Soldiers are not heros?

[Gunau Sodwind]

So i was cruising facebook, and i noticed my friend Tom had entered into a retard fight on the internet, with a european female about the topic of Soldiers. She was proporting that all soldiers ware murderous sheep and that they do not deserve respect or what not. Being a serviceman, and a future officer, i must say this bothered me. I don't to be treated differently because i'm in the Army, i just want people to know that i would lay down my life for thiers and the constitution. This is more than most would do.

While soldiers in Iraq and Afgahnistan are not fighting for our freedom as Americans, they are attempting to restrain the amount of people who want to kill the rest of us from populating. People don't really think about things except at face value. Yes iraq was possibly because of false pretenses , but if we were not actively in areas that breed terrorism where would we be? some proport that terrorists only exist BECAUSE we're in Iraq and afghanistan, who knows, but hindsight is allways 20/20.

anyway i'm rambling, feel free to refocus this discussion or just present your feelings on this matter.

http://apps.new.facebook.com/causes/111767...ter_id=17808779

[Jayce Iredell]

Any soldier that has ever recieved a Medal of Honor, or other highly esteemed award, usually answers with the following.

"I wasn't being a hero, I was just doing my job."

Just because some tree hugging, pot smoking, long haired vegetarian, doesn't like killing, doesn't give them the right to piss on Soldiers. They're out there day and night doing their jobs, protecting the weak and upholding societies that would otherwise collapse into utter chaos.

If a soldier came to my door and asked for the shirt off my back, he would have it, the food off my table, it would be his, my bed to sleep? you bet. I would give all that away just because of their sacrifice; sleeping in the desert while we watch our TV, play our games, and go about our puffed up lives ignoring of the fact that a soldier paid with their blood just so we could be ignorant.

The Media, Politicians, and Civilians have no right to say to soldiers that they're 'murderers' or 'evil'. Evil is the type of person that would give a school boy a backpack with a bomb in it, a murderer is the type of person that would fly a plane into a sky scraper.

Seems how quickly and easily people forget how they got to exist the way they do today. Its because someone fought and died, to earn you the right to say you hate the very soldier that is sworn to your protection.

I'm going to stop myself before I get carried away and offend somebody, I just felt like adding a bit of my own personal feelings in here.

[Tuomy Boa]

Soldier is a crappy paying, but neccesary job.

Becoming a soldier and going in to war for the values you believe in is nothing to be spit at.

it's a personal sacrifice for YOUR sake as well.

[Keystone Gray]

My piece:

No disrespect to soldiers, because I do respect them, but I am not as quick to call them heroes; they signed up, it's their job, they do it and try to do it well. I'm not saying there aren't heroes among them, but it's not very logical to put them all under the same brand.

For example, sitting behind a desk in Saddam's palace pushing papers somehow got someone in my area that title, and I've spent all of my time in high school in his classroom. He's racist and sexist. What's worse, he teaches a class full of impressionable Freshmen and is legally allowed to state his sexist and racist beliefs; trust me, I've looked up the California education code for reasons to report and nail this guy, to no avail. Members of uniformed services are exempt from laws barring teachers from being overtly vicious in stating their bigotry. I refuse to call this retired Army colonel a "hero". I'd rather see him shot. NOT for his history or previous occupation, mind you, but for his actions and my observations of his pompous, assenine behavior.

Aside from the conceited sort, the only soldiers I refuse to even consider calling heroes are those who willingly bomb or attack civilian targets. It's quite simple to say "no" to missions such as those. Yes, someone else takes your place, but if everyone decided to not harm innocents, it wouldn't happen. Ever since WWI, it has been seen as "legitimate" by Western governments to have certain measures of collateral damage. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were prime examples of the United States blatantly killing civilians in order to end a war. Not a pretty sight. People still suffer from the radiation.

People willing to fight for what they believe in? Yeah, sure. Heroic enough, but only if they know why they're fighting. I -NEVER- call a soldier evil, despite my outright despisal of warfare.

To sum up my feelings effectively: I judge the individual, and not the group. To judge a group for the actions of a few is to generalize and demean those who actually mean something to the world.

Opinions have ways of dipping into politics even when it's not even centered around such, both intentionally and unintentionally. Calling someone a tree hugger or a hippie is just as harsh as being called a hawk or a right-wing fascist; I'm leaving my own politics out of this one, and I tried my best to refrain from name-calling without undermining my feelings.

EDIT: Second disclaimer: No, I didn't trim any of this up to be politically correct; it is what it is, these are my opinions, solid and true. Make of it what you will.

