If you won't say "hero" what will you say?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

The American soldiers I've been privileged to know would turn away with embarrassment at being called a hero. They don't glorify war but they do accept it, even though they hate it. They grumble about eating MREs and being awake for days at a time and how much the heat sucked "over there" but you can't drag them away from their friends. They would rather be on patrol for 12 hours after being bruised and battered than consider allowing their buddies to face danger without them.

They don't pick where they go. They go. They also seem to keep a sense of humor about it all. Sometimes they hurt on the inside, more than any person should, but even then they don't want pity, they want to find their own strength. They don't talk about combat with civilians around -- I think htat's more to keep us from embarrassing ourselves with half-witted questions.

They will laugh and curse in the same breath at the memory of the people and places they've encountered on deployment. They will speak in equal measure of the hope and frustration of trying to make those places just a little better.

Perhaps "hero" as a blanket term seems overly-broad. If we call those who serve honorably in the military "hero" we fear that we make war a "heroic" endeavor. I understand that point but the fact of the matter remains: people in the military endure far more than those who don't ever will. A person who races into a burning building to save someone else is called a hero and rightly so. Yet, their danger is measured in minutes. Those who serve measure their time in years, if not decades and it is the thing they knowingly wake-up to day-after-day.

I don't know if "hero" is the best word but I cannot bring myself to call them anything less.

[GeorgeGist]

1. Rinse and repeat.

Your brainwashing is nearly complete.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Did someone train you to say that?

Seriously, if you don't agree at least have the courtesy to explain why. Trite throw-away answers speak more about an inability to articulate a response than any possible complaint about the OP.

[TBF]

7. One doesn't have to be trained to recognize right-wing nonsense. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Except it isn't RW nonsense.

It recognition of simple fact. American service members do endure more than others and they are essentially good people at heart.

When a revolution needed to be waged and a Union needed to be saved, they left their homes and took up arms for the sake of an idea. From the jungles of Vietnam to the mountains of Afghanistan, they stepped forward and answered the call. They fought for a home they might never return to; they fought for buddies they would never forget. And while their stories may be separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles, they rest here, together, side-by-side, row-by-row, because each of them loved this country, and everything it stands for, more than life itself.

That was President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Either he's a RW propagandist or he's a charlatan putting on a charade for gullible voters or -- he was sincere.

[TBF]

18. Well I guess I part ways with our President on this topic -

It is not that I don't think the soldiers are good people at heart - I know that they are. I know this because my family is not privileged, our men have served and been killed/disabled in these wars.

It is the wealthiest in the world that wage these conflicts, who profit off them, who romanticize them and pay for marketing campaigns to encourage support.

It is unnecessary and it is morally wrong to wage wars around the world in order to profit off the natural resources they desire in any given area. I don't care who supports it - that doesn't change my opinion.

[cali]

49. that's not a fact, it's an opinion.

and Vietnam was a travesty. Agent Orange? MY Lai? Napalm? Yeah, fighting for the sake of a BAD fucking idea.

And sorry, Obama was spewing sentimental and dangerous claptrap.

[CBGLuthier]

2. Uggh Fascism 101 worship the military

I view them as a necessary evil not an inviolate good.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. So you send men and women to suffer the worst of what humanity can produce

And instead of saying "Thank-you" or "You guys are doing what no one else is willing to do" your send-off speech would be "You're a necessary evil. Do your job and never speak of this again. We're embarrassed by the mere sight of you."

got it

[sadbear]

5. Kind of a catch-22, isn't it?

[Bacchus4.0]

6. excellent

if you signed the quote as Chris Hayes then it would be perfect.

[Kali]

9. error:

I didn't send anybody anywhere. I acknowledge the personal sacrifice some military members make, but this is also a voluntarily commitment and a paid position so lets not go too overboard on the pedestal placement, huh? Especially when the bottom line is corporate interest and/or imperialism and not self-defense by any stretch of the imagination (not that the average soldier is to blame for that).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. I read that the SEALs who took down Bin Laden are paid less than

public school teachers; on average. I would never dream of diminishing the commitment and sacrifice of teachers but they too volunteer and are paid. And the fact remains I voted for the current Commander in Chief; including all that entails.

