To me, a hero is a single mother who works three jobs to put her kid through school. A hero is a father making sure that he gets his kid to school on time even though he has a busy schedule. A hero is someone who is there for others when they are sick or in need. Heroes are devoted spouses who put their kids’ needs ahead of their own.
For me, heroes are the regular people that we don’t really notice, but are selfless. Many people don’t notice anyone without seeing them on the media. The media has its own agenda and has been successful at defining such terms for us.
“I still had the army habit of commandeering anything of uncertain ownership that I found lying about; also a difficulty in telling the truth it was always easier for me now when overtaken in any fault to lie my way out . . . And other loose habits of war-time survived, such as stopping passing motorists for a lift, talking without embarrassment to my fellow-travelers in railway carriages, and unbuttoning by the roadside without shame, whoever was about. And I retained the technique of endurance, a brutal persistence in seeing things through.”
(Since I’m a veteran but not a combat veteran, I bolded the part that applies to me. Maybe combat veterans know if and what it is to be a hero)
Maybe I’m confused about the vernacular, but it is still a crime in the USA to be a male over 18 and not sign up for selective service, which means you are signing up for a draft should there ever be one. So what do you mean, by first generation not to have to register for the draft?
The requirement that all young men aged 18 years old register for selective sevice ended from 1975 to 1980. There was no draft registration requirement during that time. The requirement ended a month or 2 after I registered in late '74. There was a 4 or 5 year gap where you couldn’t register for selective service, even if you wanted to.
I’m challenging you to point out what would be different in terms of American freedoms given your claim that they’re continuously dependent on a great deal of ongoing heroism.
^but if you really want a more thought out answer–
the entire planet would be different.
america simply wouldn’t exist in even the remotest capacity that it does now. it wouldn’t exist AT ALL. we would be either annexed into french-canadian/mexican/British imperialist colonies or possibly tiny factionalist societies (but i have no reason to think that–there’s none around us now really so probably annexation). without geopolitical sway, our economy wouldn’t flourish as it does. there’s no telling the ripple effect this would have globally–but you didn’t ask about the sociology-economic aspect. you said freedoms.
for starters, if we were british–you’d not be able to mouth off on the internet (see other threads in GD about british law pertaining to free speech). actually just check into their laws and freedoms–we’d be *that *free.
if you were going to pretend we still somehow got to be America, nope. no America. america only exists because of wars fought, and it only succeeded to this point because of military flex across the globe. we wield that shit to get what we want.
is it bloated? yes. is it kind of screwed up? totally. could we scale things waaaay back and have essentially the same junk? probably–tho it’s impossible to say how scaled back in proportion to how steadily level this way of life persisted would be hard to figure out tho.
but could we not have military at all and have everything the same ? not even maybe. if you want make some kind of arbitrary argument that we could cut military now, at this point in history after all it’s gained us and have everything be the same–sure, for a minute or two, ok. but not in the long-run. we’d be a sitting duck. we’re too much of a global target for smite and we’d have nothing to offer.
our muscle is a major factor in our economic structure, and both in turn factor into the global economic system. it’d be impossible to tell what ramifications no military would have–but it would significant and would be negative.
i really don’t get the negative attitude about servicemen on this board.
honestly–i cannot agree with everything america does. i think we kind of suck in a lot of ways, and i *hate *war. i cannot condone political violence because i’m just not of that ilk. i am thankful everyday i am not in a position to have to decide such things, and i’m thankful people like you and the others here who do or have enlisted have whatever mentality i lack.
a big part of the reverence i have for the military folk is due at least in part to recognizing they see things in a way i don’t, and realizing maybe that’s a necessary component of my current flavor of living. if america was nothing but people like me, we’d be doomed.
sorry everyone is an asshole. “hero”–hyperbolic or not–you’re still appreciated.
The M-I complex’s PR arm lauds service members as heroes who defend freedom, honor and the American Way™. It also praises our military technology and hardware as the most effective in the world.
Then there are the hard facts that U.S. military expenditure is equal to about 47% of global war spending. That’s approximately equal to the next 15 largest national armies combined, and ten of those are allies.
