so then, pray–tell. who IS a hero?
define a hero. give some examples.
and you’re clearly not, so godspeed with that.
being cynical against people appreciating something because they just do is fine, too.
…but so is appreciating things.
Someone who, of her/his own volition, puts their personal health and/or life at risk to help another. Ithink that some see a problem with the fact that military personnel are often ordered to risk their lives for reasons that are not exactly akin to “Fighting for God and Country”.
Not every vet was in the military by choice. Some got drafted.
Well, let’s hear your argument that things would in fact be different. Huge numbers of foreign troops would have to successfully invade and occupy the US before any draconian laws could be implemented, and that would be a pretty tall order for any number of reasons.
I would say that someone has to leave safety in order to help someone, it has to be outside the bounds of what you’d normally expect someone to do, and therefore generally wouldn’t be the result of someone fulfilling their duty or obligatons.
…really?
you really are taking the standpoint that America doesn’t need an army? that nothing would be different if we literally had no armed forces at all…?
I would change that to “…someone who freely decides to leave safety in order to help someone…”
i agree with that–
but a lot of the people i know who are part of the military are doing it because they believe it’s for God and Country. and even in the face of the Iraq war–realizing the quagmire they were in and how it was all really bullshitty–they still acknowledged that was part of the deal. i think it takes a special person to do that. i know i can’t, myself do it. i know several higher-ups in the marine corps, and i have friends in afghanistan right now.
and i appreciate the shit out of what they are doing and why. and i think afghanistan is a lost caused, and everything we’re doing is fruitless at this point. but that doesn’t change the underlying value of what these people signed on for. and i think that is what matters (it’s what matters to me).
Yes, of course. I meant “has to” as in “it’s a requirement to fulfill to be a hero”, but yes, I should’ve phrased it better.
There are plenty of heroes in the military, guys like Shugart and Gordon for example - but it’s mindless jingoism to call anyone who serves - even who serves in combat - a hero. How do we differentiate actual heroics if we throw the word around so freely?
Not unless he’s doing it from the grave.
they freely decided when they joined. that’s a catch-all for any and all orders they will obey from then on. that’s the scary part of joining the military, you agree carte blanche from the get-go.
i think that’s why people call them heroes. putting themselves even in the potential of being in that situation takes a kind of gumption i can’t fathom.
I am not sure how WWII could have been won with a smaller, more efficient force - at least until we had the atom bombs ready. Prior to that it took a lot of bodies who had to be drafted.
Today we have a smaller, more efficient force of pure volunteers - no draftees. We leverage technology as well (though some still complain about the use of drones, bombers, cruise missiles and other advanced warfare tactics).
But at the end of the day we still have heroes like Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta:
I don’t think that Sg.t Peralta volunteered to die saving his comrades. He might have nad an inkling of the danger he signed up for, but there is a difference between knowing the risk and actually dying for others. So I have no issue with calling him a hero.
Do we overuse hero? Sure we do. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t honor those who are willing to get shot to protect others - that is a pretty good trait to respect in our fellow humans, as opposed to the bystander effect that we typically get.
Excuse me, but signing a one-sided contract of that nature before you have enough experience and knowledge to understand what it entails, then blindly following any and all orders given, doesn’t automatically make you a “hero”.
They weren’t ALL free to decide. Lots of them were compelled by family expectations, running away from shitty home lives, faced with high unemployment, looking for a bit of excitement and the chance to prove they could be good at something, even if it was only killing strangers, and occasionally, there were those who joined up with a noble heart and mind and who wanted to forge them in the ultimate alpha environment.
well boy. you just assigned them a lot of traits you just made up from nothing.
i’m fairly certain most people who sign up for military action–especially in times of active war–know full well the risks involved. all that you just said was a make-believe narrative in your head.
and of course having a willingness to die for your country doesn’t make you “a hero.”
but you said someone who goes out of their own case of self-protection to do something on behalf of others is a hero.
that, my friend, is a great deal of active servicemen. by your own definition. if you want to break down every single mission and deployment and objective and decide by them who is actually a “hero” or not is your prerogative. but signing up for the military AT ALL is one saying “i am willing to put my self in peril for what i believe is the greater good of this nation.”
honestly–if you care so much more about the sanctity of hyperbole in semantics of a word that you dare not call a person killed in action for their country–don’t call the a hero. clearly semantics must come before the human toll.
maybe they aren’t “heroes.”
but i still really, really appreciate them nonetheless.
My only question - did the sign really say “HERO’S ON BOARD” - with the apostrophe?
People who know how to use punctuation are the real heroes.
Oh, and also those who voluntarily risk their lives for the rest of us. Them too.
I made up nothing-I was one of them for awhile. I know the different reasons why my fellow enlistees sign up. Some were in it for the education, some were in it because education didn’t and couldn’t work, some were in it because of family tradition, some were in it for God And Country, and some were in it because recruiters might have stretched the truth just a wee bit. I don’t think that 10% of my fellow enlistees completely understood the contract they signed,and I doubt that 5% understood world politics enough to know where they might be sent or why they may be sent there.
well i appreciate that you did so.
i don’t care if it’s sappy or stupid or hyperbolic. i am a cynic and a misanthrope about all things, but i am thankful people serve.
…because the crap if i ever would.
Do you appreciate the reason why recruiters concentrate their efforts on high schools instead of colleges? They want to get to them before they are exposed to different ideas and ideals, before they are exposed to people from different places, before they are capable of making decisions of an adult nature using adult reasoning.