[Brickbat]

20. Navy SEAL pay is comparable to the average teacher salary.

This is probably the article you saw, which says that while SEALs in general are paid comparable to the average teacher, the SEALs that killed Bin Laden most likely make much more because of their specialized training.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/osama-bin-laden-navy-seal-team-raided-obamas/story?id=13517776#.T8TZor95Hw4

Someone in the article makes the point that SEALs get housing and other military benefits as well, and then trots out the old "teachers get summers off" crap.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Sorry, as much as I admire teachers, SEALs endure more than they're paid for.

[Brickbat]

40. Comparing the two has little use.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. I made the point because I was told

service members volunteer and are paid.

[white_wolf]

26. "So you send men and women to suffer the worst of what humanity can produce"

I never sent them anyway and they aren't suffering for me. They are suffering for the rich and powerful. That is who they are fighting for. They aren't fighting for me, your, their friends or family. They aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the rich. Most of them don't think they are, but ignorance of that fact doesn't change it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Now THAT'S some popagandist nonsense.

You're basically saying everytime Obama's SecDef signs a deploymnent order the administration is fighting for the rich. They're all part of one giant conspiracy to murder innocents and steal at the expense of those who enlist.

Why would you spout this tripe at DEMOCRATIC Underground?

[white_wolf]

30. There isn't a conspiracy.

The ruling class doesn't do it out of spite or a desire to kill innocents. The elite do it because there is money to be made and that is their prime motive. Look at how much money Halliburton made over the Iraq War. Oh, and yes the government does act in the interests of the rich the vast majority of the time.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Since Obame is CinC, let's translate what you just said.

[Obama] doesn't do it out of spite or a desire to kill innocents. Obama do[es] it because there is money to be made and that is [his] prime motive. Look at how much money Halliburton made over the Iraq War. Oh, and yes [Obama] does act in the interests of the rich the vast majority of the time.

wow

It's like a pitch to make me so disgusted I should sit out the election. But you wouldn't do that on Democratic Underground, would you?

[white_wolf]

37. Yes, Obama represents the rich.

There I said it, and I bet a lot of DUers agree with me. Look how much money Obama is raising for this election, he couldn't represent the poor if he wanted to. He must represent the rich whether he likes it or not, because they are the ones paying the bills. Now, before you report me, let me say this. I will vote for Obama and I won't tell anyone to not vote for him, but only because Romney is worse.

[deutsey]

46. I don't think there is a monolithic group called "the rich"

I think there are various factions within the wealthy elites...some are rightwing loons like the Kochs and some are more liberal minded, with gradations in between.

But beyond that, I agree with what you say.

[white_wolf]

50. You're right. "The rich" is far too simplistic.

There are various different factions within "the rich", and they don't always have the same interests at heart. The problem is that war seems to be a very profitable enterprise for a large section of the economy so that no matter who is President, war will likely still be major source of profit for at least some of his or her doners.

[deutsey]

53. Agreed n/t

[Marr]

75. Why are you trying to hide behind Obama here?

The poster you're arguing with is saying our military generally functions as a sort of global enforcement arm for big money interests. I think any dispassionate observer would have to acknowledge the truth of that. No matter who sits in the White House, the machine is set up to service economic interests.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. Because it's laughable on its face

Obama is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. Nobody tells him where and when US troops go to fight. When US troops left Iraq peope cheered "Yay, Obama!" When UBL was sent on his way people cheered "Yay, Obama!"

If I were to use Occam's razor and my choices were A) an impotent Obama issues orders on behalf of "global money interests" B) Obama willfully working for global money interest or C) Obama doing his best but some observers are motivated more by political narratives than principle.

[Puregonzo1188]

81. "Nobody tells him where and when US troops go to fight" No they don't, though I believe Congress is

supposed to.

[Marr]

86. No one is saying he has a special red Bat Phone connection to

a group of wealthy manipulators.

The military is routinely used to 'protect US interests' abroad. That is another way of saying protecting big business interests.

Look at just about any action in South America in the past century and tell me how they were protecting the interests of a plumber in Peoria. They weren't, unless you happen to subscribe to the idea that 'what's good for GE is good for America'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. I'm not looking at any action in South America in the past century.

I'm looking at Obama prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere.

[Marr]

92. You think our motivations in the middle east are *less* economic than

those in South America?

Seriously?

[TheKentuckian]

93. Essentially you are because you imply that electing Obama transformed the dynamics of the MIC

and it's influence on military actions and what was has passed away. You are bordering on the cult of personality or are using a sitting Democrat as a way to shield debate on dynamics that supersede him.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. Or maybe people engage in looney conspiracy theories about evil cabals and world domination

General Dynamics isn't forcing Obama to sign deployment orders. Either Obama is a hostage, a charlatan or a CinC doing his best.

