Are soldiers heroes?

[Jack-Hammer]

People are entitled to their opinions and all but a HUGE amount of what I've read in this thread seems to entail a lot of hot air from people that honestly don't have the first clue about what they're talking about. They watch CNN, surf the net for news, pick up a newspaper now and again and they declare themselves an expert on all things military.

When it comes to military service, at least to a large degree, I think you're talking out of your ass if you're someone that hasn't been in the military. That doesn't mean that you're wrong for not agreeing with military action that's been taken by the United States government at various times over the course of the past five or six decades. The sad truth is that war usually consists of old men talking and young men dying. I do have issues with some of our leaders as some of them actually seem to salivate at the thought of military conflict, but that's not the fault of the soldiers.

I think there's also a great deal of naive ideals in this thread. The way things actually are and the way we'd like them to be are often not on the same page. It would be WONDERFUL if the so called leaders of the world would actually sit down and go to exhaustive extremes to talk about issues before resorting to military action. The problem is that there are many, both in the United States and other countries as well, that feel you have to show military might to prove just how great of a country you are. Over the decades, the government has put out so much propoganda depicting the United States as this shining beacon, really almost a Promised Land kind of place, that generations of people have bought into it and believe it. And yes, some of the people that buy into it are people that go into military service. I certainly don't buy into all the various propoganda that our leaders have shoveled out over the years, but when exactly did it become a bad thing to actually love your country? Sure, America's not perfect by any stretch but all the outright hate that the country seems to get from its own people, especially from the current generation, just makes me shake my head with wonder.

As to all this philosophical bullshit about what does and doesn't make a hero, I think it's a good example of what I'm talking about. As a society, far too many of us try to wittle down everything with technicalities and loop holes so that they can feel truly justified in making their own opinions on subjects that many of them don't really have the first clue about. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need soldiers but the world isn't ideal. The simple fact is that we do need soldiers, if for no other reason, than to prepare for the possibility of someone attempting to take our country from us. Humans conquering other humans is something that, if you go with the theories of most archaeologists today, has been going on since the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons crossed paths tens of thousands of years ago. Even today, there are still people out there that would love to take control of our country. We fucked up in Korea & Vietnam in my view, just as we did with Iraq in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that the men and women that sacrificed their lives don't deserve to be treated with respect.

As far as them being overly compensated for what they do, that sounds like something that only someone would say if they've never had justification to fear for their life. Not everybody comes from a nice clean cut middle class or even wealthy family in America. Not everyone was born with having more opportunities within their each. Service in the military does give people a chance to improve their lives in ways that they might not otherwise have. After all, especially today, lots of parents can't afford to send their children to college. I have a cousin that graduated from college this past summer and she has over $60,000 in student loans that she'll be paying off for years and years to come. She says now that she wished she'd have enlisted first before college.

I don't see soldiers as some sort of living, breathing embodiment of what men and women should be. But they do deserve respect in my opinion and, unfortunately, they get too little of it. What makes a hero to me is someone that's willing to put their personal safety and lives on the line for the sake of others, whether they get paid to do that or not. Drag your heads out of the myths of ancient Greece or whatever other sort of fictional realm one uses to measure heroes. Real life isn't perfect, it isn't scripted in which good and bad are always laid out in nice, neat little rows. Sometimes, you've simply got to do the best you can with what you've got and make the most of it.

 

[Loveless]

For so many reasons, absolutely not. Anyone who knowingly volunteers themselves for a job where killing people is part of the territory can never ever be a hero.
Willingly put in the position of danger, I'm fairly confident the priority is to simply survive, then it's to get the job done. Again, that goes against the definition because it's self-serving.
Thirdly, soldiers are little more than tools who follow orders. After the moment you sign your life away, everything you do is decided by someone else.

There are of course exceptions but I get somewhat annoyed when people get celebrated, simply for doing the job they signed up for.

 

[Kidd]

In first look, yeah they are heroes. I mean they are indeed risking their lives right? But, you see IMO a hero is not someone that has his life in danger. A hero for me is a person that has a moral duty to SAVE the life of another human being. How many times on wars someone has KILLED someone else. Granted, "they were fighting for save their own lives", but I mean, it doesn't matter under wich circumstances can be, to kill someone is always WRONG. A guy that has risked his life is a hero (a fire fighter for example) but a guy that ends someone else's life because it's his job, it's his moral conviction etc. isn't a hero. I'm not saying that all militarys are like this but I mean how can I say that someone is a hero if he kills/rapes someone?

Who said anything about rape??

I can't speak for the military of other countries but when I went through basic training, we were never taught to rape.

As far as the rest of your post goes, in war fare, what do you think goes on? Do you think that when you come under attack, that you just stand there and have a staring contest?

