Why are soldiers automatically considered heroes?

[Smash_Hits]

I didn't know soldiers were considered heroes unless they died in battle?

"How" or "Why" a man who was 18, 19, 20 years old is dead seems immaterial.

I believe after a few years people realized how despicable the returning Vietnam vets were treated and want to make amends.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way.

And every soldier is viewed as a hero.

I don't agree with you on many things, but this is essentially what I was trying to say with this topic.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The United States has not fought a Constitutionally approved war since WWII

Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, etc.

Were imperialistic wars fought to maintain colonialism in Asia and the middle east.

And had nothing to do with protecting our freedom and liberty in America.

They were just wars to prop up dictators and protect our access to other countries natural resources.

I am sure that our soldiers are doing the best they can under the circumstances and serving their country.

But saying that they are protecting our freedoms is the height of hubris and hypocrisy.

I served honorably for 22 years, every single day of that time I was protecting your rights. Every push-up, every morning run, every exercise. It was all part of being ready for when we were needed. And yes, even the conflicts that the haters love to hate had their part in keeping America free. Deny it all you like, we know what we did.

While I have no doubt of your intentions, and others in the military. However, the soldiers/military aren't the ones who decide whether we go to war or not-it's politicians. Soldiers don't make the cause/reason why wars are waged-they do their job, and do what they're told (and in the US military-they do a damn good one)-but ultimately it ends with the politicians who wage, and end wars.

In short:

-I think those in the military are absolutely there to protect our freedoms, and our country.

-But I think it's fair to say that's not always the case when it comes to politicians making the decision to go to war (or to stay in a war).

 

[Samson]

I really, really dislike Memorial Day. Not because I hate the military (not true), nor because I don't think soldiers can't be heroes (also not true), but because I hate the spewing of jingoistic "all soldiers are heroes and they protect our freedom," by all parts of the political spectrum. Now, I want to make it clear that I do not believe soldiers can't be heroes; for example, I consider JFK to be one of the greatest men this country has seen, partly because of his actions in the military. What I am asking, is why all soldiers are automatically heroes? They certainly don't all earn it (US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies' | World news | The Guardian). And don't say it is because they are protecting our freedom, because frankly, they aren't right now. There were wars where they were, but our current conflicts are not intended to protect us.

I didn't know soldiers were considered heroes unless they died in battle?

"How" or "Why" a man who was 18, 19, 20 years old is dead seems immaterial.

I believe after a few years people realized how despicable the returning Vietnam vets were treated and want to make amends.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way.

And every soldier is viewed as a hero.

I don't agree with you on many things, but this is essentially what I was trying to say with this topic.

Yet there is absolutely no evidence in the OP, or in any other post in the thread, to support the conclusion that EVERY SOLDIER IS VIEWED AS A HERO.

In my opinion, this conclusion is simply ignorant bullshit....unless by "hero" you mean "one with whom we are confident."

The Military is constantly rated highest among any other American institution in public confidence:

in the Gallup 2010 poll:

The military continues its long-standing run as the highest-rated U.S. institution.

Even though it fell from 82% to 76%.

 

[Trajan]

The United States has not fought a Constitutionally approved war since WWII

Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, etc.

Were imperialistic wars fought to maintain colonialism in Asia and the middle east.

And had nothing to do with protecting our freedom and liberty in America.

They were just wars to prop up dictators and protect our access to other countries natural resources.

I am sure that our soldiers are doing the best they can under the circumstances and serving their country.

But saying that they are protecting our freedoms is the height of hubris and hypocrisy.

first, you apparently don't have an understanding as to what colonialism or imperialism is.

second- I don't even know where to start , lets just say that the reasons that held for our entry in to ww1 and ww2 was due to our new but already germinated ' global police' stance ala , yes we got attacked but simply to say thats what brought us into it, is an ignorance of history, what if they had not attacked pearl harbor but instead just went ahead and invaded and carried out the rest of their plans?

Keeping and securing access to resources is a time tested reasoning behind most great conflicts.

Korea and Vietnam were part of the cold war and just as important to fight a shrinking global presence and access to same.

I must assume you have not read enough history to understand this as it doesn't appear that way.

