Veterans as "Heroes"
Replies
-
My question is: if we do believe that veterans are heroes, then why do they make up 23% of the homeless population?
^^^THIS! Fortunately, the culture of the military is changing so that more soldiers who come back wounded MENTALLY don't get as stigmatized as before for seeking treatment. The visibility of the wound doesn't always dictate the severity... Too many soldiers who've needed help (my great grandfather was a WWII vet and became an alcoholic as a result of his experiences... he subsequently died of alcoholism) aren't getting it and more alarmingly, are afraid to seek treatment. No more homeless vets!!!!!
Agreed. If anyone in this country deserves to be taken care of when needed most, it's out vets.0 -
Agreed. I had a friend who spent a long time at Walter Reed after hitting an IED and it was disturbing. One guy in a room near him had bugs all over his wounds. Black mold in the patient rooms, cockroaches, holes in the walls, stains in the walls and ceiling from leaky faucets and drains... I am glad that place is gone! It's sad that our troops come home to that, are patched up, discharged and forgotten.My question is: if we do believe that veterans are heroes, then why do they make up 23% of the homeless population?
^^^THIS! Fortunately, the culture of the military is changing so that more soldiers who come back wounded MENTALLY don't get as stigmatized as before for seeking treatment. The visibility of the wound doesn't always dictate the severity... Too many soldiers who've needed help (my great grandfather was a WWII vet and became an alcoholic as a result of his experiences... he subsequently died of alcoholism) aren't getting it and more alarmingly, are afraid to seek treatment. No more homeless vets!!!!!
Agreed. If anyone in this country deserves to be taken care of when needed most, it's out vets.
Oh I can't wait for government run healthcare!!! :sick:0 -
Some veterans are heros. Some aren't. I dislike a blanket statement that they are or are not. Judge on individual merit.0
-
Agreed. I had a friend who spent a long time at Walter Reed after hitting an IED and it was disturbing. One guy in a room near him had bugs all over his wounds. Black mold in the patient rooms, cockroaches, holes in the walls, stains in the walls and ceiling from leaky faucets and drains... I am glad that place is gone! It's sad that our troops come home to that, are patched up, discharged and forgotten.My question is: if we do believe that veterans are heroes, then why do they make up 23% of the homeless population?
^^^THIS! Fortunately, the culture of the military is changing so that more soldiers who come back wounded MENTALLY don't get as stigmatized as before for seeking treatment. The visibility of the wound doesn't always dictate the severity... Too many soldiers who've needed help (my great grandfather was a WWII vet and became an alcoholic as a result of his experiences... he subsequently died of alcoholism) aren't getting it and more alarmingly, are afraid to seek treatment. No more homeless vets!!!!!
Agreed. If anyone in this country deserves to be taken care of when needed most, it's out vets.
Oh I can't wait for government run healthcare!!! :sick:
That's a WHOLE other thread! lol0 -
I agree with this. This can apply to military people, too. The ones who join to protect and serve, fight in battle, save people's lives, risk their own, lose their own, etc are heroes to me. The ones who join the military because they don't know what to do with their lives after high school, hope to have a desk job and never see combat, who don't even have an ounce of patriotism are not heroes to me JUST because they're in the military (yes, I know some of these and wouldn't consider them heroes).I also think that Doctors are heroes. But you have to consider that some doctors go into it for prestige and money. A plastic surgeon who fixes childrens cleft pallets for free in Africa is a hero. But would you consider a surgeon who does breast implants for rich women to be a hero? Same premise.
I still have to disagree. What about the soldiers who are MIA or POW? We don't know what reason they joined for. Chosing service over jail time, because they got their gf pregnant, or they were drafted in Vietnam. Military and civilian archaeologists are still finding American soldiers in Hawaii, they are being dug up in Vietnam and Korea. There are soldiers my age in the middle east who have suffered unimaginable torture and been killed or held prisoner and their families never get closure. My point is, these people sign up for various reasons but Wars do not discriminate when it comes to who they claim or who has to fight.