If a soldier takes the life of the enemy, he is saving the life of another fellow soldier. Honestly, I'm scratching my head at the fact that this concept is beyond some people here.

 

[Kidd]

For so many reasons, absolutely not. Anyone who knowingly volunteers themselves for a job where killing people is part of the territory can never ever be a hero.
Willingly put in the position of danger, I'm fairly confident the priority is to simply survive, then it's to get the job done. Again, that goes against the definition because it's self-serving.
Thirdly, soldiers are little more than tools who follow orders. After the moment you sign your life away, everything you do is decided by someone else.

There are of course exceptions but I get somewhat annoyed when people get celebrated, simply for doing the job they signed up for.

I guess you share the same opinion of fire fighters and cops as well, huh?

I can't fathom where you and others come up with this shat.

I would absolutely love to be in the room when you or any of these other tools go up to a person who has lost a loved one due to their service to their country and tell them some of this utter bullshit that you are trying to sell here.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

And TDigs as for the overcompensated part...maybe because their job usually requires them to risk their lives on a daily basis and kill other human beings? I'd LOVE to hear what job deserves more compensation than that. Any job, really.

Fuck no they don't. The military is voluntary, not compulsory. I'm not going to go as far Thriller went with describing the majority of people who compose the military, but I can tell you for damn sure that the compensation package for duty played no small part in their decision to join. Also, I fail to see how risking your life makes you more qualified for a job at somewhere like the Bureau of Economic Analysis or the US Postal Service. The federal government sorts applicants by a point system, and veterans get a substantial point premium when they apply. I think it's fucking ridiculous that someone who busted their ass to qualify for a job with the federal government is passed over for someone less qualified but who has more points to their name because of military service.

As I said before, veterans should be entitled to some benefits, and they're given a shitload of them. However, no preference should be given to someone outright for a job vacancy, especially if their preferential treatment is due to something that has fuck all to do with the job they're applying for.

And one more thing. Tdigle? If you are hiring for a position, who would you rather hire? A person who has no problem with following orders and doing what needs to be done or someone who's gonna whine, bitch and moan every time they are asked to do the most menial task? Let's also not forget that if a person is coming out of the military with an honorable discharge, you can all but guarantee that they will be drug free.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is the biggest false dichotomy that I've even seen posted on this site. So, civilians are automatically lazy whiners because they've never been subject to a few months of basic? Give me a break, man. Sure, military training makes you more receptive to orders, but the military DOES NOT have a monopoly on human drive and obedience. There are a TON of American civilians who are just as disciplined and motivated as any veteran. On the flip side, I'm sure that there are many apathetic servicemen and women. The majority of the military members I have met are hard-working and disciplined, but I still think it's quite ignorant and stupid on your part to assume that someone in the military will automatically be a more suitable candidate than someone who chose not to go that route.

 

[El Rev sXe]

Who said anything about rape??

I can't speak for the military of other countries but when I went through basic training, we were never taught to rape.

As far as the rest of your post goes, in war fare, what do you think goes on? Do you think that when you come under attack, that you just stand there and have a staring contest?

If a soldier takes the life of the enemy, he is saving the life of another fellow soldier. Honestly, I'm scratching my head at the fact that this concept is beyond some people here.

LOL, no man, no. At any moment I said that they learn how to rape someone. But I say that in war, there are many cases of abuse!!!

Exactly!!! I know war is about "I will kill you or you will kill me", and for me is one if not THE most retrograde form of humanity. I insist, how can I say that someone is a hero when he kills someone?? How that makes him better than a regular criminal?

 

[Tastycles]

Wow, I'd like to clarify my position here, because I think the people arguing that they aren't heroes are singing from a completely different hymn sheet to me when I said it. Like I said, if people consider soldiers heroes, I don't begrudge that in the slightest, and I don't really disagree with anything that xfear, NorCal et al said. Actually, it's something that xfear said that sums up my point better than anything else, really, and I'll get back to that.

My point isn't that soldiers aren't heroic, its that I think by calling them heroes it actually detracts from what they do. Maybe I just have an archaic notion of what a hero is, but to me a hero seems like something from literature, someone you should idolise. I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't be lauded, they should, but it means more to me to think of them as normal people doing something incredible.

This looks increasingly like a viewpoint I share with nobody, but it was thinking about my brother's friend that kind of sent me down this path. He served in Bosnia, which has probably been the site of the most horrific scenes anywhere for British soldiers, and he's had to come back and adjust to normal life, and not very well. Which brings me back to xfear's point. He said something about the homeless veterans, which is the kind of thing I mean. Soldiers go and do this amazing thing and they come back and everyone assumes, including the powers that be, that everything will be fine for them because they are "heroes". I suppose my point is not to say that soldiers aren't heroic, but that to reduce them to that kind of sells them short. Like I said initially, there's nothing wrong with calling soldiers heroes, but for my reading of what that word really means is by calling them that, we are in danger of forgetting the sacrifice that these men make.