[deutsey]

99. Or caught up in a system much larger than himself, perhaps?

That military-industrial complex that Ike tried to warn us about?

[sendero]

110. Those "wars".

... unwinnable police actions actually - serve to drain the treasury and little else. The fact that this not clear to you speaks to your biases and lack of research.

Do you REALLY think we've accomplished ANYTHING OF VALUE in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan? Do you think killing a few "terrorists" is really accomplishing ANYTHING? Every one you kill just creates more of them. With real justification for hating us. We wasted 10 years in Iraq and what did we get for it? Even most soldiers have figured out the "war" was POINTLESS.

So if we continue to engage in pointless wars, why are we REALLY THERE? Because a LOT OF COMPANIES MAKE A LOT OF MONEY from WAR. No other reason.

[baldguy]

111. Those many wars since WWII have done more than just drain the treasury.

They've swelled the coffers of the corporations behind the Military-Industrial Complex.

[white_wolf]

41. Oh insults. Yeah, that's real mature.

Welcome to ignore. I don't waste my time with people who can only argue by posting insults.

[Arugula Latte]

45. Sent off for what?

Yes, there have been instances where small groups of highly trained military personnel do some good, but what mass war since WWII has accomplished anything that has "protected our freedom." The U.S. military IS about furthering corporate interests, and no amount of your propaganda is going to change that.

[Zorra]

54. No. YOU send men and women to suffer the worst of what humanity can produce.

I don't. I don't send anybody anywhere.

It's not in my name. Please don't ever say it's in my name.

I have no blood on my hands.

[sarge43]

63. You pay taxes?

If so, you have at least a few drops on your hands. Refuse to pay the income of the military, have every cent you possess taken away, go to jail, then get back to us about your innocence.

You vote? What candidate have you voted for publicly stated s/he would never vote to commit this country to a conflict, let alone a war? Any keep their word? If not, that's a couple of more drops.

[Zorra]

102. No. If you want it, you own it.

What Caesar does with the money I intend to go to hungry children is beyond my control.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. Did you vote for Obama?

[Zorra]

103. Yeah. Because I figured he'd cause less death and destruction than the only other alternative. nt

[Puregonzo1188]

80. This is where you are missing everyone's points. It's not a necessary evil since neither the Iraq

nor Afghanistan nor Vietnam nor any other of the other wars we've fought since World War II were necessary though they all certainly were evil.

Are all soldier heroic? Just by being a soldier for any country, at any point in history? Should we get sentimental about the conscripted armies that invaded Poland or Hungary or Kuwait? And what about the other side in our wars, should we be sentimental about them as well? After all, they are all just soldiers--they don't make the policies and they risk their lives. And if not, why not? What's different?

[Skip Intro]

113. Wow! What NU said! nt

[Taverner]

77. "I view them as a necessary evil not an inviolate good."

Amen

[lynne]

8. I have to agree with you -

- I took to the dictionary and thesaurus to see if there was another word that could be used in lieu of hero. The definition of hero seems to always come back to the word courage. Courage is defined as facing danger without showing fear. I have a feeling that they're afraid at times and it's probably healthy to have fear but I'm guessing the key is in the showing of it. They continue forward even in the face of fear. No matter if on the battlefield or here at home, to continue in the face of fear is heroic, IMO.

[Brickbat]

12. What do we call anyone who gets up every day and does his/her job?

The error is when we call all of them heroes, every last one, and the military becomes this huge band of "heroes." That's just not how it is. There are heroes in the military, and civilian heroes, and people in the military who are cowards or lazy or mean or who are bored silly working support jobs or desk jobs, and people like that in the private sector. To look at The Soldier or The Sailor or The Marine and get all misty and feel like you need to talk about heroes is a mistake. To glorify The Military because of All They Do To Keep Us Safe is childish. To admire singular people for what they have done, however, is only human.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. I understand that.

Even within their own peer group the soldiers I was privileged to know had what they referred to as, "shitbags" (they're always so -- colorful). But I think it's fair to say that any group has its detractors: teachers, doctors, firefighters ...Democrats. When we talk about teachers we speak of them as a group we admire as a whole. We don't make it a point to say, "Yeah, but some are just riding out the days until they retire," or to incessantly dwell on the gym teacher who continually gets overly familiar with the girl's basketball team. In fact, bringing up the detractors everyone admits exist is seen as a slap to those who are striving to do their job as best they can under trying circumstances.