I just recently learned about a family friend who was hospitalized last year for a mental breakdown. He is a Marine and good friend of my brother but what I consider a "bro". He has never been deployed. Constantly posting pictures of his naked muscles all over his facebook. Being a typical 21 year old with the "frat boy" mentality. We didn't know why he was hospitalized other then he got fired from his job, apparently for repeatedly asking some girl out. Apparently what happend was recently unclassifred and his hospitalization was a result of an incredible secret mission. His family was told he was going for special training at a base here in the U.S. He was actually on mission involing a small unit of talented Marines and also 1 of 2 out of about a dozen to make it back home. After years of viewing this kid as a *kitten* (for lack of a better word) I've comletely changed my mind about him. Just knowing he joined thinking it would make him cool and manly and realizing what he had done and how few people are selected to do these kind of things was a big eye opener to me.
I'm glad you were able to see the other side of one Marine's life. It's amazing how much we DON'T see regarding what the military does. Just remember all of those US Navy Seals that didn't make it home after going in to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden. Their identities cannot be revealed for the sake of the safety of their families and for national security. They will never receive public recognition for their actions, but to them, that's okay. They're willing to be the guy you don't see doing all of the low-profile super tactical stuff to bring down the real threats to the US. And I think it's best kept that way. The military isn't just a bunch of guys (and girls) running in formation calling cadence; it isn't just those men and women coming home and seeing their families for the first time in a year; it isn't just a division of soldiers being deployed to help in during international natural disasters. It's so much more than even the average solider will ever know.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.
We have a very nice phrase that I oft repeat to ungrateful and self-centered people like you:
If you won't stand behind our service men and women, feel free to stand in front of them.
I'd like to add: And feel free to catch a bullet while you're at it.0 -
We have a very nice phrase that I oft repeat to ungrateful and self-centered people like you:
If you won't stand behind our service men and women, feel free to stand in front of them.
I'd like to add: And feel free to catch a bullet while you're at it.
That's just assinine, suggesting that if you don't think service people are heroic, they deserve to be murdered. Again, some service people are indeed heroic. And some are just doing their job. And still others are the antithesis of heroic. Being in the employ of Uncle Sam doesn't automatically determine a hero.0 -
"Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?" - Straw-man, argue with what I said - not what you think I said.
Being a hero requires a heroic act.Over the weekend, Chris Hayes from MSNBC said that he felt uncomfortable calling classifying all veterans and "heroes."“Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’?” Hayes said. “I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76799.html
Of course, he has since made the token apology.
I disagree with him, I think volunteering for military service given the possible consequences his a heroic act in and of itself, but I do think he raises an interesting point. We do tend to equate military service with "fighting to protect our freedom," when "our freedom" is usually only on the line in a tangential sense, if that.
On a related note, I wish people would just say what they think without issuing the B.S apology.
What about the troops who go over & kill civilians?, are they heroes? - not everybody who puts on a uniform should automatically get given that title.
A lone stranger pulling a women from a burning car, risking death is a hero - as they don't get paid for it & nobody expects them to do it, neither do they kill people.
Killing people in another country (often to acquire resources) is hardly at the same level as the above.
Now, world war 2 vets - I agree, as it was to prevent the extermination of another race, but now? - no, I think it cheapens the respect the real veterans of the world wars deserve.
Note - To clarify, some of the actions of modern army medics (along with those in history) are indeed heroic - those have my respect (because it's earned).
So WWII vets are more heroic than vets of OIF and OEF?
Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?
It's a sad reality that the US public opinion of service members is so highly influenced by the disgraceful actions of less than a handful of stupid soldiers that decide to use their position to cause undue harm in a war zone.
Before you judge ALL military service members by the actions of ONE or TWO men or women who are completely unfit to wear the uniform, ask if you would feel comfortable being judged by the actions of a disgruntled coworker who blows up the corporate office of your company...
Just serving and giving up 20 + years of your and your family's life to the military must not be a respectful pursuit.... Every soldier plays a part in helping carry out a mission, whether it's killing the enemy or helping to restore peace and order. It's really sad very few soldiers ever receive recognition for their efforts. Hence why there are currently only 2 living recipients of the MOH.
To be a hero the purpose for the deployment needs to be recognized.
You can't be a hero in a war in which you are supporting the theft of another country's natural resources - the reason the WW2 vet's are heroes is because the war was just.
The Iraq was based on a lie, he didn't have weapons of mass destruction - the war was about the acquisition of oil & the following building contracts.
