Should Soldiers Be Considered Heros?

[PirateMk1]

But if it's unjust, then so is fighting in it. Sacrificing yourself for injustice doesn't change that it's injustice.

Furthermore, most people I've known who went into the military don't think of it that way. They think of it as the only way they can afford college, or that it will be fun, or that they'll get to travel. Maybe that's a cultural thing up here - it could be. But even my half-sister, who's from down South, went into the military so she could afford college. Unfortunately, she had such severe PTSD when she came back that she couldn't even hold down a part-time job, let alone go to school.

And finally, I don't see how destructiveness can possibly be heroic in any circumstance. As I said in my first post, at best, it's a necessary tragedy. But that's not heroic. It's just sad. And you "liked" that post.

You dont believe that people end up in situations they have no control over, like say a war? The Vietnam war were soldiers were drafted, the Iraq war were a lot of soldiers who served their time ready to get out of the service, only to be stop lossed, are couple of situtations I can think of. Most kids when they join the military have absolutely no REAL clue as to what the military really is. Wars are unjust, they ALWAYS are. The sacrafice is almost never made for the good of the country, its made for their friends and comrads there with them. The scarafice is made at a personal level for personal reasons. It is not destruction that makes heros, its the sacrafice of self, both body and mind, that is heroic. Heroism is tragic, derived from tragic situations. You really cant have a hero otherwise. Not a real hero anyways. Took me a couple of years to like Independence Day again along with sleeping heavy the way I used to before I did my tours. Your sister will get better with time, as the memories fade a bit.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

You dont believe that people end up in situations they have no control over, like say a war? The Vietnam war were soldiers were drafted, the Iraq war were a lot of soldiers who served their time ready to get out of the service, only to be stop lossed, are couple of situtations I can think of. Most kids when they join the military have absolutely no REAL clue as to what the military really is.

Uh, when did I ever say that didn't happen? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that very thing at least twice.

Wars are unjust, they ALWAYS are. The sacrafice is almost never made for the good of the country, its made for their friends and comrads there with them. The scarafice is made at a personal level for personal reasons. It is not destruction that makes heros, its the sacrafice of self, both body and mind, that is heroic. Heroism is tragic, derived from tragic situations. You really cant have a hero otherwise. Not a real hero anyways. Took me a couple of years to like Independence Day again along with sleeping heavy the way I used to before I did my tours. Your sister will get better with time, as the memories fade a bit.

Heroism is derived from improving tragic situations by building things, not tearing them down and just hoping like hell that the open wound gets better and not worse, even though you know it'll probably get worse. That's what war is, most of the time. I just can't find it in me to see that as heroic - ever. At absolute best, in very rare cases, it might be necessary. But still not heroic. In most cases it's just senseless.

As far as on the personal front, I don't see how you can call it heroic when they're doing it by accident and had no clue what they were really getting into. It's not heroic if they didn't think they would be in that situation and once they figured it out, they can't leave. Heroism is a choice. People who don't know what they're getting into and aren't allowed to leave aren't deciding anything. They're being prayed upon by recruiters who know they're vulnerable.

Also, you can't divorce the cause from the act. You can't say self-sacrifice is heroic even if the cause is injust. By that logic, suicide bombers are heroic.

My sister has gotten better. It's been a few years since she came back. She still sits up and starts wailing on her boyfriend in her sleep, but she was able to go to school part time.

 

[Jerry]

With the United States not having been invaded since 1812, and millions of civilians having been killed in Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. We also spend about 750 billion on defense against middle easterners with ak-47s. I am tired of people yelling out ignorantly how we should support our troops. When they fight these useless wars(Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada). All for political gain and also another factor is the military industrial complex. All the companies that build the tanks, body armour, fighter jets, rifles ect... Do you think we should glorify war and our soldiers as hero's?

One is not a hero simply for putting on the uniform. While, hopefully, everyone in uniform will earn your respect and act as a roll-model, the exalted title of hero should be reserved for our honored dead, or those who should have died but somehow survived.

I understand the commercialization of the hero image at home, as it helps families cope with servicemen who are absent, and so out of respect for families with someone missing, I don't contest it.

 

[Jerry]

You can't just say well the soldiers dropped napalm on innocent citizens only because their political leadership told them too. They had a choice.\

Collateral damage leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. It is, however, sometimes necessary for the greater good; such as Hiroshima.

 

[Oozlefinch]

With the United States not having been invaded since 1812

Wrong, 1942.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I don't support any overseas war. I would only support a war if America was invaded.

Well, then your bias is already noted, and makes most of this topic pointless because of it.

This is yet another of those threads intended to bash the military, but disguised as something else.