OK, not every soldier carries a rifle on patrol but back at the FOB (I remember the sound of the acronym but not what it stands for) there are other soldiers fixing radios, filing pay corrections etc and I'm glad they're doing their jobs for the soldiers who are carrying rifles on patrol. I've filed pay corrections but never had to grab my helmet and run to a metal shipping container surrounded by sandbags because someone was trying to drop mortars on my office.

[Brickbat]

52. If doing someone's job is all it takes to get called a hero, we need to seriously examine the word.

Your love for your husband and the admiration, respect and even jealousy you have for the relationship he has with his buddies is charming. It's tempting to see that and, because that kind of camaraderie is unusual, call it heroism. They seem bigger than life. They hold themselves apart from mere mortals because they have done things other people have not. They are attractive and many of us wish we could have that kind of deep, non-sexual friendship that moves to brotherhood without having to go through combat to get it.

But when people's feelings of yearning and admiration because of what they themselves don't have is enough to make them want to label everyone in our armed forces "heroes," that can get dangerous.

[UTUSN]

69. Excellent #s 12 & 52. I was going to say, One-who -performs- normal-civic- duties. n/t

[ellenfl]

31. couldn't have said it better myself . . . and i tried! eom

[Bluerthanblue]

43. "To admire singular people for what they have done, however, is only human."

you just defined a "hero" perfectly with this sentence imo.

When we class all people who have 'served' in the military as 'heroes' we dilute the meaning of the word... make it impotent.

Being a soldier even one who has served in a war doesn't make someone a "hero".

A "hero" is in the eye of the beholder.

My Dad was a hero to me and to others who knew him. But his heroism was based on far more than his Army service in Germany during WWII, and more on the unheralded often unseen actions which defined the kind, patient and gentle man that he was.

[Swamp Lover]

13. Agree 100% NU. THose who are willing to sacrifice should be shown appreciation.

Many sign up to serve with no idea what they are getting themselves into, but they volunteer regardless. We never asked for their devotion and sacrifice but they give it. Only a shallow cad would fail to say thank you to the individuals and their families who also sacrifice.

[Arugula Latte]

47. If we stopped calling everyone who joins the military a hero, more people might stop & think before

they enlist.

The fact is, a good number of Americans who signed up for "duty" in the past 25+ years have been asked to slaughter innocent people for no good reason, unless you consider U.S. corporate gain a good reason.

[Swamp Lover]

58. You assume that those who serve are stupid, or have not considered their decision.

It is the job of our military forces to go where political leaders assign them to go. It is our job as citizens to apply pressure to the decision making process to make sure that we go to war only for good reasons.

If, in fact, we have gone to war for the wrong reasons, then it is partly due to your failure to influence the political decisions. Your crass, stupid, comment makes it obvious why you have failed politically and have not influenced the process.

Our military serves us unselfishly and effectively. You, however, are a disappointment.

[sarisataka]

61. Excellent point

Many are willing to blame "the military" for every wrong ever done or bad decision ever made while completely forgetting that in our country the military is under civilian control and takes orders from civilian leaders.

Those who say "I didn't send anyone anywhere" ignore this inconvenient fact.


I found this quote that I think I will add to my sig line as it sums up a lot of my feelings about those who are anti-x,y,z

Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
George S. Patton

[Rittermeister]

89. A decent education in history

will make one, at best, mistrustful of professional militaries. They have a nasty tendency to bite the sheep they claim to guard.

Note, that I am not advocating pacifism. When a nation is threatened (really, actually, legitimately threatened) it is the duty of those who are able to rise to defend it.

[dadchef]

105. Why do you, or anyone question why someone says anything that doesn't effect you personally?

Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I know that I am influenced by my personal experiences, everyone is, and because of those particular occurrences I formulated my particular opinions and many of those positions conflict with others holding the exact opposite views with the same fervor I hold for mine..

I don't know why anyone is motivated to give themselves to the military and place themselves at the mercy of the morons in Washington, but some of us did. I haven't met any serviceman or women without faults, but in the end, I would not discredit them to any swinging dick on the outside..

I can disagree with your opinions, as you can, as with this subject, but I went into battle for you to express your right to say whatever you wish, with a few minor caveats..

I can call them anything I wish, and so can you, but beware, never do it in my face if you wish to continue to admire your own..