It's not may fault that people have been joining the military to fight morally bankrupt wars, neither is it my problem if you served to fight wars with no real justification.
Civilians will die in war, this is unavoidable - so if an army is deployed to steal resources any subsequent civilians casualties are unjustified & the war immoral.0 -
"Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?" - Straw-man, argue with what I said - not what you think I said.
Being a hero requires a heroic act.Over the weekend, Chris Hayes from MSNBC said that he felt uncomfortable calling classifying all veterans and "heroes."“Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’?” Hayes said. “I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76799.html
Of course, he has since made the token apology.
I disagree with him, I think volunteering for military service given the possible consequences his a heroic act in and of itself, but I do think he raises an interesting point. We do tend to equate military service with "fighting to protect our freedom," when "our freedom" is usually only on the line in a tangential sense, if that.
On a related note, I wish people would just say what they think without issuing the B.S apology.
What about the troops who go over & kill civilians?, are they heroes? - not everybody who puts on a uniform should automatically get given that title.
A lone stranger pulling a women from a burning car, risking death is a hero - as they don't get paid for it & nobody expects them to do it, neither do they kill people.
Killing people in another country (often to acquire resources) is hardly at the same level as the above.
Now, world war 2 vets - I agree, as it was to prevent the extermination of another race, but now? - no, I think it cheapens the respect the real veterans of the world wars deserve.
Note - To clarify, some of the actions of modern army medics (along with those in history) are indeed heroic - those have my respect (because it's earned).
So WWII vets are more heroic than vets of OIF and OEF?
Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?
It's a sad reality that the US public opinion of service members is so highly influenced by the disgraceful actions of less than a handful of stupid soldiers that decide to use their position to cause undue harm in a war zone.
Before you judge ALL military service members by the actions of ONE or TWO men or women who are completely unfit to wear the uniform, ask if you would feel comfortable being judged by the actions of a disgruntled coworker who blows up the corporate office of your company...
Just serving and giving up 20 + years of your and your family's life to the military must not be a respectful pursuit.... Every soldier plays a part in helping carry out a mission, whether it's killing the enemy or helping to restore peace and order. It's really sad very few soldiers ever receive recognition for their efforts. Hence why there are currently only 2 living recipients of the MOH.
To be a hero the purpose for the deployment needs to be recognized.
You can't be a hero in a war in which you are supporting the theft of another country's natural resources - the reason the WW2 vet's are heroes is because the war was just.
The Iraq was based on a lie, he didn't have weapons of mass destruction - the war was about the acquisition of oil & the following building contracts.
It's not may fault that people have been joining the military to fight morally bankrupt wars, neither is it my problem if you served to fight wars with no real justification.
Civilians will die in war, this is unavoidable - so if an army is deployed to steal resources any subsequent civilians casualties are unjustified & the war immoral.
So how, in you eyes, if the wars are unjust, do Army Medics become heroes, if the wars are immoral and unjust. They are just healing us resource stealers to get back on the battle field.0 -
Well I'm not referencing to the ones who kill people for a start, as killing people during an invasion isn't heroic.
"Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?" - Straw-man, argue with what I said - not what you think I said.
Being a hero requires a heroic act.Over the weekend, Chris Hayes from MSNBC said that he felt uncomfortable calling classifying all veterans and "heroes."“Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’?” Hayes said. “I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76799.html
Of course, he has since made the token apology.
I disagree with him, I think volunteering for military service given the possible consequences his a heroic act in and of itself, but I do think he raises an interesting point. We do tend to equate military service with "fighting to protect our freedom," when "our freedom" is usually only on the line in a tangential sense, if that.
On a related note, I wish people would just say what they think without issuing the B.S apology.
What about the troops who go over & kill civilians?, are they heroes? - not everybody who puts on a uniform should automatically get given that title.
A lone stranger pulling a women from a burning car, risking death is a hero - as they don't get paid for it & nobody expects them to do it, neither do they kill people.
Killing people in another country (often to acquire resources) is hardly at the same level as the above.
Now, world war 2 vets - I agree, as it was to prevent the extermination of another race, but now? - no, I think it cheapens the respect the real veterans of the world wars deserve.