 

[Барбоса]

I insist, how can I say that someone is a hero when he kills someone?? How that makes him better than a regular criminal?

Not all killing is a crime.

Killing someone in an accident is not a crime. The "him or you" idea of self-defence can render killing not only not a crime but a personal necessity. Killing in the defence of others is also not a moral or legal crime. All of these apply to soldiers.

Is the fact that killing a sometimes necessary part of a soldier's profession regretable? Of course but a soldier's job is not to kill. It is to protect.

 

[Kidd]

Fuck no they don't. The military is voluntary, not compulsory. I'm not going to go as far Thriller went with describing the majority of people who compose the military, but I can tell you for damn sure that the compensation package for duty played no small part in their decision to join. Also, I fail to see how risking your life makes you more qualified for a job at somewhere like the Bureau of Economic Analysis or the US Postal Service. The federal government sorts applicants by a point system, and veterans get a substantial point premium when they apply. I think it's fucking ridiculous that someone who busted their ass to qualify for a job with the federal government is passed over for someone less qualified but who has more points to their name because of military service.

As I said before, veterans should be entitled to some benefits, and they're given a shitload of them. However, no preference should be given to someone outright for a job vacancy, especially if their preferential treatment is due to something that has fuck all to do with the job they're applying for.





Are you fucking kidding me? This is the biggest false dichotomy that I've even seen posted on this site. So, civilians are automatically lazy whiners because they've never been subject to a few months of basic? Give me a break, man. Sure, military training makes you more receptive to orders, but the military DOES NOT have a monopoly on human drive and obedience. There are a TON of American civilians who are just as disciplined and motivated as any veteran. On the flip side, I'm sure that there are many apathetic servicemen and women. The majority of the military members I have met are hard-working and disciplined, but I still think it's quite ignorant and stupid on your part to assume that someone in the military will automatically be a more suitable candidate than someone who chose not to go that route.

And I find it stupid on your part to say that someone in the military is less qualified than someone else. As I've said before, the jobs performed in the military are the same jobs performed in the civilian world. The folks in the Military "Busted their ass" just as much as the guy in the civilian world if not more. It's very likely that they could be more qualified due to the fact that they've had to do the job under more duress than a civilian.

Now I'm not saying all civilians are whiny bitches or anything like that. I'm sorry that I didn't clarify that more. I'm just saying that the chances of someone not wanting to give 100% or whine about having to do menial tasks are higher with a civilian than it is a former military member.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

And I find it stupid on your part to say that someone in the military is less qualified than someone else. As I've said before, the jobs performed in the military are the same jobs performed in the civilian world. The folks in the Military "Busted their ass" just as much as the guy in the civilian world if not more. It's very likely that they could be more qualified due to the fact that they've had to do the job under more duress than a civilian.

Undoubtedly, the military provides great training for certain fields (e.g., information technology and engineering). With such training, veterans probably wouldn't even need to mention their military service as they'd already be highly qualified for these positions.

This still doesn't change the fact that veterans are given point premiums in ALL federal positions, not just they ones that they've been trained in. At the end of the day, your decision to join the military is just that: A DECISION. You weren't selected through a draft, you weren't hunted down by MPs and forced to suit up, you joined of your own volition and were handsomely compensated for it. While you were performing military service, there were other people who worked hard at college or who toiled away at an entry-level job in the hopes of someday advancing. Should you compete for a job with these people, you risking your life should mean absolutely nothing in the selections process; you've already been remunerated enough with good pay, military discounts for life, healthcare for life, and the opportunity to have a four-year college education on Uncle Sam's dime.

As for your point about duress, I don't buy that being an advantage save for in positions that require you to work in potentially dangerous work environments (the proportion of federal jobs that require you to do so is small); no one in the military is under threat of fire to disburse federal entitlements or to estimate international trade statistics.

 

[Loveless]

I guess you share the same opinion of fire fighters and cops as well, huh?

You mean firefighters whose only job is to save people? Or cops whose job is to protect everyone (regrettably in some case)? Do these jobs come specifically with the idea that you're required to kill people? No? Oh well, guess you lose then.

 

[Navi]

First, soldiers are reimbursed and treated like gods. I understand that being in the military is a job, and soldiers need to be reimbursed. My issue comes in when on top of their huge paychecks in a time when state and federal governments are going broke, they get college tuition paid for and are given discounts and free shit from companies all over the place. A majority of the people who choose to go into the military after high school is either too dumb or too poor to go to college and use the military to be able to get in after their time is up. I don't mean that as condescendingly as it comes off, my cousin would fall into the category and I love her to death. Most people in the military don't go in with the delusions of grandeur which often lead to heroic acts, they go in prepared to use every undeserved perk that comes with the uniform.

