Why are people who go to war automatically declared heroes?

Forget the 'news' media telling you, tell me why YOU think this.

Someone grows up obsessed with guns, doesn't feel s/he has the intellegence to get a degree or a job, or s/he becomes a chav, and is automatically directed toward the army as their career. Why does that person then suddenly become a hero?

If that person is a wifebeater, a bully, why do you blindly say that person is a hero?

If George W Bush is evil, what does that make his soldiers? Heroes?

If, to give a less complicated example, Britain invaded Latvia quite abruptly, how are the soldiers there 'defending our freedom'?

If someone went to Afghanistan and was not called upon to do anything, why does that make him/her a hero of equal value to someone who got shot at?

Why does someone who got shot at have a heroicness of equal value to someone who ran back into a battlefield to save a wounded soldier?

What if one of those soldiers raped someone, before or after this? Who is the hero then?

Why do we use the term 'hero' rather than the more accurate term 'pawn', or 'statistic'?

Why does one become less of a hero the further away from the battlefield and being shot at they are? Why do you become a hero if you're in the front line of a controversial war shooting people, but not for being the President/Prime Minister/whatever that arranged it?

If I go to the zoo, jump into the lion enclosure, get attacked by a lion but kill it, why does that not make me a hero?

If someone threatens me, do I become a hero if I fight their friends because my dad told me to?

Just wonderin'. Being a hero doesn't seem that simple to me, but I await your theories.

Because he/she is willing to put his/her life on the line, to endure great physical and psychological pressure 24/7 and to leave his/her family for months at a time, and all this not for personal gain but for the safety and freedom of those who stay behind. This courage and selflessness is what makes our soldiers heroes.
This has nothing to do with wether you agree with the political reasons for the armed conflict in question, you can be for example a strong opponent of the iraqe war and still commend the troops for their brave sacrifice.

And no, our soldiers are certainly not 'pawns'. The fact that you say that and the tone of your post can only lead to one assumption: You've never worn a uniform and never put your life or you personal interests on the line for the wellbeing of others. It seems like you're just one of many who sit in the safety and warmth of their homes and thinks he is morally superior to those who actually do something at great personal risk to ensure this warmth and safety you're enjoying without lifting a finger.
I pity you.

Someone grows up obsessed with guns, doesn't feel s/he has the intellegence to get a degree or a job, or s/he becomes a chav, and is automatically directed toward the army as their career. Why does that person then suddenly become a hero?

Why do we use the term 'hero' rather than the more accurate term 'pawn', or 'statistic'?

And I pity you for thinking that they are putting their lives on the line for the safety and wellbeing of the rest of us. They are not. They are putting their lives on the line because they are told to by people who use them for political gain and for profit. If they want to delude themselves that they are defending the British values of democracy, free speech and all that crap then good luck to them, it probably helps them cope with the stresses of the job they have to do, but it doesn't change the facts.

They are heroes until proven **********s. Only a small number of soldiers are bastards and the majority are good people who want to protect their family and others in suffering the only way they know how.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Also, a career as "cannon fodder" is naturally not a very attractive one, when phrased this way. Portraying the job as similar to that of a superhero who's protecting our country makes it sound a lot more appealing.

I think they are called heroes as they risk there lives to fight on the front line

They are heroes until proven **********s. Only a small number of soldiers are bastards and the majority are good people who want to protect their family and others in suffering the only way they know how.

I think soldiers deserve gratitude, but they are not all heros, and they themselves will be the first to tell you that.

However they are certainly not just 'pawns' and 'statistics', there people.

There not obsessed with guns. The novelty soon wears off when you have to carry the chunk of metal on a speed march over the moors when its raining sideways

Theyre not all heroes, its just the poular tabloid press that likes to label them as that. I was in the army for quite a while, I went to Iraq in 2003 but I really don't see myself as a hero. I definately don't see the troops who were involved in the prisoner abuse then as heroes, theyre just c**ts. I do however see the marine who threw himself on top of a grenade to stop others being killed as one, just like the female medic who got an MC last week for crawling under heavy fire and treating wounded, thats heroic.

Because he/she is willing to put his/her life on the line, to endure great physical and psychological pressure 24/7 and to leave his/her family for months at a time, and all this not for personal gain but for the safety and freedom of those who stay behind. This courage and selflessness is what makes our soldiers heroes.

This has nothing to do with wether you agree with the political reasons for the armed conflict in question, you can be for example a strong opponent of the iraqe war and still commend the troops for their brave sacrifice.

And no, our soldiers are certainly not 'pawns'. The fact that you say that and the tone of your post can only lead to one assumption: You've never worn a uniform and never put your life or you personal interests on the line for the wellbeing of others. It seems like you're just one of many who sit in the safety and warmth of their homes and thinks he is morally superior to those who actually do something at great personal risk to ensure this warmth and safety you're enjoying without lifting a finger.
I pity you.

But we haven't invaded Latvia, we don't call soldiers who rape heroes and if you jump into a lion enclosure then your an ass. No doubt you are a self-titled intellectual, but in reality a left wing liberal hippie pacifist pretencious ponce.
War is an extension of diplomacy, and our Government engages in diplomacy as a means of carrying out their jobs: Doing what is in the best interests of the country. Soldiers, by fighting wars, are risking their lives for the good of the country and thus are heroes.
You seem to have equated that all people in general who take orders aren't heroes, but that is a load of crap and you know it.

I think they're called such because of what they do on the battlefield, not because of their background.

You've clearly got your own [woefully biased and awfully misinformed] axe to grind over this, so wasting my time replying to you is probably not worth the effort...

However, those in the Armed Forces [there are more people than just those in the Army, after all] are, on the whole, more demanding of the title than, as is frequently seen, footballers, rugby players, cricketers, etc...

Would you be willing to put your life on the line for <£25k/yr? I highly doubt it.