Note - To clarify, some of the actions of modern army medics (along with those in history) are indeed heroic - those have my respect (because it's earned).
So WWII vets are more heroic than vets of OIF and OEF?
Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?
It's a sad reality that the US public opinion of service members is so highly influenced by the disgraceful actions of less than a handful of stupid soldiers that decide to use their position to cause undue harm in a war zone.
Before you judge ALL military service members by the actions of ONE or TWO men or women who are completely unfit to wear the uniform, ask if you would feel comfortable being judged by the actions of a disgruntled coworker who blows up the corporate office of your company...
Just serving and giving up 20 + years of your and your family's life to the military must not be a respectful pursuit.... Every soldier plays a part in helping carry out a mission, whether it's killing the enemy or helping to restore peace and order. It's really sad very few soldiers ever receive recognition for their efforts. Hence why there are currently only 2 living recipients of the MOH.
To be a hero the purpose for the deployment needs to be recognized.
You can't be a hero in a war in which you are supporting the theft of another country's natural resources - the reason the WW2 vet's are heroes is because the war was just.
The Iraq was based on a lie, he didn't have weapons of mass destruction - the war was about the acquisition of oil & the following building contracts.
It's not may fault that people have been joining the military to fight morally bankrupt wars, neither is it my problem if you served to fight wars with no real justification.
Civilians will die in war, this is unavoidable - so if an army is deployed to steal resources any subsequent civilians casualties are unjustified & the war immoral.
So how, in you eyes, if the wars are unjust, do Army Medics become heroes, if the wars are immoral and unjust. They are just healing us resource stealers to get back on the battle field.
In total honesty, even calling them heroes is a stretch - the medic was me meeting the discussion part way.
I don't blame them for being indoctrinated to fight for a country which objectively doesn't give a toss if they live or die (apart from the wasted money) - they are victims of the same kind of exploitation.
Picking stupid or poor kids & giving them weapons & getting them to die abroad in a pointless war to steal resources... I feel sorry for them if anything.
The worst part is they believe they are protecting the people - when in reality the actions of the military abroad are the direct cause of the terrorist activities which resulted in civilian casualties at home.0 -
Well I'm not referencing to the ones who kill people for a start, as killing people during an invasion isn't heroic.
"Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?" - Straw-man, argue with what I said - not what you think I said.
Being a hero requires a heroic act.Over the weekend, Chris Hayes from MSNBC said that he felt uncomfortable calling classifying all veterans and "heroes."“Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’?” Hayes said. “I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76799.html
Of course, he has since made the token apology.
I disagree with him, I think volunteering for military service given the possible consequences his a heroic act in and of itself, but I do think he raises an interesting point. We do tend to equate military service with "fighting to protect our freedom," when "our freedom" is usually only on the line in a tangential sense, if that.
On a related note, I wish people would just say what they think without issuing the B.S apology.
What about the troops who go over & kill civilians?, are they heroes? - not everybody who puts on a uniform should automatically get given that title.
A lone stranger pulling a women from a burning car, risking death is a hero - as they don't get paid for it & nobody expects them to do it, neither do they kill people.
Killing people in another country (often to acquire resources) is hardly at the same level as the above.
Now, world war 2 vets - I agree, as it was to prevent the extermination of another race, but now? - no, I think it cheapens the respect the real veterans of the world wars deserve.
Note - To clarify, some of the actions of modern army medics (along with those in history) are indeed heroic - those have my respect (because it's earned).
So WWII vets are more heroic than vets of OIF and OEF?
Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?
It's a sad reality that the US public opinion of service members is so highly influenced by the disgraceful actions of less than a handful of stupid soldiers that decide to use their position to cause undue harm in a war zone.
Before you judge ALL military service members by the actions of ONE or TWO men or women who are completely unfit to wear the uniform, ask if you would feel comfortable being judged by the actions of a disgruntled coworker who blows up the corporate office of your company...
Just serving and giving up 20 + years of your and your family's life to the military must not be a respectful pursuit.... Every soldier plays a part in helping carry out a mission, whether it's killing the enemy or helping to restore peace and order. It's really sad very few soldiers ever receive recognition for their efforts. Hence why there are currently only 2 living recipients of the MOH.