Yes I agree that they are reimbursed, that mainly due to the fact that they are doing a job that not very many other people want to do. How big do you think their paychecks really are? These guys and gals don't come out of the service multi-millionaires as you seem to think they do. And as for the government going broke, they shouldn't get involved with wars that cost billions of dollars. That's not the soldier's fault for being sent over there to fight is it? They are deployed and told what to do. Blame the people that are really responsible for it, The President and his cronies.

The other issue I have with the military is that the old ideal of protecting democracy is dead. The U.S. used to be the powerful fighting force, fighting for what is/was right, World Wars I and II being examples. Ever since then, however, we've been less noble fighting force and more Team America: World Police. Did a Korean civil war threaten us at all? Nope, be we stepped in anyway. Did the North Vietnamese trying to remove their colonial rulers, the French, endanger our way of life? Nope, but we had to still get involved. Was Iraq threatening us? Nope, but hey, it worked for Bush Sr., why shouldn't Bush Jr. step in? Was diving head-first into Afghanistan the right reaction to 9/11? Nope, but why let that stop you from a good gut overreaction?

Again not the soldier's fault, put the blame where it lies, right at the feet of the government. Also as a member of NATO we help our Allies, just as we would expect them to help us if we were in danger. Just because the US seems to fight most of the battles, is a tribute to the men and women in uniform that are willing to fight and lose their lives.

What it all boils down to is that the U.S. military has become little more than an overpriced haven for fuck-ups. It is a huge burden on our economy and our excessive use of it hurts our image in the world.

I would say the government is a haven for overpriced fuck-ups, who would rather use force than sit down and try to work things out. I suppose it's easier to send other people's son's and daughter's to die than figure a way out of the problem. But it happens time and time again so it's not at all surprising.

Exactly. You know why a lot of people pick that job? Free college, really high pay, and an ungodly amount of perks from outside companies (free WWE tickets are an excellent example). You can pick whichever reason you want, X: supporting ridiculous foreign policies or getting overcompensated.

So you really want me to believe that these guys deserve well over $10 an hour while they serve, plus full benefits (These parts I'm pretty okay with. They need benefits and even though the pay is a little high, especially with this economy, I can live with it) and then when they get out, their college tuition is completely paid for, which can amount to well over $100,000 plus whatever discounted/free stuff they are given by random businesses? Maybe if the draft was still in effect and people didn't have a choice it would be okay, but this is greatly overdone for a volunteer force.

Jesus H. Christ that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. Free WWE tickets. I'll bet you that if you ask any soldier who's lost a limb, or sitting in a wheelchair or suffering for post traumatic distress syndrome or who's watched their friends die, if it was worth free tickets to the WWE, the answer would be no.

You should be glad it's a volunteer force, otherwise some of the people posting on this thread might be the ones standing in downtown Kabul. wondering if the guy coming towards you has a bomb strapped to him or not.

 

[The Doctor]

You mean firefighters whose only job is to save people? Or cops whose job is to protect everyone (regrettably in some case)? Do these jobs come specifically with the idea that you're required to kill people? No? Oh well, guess you lose then.

Fuck sake.

Just because there may be situations in one's job where they may have to kill someone, doesn't mean they want to. I've never heard a service member walk around bragging about how they killed such-and-such many people. In fact, from my experiences, they're not very happy [major understatement] that they had to do such a thing. I wouldn't dream of asking my brother or my dad how many people they've killed, because I know it would remind them of horrible things in their lives, memories that they'd rather forget. The thing is, war...is war. You have to do things you wouldn't ever want to do. Maybe there are some people who go into war screaming "YAAAH KILL THEM ENEMIES" but their tunes change as soon as they see how things really are.

A service member's job in times of war is to support and protect their fellow soldiers and to accomplish their mission, whatever it may be. Sometimes, this involves having to defend their comrades from enemy attack, by whatever means necessary. I'm sure service members would love to go in, complete the mission, and not have to deal with the trauma and all the things that come with war. Rarely are service members gung-ho "cowboys" ready to kill themselves some terrorists. Life isn't a videogame or movie.

Honestly, the way people are acting in this thread is beyond ridiculous. Maybe it's because I've spent my whole life in a military family, seeing my father go off to war and then my brother, multiple times, but I just can't help but read this thread and feel sad, and be reminded of a line in a song by my favorite band:

"It's a thankless job, and nobody feels the same. You work long hours...pay your taxes, and prepare to die."
- Abney Park, "Letters Between A Little Boy And Himself As An Adult"​

It's how it is. These brave servicemen and women are out there risking their lives for us, and this is what they get in response? It's just unfathomable to me.

