View Single Post
Old 07-25-2009, 02:29 PM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511

Originally Posted by Play The Man
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.

I understand, and respect your opinion, I just still disagree. However, you did make me think the ones that are actually in harms way do need a special title--- but how can civilians discern between the two?
Reply With Quote