Why are people who go to war automatically declared heroes?
Scroll to see replies
They are not heroes, they are just doing their job. I think people actually doing something inside the country like nurses or policemen or lollypop women are more deserving of the title hero. But you shouldn't be give the title for doing your job.
I always thought it was a way to make war seem more acceptable, and to recruit more people to the army. Think about it.
Soldier gets called hero by entire country- little kid sees this 'hero'- kid wants to be like hero- kid joins the army. And so the cycle continues.
In my opinion they have nothing to deserve the title. That word is thrown around too easily.
I always thought it was a way to make war seem more acceptable, and to recruit more people to the army. Think about it.
Soldier gets called hero by entire country- little kid sees this 'hero'- kid wants to be like hero- kid joins the army. And so the cycle continues.
In my opinion they have nothing to deserve the title. That word is thrown around too easily.
Original post by nonotrly
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.
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.
Call somone a chav so they join the army? **** you and your stereotyping.
1) Not all chavs join the army
2) Not everyone in the army doesn't have a degree
Original post by siwelmail
Call somone a chav so they join the army? **** you and your stereotyping.
1) Not all chavs join the army
2) Not everyone in the army doesn't have a degree
1) Not all chavs join the army
2) Not everyone in the army doesn't have a degree
Never said any of that, let alone disputing #1 or #2, angry knee-jerk man. Feel free to continue to read the rest of the post if you want, now that you've vented.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by jismith1989
Original post by jismith1989
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Surely that's only in the case of armies being used for self-defence? You could argue that if countries didn't have armies willing to carry out acts of violence on behalf of the state people would have little reason to be concerned in the first place. WWI and WWII were started by armies willing to kill and conquer unquestionably on behalf of their state.
Original post by nonotrly
So if I run into a road, I'm a hero?
How is being ordered to shoot Asians automatically protecting Britain?
Why am I automatically in the wrong for choosing to have a career in a different area and living in a house?
So the soldiers of Libya are heroes?
How is being ordered to shoot Asians automatically protecting Britain?
Why am I automatically in the wrong for choosing to have a career in a different area and living in a house?
So the soldiers of Libya are heroes?
If you run into the road you're just exhibiting your own stupidity and placing others at risk. You're not running into the road to protect people, or for any form of the greater good. The risk element is weighed up against the reasoning. You're not a hero for jumping off a bridge because you might get hurt. One becomes a hero for putting yourself in harm's way to help others.
Nobody is "being ordered to shoot Asians", the rules of engagement are extraordinarily tight and, in 99% of cases, puts our soldiers in more harm. When you make statements like that it makes you look uneducated and like you have severe dislike for the Armed Forces, a heavy bias that makes this topic moot.
Why do you assume people in the Armed Forces don't have houses? Can it be possible that you're really that misinformed?
To some, they are. Just as to some, the IRA were.
People aren't wrong for having opinions different to yours if they can back it up with reason. The sooner you learn that, the sooner we can stop having threads that have been done several times before.
I note you completely ignored by bit about sporting 'stars' being called heroes. What's your thinking on that? Or is someone who earns £10m+ for doing something they love in a very pleasant arena allowed to be a hero because they're not a political tool?
Labelling everyone as "A hero" doesn't it belittle its' meaning ?
They're not automatically heroes and definitely shouldn't be. First and foremost, IT'S THEIR JOB! They had the CHOICE to to join the army; they could've picked any other career, and they know full well the risks when they join.
A hero is someone who goes out of their way, above and beyond the call of duty, whatever their role is, be it in the army or a doctor, or policeman, or even a teacher sometimes. You shouldn't automatically become a hero just because it's your job to risk your life. You should be called a hero if you risk your life for the sake of saving another human being for example. Soldiers can still do that too, like diving on a fellow soldier to get them out of the way of a road-side bomb.
If you want to blanket-describe all soldiers as heros, then you should do the same for Doctors/Surgeons. The latter more so. They save lives, not kill lives.
A hero is someone who goes out of their way, above and beyond the call of duty, whatever their role is, be it in the army or a doctor, or policeman, or even a teacher sometimes. You shouldn't automatically become a hero just because it's your job to risk your life. You should be called a hero if you risk your life for the sake of saving another human being for example. Soldiers can still do that too, like diving on a fellow soldier to get them out of the way of a road-side bomb.
If you want to blanket-describe all soldiers as heros, then you should do the same for Doctors/Surgeons. The latter more so. They save lives, not kill lives.
