Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I don't mean the allied soldiers of WW2.....I mean the soldiers who fought a war looking for weapons of mass destruction and walk with impunity into Afghanistan and Pakistan etc.

In the U.K. we get told they are heroes all the time. Do you think they are?

yes

soldiers have no choice in who they fight

see: Ross Kemp in Afghanistan and Ross Kemp Returns to Afghanistan

Every opinion article I read in the paper that mentions the military calls all the soldiers "heroes". Like their collective experience earns them a generalized title.


I would argue the no soldier is a hero until he does something heroic, whether it be rescuing wounded while almost being killed or sacrificing himself so others live, or whatever. Those serving in a combat zone are brave, but they're not all heroes.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Every opinion article I read in the paper that mentions the military calls all the soldiers "heroes". Like their collective experience earns them a generalized title.


I would argue the no soldier is a hero until he does something heroic, whether it be rescuing wounded while almost being killed or sacrificing himself so others live, or whatever. Those serving in a combat zone are brave, but they're not all heroes.

I think Universal hero by Donovon still says it beautifully.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes

soldiers have no choice in who they fight

see: Ross Kemp in Afghanistan and Ross Kemp Returns to Afghanistan

What's your point? Kids say, "I was just following orders". Still makes a war crime a war crime or a criminal war a criminal war.

Guantanamo, Auschwitz.....etc.

The 'kids' who 'join up' really know what the hell they are choosing...

Originally posted by Free_Speech
What's your point?

people who sign up to possibly be killed, such that (in theory) we can have freedom, are heroes

Originally posted by inimalist
people who sign up to possibly be killed, such that (in theory) we can have freedom, are heroes

Iraq was about 'Freedom of Speech'? Good call and so heroic......

no, there just expendables

Originally posted by Free_Speech
Iraq was about 'Freedom of Speech'? Good call and so heroic......

?

soldiers didn't decide to invade Iraq

Anyone who kills someone for a country is no hero in my book.

Originally posted by inimalist
?

soldiers didn't decide to invade Iraq

No, they were just following orders..... Nuremberg

Originally posted by Liberator
Anyone who kills someone for a country is no hero in my book.

They are usually just foolish kids, brainwashed into patriotism my friend. Foolish kids who become killers..........

Originally posted by Free_Speech
No, they were just following orders..... Nuremberg

what about it?

I don't think I've said anything that even remotely implies that people who commit war crimes should not be charged

For instance, I also think Firemen are heroes. If a fireman raped a woman he was supposed to be saving, obviously I think he should be charged.

Originally posted by inimalist
what about it?

I don't think I've said anything that even remotely implies that people who commit war crimes should not be charged

For instance, I also think Firemen are heroes. If a fireman raped a woman he was supposed to be saving, obviously I think he should be charged.

Firemen don't blindly follow orders.....

i don't know if that is true

also, following orders has no impact on whether or not I think a person deserves the title hero

I get you want to make your little rant against whatever, but it helps if you read what i am saying

... also, iirc, Neuremburg laws don't apply to low level soldiers, because, yes, they were only following orders. It was only people who were involved in giving the orders that were charged, afaik

i think ppl who put on a uniform for certain reasons may be noble but not heroes.

joining the military to protect your land and family is noble, but ppl who run the government placing them in certain situations are not.

a Staff Sgt once told me after i asked what's the point of having honor and living by a code of conduct if the leaders who order us dont know the concept nor care.

he said you dont fight for them, you fight for those beside you.

the only time i found myself proud of my actions is when i did the right thing wearing my uniform and upholding my code of conduct.

i never felt like a hero b/c i am not... i also felt ashamed for my country and those in power and i often would try to remember that we were not the same.... those who disgrace my country's principles and my military branch are separate ppl. if anything i often felt angered and insulted that government officials and disgraced men and women in uniformed stained my country's principles/uniform's reputation.

Why make a thread with the illusion of having a "discussion" if there's obviously an agenda you're trying to push?

Originally posted by inimalist
i don't know if that is true

also, following orders has no impact on whether or not I think a person deserves the title hero

I get you want to make your little rant against whatever, but it helps if you read what i am saying

... also, iirc, Neuremburg laws don't apply to low level soldiers, because, yes, they were only following orders. It was only people who were involved in giving the orders that were charged, afaik

- I'm aware of what was said at Nuremberg, why repeat what I told you back?

