one last case of critcal thinking and plain speaking.....

[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!

Dude, I am with you. My town had a guy I went to high school with and he was the biggest drug dealer in school. He got in trouble with the law and the only way to keep from going to prison was to go to the military. He did nothing but get in trouble while in the USMC and while waiting for some type of hearing or something for some junk he had done, he was killed by a roadside bomb. No kidding, the town built a statue for him. I hate that he is dead, but I wont lie and call him a role model or hero.

I love and respect the people who are fighting because they want to or care about the USA, but the ones who just want a handout, not so mutch.

[Play The Man]

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.

[adamt]

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?

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by adamt

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?

Be grateful for both. Show your appreciation by supporting military charities. The military, in a way, tries to quantify or qualify the sacrifice and bravery with medals. Leave it to them to assign the laurels.

[Boomer]

Adam,

thank you for your kinda words and yes, I have spent the majority of the last 3 years in combat zones or preparing to go into combat zones.

Just like any institution the military has it's share of less than reputable individuals. However, I have seen the military change the local town druggy into a great soldier, or give someone who maybe didn’t have the chance to mature socially in the environment they were brought up in the life skills they needed to become an adult. When you join, now adays, you also almost have an assurance you will spend time in a combat zone. I am pretty much 100% relational on how a handle life. Money really does mean nothing to me and if I do something it has to have merit in some sort of relational aspect. Even though these deployments ware me down and age me more than I care to think ... the people over here are some of the finest folks in America. They may have not come in that way ... but they sure as hell come out that way. “Hero” in my terms is a strong word for any one person ... but the sentiment of seeing a soldier and buying them a beer is an act of gratefulness that people do volunteer to keep America safe. The solider or Marine at that moment is more or less an icon of something bigger grateful people choose to acknowledge.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by adamt

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?

Actually, this never happens anymore. The Army is so selective these days that NO ONE is given the choice of "go to prison or join the Army." That might have been the case in the 40s, 50s or 60s, but it's not the case now.

EVERYONE who joins the military these days is a volunteer. Just because they are getting paid, doesn't mean they are not volunteers. There is no draft anymore and military service is no longer synonymous with a prison sentence. NO ONE goes to war for free, soldiers expect to be compensated if they are going to put their lives on the line for their country. That's been a fact of every single war in American history. It doesn't diminish the great heroism that has been displayed by our troops in the past, however.

Now, I do agree that not everyone who serves in the military is a hero (and yes, I use the word "serve" because being in the military is more than just collecting a paycheck). However, I also don't think that civilians who have never served in the military are capable of truly understanding what is expected of a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine.

Originally Posted by NateR

Actually, this never happens anymore. The Army is so selective these days that NO ONE is given the choice of "go to prison or join the Army." That might have been the case in the 40s, 50s or 60s, but it's not the case now.

EVERYONE who joins the military these days is a volunteer. Just because they are getting paid, doesn't mean they are not volunteers. There is no draft anymore and military service is no longer synonymous with a prison sentence. NO ONE goes to war for free, soldiers expect to be compensated if they are going to put their lives on the line for their country. That's been a fact of every single war in American history. It doesn't diminish the great heroism that has been displayed by our troops in the past, however.

Now, I do agree that not everyone who serves in the military is a hero (and yes, I use the word "serve" because being in the military is more than just collecting a paycheck). However, I also don't think that civilians who have never served in the military are capable of truly understanding what is expected of a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine.

Dude, it happens pretty often with the National Guard down here. Judges give young men the "serve or serve" choice pretty regular in Washington Parish.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Rev

Dude, it happens pretty often with the National Guard down here. Judges give young men the "serve or serve" choice pretty regular in Washington Parish.

Well, the National Guard is kind of a different animal from the Regular Army. Usually guys with criminal records have a lot of trouble enlisting in the active duty military. That's not saying that it doesn't happen, but they usually have to receive some kind of waiver to be let in.

Originally Posted by Rev

Dude, it happens pretty often with the National Guard down here. Judges give young men the "serve or serve" choice pretty regular in Washington Parish.

it happens here but with the others, im not 100% sure how they do it, but i have 2 step brothers both should of went to jail, both went military

the judge looks at the court file, pulls them aside with their lawyer and tells them they can either go through with the trial and take their chances, or they have 20 days to enlist in the military

step brother 1 had drug charges and theft, joined the navy where he was dishonorably discharged, and the federal gov then put him in jail anyway
step brother 2 same charges, but joined army, he is still in the military, but recently had some problems pop up (major problems stealing a base credit card) , and waiting to see what they do to him

i support our military 100%, donate to the different charities supporting our troops, and have nothing but respect for what they do, but like everything that carries a certain prestige with it, there are individuals that dont deserve to be there or recieve the honor associated with it, but it doesnt and shouldnt take away from the majority serving the country with the honor and integrity expected