Anyway, to answer the thread's question - Yes, I do believe they should be called heroes. While I understand your reasoning, Tasty, and find it sound, I think that the term Hero has mutated and changed with language. Under the new definition, that of "a man of distinguished courage or ability" (Source: dictionary.com), service members fit quite well, as do policemen or firemen. They go out and do things that I certainly would not or could not do, and I can't help but admire them for having the courage to voluntarily put their lives on the line. you may not agree with the politics behind wars they fight in, but you cannot deny that they have the courage to fight in ways that many people don't.

The classical definition of "hero" has since turned into the idea of a "superhero". If we were arguing whether or not soldiers were superheroes, then I would immediately say they aren't. But we're arguing whether they're heroes, and under the current definition, they most certainly are.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

This still doesn't change the fact that veterans are given point premiums in ALL federal positions, not just they ones that they've been trained in. At the end of the day, your decision to join the military is just that: A DECISION. You weren't selected through a draft, you weren't hunted down by MPs and forced to suit up, you joined of your own volition and were handsomely compensated for it. While you were performing military service, there were other people who worked hard at college or who toiled away at an entry-level job in the hopes of someday advancing. Should you compete for a job with these people, you risking your life should mean absolutely nothing in the selections process; you've already been remunerated enough with good pay, military discounts for life, healthcare for life, and the opportunity to have a four-year college education on Uncle Sam's dime.

As for your point about duress, I don't buy that being an advantage save for in positions that require you to work in potentially dangerous work environments (the proportion of federal jobs that require you to do so is small); no one in the military is under threat of fire to disburse federal entitlements or to estimate international trade statistics.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with considering soldiers as heroes. If its the federal governments preference to have former military in positions, that is there judgement to make. Has nothing to do with someone's service and acts of valor while serving within active duty

 

[The Crock]

Soldiers are undoubtedly heroes. They protect us day in and day out, they put their lives on the line for all of us, I don't see how they aren't considered heroes. Sure it's voluntary, but there is a bravery factor required to be able to enlist. It is the modern day definition of chivalry. As for the whole "killing" argument, keep in mind that most soldiers don't actually ever do any "killing". They defend themselves, they take lives if they have to. They rarely take innocent lives, I understand that sometimes they'll kill someone innocent, but that shouldn't be a reflection of every soldier. Soldiers are heroes, no doubt. I know it's a cliche, but, next time you look around and see how many freedoms you have, think about who keeps those around for you. Would half of you in here that have been bashing soldiers have the courage to enlist? Could you spend all that time away from home or friends and family? I think not. That is what sets soldiers apart from us, that is why they're heroes.

 

[Dave]

Soldiers are undoubtedly heroes. They protect us day in and day out, they put their lives on the line for all of us, I don't see how they aren't considered heroes. Sure it's voluntary, but there is a bravery factor required to be able to enlist. It is the modern day definition of chivalry. As for the whole "killing" argument, keep in mind that most soldiers don't actually ever do any "killing". They defend themselves, they take lives if they have to. They rarely take innocent lives, I understand that sometimes they'll kill someone innocent, but that shouldn't be a reflection of every soldier. Soldiers are heroes, no doubt. I know it's a cliche, but, next time you look around and see how many freedoms you have, think about who keeps those around for you. Would half of you in here that have been bashing soldiers have the courage to enlist? Could you spend all that time away from home or friends and family? I think not. That is what sets soldiers apart from us, that is why they're heroes.

A sewer by any other name would still smell of shit.

Call it “killing” or call it “defence”, at the end of the day, it means the exact same thing. The soldier, be it from any allied force, is still taking the life of another and that is soldiers are not heroes.

Being a soldier doesn't make you a hero by any stretch of the imagination. Being a hero, on the other hand, does. I recall reading an article about a soldier who was receiving the Medal Of Honour a couple of weeks ago and what he did to achieve that was the act of a hero. Your run of the mill soldier is not a hero. Let their actions decide if they are a hero or not. Personally, I believe that if you are ending people's lives, then you are not a hero, save for some exceptional cases.

An act of a hero defines a hero and not their occupation.

In the UK, you generally find that only the most academic failures end up in the general military. The smarter ones will earn degrees and enter the military with a nice job and an even nicer pay-packet. Why should I call someone a hero if it is the only job that they can get?

On that note, I wonder how many of these heroes would do the job if they weren't going to get paid anything? At the end of the day, everyone is out there for a pay-packet. Masquerade it as anything you like but true heroes need not be trying to fight some un-winnable war in the Middle East or beyond.