I read what you were saying... I found it simplistic and naive.

According to Dictionary.com's top 2 defintions:

1.a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2.a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or idea

With definition 1, you just need to show some sort of courage. Oh, and you have to be a man.

And option 2 is just saying that a hero is based on perception. So, to Afghanis, US soldiers are probably not seen as heroes anymore than the Taliban are.

Originally posted by Liberator
According to Dictionary.com's top 2 defintions:

1.a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2.a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or idea

With definition 1, you just need to show some sort of courage. Oh, and you have to be a man.

And option 2 is just saying that a hero is based on perception. So, to Afghanis, US soldiers are probably not seen as heroes anymore than the Taliban are.

That's the problem with dictionaries my firend, they are autistic in their literalism.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why make a thread with the illusion of having a "discussion" if there's obviously an agenda you're trying to push?

Duh, to promote that agenda? Although that's not what i'm doing here.

Originally posted by Free_Speech
Duh, to promote that agenda? Although that's not what i'm doing here. Yeah, you kinda are.

Originally posted by Free_Speech
- I'm aware of what was said at Nuremberg, why repeat what I told you back?

because it shows you have no idea about what you are saying?

or, you are trolling

Originally posted by Free_Speech
I read what you were saying... I found it simplistic and naive.

yes, those are two words that define my opinions quite well

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, you kinda are.

Inadvertantly through the simplistic arguments of others maybe; however, that is not my intention, truly my friend.

to me heroes are men who died doing something noble.

that's a hero.

fighting to protect your friends, family the weak who cant defend themselves that is heroic.

fighting ppl that you clearly outmatch in strength, tech and mockingly kill is not. that is cowardly... i have hated men who mock the dead knowing they themselves were in no real danger while they toss a grenade into a room or RPG some one...

i am talkin about ppl i have served with in the past.

Are you Whirly?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Are you Whirly? no. i am not.

Originally posted by King Castle
to me heroes are men who died doing something noble.

that's a hero.

fighting to protect your friends, family the weak who cant defend themselves that is heroic.

fighting ppl that you clearly outmatch in strength, tech and mockingly kill is not. that is cowardly... i have hated men who mock the dead knowing they themselves were in no real danger while they toss a grenade into a room or RPG some one...

i am talkin about ppl i have served with in the past.

Agreed!

to Blaxican, am i what? No, I don't use drugs....

You are to wait until after I have posted to post, god damn it!

edit- God damn it!

Originally posted by King Castle
no. i am not.

What is Whirly? Is it like getting high? Apologies, i'm not down with the street lingo in Mexico.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Are you Whirly?

bingo

Originally posted by inimalist
bingo

Is a good name for a dog; now, back to topic.

Originally posted by Free_Speech
Agreed!

having said that, i have also served alongside men who were wounded and refused to leave some one behind with no thought to his own safety.

surprisingly, the most heroic ppl i knew were PFC's or LCPL's.. injured and having recently been IED'd,, dragging three of his fellow marines out of a burning flipped vehicle. thinking to himself, he is gonna die from his wounds but not before taking out of the wreckage.

more often then not ppl need to justify their actions in war and reasons for going to war. we call a small army terrorist, insurgents b/c if we call them ill equipped combative civilians would not sound very heroic and maybe even criminal.

on the same token ppl using freedom fighters can also be very disingenuous. ppl simply taking advantage of the chaos to press their own political/monetary/religious agenda with no regard to those around them who it heavily effects.


the only real heroes is something i learned from my MA master when i was a snot nose punk.

" Bruce Lee, Superman, Spiderman, these are not heroes. They do not exist and they do not know you.

your mother, your father your Aunts, uncles your Guardians who raised you who work hard to provide for you keep you save these are heroes.

Doctors, nurses, policemen. ppl who willingly put on a uniform every day knowing they could die doing the right thing. they deserve your respect and admiration not some movie star."

Originally posted by King Castle
Bruce Lee... do(es)not exist Ouch.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ouch. he is dead and never knew me.

Dodging gun fire to save a brother is heroic, stuff like that...sure. Just fighting in the war? Nah, it's just a career.

in my Private Messages:

From: Free_Speech

~If King Castle is a marine i have a 12 inch dick

he must be black.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=418663&pagenumber=2258

LOL.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
LOL. thank you, thank you...*Bow*

I'll be here all night,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIeoQKoTp-U&feature=related

Originally posted by King Castle
" Bruce Lee, Superman, Spiderman, these are not heroes. They do not exist and they do not know you.

your mother, your father your Aunts, uncles your Guardians who raised you who work hard to provide for you keep you save these are heroes.