[Arugula Latte]

106. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together

would conclude that nearly every action the U.S. military has been used for for the past several decades is to serve the corporate empire (and the hundreds of thousands of dead brown people are just collateral damage). I voted and worked against the Bushes -- fat lot of good it did.

Our military does not serve us -- it serves the one percent. Those who sign up should realize that's what they're putting their asses on the line for -- the moneyed interests of multinational corporations. Your stupid, crass and disappointing comments speak to your inability to separate yourself from jingoism and propaganda.

If you join up, you could very likely wind up murdering people like this ... and for what?



The "well, I was just assigned to do this" is a cop out.

[Brickbat]

59. People can appreciate and acknowledge service without calling them heroes.

[ellenfl]

14. our brave and selfless men and women? eom

[Egalitarian Thug]

15. Long periods of extreme stress does tend to make us band together like nothing else,

but this assignation of some superior motive and result to willingly participating in the global horror show is disturbing.

War is not about glory, nor is it about friendship, these are side-effects and desperately grasping to find something good in the greatest evil we know. War is about killing other people, period, and the military only exists to make war. There is nothing noble or good in the endless slaughter of our fellows at the direction of the evil and the greedy.

[Brickbat]

16. This is a powerful thought.

War is not about glory, nor is it about friendship, these are side-effects and desperately grasping to find something good in the greatest evil we know.

[bigtree]

17. Thank you, NU

No disrespect to Chris Hayes intended in endorsing your remarks, of course. He can say whatever he pleases.

[Th1onein]

19. I am a pacifist. I don't believe in heroes that carry guns.

So, no, I do not call them heroes. Nevertheless, I will not speak ill of the dead, either. And, I pity the loss of their lives, and their families' loss of their loved ones.

[Greybnk48]

22. In our family, all but two served in the military

over the past several generations. The two that didn't were physically unable. While I'm proud of all of them: the great-grandfather's in WWI, our dads in WWII, my husband and cousins in Vietnam and I think our great grandfather, a Lt. Col., was in Korea as well, we have never called any of them heroes.
I know my dad and my FIL would have thought that ridiculous.

They were soldiers and sailors, period. Including Uncle Bill who was shot down during recon. in the South Pacific and has his name on a monument in the Phillippines. None of these men did any more than they were expected to do as soldiers and sailors.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. I won't say "hero"...

because I don't happen to believe in the apparently mandatory, mindless, unthinking, fla-wavingly nationalistic rah-rah "support the troops" nonsense. Soldiers are not heroes; they are doing a job, some better than others, some worse. Some are in fact heroic, but service alone does not make them heroes, any more than every cop or every firefighter is a hero.

[Kali]

24. especially when the rah rah shit is put out as some kind of litmus test

you said it well,

Soldiers are not heroes; they are doing a job, some better than others, some worse. Some are in fact heroic, but service alone does not make them heroes, any more than every cop or every firefighter is a hero.

[Brickbat]

42. Another excellent point: "Service alone does not make them heroes."

[paulk]

51. well said

[RedCappedBandit]

87. You summed it up nicely.

Some are heroes, some are not heroes.

Plenty of my peers have signed up for military service. They didn't do it out of any sense of honor or duty. They wanted a job and didn't know what else to do. Not surprising in this economy.

[Arctic Dave]

25. Why do you assume they are sent war to

"make things a little better"?

History seems to prove that military adventurism only makes things worse.

[Orsino]

27. How about we stop using the word to descibe people we don't know anything about?

People in the military have all sorts of careers, from ignoble, criminal ones to careers that would properly be called heroic and selfless.

How about we stop using our troops as puppets, and stop pretending that they are all alike? They're people. They're citizens. They are us. Only their oaths of service make them different.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. I know. I married one. And back when we were dating he was still enlisted.

I thought his friends were very rough-edged, perhaps a little crass at times, but who was I to lecture them. I still loved every minute we spent with them and before we got married we saw them again and I was overjoyed to see them. And as much as my husband tries to spoil me rotten I know they have a place in his heart I will never be able to approach. I don't begrudge him that place, even if it leaves me a little sad from time to time. I know they're people. I married one of those people and I love that person for everything he is -- including the fact he was a soldier.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Brave, honorable, admirable are all sufficiently proper terms....

...unless the service person who died was engaged in some great feat of valor that saved the lives of his or her fellow comrades, in which case "hero" would be techinically correct.

[LeftyMom]

33. It's a lot easier to say hero than victim of the poverty draft doing their best to get by

We don't have to examine our role in the situation when we pretend victims are victorious.