As for the freedoms argument, that has nothing to do with soldiers. I honestly believe, that in a perfect world, there would be literally no need for soldiers at all. It is like having Nuclear Weapons. Country A looks at Country B and thinks that they might need taken down a few pegs and decide to build nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Country B sees this as a threat and decides to build their own and then it becomes a stalemate until someone decides to end the lives of thousands. All soldiers are, are the pawns of their leaders who have ulterior motives.

You give me one solid reason why ALL soldiers are heroes and I bet I can find you a reason why they aren't.

Don't get me wrong, if someone goes way beyond the call of duty for someone else, then they could be called a hero. However, you need to remember that soldiers fight on both sides and if you are going to call your own soldiers heroes, then you must feel the same way about the opposition.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I fail to see what any of this has to do with considering soldiers as heroes. If its the federal governments preference to have former military in positions, that is there judgement to make. Has nothing to do with someone's service and acts of valor while serving within active duty

Thriller raised the issue, I agreed with him.

Do you want me to answer the question of whether or not I think soldiers are heroes? I'm ambivalent on the issue. You have a very hard and risky job, and I commend you for taking on such a task; I think being in the military speaks volumes about your character. I may not agree with some of the things that are done in the line of duty, but that's not on you, that's on politicians, bureaucrats, and military brass.

What I can't do, however, is praise you for taking on a selfless task and act as if you're sacrificing your life for mine. You are a in profession whose members are more than taken care of on Capitol Hill; I thank you for your work by promptly and unquestioningly paying my taxes. If you were a fireman/firewoman or police officer, though, I probably wouldn't tell you this precisely because all you'd be receiving is a shit pension upon retirement.

 

[El Rev sXe]

Soldiers are undoubtedly heroes. They protect us day in and day out, they put their lives on the line for all of us, I don't see how they aren't considered heroes.

Maybe for you. I mean, around the freaking world there are always complains about abuse of power inside the military service. On the other hand: "protect us day in and day out"? The only example that I can thinl of is in Ecuador when they helped to end the coup d'état. But at least here in South America, military ha sbeen part of basically EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DICTATORSHIP. They killed and they made dissapear thousands of persons!! Why? Because people that thought different from capitalis were "dangerous" The army is homophobic and machista (don't know how to say it in english). Obviously NOT everyone, but there are many cases AROUND THE WORLD.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Let me first say that this is probably the best topic I've seen in the CL in a LONG TIME. We've had some good ones, but this topic is so raw and emotional that it's really just perfect. You'll get visceral responses on both sides.

I walk on the side that states that yes, indeed, soldiers are heroes.

That said, I make that statement from a macro point of view. Gun to my head asked "are soldiers heroes?" I say yes. Same gun, same head, if asked "are all soldiers heroes, I say no. I'm not dealing in absolutes here. I'm sure I can find plenty of soldiers whom I do not regard as heroes, just like I can find cops the same way. But overall, I use the hero label for soldiers very freely.

Fact is, I could go and try to enlist in the armed forces if I wanted to. I'm 29 with a bad back, but I'd have a shot at it. Does that make me a hero? No.

I could go to BT and work my ass off for the express purpose of wanting to be in the best shape possible to defend my country and keep the sergeant from screaming at me and calling me a disgusting fat body. Does that make me a hero? No.

What makes the soldier a hero is their willingness to drop their lives-as-they-know-them at a moments notice and live in a hostile country in awful conditions for the express purpose of serving something bigger than themselves. They don't ask why - that's for the media and the voters to do. They go because they took an oath to defend the flag of their country despite the fact that they have no clue who 99.99% of the US population is. They know they may be shot at and that the locals may not appreciate their presence. So they give those locals food and medical supplies. That's heroic to me.

Sure they get compensated for it, as well they should. It's a career and it has tremendous benefits. A teacher probably gets paid roughly what a new enlistee does, maybe even a touch more, but the teacher gets the home life and the benefits of stability. A soldier not only lacks that stability, but they have the spectre of potentially never seeing their wife / kids / family again, and they go without questioning it.

The best part about it is how so many of the soldiers do it so selflessly. The fact that many of their soldiers themselves don't think of themselves as heroes. I found this quote on a blog for military wives, and it can be read in full at http://awtr.blogspot.com/2008/02/hero.html.

I love my husband. I’m very proud of him. I think he does his best to mentor younger soldiers, maintain discipline, and get the job done while maintaining his own integrity. He puts up with must be a lot of hardship with barely a complaint. He finds time to stay connected with me despite the long hours and continuous demands. So I realize why there is the temptation to call our soldiers heroes. Calling him a hero helps makes his choice of a job that entails so much time away and time in danger noble instead of annoying or hurtful. And in my own personal world, he is a hero.