Also, the U.S. accounts for only 5% or the globe’s population and 25% of global wealth.
And the cognitive dissonance starts to creep in.
Either our military tech is woefully inadequate, our service members totally incompetant, or the current size of our defense forces horribly bloated.
The word “hero” was a favorite of the propagandists in the USSR, too. My wife, who grew up there, sarcastically refers to me as “a Hero of the Soviet Union” when she believes I am expecting too much praise or credit for having completed some routine task.
I am yet another (peacetime) vet who thinks the adulation and fawning over military and police is excessive in this country.
Militaries worldwide have to pump their recruits/conscripts up with all kinds of notions that, if you take a step back, are kind of goofy in order to have them do horrible things or things that may result in their own maiming or death. Further, these things may have to be done for murky goals that may or may not be about “protecting our way of life” at all. Not only do the recruits/conscripts have to pumped up with this stuff, so does everybody else; otherwise folks might start taking a closer look at the situation and wonder why blood and treasure are being pissed away.
Comparing the armies that fought the British for independence to the current military welfare-state is like comparing a T-Rex to a turkey.
Without our forces throwing its weight around, the world would be different. But, logically, you can’t say that it would be different in totally unpredictable ways, but that they would definately be negative.
Taking Sadaam Hussein out was a good thing. But, we propped him up before that. Fighting Al Quaeda and killing Bin Laden was good. But, we basically created (or at least midwived) Al Quaeda. Someone has to be strong against Islamo-Fascist Iran. Of course, they are fundamentalist theocrats because we toppled their democracy to install an autocrat. Look, when the Ayatollah Khomeni looks like a better alternative than the guy you want in charge, you might want to examine your priorities. The U.S. provided arms and materiel support to BOTH SIDES during the Iran-Iraq war!
These are just a few of many examples. But, they don’t seem to support the argument that everything the DoD does defends American lives and freedom and democracy around the world. “We can’t just do nothing!”. Really? Because it would be hard to think of “nothing” having a worse outcome than that typical of most of our interventions.
Given this past, “hero” might be a less accurate characterization than “rube”. Of course, no one wants to be thought a fool. We certainly don’t want loved ones who have been maimed or killed to be though of as being duped. But, a refusal to see what is going on will only pave the way for more abuses and tragedies.
That’s a good point. I do actually see my loved ones as having been duped, and it makes me angry.
If we really want everyone to see what is going on, I don’t think arguing the semantics of the word “hero” as it pertains to veterans is the best place to start.
Eventually some Americans might have to come to terms with the fact that technically, their loved ones were maimed/killed in vain…but let’s not lead with that.
I always knew there were people who agree with the OP (not only do they not want you to call soldiers “heroes”, but it actually KILLS them to see people that think highly of service members), but it surprises me to see them on The Straight Dope. Incidentally, I am curious if they hold this soldier = no better than anyone else attitude towards special forces and Navy S.E.A.L.S. or just regular joes?.
I’m not trying to make the average soldier seem unworthy or lower than them. But when you say that elite soldiers are “exceptionally” good, yet not “better” I see a subtle contradiction. They are better at what they do , they aren’t The Incredible Hulk or Superman but I definitely superior (not that the regular joe’s life means nothing, or I’d rather have 2 regular soldiers die than one of these guys I’m just saying their better at what they do). And my point is that I give them this little bit of extra credit.
I’d consider a SEAL to be one tough and dangerous SOB, but not automatically a hero just for passing BUDS. Hell, depending on what kind of classified activities he’s participated in, such an individual could potentially be the furthest thing from heroic. It’s committing actions of unquestionable courage and valor that set you apart from your peers that makes you a hero.
For example, I’d consider a random passerby who risks his life saving people from a burning building to be much more heroic than a firefighter doing the same. The passerby is committing an exceptional act far beyond what would be expected of him, while the firefighter is performing the basic tasks of his profession. You don’t praise a college student for remembering to brush his teeth every night like you might a kindergartner.
