View Single Post
Old 07-25-2009, 09:58 AM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,265

Originally Posted by adamt
I'll put the disclaimer first on this thread. As I really really don't want to offend on this one. I have a little fun poking at people on the others but this one is all serious. I am not in anyway demeaning those like boomer and nate on here that have served. this is a serious thought, comment.

Why is it that everyone in the military is a "hero" nowadays?

You can take the druggiest loser whose life is nothing and he gets a choice of prison or the army and goes into the army and he is all of a sudden a hero? I do have ALOT of respect for those that served and have served, but doesn't it demean those that serve with distinction --the real heroes--when anyone who is in uniform gets red carpet treatment just for being in the armed services?

This is where I want to tread lightly... but i have family members in the armed services and they are compensated VERY well. It is a job. They are not volunteering. they actually aren't serving their country anymore than a mailman is. The armed services did THEM a huge favor, not them doing the country a huge favor.

I see those that actually volunteered (not "recruited") happily(not last resort) as the heroes. To my knowledge some people in the armed forces can't be trusted to be in combat zones. Doesn't it irk anyone else that we consider them heroes? How long and often has boomer been in combat zones? I think he is one of the heroes.

What about the many men that signed up after pearl harbor, even forty and fifty year old men, to just preserve our nations security. They would have went without pay, AND DID!

I dare say this issue is much like others.... It is what the motivation is that matters. I think in all honesty it would be hard for me to consider anyone a hero unless they would do it for free. I know I couldn't say that. But I know also that there are alot who can. Those are the heroes, not the ones who just hope to put in their time and get out and get 40,000 for a house or college education.

The sad part is how do you make the distinction this day and age?

That's just my two cents, I have been testing some theories lately on here, and this one has been bugging me for a while. So fire away!!!! I'm ready!
I understand your sentiment; however, I disagree. I have not been in the military and I don't feel comfortable taking the "hero" label away from someone when I haven't sacrificed as much as they have. I think we should leave it up to the veterans to clarify. I think that certain vocations, like soldier, policeman and fireman demonstrate a higher level of service than other vocations, because they involve a very real risk of death in performance of duty. Does that denigrate vocations like mailman, teacher, clerk, etc.? No, it just recognizes the reality of the risk that some jobs entail. If you don't use the word, "hero", I think you need to have some word to recognize the willingness to expose oneself to a real risk of death. In my opinion, soldiers are not compensated well for the risks and responsibilities they shoulder. I don't like paying taxes one bit; however, I would gladly accept a tax hike if the soldiers, fireman, and police were better compensated. I agree that someone that volunteers for patriotic reasons is more noble than someone that signs up for other reasons; however, even the person that signs up for reasons other than patriotism is still braving gunfire, sweating in 110 degree heat, and spending months away from family. That is more than I have done for my country. If you want to take the name, "hero", away, then at least propose another name to recognize their higher level of risk and sacrifice.
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555
Reply With Quote