[RC]

35. Chew on this:

Why military participants who die in war are called heroes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002739690

[cali]

38. Soldier? Armed Services Member?

Sorry, I think mostly just (mostly) young people- many who feel they have limited career options. And I think it's bullshit to say that members of the military endure far more those who don't. It's just too broad a statement.

We live in a terribly over militarized society. I don't think that's a good thing.

Hero is not the best word. People is a better one. And because the military is populated by... people, that means there are a fair number of pretty fucking lousy ones in the military just like in any other segment of society- look at how many rapes there are in the military.

[sarisataka]

67. Answer and a question

I think it's bullshit to say that members of the military endure far more those who don't. It's just too broad a statement.

It is very broad and covers many things. A base librarian has a fairly easy 9-5 job. But, and I can say this having worked many jobs in and out of uniform, is the average military person has to endure much more than the average civilian career worker. A coal miner endures more than most military people.
The biggest difference in any case is that death is an accepted side effect of a job in the military. Very few civilian jobs can say that.

Now my question:

We live in a terribly over militarized society

Seeing as less than 1% of our population is in the military and only about 10% are veterans, how is our society over militarized?

[cali]

79. It's just stupid. Do people with chronic illnesses count?

What about people who lose a child? Measuring who endures more is stupid.

And seeing as we have the largest military budget in the world many, many times over, are constantly engaged in conflicts, and have a culture of lionizing military service, how are NOT an over militarized society?

[sarisataka]

84. The matter is choice

People do not choose to get ill, loose a loved one... You can choose your profession.

I see your point,I took it to be about individual participation, which is extremely low.
The cost is due to the methods we use to fight. I will leave aside for the moment the question of should we fight.
We value life over materials, hence we use hi-tech weapons over human wave attacks. That means we spend $$$ instead of blood. Without our 'toys' we would have many more flag covered boxes coming home. Look at past wars where we would loose more than the total killed in Iraq in one day. Could you imagine what this country would do if there was a large battle in Afghanistan and we had 800 KIA and likely 2000+ wounded?
The down side is where there is $$$ or even $ there will be some piece of slime looking to get a portion, even if the cost in another flag or two.
As for constant conflicts it is sad but true back to 1776. I once heard that the US has never gone ten years without being in one conflict or another. From my research it is hard to find any five year span of peace in over 235 years. Business as usual

IMO much of the lionizing of today's military is akin to a group penance for the guilt felt over the poor treatment of Viet Nam vets. The troops were unjustly blamed at an individual level for poor government decisions and policies. Now almost everyone goes out of their way 'to support the troops' even while criticizing the conflict. There are many on the right who will take advantage of this for political gain, warping support and patriotism to their goals.
We are allowed to question 'why' to any conflict. (Politicians should do so more often... maybe instead of embedded reporters we should embed members of Congress so they can bring back first hand reports ) we also may point out and hold accountable our members of the military whose actions exceed the bounds of law or morality. To do so is actually more patriotic than blind faith.
Again, IMHO.

[cali]

85. OK. How about people who choose to be part of an NGO? Or teach in the inner city

and anyway, the op said that they endure more than others and nothing about choice.

And you mean we value American lives, not that we value life.

I agree with you that much of the lionizing of the military stems from guilt over Vietnam Vets.

[sarisataka]

96. Those I respect as well

along with any who are willing to sacrifice potential wealth and comfort to better the world.
Another poster used a word which applies to these people as well as soldier- noble. The world would be a much better place with more noble people.
I do agree with the point you are leading to... it becomes ridiculous to try and judge who suffered more. She we say the holocaust survivor suffered more than the Bataan death March survivor more than one who lived under Pol Pot more than the mother who just lost her firstborn to SIDS... They all suffer and no one can say who suffered the most.

I would say American lives are valued more. Military plans take into account civilian casualties, if for no other reason than their survivors are more will to fight us, but it is true that an important operation will not stop even if it is 100% certain civilians will be injured or killed. Effort will be made to try to minimize those casualties.

[Comrade Grumpy]

91. You haven't been to the Mexican border or any local police department lately, have you?

Although the correct term would be "paramilitarized."

Where do you think all that surplus war equipment goes? Doesn't your medium sized town have its own SWAT tank courtesy of the DOD? Many do.

[sarisataka]

100. Not in a few years

Even then there were things happening that would shock most people.

It seems most of our surplus goes to the next country we fight. I was amazed how much US equipment I saw in Iraq pointed the wrong way...

