wahey!
I guess the fear of losing your freedom of greed, money and oil is worth millions of innocent Iraqi and children's lives.
*thumbs up*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.
Wow, you do realize that soldiers don't decided what wars we are in and what orders they are given right? They are bound and forced to carrie out their orders whether they argree with them or not or they could be court marshalled and imprisoned.
Do you have any idea what life is like for a soldier and their family? Imagine the worst possible employer scenarios: you don't get your paycheck, you don't get you benefits set up how you are supposed to. You can't go to a lawyer or the government for help because THEY are your employer. Not to mention their entire life serves the post or base they live on. Their housing, food, everything! If a woman gets robbed off base/post and don't have their ID, and their husband is deployed, do you know what she has to go through just to get back inside her home. If a woman is down to her last dollar and the government screws up her husbands payday, how is she going to get food for her kids. It is a mess.
For those who live off base/post, they have the fear of everyday knowing their spouse could be killed, and the chance of that happening is high. Just yesterday we had a 23 year old Marine die. He was married for 7 months. Having to go months or a year or more without seeing their spouse and the hardships that come with that for their children.
These people choose, for whatever reason, to take this risk and enter a rough career and life. Before anyone bashes what a military person does, I dare them to spend one day on the job.
Oh for God's sake.
Look. I do not have some stupid vendetta against people in the army, and nor do I automatically hate them.
But I have never seen them as brave. Get over it - not everyone fawns over soldiers. And, yes, I understand they are following orders but following orders doesn't mean you're not accountable for your actions. I don't think Manson's followers are unaccountable because they were following orders, okay?
"Do you have any idea what life is like for a soldier and their family? Imagine the worst possible employer scenarios: you don't get your paycheck, you don't get you benefits set up how you are supposed to. You can't go to a lawyer or the government for help because THEY are your employer. Not to mention their entire life serves the post or base they live on. Their housing, food, everything! If a woman gets robbed off base/post and don't have their ID, and their husband is deployed, do you know what she has to go through just to get back inside her home. If a woman is down to her last dollar and the government screws up her husbands payday, how is she going to get food for her kids. It is a mess. <-- what has that got to do with me not thinking they're heroes?"
For those who live off base/post, they have the fear of everyday knowing their spouse could be killed, and the chance of that happening is high. Just yesterday we had a 23 year old Marine die. He was married for 7 months. Having to go months or a year or more without seeing their spouse and the hardships that come with that for their children.
These people choose, for whatever reason, to take this risk and enter a rough career and life. Before anyone bashes what a military person does, I dare them to spend one day on the job.
Again, I have empathy for their spouses, kid's etc, but these people CHOOSE to go into the army. They are not forced to, like in WW1 & 2.
I see doctor's as heroes, not people whose job is to kill and follow orders of a shady Government.
If that upsets you, that's your problem - not mine. But don't try and guilt trip me because I don't share America's fetish with soldiers. I was not raised in a family that fawns over Government pawns.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.
But what if a soldier ran into a burning building and saved a homosexual puppy?
Always.
I don't think a soldier can't be brave. I just don't think it's a heroic thing to go to war unless the war was started by the enemy/is a case of life and death.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 LOVE this. You said everything I wanted to say in a much more eloquent way.0