Nevertheless, I think the word ‘hero’ is greatly overused when it comes to our troops, and for that matter, in American society in general. And before you start screaming at me – he agrees, and so do the people he works with.

I think that civilians (and media) call the troops heroes because what our soldiers are doing is so completely foreign to the average American who seems quite shallow and self-centered most of the time to me. Putting your life at risk for something you may not even agree with or for people who may not even like you is something most Americans cannot even imagine, and lacking any other words, they call our soldiers ‘heroes.’ And compared to the average citizen, most of our soldiers are. (I realize not all Americans are schmucks – but look around at what makes the news, and it really makes you wonder about their priorities.) There simply aren’t many people in the country anymore willing to fight for or serve their country, so our guys are special.

But I’ve talked to my husband, and he talked to his teammates, and to them the word ‘hero’ is reserved for people who do something extraordinary, and most of our guys don’t see themselves as heroes at all. ‘Hero’ is reserved for people who throw themselves on grenades to save others, or who die recovering the treat of the wounded. Or for the medic who strips off his body armor in the middle of the street because he can’t do a proper job of what he needs to do to treat the wounded in it. To my husband and his co-workers, the inappropriate use of the word hero not only cheapens the sacrifices of the true heroes, but also makes the person misusing the term look bad.

I am glad I am not married to what my husband calls a real hero. A box with a Medal of Honor ribbon in it couldn’t call me late at night to say it loves me. It couldn’t send me emails. It couldn’t hug me. I will take my basically ordinary soldier-husband, who is good at his job but who doesn’t feel he’s a hero, who I hope will come home safely to me. I don’t think being a survivor of bad circumstance or tough situation makes you a hero. I don’t think being in uniform automatically makes you a hero; though it probably means you’re a more dedicated citizen (though that last applies to the families as well for the hardships we endure.) I wish the willingness to serve the country and do the right thing were so common that the people who do it didn’t stand out so much and get called heroes for doing what should be every citizen’s job: making the country and the world a better place.

A soldier does what is expected, and that is respectable. A hero goes above and beyond that. And given the chance, I feel that 90% of soldiers would make the choice to go from 'soldier' to 'hero,' and that they would do so with not even a single consideration for heroism itself. They'd do it because they felt it was not only their duty, but their opportunity to serve a country they've sworn allegiance to.

I have a few of these 'heroes' in my life. But I couldn't get away with calling them heroes. So I reserve other words for them, like 'friends' and 'family.' They prefer that, anyway.

 

[Captain Jive]

Whats with the whole "overcompensated" thing about. Coming from someone who served 4 years as an Air Force Intelligence analyst, then 3 years as an 11b (Army Infantry) and about to go back in the Infantry, I can tell you that we're not driving around in new BMWs and Porsches. In fact a lot of people who are single and fresh out of basic recieve about $500 or so a paycheck, after taxes that is about $6,000 a year. And yes, unless we are in a combat zone, we pay taxes, which means that on average, every 5th paycheck we recieve is us paying ourselves. So what if college is mostly paid for, we fucking earned it. Yes we do what we do because its our job, but in a time when joining will almost guarantee a deployment, we go in knowing that we may die defending your right to disrespect us and we accept it. Infantry is the frontline, we are in the shit, I would not have signed up twice for it if I didn't believe in it.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I need to add the fact that calling them "heroes" is completely subjective. I mean, for you americans, your troops on Iraq are "heroes", they are risking their lives, serving to their country etc.. But for me (I'm not iraqi but I'm "foreign" for you, so I'll take that position) they aren't heroes at all. You people are invaders in my country that kill my people ( sometimes even women and children). But you are "saving" my country. Yeah, probably for you they are heroes because they are from YOUR country, defending YOUR flag, defending YOUR interest. You need to take awarness of the other face of the coin (sorry, I thik I said it wrong that expression). As I said, for YOU the soldiers might be heroes, but for ME they could be invaders.

The army during dictatorships have killed not only foreigns but also bolivians. And that's not only here in Bolivia it is in almost all Latin America. For you americans, your army have always gone to another country and hadn't a civil war or a dictatorship where they were just "following orders" to kill your compatriots.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The word hero describes someone who displays courage and the will for self sacrifice while facing adversity from a standpoint of being the weaker of the two. They display this heroism for the good of all humanity and it can deal with either combat courage or moral courage. Which brings me to the question of this thread.... Are soldiers heroes? I believe they are because they fit the description in the definition of the word "hero". They serve their country by defending it and doing the right thing even if they are fighting an enemy who is more powerful than them.

