Turn on thread page Beta

Why are people who go to war automatically declared heroes? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think they are called heroes as they risk their lives to fight on the front line
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Help our heroes = love your servitude

    I wonder how many politicians would vote for war if they knew it meant one of their kids being sent into the front line.

    It's time we realised that war is just rich men doing business using young men's lives as pawns in a political game of chess and telling them it's a noble sacrifice.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    They are heroes until proven **********s. Only a small number of soldiers are *******s and the majority are good people who want to protect their family and others in suffering the only way they know how.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    I believe the concept of "hero" is thrown around too often in the media. I don't believe anyone who joins the army is a hero. It's just a job.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because fighting is big and clever.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Winning)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nonotrly)
    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'?
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    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.
    And because that's what you think it obviously makes it the inescapable truth, of course?

    You can think and believe what you want to, as can those who serve. Doesn't make you right or them wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    They are heroes until proven **********s. Only a small number of soldiers are *******s and the majority are good people who want to protect their family and others in suffering the only way they know how.
    This

    (Original post by jismith1989)
    &quot;People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.&quot;
    Good quote :yy:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Soldiers are "heroes" if they risk their lives fighting for a good cause. Now even if they aren't fighting for a good cause, clearly the government and (to an extent) the media aren't going to say "Sorry, these soldiers aren't heroes because they're fighting an immoral war", because it is the government themselves who commanded them to fight in the first place. They're naturally going to claim that it's a good cause, and by extension that the soldiers are heroes.

    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. Often certain professions will be portrayed as very heroic and noble as a way to get people to join - especially when there isn't much else to make it attractive.

    Don't get me wrong, I would say that some soldiers and other members of armies really are heroes who risk their lives for a good cause. But they are not automatically so, just because they went to war. And they are not necessarily any more heroic than a top neurosurgeon who's performed plenty of lifesaving operations, or a top scientist who's found a cure for a deadly disease etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think they're called such because of what they do on the battlefield, not because of their background.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I too have pondered this. The term "hero" is so widely overused. A person overcomes an eating disorder or is stuck down a mine for a few weeks (yes, the Chilean miners were called heroes) and suddenly we have to admire and be in awe of their heroism...they didn't exactly save a dozen children from a burning orphanage...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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 was mighty upset that I never got to go windsurfing with Frank in Cyprus, that what I thought it was all about.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJRyan)
    I think they are called heroes as they risk there lives to fight on the front line
    So if I run into a road, I'm a hero?

    (Original post by Broderss)
    They are heroes until proven **********s. Only a small number of soldiers are *******s and the majority are good people who want to protect their family and others in suffering the only way they know how.
    So then why isn't everyone heroes until proven... whatever that word is?

    (Original post by Renner)
    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
    The obsession with guns was just an example of some, not all. One guy at least was obsessed with guns as a child, and inevitably joined the army to learn how to use them to kill people/defend himself/his country.

    He died in war, but was he a hero or a potential murderer?

    Maybe he was a nice person, but maybe the same could've been said for other military-trained guys who went bat**** and shot at people before killing themselves. If someone had died during war before going on a killing spree, s/he is a hero. Why?

    They are statistics. They are people. If you read that 200 military have died in Iraq, does it feel like 200 x 1 death, or just a sad statistic? How does it feel compared to 400 innocent people dying in a natural disaster?

    Perhaps another name would be 'weapon', or even 'weapons of mass destruction'. Why are guns horrible things, but people trained and using them the best of the good?

    (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.
    These are more accurate cases of heroism, but then I can push the envelope and say that continues to a question that can only be answered by complete knowledge and omnipotence: is it heroism if it helps others kill more, for good or evil?

    (Original post by Winning)
    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.
    Alas, this is one of the cases where you have been trained by other inflences to say certain things and clichés to argue away legitimate questions.

    How is a soldier automatically selfless?

    How is being ordered to shoot Asians automatically protecting Britain?

    Why would someone who is opposed to a war commend those who are participating in it, except the leaders who created it?

    Why am I automatically in the wrong for choosing to have a career in a different area and living in a house?

    Where do all these assumptions come from? Is it just brainwashing?

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    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.
    So the soldiers of Libya are heroes?

    Why more assumptions? Why make up things about me based on nothing?

    Because I dare to ask why a soldier is an automatic hero, I oppose war? I dress a certain way?

    Have I now uncovered that these clichés have an undercurrent of discrimination?

    (Original post by Installation)
    I think they're called such because of what they do on the battlefield, not because of their background.
    That's very vague.

    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    Please, it only helps this topic if you don't brush people off with "you're too stupid to realise my view is righter than yours". Do try to reply adequately or don't reply at all, because that manner doesn't help anyone. Certainly not yourself and your view.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,509

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.