 

[Trajan]

[
me thinks some reading of the treatys, agreements and workings of the league of nations etc. between ww1 and 1939 would help you out.

and-

"War Is a Racket"

War Is a Racket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plenty of people felt that the banana wars, the Philippines etc etc was just more of the same, just becasue Eisenhower named it so, doesn't mean it didn't ostensibly exist before hand. Its just a matter of relative size of the resources committed as to who they were fighting.

Of course it's a matter of relative size. And there is no question that someone profits from every war ever fought. So you might as well go all the way back to the American Revolution to make that point. But are you seriously comparing the present situation to that of the Banana Wars and the Philippines Campaign?

There is no question that there was profiteering back then, and there is no doubt that political science students along with those who read and comprehended a book written by a former Commandant of The Marine Corps understood that somebody was making a buck. But are you comparing the Banana Wars to Vietnam and the Philippines Campaign to Iraq and Afghanistan?

When Butler wrote his book the problem was beginning to manifest. By the time Eisenhower called attention to it the situation was serious. Today, owing to the phenomenal growth of our population and economy and relative dimension of our military engagements, the problem is critical and represents a menace to our national stability.

Q- did you sppt. our actions in Afghanistan when we went in?

A better question would be whether I believed Bush's assertion that the military operation he was mounting would be a brief venture into Afghanistan for the purpose of bringing those responsible for the 9/11 attack to justice. The answer is I wouldn't believe George W. Bush if he said, hello. I saw it as an incipient opportunity to direct billions of dollars to his "base" of corporate opportunists and as of today it is still going on.

A better answer would be I would have supported it if I had cause to believe it but I didn't.

But are you seriously comparing the present situation to that of the Banana Wars and the Philippines Campaign?

not at all, those were far worse and were very much closer to what you are bitching about. you have a huge lack off perspective, as you are standing here now so it all seems that much more oh, innocent back then due to the decades that have passed, and everything is harsher now.


we actually had a better reason to go into afghan. and iraq then we did SA or the Philippines.

you and sunni man suffer the same myopic twitch.

 

[Samson]

The United States has not fought a Constitutionally approved war since WWII

....
But saying that they are protecting our freedoms is the height of hubris and hypocrisy.

first, you apparently don't have an understanding as to what colonialism or imperialism is.

.....

Neither of you appear to understand that Americans have more confidence in the military than any other institution in the country: They don't give a **** what "imperialism" is, or is not.

 

[old navy]

I can't believe that I read most of this without shooting my laptop. Well, it's a government laptop so good thing I didn't. How amazing that these freedom haters are not writing in Russian, Chinese, or some other funny sounding language. Speaking of, JBeukema makes a point to use words that he puts a U in where we Americans do not. Honour, dishonour, etc. He or she is a foreigner.

 

[Samson]

I can't believe that I read most of this without shooting my laptop. Well, it's a government laptop so good thing I didn't. How amazing that these freedom haters are not writing in Russian, Chinese, or some other funny sounding language. Speaking of, JBeukema makes a point to use words that he puts a U in where we Americans do not. Honour, dishonour, etc. He or she is a foreigner.

Old Navy...

Shouldn't you be out selling shirts made in China, or Kazakistan?

 

[Sunni Man]

The United States has not fought a Constitutionally approved war since WWII

Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, etc.

Were imperialistic wars fought to maintain colonialism in Asia and the middle east.

And had nothing to do with protecting our freedom and liberty in America.

They were just wars to prop up dictators and protect our access to other countries natural resources.

I am sure that our soldiers are doing the best they can under the circumstances and serving their country.

But saying that they are protecting our freedoms is the height of hubris and hypocrisy.

first, you apparently don't have an understanding as to what colonialism or imperialism is.

second- I don't even know where to start , lets just say that the reasons that held for our entry in to ww1 and ww2 was due to our new but already germinated ' global police' stance ala , yes we got attacked but simply to say thats what brought us into it, is an ignorance of history, what if they had not attacked pearl harbor but instead just went ahead and invaded and carried out the rest of their plans?

Keeping and securing access to resources is a time tested reasoning behind most great conflicts.

Korea and Vietnam were part of the cold war and just as important to fight a shrinking global presence and access to same.

I must assume you have not read enough history to understand this as it doesn't appear that way.

I have read a ton of military history.

My father fought in Europe during World War II and also in the Korean War.

So my interest in military history started when I was a young teenager.

And continues until today.

 

[Samson]

The United States has not fought a Constitutionally approved war since WWII

Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, etc.