Doctors, nurses, policemen. ppl who willingly put on a uniform every day knowing they could die doing the right thing. they deserve your respect and admiration not some movie star."

How often do doctors and nurses die doing the right thing?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How often do doctors and nurses die doing the right thing? not many unless we consider doctor's without boarders, EMt's, Medics in combat.. we also have to use our own reason when applying such a title.

No, a soldier is not a hero simply because of their profession... they have to prove themselves as individuals just like anyone else.

would you apply that to firefighters and doctors as well?

is someone who works the ER not a hero until they perform some incredible life saving surgery, or do we consider them heroic for taking up that occupation in the first place?

I lean to the latter for sure

Originally posted by Free_Speech
I don't mean the allied soldiers of WW2.....I mean the soldiers who fought a war looking for weapons of mass destruction and walk with impunity into Afghanistan and Pakistan etc.

In the U.K. we get told they are heroes all the time. Do you think they are?

Blackwater

i would if they did something heroic..

being in a different profession doesnt disqualify some one of being able to perform a selfless act.

Originally posted by inimalist
would you apply that to firefighters and doctors as well?

is someone who works the ER not a hero until they perform some incredible life saving surgery, or do we consider them heroic for taking up that occupation in the first place?

I lean to the latter for sure
I would apply that to anyone. What if you're drafted into the army to become a soldier? Surely the fact that you were forced into it doesn't qualify you for automatic inclusion into the "hero" category. What if you become a doctor only because you want to make gobs of money? I wouldn't judge someone purely on their achievements, but also their conduct and motivation. Their profession barely enters into it, imo.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would apply that to anyone. What if you're drafted into the army to become a soldier? Surely the fact that you were forced into it doesn't qualify you for automatic inclusion into the "hero" category. What if you become a doctor only because you want to make gobs of money? I wouldn't judge someone purely on their achievements, but also their conduct and motivation. Their profession barely enters into it, imo.

I'd agree in terms of the draft, but other than that, what do I care if someone only wants money?

If they still provide a service, like saving lives, why should it matter what their motivation is?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd agree in terms of the draft, but other than that, what do I care if someone only wants money?

If they still provide a service, like saving lives, why should it matter what their motivation is?
Well, I don't see the consistency of your perspective then. If you agree with me about the draft, aren't you implicitly placing a role on motivation in what defines heroism?

Like you said, they are providing a simple service; It may be a difference in definition here, but I would consider a hero to be someone who goes beyond the call of duty, not simply fulfilling the requirements of their occupation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, I don't see the consistency of your perspective then. If you agree with me about the draft, aren't you implicitly placing a role on motivation in what defines heroism?

its the choice. If we drafted doctors, I wouldnt see it as nearly as commendable of a position.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like you said, they are providing a simple service; It may be a difference in definition here, but I would consider a hero to be someone who goes beyond the call of duty, not simply fulfilling the requirements of their occupation.

no, it totally is an issue of how we define things

so, what if we paid firefighters 1 000 000 annually, do you think this would reduce how heroic they are because some people might do it for the money?

b/c you can do the right thing for completely differrent reasons some being completely opposite of morality but self interest... nothing heroic about that.

a man who is given a uniform and rifle knowing he is goin to fight and more then likely kill some one who is ill equipped and will likely die protecting his country is not heroic. especially when the odds are overwhelmingly stacked in your favor.

joining the military to protect your home, family country and national/religious identity is one thing.. joining to kill peopl b/c you want to kill some one isnt.

a criminal can be brave and risk his life doing the wrong and illegal or ill moral thing that doesnt make him a hero.

a plastic surgeon who went to school not to save life's but to earn money taking those who can afford them is not heroic or noble.

i use to tell my friends as a joke when we would play hypothetical game when they ask if i would risk my life saving them if they were wounded. i would answer, yes.

i would put you over my shoulder and haul you the hell out of the fire fight. using you as my shield to protect my back as i made a tactical retreat..

kidding aside if he were to live, their is nothing heroic about my motivation for doing the right thing..

its like politicians the public can have an image about you it doesnt mean that is what you are behind close doors

Originally posted by inimalist
If they still provide a service, like saving lives, why should it matter what their motivation is? If this is all it takes to be a "hero", then everyone with a job is one.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If this is all it takes to be a "hero", then everyone with a job is one.

how so?