[Phillip Hultcrantz]

Her tune will change when the suicide bombs start coming her way. She'll be begging for a big strong soldier to coem save her pathetic useless soul.

[Aelus]

If everyone was introverted the world would be a much calmer, extreme place.

[Trevor Russell]

Aelus Janus wrote:

If everyone was introverted the world would be a much calmer, extreme place.

here here.

[Gunau Sodwind]

Trevor Russell wrote:

Aelus Janus wrote:

If everyone was introverted the world would be a much calmer, extreme place.

here here.

First off, i'd like to thank Keystone for having a disssenting opinion, especially on a forum such as this.

I would agree that a blanket statement of calling all soldiers hero's is not true, there are alot of motherfuckers out there. But the fact of the matter remains, many warriors joined the service before iraq, they decided they wished to serve thier country. That is honorable, then the war broke out, and were ordered by thier country to do thier job. However, the reason i joined, since it seems all conflicts are foriegn now, rather than here at home, was to fight along side my bretheren who have no choice but to serve in the shit holes like Iraq and Afgahnistan. Of course they knew what they were getting into, but they need as much support and protection as you and i do, sitting comfortably in our rooms jerking off to furry porn.

Anyway, as to what Aelus said, if the world was full of introverts, it'd be boring, dull, and the human race would go extinct. Gotta have sex to make the race live guiz. ;)

I have no problem with Introverts, gay dudez, arabs, jews, etc, but anyone who wears their subculture like a badge and compairs it to others to make them selves feel better, in this soldiers opinion, is just as bad as the extrovert who harasses the introvert.

I've felt this way with everything. Hell Marines, Airborne guys, etc that hold thier service to the rest of America and think that they are better because of what they did is not right either.

anyway, i suck cocks and am very tired.

[Krow Ames]

Gunau Sodwind wrote:

While soldiers in Iraq and Afgahnistan are not fighting for our freedom as Americans, they are attempting to restrain the amount of people who want to kill the rest of us from populating.

Just want to say that every continent America steps on in an act of war or defense, it's for American freedom. How far would the real tyrants of the world go if our brave men and women didn't make that sacrifice and sign up to serve and fight? Because of them, we're able to fight.

At the very heart of the war, it's all about American freedom and spreading that freedom to the world. In that sense, soldiers are heroes of the WORLD, not just the country they fight to protect.

Keystone: I understand what you're saying. For me, it's a "hero until proven not" kind of thing, and he certainly is not.

[Vladimus Nikolaidis]

Keystone Gray wrote:

Aside from the conceited sort, the only soldiers I refuse to even consider calling heroes are those who willingly bomb or attack civilian targets. It's quite simple to say "no" to missions such as those. Yes, someone else takes your place, but if everyone decided to not harm innocents, it wouldn't happen. Ever since WWI, it has been seen as "legitimate" by Western governments to have certain measures of collateral damage. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were prime examples of the United States blatantly killing civilians in order to end a war. Not a pretty sight. People still suffer from the radiation.

Very well thought out, except this part. There are no "missions such as those" to bomb or attack civilian targets, at least not in modern warfare. Do civilians die? Of

course they do. And 9.9 times out of 10, it's a pure and simple accident. It's a war,

mistakes happen, and unfortunately civilians sometimes get caught in the middle.

Every single thing that can be done to prevent this from happening is done, but

people aren't perfect and sometimes mistakes are made. It's easy for the media

and the long haired, tree hugging hippies to sit back and play armchair general,

but until you've seen it first hand for yourself in the real world, you don't know

both sides of the story.

As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Casualty estimates in 1945 for an invasion of the

Japanese homeland were slated at 500,000 American lives, conservatively.

Total number of Japanese killed in both bombings combined was roughly 220,000.

Was saving 500,000 American lives worth sacrificing 220,000 Japanese ones? I say

of course it was, but that's me. *shrugs* If I was Japanese, probably not so much.

[Rei Kuhr]

I'm probably going to get a lot of negative flak for saying this, but it's my opinion.

If civilians decide to stick around a war zone, then they better accept the consequences of their decision.

[Gunau Sodwind]

Rei Kuhr wrote:

I'm probably going to get a lot of negative flak for saying this, but it's my opinion.

If civilians decide to stick around a war zone, then they better accept the consequences of their decision.

well rei, in modern war they cant' just up and leave. shit goes to hell too fast.