 

[beerftw]

yes soldiers should be considered heros.

just think about this,how many soldiers agreed with iraq?????how many with vietnam????

why do they join?someones gotta volunteer to fight bs wars no one agrees with,its either that or the draft.if war our army was built by those who agreed with specific wars,we wouldnt have an army.there are even many reasons people join.just consider this,the army is largely black,most of them came from the ghetto and poor crime ridden areas with no good education or job opportunities.

for many of those people risking their lives in a war they didnt agree with was a fair price to raise a family outside of a poor/crime ridden city,and the military paid forit.others join the military for excitement or change.myself i joined because i was bored as hell,and saw the recruiter office and said what the hell cant get much more boring that tumbleweeds and horses.

you can hate the wars all you want,but hating the soldiers for answering their nations call so you dont have to,is absolute blasphemy.

 

[Sarcogito]

Wrong, 1942.

How was the attack on Pearl Harbor an invasion of the US? First, no Japanese soldiers laid boots on the ground. Second, Hawaii wasn't even a state back then.

 

[radcen]

Should Soldiers Be Considered Heros?

If they do something heroic.

 

[Oozlefinch]

How was the attack on Pearl Harbor an invasion of the US? First, no Japanese soldiers laid boots on the ground. Second, Hawaii wasn't even a state back then.

*shakes head in disbelief*

Pearl Harbor was in 1941 my friend. I was refering to the Invasion of the Aleutian Islands. When over 8,500 Japanese soldiers landed on and occupied parts of Alaska.

Aleutian Islands

And it does not matter if it is a state or not, it is still US territory. And do not forget, that 1941 can be included as well. Because Japan landed on Guam, Wake, and the Philippines. All US territory at the time. And I am sorry, that is US territory, if it is a state or not does not matter. Everybody that lived on thise islands were US citizens by birth..

 

[radcen]

How was the attack on Pearl Harbor an invasion of the US? First, no Japanese soldiers laid boots on the ground. Second, Hawaii wasn't even a state back then.

*shakes head in disbelief*

Pearl Harbor was in 1941 my friend. I was refering to the Invasion of the Aleutian Islands. When over 8,500 Japanese soldiers landed on and occupied parts of Alaska.

Aleutian Islands

And it does not matter if it is a state or not, it is still US territory. And do not forget, that 1941 can be included as well. Because Japan landed on Guam, Wake, and the Philippines. All US territory at the time. And I am sorry, that is US territory, if it is a state or not does not matter. Everybody that lived on thise islands were US citizens by birth..

I shake my head in disbelief also. In addition to what you said, the Japanese intentionally and purposely violated our airspace to carry out the attack. Technology had advanced enough that flying machines no longer restricted the concept of an invasion to only "boots on the ground".

Also (in response to other's posts), the Mexican-American War was fought, partially, on US soil. We had just annexed Texas and added it as a state, although Mexico still claimed it as their own as well in spite of the Texas Revolution a decade earlier.

 

[Wiggen]

I don't support any overseas war. I would only support a war if America was invaded.

So you would have opposed fighting Hitler until after he had defeated the Soviet Union, invaded Britain, and landed troops on the East Coast?

A military strategy truly mind-boggling in its simplicity. I'm assuming the same reasoning would have applied to the Japanese? Wait until they're actually marching on Seattle before we go to war.

Oh, I forgot. The Aleutian Islands.

Jesus.

 

[Wiggen]

With the United States not having been invaded since 1812, and millions of civilians having been killed in Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. We also spend about 750 billion on defense against middle easterners with ak-47s. I am tired of people yelling out ignorantly how we should support our troops. When they fight these useless wars(Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada). All for political gain and also another factor is the military industrial complex. All the companies that build the tanks, body armour, fighter jets, rifles ect... Do you think we should glorify war and our soldiers as hero's?

I think you're either very young or incredibly naive. Or maybe both. Anybody who doesn't support the soldiers called upon to fight these wars gets no respect in my book.

 

[StillBallin75]

With the United States not having been invaded since 1812, and millions of civilians having been killed in Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. We also spend about 750 billion on defense against middle easterners with ak-47s. I am tired of people yelling out ignorantly how we should support our troops. When they fight these useless wars(Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada). All for political gain and also another factor is the military industrial complex. All the companies that build the tanks, body armour, fighter jets, rifles ect... Do you think we should glorify war and our soldiers as hero's?