Originally posted by inimalist
its the choice. If we drafted doctors, I wouldnt see it as nearly as commendable of a position.
Right. Its interesting that we agree on this, but see it from two different angles; for me, the way choice factors in is its impact on motivation. Someone with no choice also does not have a motivation befitting the hero title. For you, it seems, choice itself has a standing in the determination process independent of the aspect of motive.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, it totally is an issue of how we define things

so, what if we paid firefighters 1 000 000 annually, do you think this would reduce how heroic they are because some people might do it for the money?
I don't think it would reduce how heroic "they" are. I don't view heroism as having anything to do with profession or the group, it is entirely based on the actions of the individual. I would question the heroism of the specific firefighters who DO do it because of the money, but the fact that some people have that motivation doesn't change my respect for those who's motive is more altruistic.

Originally posted by inimalist
how so? Cuz all jobs provide a service in some way. I wouldn't call the patrolling police officer a hero anymore than I would a stockboy at Walmart. But if that patrolman rescued a hostage at gunpoint, or if that stockboy carried people out of a burning building, I'd call them heroes. People putting themselves directly on death's doorstep for the good of others are heroic. That's why I'll always consider firemen to be on (on average) more heroic than a soldier--both for the muddy political background, and the number of occurrences.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Cuz all jobs provide a service in some way. I wouldn't call the patrolling police officer a hero anymore than I would a stockboy at Walmart. But if that patrolman rescued a hostage at gunpoint, or if that stockboy carried people out of a burning building, I'd call them heroes. People putting themselves directly on death's doorstep for the good of others are heroic. That's why I'll always consider firemen to be on (on average) more heroic than a soldier--both for the muddy political background, and the number of occurrences.

Originally posted by inimalist
If they still provide a service, like saving lives, why should it matter what their motivation is?

I probably couldn't give you a solid heuristic about what I do or do not consider heroic, but in what you quoted, the quality of saving the lives of others was something I listed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Right. Its interesting that we agree on this, but see it from two different angles; for me, the way choice factors in is its impact on motivation. Someone with no choice also does not have a motivation befitting the hero title. For you, it seems, choice itself has a standing in the determination process independent of the aspect of motive.

for sure. now, as far as choice goes, someone who becomes a surgeon of some type, and works in an ER or has a decent practice somewhere, they are much more heroic than, say, someone who dedicates their life to vaginal plastic surgery in rich 40 somethings

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think it would reduce how heroic "they" are. I don't view heroism as having anything to do with profession or the group, it is entirely based on the actions of the individual. I would question the heroism of the specific firefighters who DO do it because of the money, but the fact that some people have that motivation doesn't change my respect for those who's motive is more altruistic.

no, I'm with you, someone who does something out of altruism deserves more regard than someone who does it for personal benefit, I just don't see selfishness as entirely negating the "good" of what someone does. I'd say, in a perfect world, it would be the doctors, firemen, teachers, people who do things I consider heroic, that are paid the incredible sums of money, thus drawing more people in through selfishness.

To me though, a lot of it is that initial choice that someone makes. Someone joins the army, that is the heroism right there, they have decided to sacrifice their time and potentially life for mine. I think requiring them to do something beyond that is a little short sighted. The person who fails trying to do something heroic is still a hero.

Originally posted by inimalist
I probably couldn't give you a solid heuristic about what I do or do not consider heroic, but in what you quoted, the quality of saving the lives of others was something I listed. I would add that the threat of personal injury or death being a cost of saving another's life is required to be called a hero.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I would add that the threat of personal injury or death being a cost of saving another's life is required to be called a hero.

so you don't consider ER doctors to be heroes?

Originally posted by inimalist
so you don't consider ER doctors to be heroes? No. They're commendable, talented, and good people. But not heroes.



Well... unless they know their patient is going to kill them once they're recovered. But that's treading in to House.

/shrug

they almost top my list... I think maybe firefighters would, in terms of just "professions", would be higher...