To be a hero the purpose for the deployment needs to be recognized.
You can't be a hero in a war in which you are supporting the theft of another country's natural resources - the reason the WW2 vet's are heroes is because the war was just.
The Iraq was based on a lie, he didn't have weapons of mass destruction - the war was about the acquisition of oil & the following building contracts.
It's not may fault that people have been joining the military to fight morally bankrupt wars, neither is it my problem if you served to fight wars with no real justification.
Civilians will die in war, this is unavoidable - so if an army is deployed to steal resources any subsequent civilians casualties are unjustified & the war immoral.
So how, in you eyes, if the wars are unjust, do Army Medics become heroes, if the wars are immoral and unjust. They are just healing us resource stealers to get back on the battle field.
In total honesty, even calling them heroes is a stretch - the medic was me meeting the discussion part way.
I don't blame them for being indoctrinated to fight for a country which objectively doesn't give a toss if they live or die (apart from the wasted money) - they are victims of the same kind of exploitation.
Picking stupid or poor kids & giving them weapons & getting them to die abroad in a pointless war to steal resources... I feel sorry for them if anything.
The worst part is they believe they are protecting the people - when in reality the actions of the military abroad are the direct cause of the terrorist activities which resulted in civilian casualties at home.
Which resources have we stolen in Iraq? Not saying you are wrong, just never seen any article on it.0 -
Well I'm not referencing to the ones who kill people for a start, as killing people during an invasion isn't heroic.
"Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?" - Straw-man, argue with what I said - not what you think I said.
Being a hero requires a heroic act.Over the weekend, Chris Hayes from MSNBC said that he felt uncomfortable calling classifying all veterans and "heroes."“Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’?” Hayes said. “I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76799.html
Of course, he has since made the token apology.
I disagree with him, I think volunteering for military service given the possible consequences his a heroic act in and of itself, but I do think he raises an interesting point. We do tend to equate military service with "fighting to protect our freedom," when "our freedom" is usually only on the line in a tangential sense, if that.
On a related note, I wish people would just say what they think without issuing the B.S apology.
What about the troops who go over & kill civilians?, are they heroes? - not everybody who puts on a uniform should automatically get given that title.
A lone stranger pulling a women from a burning car, risking death is a hero - as they don't get paid for it & nobody expects them to do it, neither do they kill people.
Killing people in another country (often to acquire resources) is hardly at the same level as the above.
Now, world war 2 vets - I agree, as it was to prevent the extermination of another race, but now? - no, I think it cheapens the respect the real veterans of the world wars deserve.
Note - To clarify, some of the actions of modern army medics (along with those in history) are indeed heroic - those have my respect (because it's earned).
So WWII vets are more heroic than vets of OIF and OEF?
Are you so deluded that you actually think ALL soldiers are bloodthirsty criminals who just want to kill people?
It's a sad reality that the US public opinion of service members is so highly influenced by the disgraceful actions of less than a handful of stupid soldiers that decide to use their position to cause undue harm in a war zone.
Before you judge ALL military service members by the actions of ONE or TWO men or women who are completely unfit to wear the uniform, ask if you would feel comfortable being judged by the actions of a disgruntled coworker who blows up the corporate office of your company...
Just serving and giving up 20 + years of your and your family's life to the military must not be a respectful pursuit.... Every soldier plays a part in helping carry out a mission, whether it's killing the enemy or helping to restore peace and order. It's really sad very few soldiers ever receive recognition for their efforts. Hence why there are currently only 2 living recipients of the MOH.
To be a hero the purpose for the deployment needs to be recognized.
You can't be a hero in a war in which you are supporting the theft of another country's natural resources - the reason the WW2 vet's are heroes is because the war was just.
The Iraq was based on a lie, he didn't have weapons of mass destruction - the war was about the acquisition of oil & the following building contracts.
It's not may fault that people have been joining the military to fight morally bankrupt wars, neither is it my problem if you served to fight wars with no real justification.
Civilians will die in war, this is unavoidable - so if an army is deployed to steal resources any subsequent civilians casualties are unjustified & the war immoral.
So how, in you eyes, if the wars are unjust, do Army Medics become heroes, if the wars are immoral and unjust. They are just healing us resource stealers to get back on the battle field.