I personally think our troops should be humanized more than anything else.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

My first instinct is to think I would like to beat the crap out of liberal mike but on the hero thing, the word is overused these days. Being a soldier doesn't make you a hero, you are just doing your job. Going above and beyond the call of duty makes heroes. I was drafted and it was Nam or jail, I chose Nam so I deserve no special status and when people say, "thankyou for your service " I feel a bit uneasy. A hero is the man who ran out and drug my stupid surfer ass to safety as I layed in the mud with half a foot blown off and my left eye dangling on my cheek, THAT is a HERO and libmike can kiss my f**** ass! Now I think I am going to take a vacation from this online bs, the stupidity in here is making my blood pressure go up I think.:lol:

 

[radcen]

My first instinct is to think I would like to beat the crap out of liberal mike but on the hero thing, the word is overused these days. Being a soldier doesn't make you a hero, you are just doing your job. Going above and beyond the call of duty makes heroes. I was drafted and it was Nam or jail, I chose Nam so I deserve no special status and when people say, "thankyou for your service " I feel a bit uneasy. A hero is the man who ran out and drug my stupid surfer ass to safety as I layed in the mud with half a foot blown off and my left eye dangling on my cheek, THAT is a HERO and libmike can kiss my f**** ass! Now I think I am going to take a vacation from this online bs, the stupidity in here is making my blood pressure go up I think.:lol:

Pretty much agree with this. The word "hero" is overused, no doubt, but also no doubt that it does legitimately apply to some.

I only really disagree that you should feel uneasy when thanked for your service. Regardless your motivation, you did serve, and presuming you served honorably, a 'thank you' is appropriate.

 

[Dagger]

The troops should be supported and a huge portion of them are heroes. The wars are a different story though. Some wars should be supported and some shouldnt.

This. The soldiers do not choose where they go. They get their orders, and they go. Just because the politicians have them fighting in stupid wars doesnt mean they arent heroes. Dont get my wrong, not all soldiers are heroes, but a lot of them do go above and beyond the call of duty whether they choose to or not and truly are heroes.

 

[Higgins86]

personally no! Not unless they do something heroic in the field! I knew plenty of guys in the army who did anything they could do avoid the heavy lifting.

 

[iliveonramen]

personally no! Not unless they do something heroic in the field! I knew plenty of guys in the army who did anything they could do avoid the heavy lifting.

I'd have to disagree. I think the act of enlisting itself is a heroic act. When you sign that paper you do become property of the American people (or the UK in your case!).

You're pledging to fight the battles on behalf of your nation at the whims of the people. That's a pretty heroic stance. It's remarkably different than someone in a tri-corner hat with tea bags hanging off it claiming to be a patriot and bitching about their taxes. I don't see anything that is more patriotic rather than giving your life int he name of your country.

 

[Higgins86]

I'd have to disagree. I think the act of enlisting itself is a heroic act. When you sign that paper you do become property of the American people (or the UK in your case!).

You're pledging to fight the battles on behalf of your nation at the whims of the people. That's a pretty heroic stance. It's remarkably different than someone in a tri-corner hat with tea bags hanging off it claiming to be a patriot and bitching about their taxes. I don't see anything that is more patriotic rather than giving your life int he name of your country.

Problem is not everyone signs up for those reasons! Some people sign up to help pay for university, some people need a change and think the army will be for them and some people are just out of options. They go through basic training and suddenley they are in a warzone crying to an Officer " I didnt sign up for this" and do everything they can to get out of their contract.

 

[Foxfire]

But if it's unjust, then so is fighting in it. Sacrificing yourself for injustice doesn't change that it's injustice.

Furthermore, most people I've known who went into the military don't think of it that way. They think of it as the only way they can afford college, or that it will be fun, or that they'll get to travel. Maybe that's a cultural thing up here - it could be. But even my half-sister, who's from down South, went into the military so she could afford college. Unfortunately, she had such severe PTSD when she came back that she couldn't even hold down a part-time job, let alone go to school.

And finally, I don't see how destructiveness can possibly be heroic in any circumstance. As I said in my first post, at best, it's a necessary tragedy. But that's not heroic. It's just sad. And you "liked" that post.

We are the biggest, baddest apes in the monkey house. There will always be war. The same for peace. If it weren't for war, you'd probably be wearing black boots and speaking a different language.

 

[iliveonramen]

Problem is not everyone signs up for those reasons! Some people sign up to help pay for university, some people need a change and think the army will be for them and some people are just out of options. They go through basic training and suddenley they are in a warzone crying to an Officer " I didnt sign up for this" and do everything they can to get out of their contract.

I agree to an extent. When I joined there were a lot of career soldiers that served nearly 20 years of peacetime but the minute the military actually started doing stuff retired and got out. At the same time...no matter the reason I think signing on the dotted line is a heroic act. How they act once they sign up can vary but there are easier ways to pay for collge or better ways to better your life. One of my NCO's joined because he grew up in Detroit in gang ridden areas and dropped out of highschool. He also served multiple tours as an NCO in the infantry so no matter the reason for enlistment I think he's a hero.

 

[apdst]

You can't just say well the soldiers dropped napalm on innocent citizens only because their political leadership told them too. They had a choice.\

What I find most interesting, is how you skipped 180 odd years of American history and jumped straight to Vietnam.

 

[Smart]

Soldiers are not heroes. The word hero shouldn't be so defamed by including hired-guns.

 

[StillBallin75]

Soldiers are not heroes. The word hero shouldn't be so defamed by including hired-guns.

The US military isn't made up of mercenaries.