Were imperialistic wars fought to maintain colonialism in Asia and the middle east.

And had nothing to do with protecting our freedom and liberty in America.

They were just wars to prop up dictators and protect our access to other countries natural resources.

I am sure that our soldiers are doing the best they can under the circumstances and serving their country.

But saying that they are protecting our freedoms is the height of hubris and hypocrisy.

first, you apparently don't have an understanding as to what colonialism or imperialism is.

second- I don't even know where to start , lets just say that the reasons that held for our entry in to ww1 and ww2 was due to our new but already germinated ' global police' stance ala , yes we got attacked but simply to say thats what brought us into it, is an ignorance of history, what if they had not attacked pearl harbor but instead just went ahead and invaded and carried out the rest of their plans?

Keeping and securing access to resources is a time tested reasoning behind most great conflicts.

Korea and Vietnam were part of the cold war and just as important to fight a shrinking global presence and access to same.

I must assume you have not read enough history to understand this as it doesn't appear that way.

I have read a ton of military history.

My father fought in Europe during World War II and also in the Korean War.

So my interest in military history started when I was a young teenager.

And continues until today.

Immaterial: The US Military remains well ahead in American's confidence compared to any other institution.

 

[HUGGY]

first, you apparently don't have an understanding as to what colonialism or imperialism is.

second- I don't even know where to start , lets just say that the reasons that held for our entry in to ww1 and ww2 was due to our new but already germinated ' global police' stance ala , yes we got attacked but simply to say thats what brought us into it, is an ignorance of history, what if they had not attacked pearl harbor but instead just went ahead and invaded and carried out the rest of their plans?

Keeping and securing access to resources is a time tested reasoning behind most great conflicts.

Korea and Vietnam were part of the cold war and just as important to fight a shrinking global presence and access to same.

I must assume you have not read enough history to understand this as it doesn't appear that way.

I have read a ton of military history.

My father fought in Europe during World War II and also in the Korean War.

So my interest in military history started when I was a young teenager.

And continues until today.

Immaterial: The US Military remains well ahead in American's confidence compared to any other institution.

When a serviceman in uniform shows up at a Seattle seafood restaurant and asks for whole crab...he gets whole crab...

Just saying...

That is all.

 

[old navy]

I can't believe that I read most of this without shooting my laptop. Well, it's a government laptop so good thing I didn't. How amazing that these freedom haters are not writing in Russian, Chinese, or some other funny sounding language. Speaking of, JBeukema makes a point to use words that he puts a U in where we Americans do not. Honour, dishonour, etc. He or she is a foreigner.

Old Navy...

Shouldn't you be out selling shirts made in China, or Kazakistan?

It took me a few seconds to remember that capital O and N Old Navy is a clothing establishment. My screen name though represents old school service to Sailors, Marines, and their dependents. Twenty six proud years as a Navy Corpsman. And not pronounced corpes man as the POTUS does.

 

[Samson]

I have read a ton of military history.

My father fought in Europe during World War II and also in the Korean War.

So my interest in military history started when I was a young teenager.

And continues until today.

Immaterial: The US Military remains well ahead in American's confidence compared to any other institution.

When a serviceman in uniform shows up at a Seattle seafood restaurant and asks for whole crab...he gets whole crab...

Just saying...

That is all.

I bet there's many servicemen that have gotten crabs in Seattle.

 

[old navy]

Immaterial: The US Military remains well ahead in American's confidence compared to any other institution.

When a serviceman in uniform shows up at a Seattle seafood restaurant and asks for whole crab...he gets whole crab...

Just saying...

That is all.

I bet there's many servicemen that have gotten crabs in Seattle.

Easily treated.

When you itch like hell, Kwell is swell.

 

[SFC Ollie]

When a serviceman in uniform shows up at a Seattle seafood restaurant and asks for whole crab...he gets whole crab...

Just saying...

That is all.

I bet there's many servicemen that have gotten crabs in Seattle.

Easily treated.

When you itch like hell, Kwell is swell.

And my bet is they mostly got them "out" of uniform.....so to speak....

 

[old navy]

I bet there's many servicemen that have gotten crabs in Seattle.

Easily treated.

When you itch like hell, Kwell is swell.

And my bet is they mostly got them "out" of uniform.....so to speak....

I hope so.