. To convince the American people the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were justified, the Bush/Cheney administration began spreading around the term "hero" generously. It was a great public relations scheme. However, when the Greatest Generation returned from the fighting of WWII the term hero was reserved for those whose performance was above and beyond the call of duty. But in today's society, ‬simply being in the military makes a person a hero. ‬This blanket description devalues men and women who intentionally, ‬and without regard for their own lives, risked all to saved the lives of others. Comparing those individuals winning the Congressional Medal of Honor to ‬men sitting out a war in a prison camp should be an insult. Granted POWs were victims of war, receiving inhuman treatment, but, a Purple Heart hardly defines a hero. The political expediency of making all who serve in the military heroes, demeans those who are truly heroic. Trumps comments on John McCain might seem appalling to some, but they also put into perspective what it takes to be an actual war hero rather than a war victim. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ective-outrage-over-trump-is-dooming-the-gop/ .
Basically the country is not geared up for war. If you can, try to find a newspaper from the WWII era. I have a few....It was a different world when the U.S. was perceived to be directly threatened.
There are 2 things I really can't stand. One is the excessive use of the word "hero", the other is the automatic "thank you for your service". There are few heroes, they know who they are, and they were given that honor by their peers. Just signing on the dotted line and raising your hand doesn't make a person a hero.
When corporations like Lockheed Martin ask you to pull the trigger, you remember campaign finances and DO SO. Except Obama avoided about 3-4 wars the CONSENSUS that think war is free wanted. Will the Military Industrial Complex donate to Leftists after Obama turned down so many "profitable" wars? I think Fox News "Conservatives" actually wanted more wars than the Military Industrial Complex. Are they really that dumb or did they just want him to make mistakes so bad they openly said he should have made them?
What word do you use to describe someone who avoids war when it IS NOT NECESSARY which in return saves the lives of many civilians and hundreds of (at that point theoretical) Soldiers? I have to note. Soldiers are taught WAR. It's what we do in the military. Soldiers want to kill the enemy by design. Its boot camp 101. It's good design. But what about that person that doesn't allow Soldiers to go to war and uses DEPLOMACY?
Our arguing over "hero" reminds me of "It" from the 90s. It is a cheap way to cheapen an experience of a fellow human being who suffered in our name delivered by a cheap human being who wants to desperately cling to a few more minutes of fame.
Agreed, but it reminds me of lunchtime in the psycho ward. More and more threads about the definition of hero. I had my say over the weekend, but now my visits are purely of the train wreck variety. Political forums...not the best place to find sanity.
Making anyone who joins the military a "hero" was a strategy needed to make the public forget the lessons learned from the Vietnam fiasco. As long as an all volunteer military serves in stealth wars like Afghanistan and Iraq, that receive little news coverage, the American people will sit idly by and let the government squander trillions and trillions of dollars. The right wing is especially content to watch this waste of lives and money, when others are sacrificed to pay the toll. How long will these conservative and neoconservative suckers allow themselves to played for fools by the Republicans and their billionaire masters? People of reason saw through the Bush/Cheney "hero" scam before the Afghanistan invasion began. It is doubtful many enlistees volunteered to be nothing more than cannon fodder to enrich the war profiteers. It's long past time for Americans admit the truth to themselves.