Original post by CombineHarvester
Surely that's only in the case of armies being used for self-defence? You could argue that if countries didn't have armies willing to carry out acts of violence on behalf of the state people would have little reason to be concerned in the first place. WWI and WWII were started by armies willing to kill and conquer unquestionably on behalf of their state.
People that forget their own morals and kill because the state tells them too aren’t my idea of a 'hero'. Especially since we never enter wars for the benefit of humanity, but to preserve our own countries oil supplies.
Original post by Drewski
If you run into the road you're just exhibiting your own stupidity and placing others at risk. You're not running into the road to protect people, or for any form of the greater good. The risk element is weighed up against the reasoning. You're not a hero for jumping off a bridge because you might get hurt. One becomes a hero for putting yourself in harm's way to help others.
Nobody is "being ordered to shoot Asians", the rules of engagement are extraordinarily tight and, in 99% of cases, puts our soldiers in more harm. When you make statements like that it makes you look uneducated and like you have severe dislike for the Armed Forces, a heavy bias that makes this topic moot.
Why do you assume people in the Armed Forces don't have houses? Can it be possible that you're really that misinformed?
To some, they are. Just as to some, the IRA were.
People aren't wrong for having opinions different to yours if they can back it up with reason. The sooner you learn that, the sooner we can stop having threads that have been done several times before.
I note you completely ignored by bit about sporting 'stars' being called heroes. What's your thinking on that? Or is someone who earns £10m+ for doing something they love in a very pleasant arena allowed to be a hero because they're not a political tool?
Nobody is "being ordered to shoot Asians", the rules of engagement are extraordinarily tight and, in 99% of cases, puts our soldiers in more harm. When you make statements like that it makes you look uneducated and like you have severe dislike for the Armed Forces, a heavy bias that makes this topic moot.
Why do you assume people in the Armed Forces don't have houses? Can it be possible that you're really that misinformed?
To some, they are. Just as to some, the IRA were.
People aren't wrong for having opinions different to yours if they can back it up with reason. The sooner you learn that, the sooner we can stop having threads that have been done several times before.
I note you completely ignored by bit about sporting 'stars' being called heroes. What's your thinking on that? Or is someone who earns £10m+ for doing something they love in a very pleasant arena allowed to be a hero because they're not a political tool?
- So why are soldiers automatically heroes?
- So what are the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq doing, if they are not using or disarming weapons? Are they just there to stand around and look impressive?
- What on EARTH are you talking about? Read my post again.
- Stop looking for trouble. Yes, I believe footballers should be earning millions of pounds a year. I also eat kittens, lack intelligence and step on babies. This is why my thread is wrong and you have enlightened me.
I haven't encountered sportsman being called heroes, and perhaps you haven't either. 'Role model' is not the same as 'hero', although I don't see how playing sport can make someone a role model unless we get access to their training, disipline and the barriers they broke to get to the top, which we don't see regularly.
Only reply in future if you are actually trying to have a conversation. Your manner thus far to myself and others has been poor, and I will not entertain you if it continues.
Taking out what I've quoted to pretend I'm literal and that I think soldiers don't have houses, or suggesting I think footballers are heroes with a tough life and OK wage? Delete it before you post it, and be constructive instead.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by jismith1989
Original post by jismith1989
Sure. But I don't think any of us would risk unilateral disarmament. (And I suppose that one could also make an argument for pre-emptive attack as well as self-defence.)
Pre-emptive strike would fall under the category of self defence imo. You don't have to take a blow first to have to justify defend yourself, you do have to justify that a viable, immediate threat exists though. I was just making the point that the main reason we need to defend ourselves militarily to protect civilians is because somewhere there are armed forces willing to attack people unjustifiably. If we're looking at armed forces as a whole on an international level, that doesn't put them in a good light and indicates we'd be far better off without them as a whole. The fact we do have them isn't something to be proud of but something that is the unfortunate consequence of a hostile environment.
People who sign up to the army know the dangers. They KNOW they might die. People seem to forget this.
Original post by NGC773
People who sign up to the army know the dangers. They KNOW they might die. People seem to forget this.
In this case when a young girl was killed by a drunk driver who ran a red light , she knew roads are dangerous, she KNEW she might do. People forget this....
Original post by Manc990
In this case when a young girl was killed by a drunk driver who ran a red light , she knew roads are dangerous, she KNEW she might do. People forget this....
Ohh come on...... What a stupid comparison
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by moonkatt
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.
This really.
Some are heroes. Some are dicks.