 

[Arkham Noir]

I need to add the fact that calling them "heroes" is completely subjective. I mean, for you americans, your troops on Iraq are "heroes", they are risking their lives, serving to their country etc.. But for me (I'm not iraqi but I'm "foreign" for you, so I'll take that position) they aren't heroes at all. You people are invaders in my country that kill my people ( sometimes even women and children). But you are "saving" my country. Yeah, probably for you they are heroes because they are from YOUR country, defending YOUR flag, defending YOUR interest. You need to take awarness of the other face of the coin (sorry, I thik I said it wrong that expression). As I said, for YOU the soldiers might be heroes, but for ME they could be invaders.

Exactly!

As much as I want to respect someone in my country for going to war, risking their lives with a high probability of death, think of it from a different angel.

Let's say that tommorow, China invades the U.S. The U.S. is now a war zone with millions of casualties. Do you not think that citizens here would start going to the most desperate measure to take down their forces? Meanwhile, the civilians back in China are all worrying about their soldiers risking their lives in the foreign country. Would they not view them as heroes? Would you think of them as heroes? Fuck no. Your home country is being over-run and attacked, you would want to take them out and you would view them as evil.

The home side will always support their soldiers, because they view their cause as the right one. Does that make their troops heroes?

No.

And I don't think it makes our's any either.Sure I feel bad for everyone who loses someone overseas, but I feel just as bad for the mother living on welfare in the projects who's son gets shot by a rival gang.

Shits rough, that's the way it is.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I can't believe how many people have complained about the 'benefits' of being in the armed forces, yet does anyone bitch about actors being paid millions to 'pretend to be someone else' a couple of months at a time? Or football players earning more in a week than the majority of us will make in our lifetimes, 'for running up and down and maybe kicking a ball with some sense of accuracy' 3 or 4 times a week?

But soldiers? People who actually surrender themselves utterly to the cause of protecting YOUR right to sit here and disrespect them on the fuckin' internet?..... yeah, they are SO overpaid, right?

I, myself, don't look at someone in the military and hear the word 'hero' in my mind. I see men and women who sacrifice just about everything in their lives in service to their country.

Some sick assholes enjoy it. Some never get over it. Some manage to move on and merge back into a normal life. Too many never come back.

They may get visited by Government officials, who hand out a medal and a handshake every once and a while, but those politicians are seeing blank faces, and when they get back to their offices, they get straight back to moving the pawns across the board. You are expendable to them, so long as history favours them in the end.

That may sound super brutal and soulless, but that's what i fealt when i heard of Tony Blair's surprise when the father of a fallen British soldier told him 'the blood of my son is on your hands'. He was surprised..... fuckin' cunt.

Anyway, Blair hating aside, in this day and age, where the media seemingly decides to uncover a load of stuff about the military whenever there's no celebrities getting married, it's always going to hurt the relationship between the term 'soldier' and the term 'hero', as it usually depicts soldiers acting in un-heroic ways.

When i was at a pub once, this toothless pisshead, that everyone had been hyping as a ruthless killer back when he was a soldier, started bragging about shooting children on a battlefield being a sensible tactic to scare the adults, it was hard to think of him as anything but an animal, even for suggesting it, regardless of how effective a tactic it may be.

Current affairs also seem to cast this idea that soldiering has somehow changed. It's no longer about halting oppression and fighting back evils like in the World Wars, it's about preventing change in some areas and forcing it in others.

Want to know how i view British soldiers in Afghanistan etc? From the reports you hear over here, it seems like we're just standing around getting blown up, waiting for someting to ACTUALLY happen, or ACTUALLY do to make it happen.

But regardless of how i feel, or what i say, when i meet a soldier, i'm willing to respect the hell out of them for their commitment to fighting for me and my rights. They may lose my respect later, but at first glance, i'd respect them.

Still, it just wouldn't feel right calling a soldier a hero to me, even though i know what they do is heroic.

 

[Hazardous]

I would like to point out that not ALL military personal are "overpaid" as it is said on here over and over as the big argument. I myself served. and have worked many jobs where I was paid more than when I was in the army. The pay is not always that great. And considering what you have to deal with as well. I was making about 45k a year. is that really that much? How much does someone in the NHL, or NFL make a year? And are these men not called "our kid's heroes"? What risks do they have again? I read the first page of this thread, and then this last one. Just because I knew there would be a handful of people who would say shit about the army being "overpaid" and all the other shit. Stand behind up, or stand in front of us. Most people don't know SHIT about what we REALLY have to deal with. you get the news reports, and what friends and family tell you. You don't see it first hand. Once you do, then say all the shit you like. But if you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, then why even bother? I would give my life to protect any of the guys in my platoon. We are a family. At the same time, I would have done the same for anyone in Afghanistan as well. If it meant saving someone else, I would be willing to do so. That is our job. What we are trained for.