[hfojvt]

44. probably better to say absolutely nothing

[sarge43]

48. Soldier, sailor, airman, marine, coastguardman, depending.

The title and recognition is enough.

Don't worry about calling a service woman airman or coastguardman. It's a title, not a gender label.

[TroglodyteScholar]

57. +1

I posted my reply before I saw yours. You are dead-on.

[sarge43]

68. Thanks

About the closest I can come to a definition of heroic: An act of selflessness. Not required (you're still a decent person if you don't) and no material benefit, gain or reward. God knowth a person doesn't have to wear a uniform to qualify.

[Johnny Rico]

55. +1,000,000

[TroglodyteScholar]

56. I've always found "soldier," "marine," "airman," and "sailor" to be adequate.

People are missing the point, mostly from a position of intellectual dishonesty.

But cheapen the word "hero" all you like. Soon we'll all be heroes just because we got out of bed in the morning.

[daaron]

60. "Employees." nt

[sarisataka]

62. And any military member you call hero

will just blush a bit and tell you that they didn't every do anything special.

My wife was a tie-dyed-in-the-wool hippie when we met. I was on leave she thought little of the military if she thought of them at all but enjoyed my company. As she met more military people she was surprised to find them well educated, very polite and considerate of others. They are very willing to make you there friend and you soon get to see the 'rougher' hard-partying side. They are great friends who will stick by you always.

She still wear tie dye but has come to understand those who choose to serve our country in a very different light.

Best wishes to your husband from a safe tour.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Cannon fodder for the ambitions of politicians.

Preferably, mindless cannon-fodder who will follow orders and kill people the bosses tell them to kill.

[fishwax]

66. it's not as though "anything less" than hero is an insult or degrading or anything

"I don't know if "hero" is the best word but I cannot bring myself to call them anything less."

[kentuck]

70. What's wrong with "GI"

as in Government Issue?

[soccer1]

71. Some are "heroes" all are "brave"....

In my opinion, just the act of enlisting in any branch of the armed services is a "brave" act...enlistees know that they might be facing danger depending upon where they serve. So, the brave men and women of the military are to be respected for their courage in signing on, but only those who exhibit actions above and beyond the norm of what is expected deserve to be called "heroes". I believe the military reserves the word "hero" to describe those people. This is also true for those in other high risks jobs.....firefighters, police officers, act. Brave individuals who do the job..... heroes if they go above and beyond their job description.

[cynatnite]

72. Noble...

If you don't want to call them heroes, call them noble. I think that would help fulfill what you mean.

[LiberalAndProud]

73. Can we honor the veteran without glorifying the war?

“War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality.” ~ John McCain


Yes, I think so.

[Marr]

74. I find it amusing that many of the same people who complain about kids all getting trophies

for just competing, because it makes winning meaningless, will so casually throw around a word like "hero". Joining the military does not make you a hero. Simply serving in a war doesn't make you a war hero.

[Bake]

82. A few are heroes. Most are just working stiffs doing their jobs.

"Hero" is vastly overused and I'm sick of it. What should we call the ones who are, in fact, heroes? Super-heroes? I thought those were comic book characters.

Bake

[jp11]

83. I will when it is appropriate and that is based on what I know which is often not very much.

If people in general were more aware of what being a soldier meant they might not feel the need to toss out hero to elevate what is already an elevated word. Being a soldier isn't an easy thing to do it doesn't need to be elevated with a word it should be elevated with many other things like better care in how they are used, cared for, paid, equipped, etc. Tossing out hero to me is a cheap way our country, especially people who are happy to send troops in, make it seem like they care, that mentality in this country doesn't help the soldiers. Some may even mean it but if it doesn't translate into treasuring those men and women who risk their lives to do what most people won't then really what is the worth of the word?

I'm not saying that is you I am saying that is how *I* see it when people say hero and they aren't talking about someone doing something truly heroic in combat/etc to save others. The other side of that is those close to someone injured or dead have every right to call them a hero no matter if they died in their sleep or manning a defense while under attack if it makes them feel better about their loss. I disagree but it isn't about me in that case it is about the person who suffered.

I completely disagree with your statement that serving means you absolutely endure far more than those who don't ever will I think you know that to be an unfair characterization ignoring all sorts of life events and hardships that others have endured and will continue to endure throughout the world. It is likely that someone in the service will have tougher experiences but it isn't guaranteed.