The fact of the matter remains, Soldiers fight for country and each other. I joined the Army , not because i give a damn about liberating other countries, i want to actually do my part to help my bretheren live a little bit longer, to make the right choices, and do what i can to make my little part of hell better. That is my calling.

[Yoko]

a hero is like the person who make the internet they are a hero becuase they made porn free and easy to get to :D

[Keystone Gray]

Vladimus Nikolaidis wrote:

Keystone Gray wrote:

Aside from the conceited sort, the only soldiers I refuse to even consider calling heroes are those who willingly bomb or attack civilian targets. It's quite simple to say "no" to missions such as those. Yes, someone else takes your place, but if everyone decided to not harm innocents, it wouldn't happen. Ever since WWI, it has been seen as "legitimate" by Western governments to have certain measures of collateral damage. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were prime examples of the United States blatantly killing civilians in order to end a war. Not a pretty sight. People still suffer from the radiation.

Very well thought out, except this part. There are no "missions such as those" to bomb or attack civilian targets, at least not in modern warfare. Do civilians die? Of

course they do. And 9.9 times out of 10, it's a pure and simple accident. It's a war,

mistakes happen, and unfortunately civilians sometimes get caught in the middle.

Every single thing that can be done to prevent this from happening is done, but

people aren't perfect and sometimes mistakes are made. It's easy for the media

and the long haired, tree hugging hippies to sit back and play armchair general,

but until you've seen it first hand for yourself in the real world, you don't know

both sides of the story.

Bracketing name-calling generalizes a very valid motive for actions and destroys the original meaning of a protestor's objective; just as with soldiers, bad apples spoil the bunch. Not all anti-war folks are "long-haired, tree hugging hippies" or stoners. Calling people these names is the same as calling a soldier a murderer; it's making them seem less credible to aid one side of the argument and to demoralize the other.

As far as I see things, all generals are armchair generals. Yeah, real ones make decisions. However, I have yet to see one pick up a gun and get into the fray with the rest of his men on the front lines. Pics or it didn't happen. "Heroic general" is an oxymoron.

And again, with respect to soldiers, I still don't see any reason why innocents should pay the price for something they didn't sign up for. If you had the choice as to how your home town (filled with your family and your loved ones) would be overrun, would you personally choose a nuclear attack or a strategic one?

[Vladimus Nikolaidis]

Thanks for the almost-wrist slapping. I almost felt like I was underage and back in high school there for a second. B)

Of course innocent civilians shouldnt HAVE to die... that's just common sense.

And obviously, I"d choose a strategic one. Unfortunately, the Japanese government made the decision for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for them by refusing to surrender beforehand.

Also, do you think generals are just born with stars on their collars? They come up through the ranks like everyone else, and many of them are veterans of previous conflicts. Just because they're controlling things from a distance now doesnt mean they didnt do it at one time, so your argument about "Heroic General" being an oxymoron doesn't really make sense. *shrugs*

[Gunau Sodwind]

Hey guys, lets take a step back, there are some servicemen in the ordo who have served, and are serving, some have actually seen combat. Keep in mind this is simply a debate and a place to voice opinions, we're not here to attack each other.

Just a definitional, to attain the rank of general you must A) serve for 30 to 40 years active duty,and B) you must have distinguished your self in one way or another.

Lets think about this for a moment, these guys are NOT young people, but they have VAST millitary experiance, in the RL you ACTUALLY have to run around and shoot people, what good would it be to A) lose all that experiance to a random shot on the front lines and B) to have a geezer running around with an m-16.

Not every hero became one by shooting arabs. Doctors, firemen, support staff, all these people work together to make things work. THAT is what makes them heros. Personal accomplishment makes a great sensational story, but more often than not, hero's go unsung. You don't hear about the cook who busted his ass to get his battalion fed so that they could go save the world. That man is a hero, he did his job better than every one else could have because he knew he had a duty to fulfill, so that others could do thiers.

[Streak Bender]

Gunau Sodwind wrote:

Not every hero became one by shooting arabs. Doctors, firemen, support staff, all these people work together to make things work. THAT is what makes them heros. Personal accomplishment makes a great sensational story, but more often than not, hero's go unsung. You don't hear about the cook who busted his ass to get his battalion fed so that they could go save the world. That man is a hero, he did his job better than every one else could have because he knew he had a duty to fulfill, so that others could do thiers.

Well said.

[Keystone Gray]

Hehe, came back to try to bow out politely, was afraid I started a political stir. Glad I didn't. And yeah, Gunau, I agree with Streak for agreeing with you because I agree with you too. (o.o)