In total honesty, even calling them heroes is a stretch - the medic was me meeting the discussion part way.
I don't blame them for being indoctrinated to fight for a country which objectively doesn't give a toss if they live or die (apart from the wasted money) - they are victims of the same kind of exploitation.
Picking stupid or poor kids & giving them weapons & getting them to die abroad in a pointless war to steal resources... I feel sorry for them if anything.
The worst part is they believe they are protecting the people - when in reality the actions of the military abroad are the direct cause of the terrorist activities which resulted in civilian casualties at home.
Also, I just re-read your statements....wow. I bet there is so much we could come to agree on, but honestly, anyone who would generalize that military men in women are poor or stupid is a little ridiculous. I could go on forever about this but the statement is so silly I almost think this might be a trolling atempt. And you might want to lay off calling out other peoples intelligence into question when claiming things like we went into WW II to stop genocide....when we didn't even find the concentration camps until we invaded Germany at the end of the war. That is basic high shcool history.0 -
War is not glorious or noble, and the service member who thinks it is -- the rare sociopath aside -- matures quickly enough once in combat (unless they need the false bravado to stay sane). War means your nation has failed all other means of conflict resolution. It is the political tool of last resort. So if your nation is using it, it means the cause is worth bloodshed...or your nation just really sucks at exercising its diplomatic & economic tools. Or you have decision-makers that take the decision to send its people to die far too lightly.
Here's the thing about military service. You swear an oath to uphold the US constitution, to protect its ideals against all enemies. Other than deciding whether an individual order is illegal or not (I.e., Abu Ghraib), the rest is up to the nation's government. Part of service is accepting that other people are going to be the ones deciding what's worth dying over, and placing your faith in your nation to make the right call for the greater good. That's a lot of trust to place in politicians -- and in my opinion, previous regimes played far too fast & loose with other people's lives.
So if war is not glorious or noble, I can't say it's heroic. And if war is not heroic, then people serving in war are not by default heroes. But at some point, you have to decide what you think a hero is. Virtually all my co-workers cringe at being hailed a hero, because we all know someone who has sacrificed more. There are far too many examples of servicemembers who have died saving others, going into it knowing full well they weren't likely to survive. And here's the thing -- I don't think many of them were thinking about winning the big war for their country; I'm pretty sure they were more concerned about saving the lives of their friends (and "friends" is such an inadequate word for the bond). And yes, I think running out under heavy fire to drag in a wounded comrade is heroic. Necessary, expected even -- but still heroic. But it's also just being part of a family -- wouldn't you do the same for your brother or sister?
As for those that die in less "heroic" ways -- I say we give them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of their families. Yes, it may be white-washing, but we don't know what they could/would have done if given the chance, and they volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to protect this nation's interests. It's a lot easier for a 6-year-old to understand their parent is a hero than that they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So while I may not think being blown up by an IED automatically makes someone a hero, I will accord them the respect they deserve for stepping up to the plate -- and if that means calling them a hero because it's a concept a kid can understand, I'm okay with it.
As for some of the other points I saw brought up in this thread, I think any career of service deserves respect. Yes, there IS a difference between the plastic surgeon that does it for the cash and the one that does it to rebuild faces for low/no cost. Sure, there will always be a small group in the military who are there because they couldn't get a "real" job. The rest of us do it because we are here to serve the greater good of our society as a whole, and this is our way of protecting and serving -- just like police officers, firefighters, social workers, etc. Putting up with the ignorant/under-informed that think we're mindless robots who just weren't smart enough to do anything else (despite most of my peers having master's degrees, with a few PhDs thrown in for fun) is annoying, but unfortunately old hat.
That said, while I strongly believe service deserves respect (and service in turn, when we return broken and battered), it should not be glorified. War is supposed to be ugly. The military is an honorable profession, but should never be revered or placed above the public it is there to serve. This nation is run by civilians. If I had my way, it'd be run by civilians with at least a few year's experience in the military -- but it is a civilian government, not a military government. The military's business is preparing for and fighting war -- that's no way to run a nation. The military needs to be kept in its place -- which is honorable service to the nation -- and not placed on a pedestal, lest it start gaining political powers it was never intended to have.
My 2 cents.0