There are plenty of people who serve and never see any combat others still may sit inside an office building in their own country sleeping in their own bed every night.

Tell me please how is that 'enduring far more than those who don't ever will' what about a child in any country going to bed hungry night after night perhaps abused as well, or trying to care for your sick mother after your dad was killed by the local militia that comes to claim men to fight because he resisted? Or what about the young girls who get raped by the freedom fighters only to have them come back to kill the babies then rape the girls again?

[Angelshare1]

90. Hero

You're a hero for getting the courage to post this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. Yet, I feel more like a fool than anything.

To think, for even a moment, that it would ever be taken in the spirit it was intended. I've known soldiers and I've had a whirlwind romance with one before I married him and we're still having a whirlwind romance. I know he was always a good man but I know that he gave to his service and his service gave back to him. I see it in him every day and I'm proud of him.

I don't know where people get these sad, sick caricatures but they seem to enjoy them more than they enjoy honest, simple truth. Tell them somebody is good and decent and willing to risk all and it seems to anger them. They don't want to believe such goodness can exist. It offends them.

I'm a fool to think I could soften that.

Thank-you for your kind words.

[sarisataka]

98. When I fear to speak, I remember this

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. Unlike Niemöller, they gave in to the Nazis' threats. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.

[Arugula Latte]

108. Willing to risk all ... but again, the question is, for what?

Don't you ever question what he's "sacrificing" for?

[sarisataka]

114. Allow me

1- for your ability to speak your mind on this forum.
2- justice, being the semi-self appointed world police force, we are expected to counter atrocities. Did Darfur, Lybia or Syrian rebels go to China to ask for support? No to the western powers for whom it is a no-win situation. Intervene and you are and imperialist war monger looking to make money over the bodies of of people like the photos you have posted. refuse to intervene and you are an elitist bourgeois who has no care for human life and suffering unless there is financial gain...
3- to repay the generations from before who created this country in which we live and to give something back
4- so someone else's child doesn't have to do it.

I could go on but I believe I already know your reply.

[Arugula Latte]

116. Pray tell,

how does invading other countries on flimsy pretenses and slaughtering their civilians translate into protecting my ability to speak my mind on this forum? I must have missed the part where the Iraqis gathered on our borders and tried to invade and topple our government and install their own.

[quinnox]

97. there is nothing heroic about killing innocent people

One of our "heroes" in Afghanistan went on a rampage and machine gunned many women and children in their beds as they slept. That is the opposite of a hero, its a cowardly act in the extreme. And yet, because of attitudes such as the one reflected in the OP, some duers were actually defending this scumbag.

Just because someone puts on a uniform doesn't mean they magically become noble or good, they can be just as despicable as any other human being.

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. Someone defended that guy here? Wow I guess I missed that.

That guy wasn't only NOT a hero, he's unworthy of breathing the same air human beings do. I would add that he's not indicative of the average member of the Armed Forces, male or female.

Even as a Veteran I don't think all who wear the uniform are capable of becoming heroes, even when the chips are down. Those people are few and far between. I do think however that those who chose to wear the uniform are of a different mindset from most other people. Those who've chosen to wear the uniform make a conscious decision to give up their comfort and safety for something they consider to be larger than themselves. I salute them for that.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that there IS nothing heroic about killing innocent people.

[quinnox]

104. yup

Not just one, there were a few making very lame excuses for the killings.

As others have said, the military forces are made up of individuals, a few could be heroic, a few could be cold blooded killers, most are probably somewhere in between.

[Arugula Latte]

107. I wonder which American hero did this?

[SomethingFishy]

109. Somehow I think that soldiers, rather than being

called heroes or thanked with a fucking bumper sticker would like to see actual SUPPORT. To see that their families don't need food stamps while they are on a tour, to see their houses don't get foreclosed, to see a nation that truly supports them. To have access to medical and psychological help when they return. Not to have to wait 120 days to see a shrink while suffering from PTSD. Not to have to fight to get the benefits they deserve.

I wonder how much money was spent last year on useless weapons development, and how many suicides that money could have prevented had a soldier not had to wait 4 months to get help.

We screw over our soldiers 364 days a year and then drink beer and grill burgers to "honor" them.

[Skip Intro]

112. I have no problem saying hero for our militiary men and women, fallen or not.

They are heroes.

They volunteered their lives (much like first responders here at home) to go wherever duty may call for the greater good.

Where the hell would we be without any of them?

I respect them and thank them for their service.

[ManyShadesOf]

115. survivors