Suppose in other regards help for heroes is just a way of helping soldiers who come back from war and in some cases get a **** help from the government afterwards and are in need of support
Original post by Manc990
In this case when a young girl was killed by a drunk driver who ran a red light , she knew roads are dangerous, she KNEW she might do. People forget this....
Signing on a dotted line where above it states you might die is completely different than crossing the road
One persons signs knowing the dangers, the young girl knows its red and safe to cross but due to someone elses actions out of no fault in her own she gets hit.
Original post by IFondledAGibbon
People that forget their own morals and kill because the state tells them too aren’t my idea of a 'hero'. Especially since we never enter wars for the benefit of humanity, but to preserve our own countries oil supplies.
Only in the last 30 years or so.
The ex squaddies I know have a very cynical view of this 'heroes' business. The talk of soldiers being heroes never comes from the forces themselves, it comes from two sources
1 - the tabloid media, to sell papers
2 - politicians, to gain support for themselves by being associated with paying tribute to 'heroes'
Squaddies are heroes while they are out there and if they die but if they come back and struggle to find a job then they just get forgotten about. By and large I reckon people who are in the forces have a different view based on realism, ie its a job, it's a dangerous and risky job but they've put themselves up for it, they respect each other so by and large they don't care what civvies think of them.
I think the middle class guys in the forces benefit most from the idea of heroes, you get a guy who goes to uni, goes to Sandhurst, serves as an officer for a while, comes back and gets a job in the city, he will get treated with extra respect as an ex officer and will to a certain extent be able to trade off that for the rest of his life. Then you get a working class lad who goes into the forces at 16, serves on the front line, comes back, struggles to find work, ends up either unemployed or working minimum wage as a security guard, nobody really cares about his background he gets treated like a nobody.
It always annoys me that when you get guys from the first Gulf War who came back suffering from conditions which have affected their quality of lives for the past two decades, whenever they try to get compensation or even acknowledgement for 'Gulf War syndrome' they get fobbed off by the MoD and government....but the government still likes to compete for who can pass the best tribute to our 'brave men and women on the front line'.
1 - the tabloid media, to sell papers
2 - politicians, to gain support for themselves by being associated with paying tribute to 'heroes'
Squaddies are heroes while they are out there and if they die but if they come back and struggle to find a job then they just get forgotten about. By and large I reckon people who are in the forces have a different view based on realism, ie its a job, it's a dangerous and risky job but they've put themselves up for it, they respect each other so by and large they don't care what civvies think of them.
I think the middle class guys in the forces benefit most from the idea of heroes, you get a guy who goes to uni, goes to Sandhurst, serves as an officer for a while, comes back and gets a job in the city, he will get treated with extra respect as an ex officer and will to a certain extent be able to trade off that for the rest of his life. Then you get a working class lad who goes into the forces at 16, serves on the front line, comes back, struggles to find work, ends up either unemployed or working minimum wage as a security guard, nobody really cares about his background he gets treated like a nobody.
It always annoys me that when you get guys from the first Gulf War who came back suffering from conditions which have affected their quality of lives for the past two decades, whenever they try to get compensation or even acknowledgement for 'Gulf War syndrome' they get fobbed off by the MoD and government....but the government still likes to compete for who can pass the best tribute to our 'brave men and women on the front line'.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- Questions on "The Ultimate Safari" by Nadine Gordimer
- How good is this 30 maker? illiad
- Anyone willing to critique my Q5 English Language GCSE practice?
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Cambridge summer school
- HMRC going to hunt down tax evasions for side hustlers
- Anyone experienced willing to critique my GCSE Q5 of English Language Paper 1?
- Conditional caution but I have a job offer
- what is the best anime
- Any primary sources that show nationalism was the main cause of the First World War?
- Classics a level
- What are manual driver's problems with Automatic car drivers. Are they jealous?
- Can someone please give me feedback on this essay?
- What are your top 10 video games?
- Is this answer about social inequality in an inspector calls good
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Driving Test Anxiety
- Ucl ucas mistake
Latest
Last reply 20 minutes ago
AQA A Level Sociology Paper 2 (7192/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 20 minutes ago
R u 18-25 & studying in a England Uni, spare a few mins to fill my survey. 1 wk left.Last reply 23 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 30 minutes ago
st. andrews sixth form in cambridgeLast reply 48 minutes ago
Anyone else applying/has applied to UCL's Robotics and AI MEng course??Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LAWYERS: Can I bring an action against my old schoolLast reply 1 hour ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 1 hour ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsTrending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