Originally posted by inimalist
for sure. now, as far as choice goes, someone who becomes a surgeon of some type, and works in an ER or has a decent practice somewhere, they are much more heroic than, say, someone who dedicates their life to vaginal plastic surgery in rich 40 somethings
What would you think of someone, for instance, conscripted to be an army surgeon in WWI? Do you think that choice/motive or action is more important for determining heroism?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I'm with you, someone who does something out of altruism deserves more regard than someone who does it for personal benefit, I just don't see selfishness as entirely negating the "good" of what someone does. I'd say, in a perfect world, it would be the doctors, firemen, teachers, people who do things I consider heroic, that are paid the incredible sums of money, thus drawing more people in through selfishness.

To me though, a lot of it is that initial choice that someone makes. Someone joins the army, that is the heroism right there, they have decided to sacrifice their time and potentially life for mine. I think requiring them to do something beyond that is a little short sighted. The person who fails trying to do something heroic is still a hero.
This is where we part ways, then. I don't believe that there is a profession that is more "heroic" than any other profession, because I see heroism as a quality of going beyond what was required in your station in life; that is, someone who is "exceedingly" good can qualify as a hero. I don't view the life saving of doctors as meeting this qualification, because they are simply fulfilling the duty of their job. If they really go beyond what is called of them and solve cases that would be given up as impossible, then they may be considered as heroes.

I really see no heroism in being a soldier, at all. They may be sacrificing their lives, but they're just as likely going to be sacrificing the lives of others, who really have no stake in whether you are well off or not. If they do something really beyond the call of duty, then they meet a prerequisite for heroism (in fact, that's what the whole "medal of honor" system is designed to recognize). I would be doubtful of the heroism of someone who kills civilians. Not to mention, there is the aspect of choice; while soldiers are no longer drafted, there is a definite socio-economic impact that "forces" many people into the army.

Its important to note that that isn't the only prerequisite for me, though. Intention plays an important role as well.

Yeah, I think a hero is someone doing something heroic when it is not a usual circumstance.

It would be heroic for a doctor to enter a burning building, pull out a burn victim, and offer first aid.

It would be heroic for a soldier to return to the line of fire to save 3 fallen comrades after the order to "withdraw" had been given...but he would have to save 2 lives in order for that to be heroic or else that is just dumb/disobeying orders.


There was also that one dude from Canada that took over an entire town, by himself, took out the local Gestapo HQ, freed people, etc. Forgot that dude's name but that wasn't all he did. That guy is probably one of the most badass dudes ever to live.

Some Soldiers are Heroes, some are scumbags. I've met both.

Anyone who risks his/her life to save or fight for others is a hero.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What would you think of someone, for instance, conscripted to be an army surgeon in WWI?

so, if they are conscripted, but ended up spending the War in Britain tending to those injured on the front or doing physical exams for new recruits, ok, I'm with you, not that heroic.

Someone who is in the trenches, dealing with the gangreen that is eating people's feet while they are fighting, and all that other stuff that makes trech warfare so appealing, sure. I'm totally down with calling that person a hero, regardless of whether they want to be there or not.

Are they as heroic as someone who gave up a lucrative practice, volintarily, to help on the front, no.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you think that choice/motive or action is more important for determining heroism?

I can't say I've thought about it much before this instant... I can see it depending hugely on context. Though, in the end, I think it boils down to action, though, to me, the act of becomming a soldier or doctor is the heroic action, not necessarily the idea of going "above and beyond" the normal call of duty.

for instance, while I think scientists are respectable and needed, I don't see them as heroic, even if they do research on deadly diseases or whatever. The scientists that cure aids? sure, heroes.

I don't know that I could explain that in terms of logic though, maybe it isn't consistent, but this is a totally subjective evaluation of things, so

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is where we part ways, then. I don't believe that there is a profession that is more "heroic" than any other profession, because I see heroism as a quality of going beyond what was required in your station in life; that is, someone who is "exceedingly" good can qualify as a hero. I don't view the life saving of doctors as meeting this qualification, because they are simply fulfilling the duty of their job. If they really go beyond what is called of them and solve cases that would be given up as impossible, then they may be considered as heroes.

I really see no heroism in being a soldier, at all. They may be sacrificing their lives, but they're just as likely going to be sacrificing the lives of others, who really have no stake in whether you are well off or not. If they do something really beyond the call of duty, then they meet a prerequisite for heroism (in fact, that's what the whole "medal of honor" system is designed to recognize). I would be doubtful of the heroism of someone who kills civilians. Not to mention, there is the aspect of choice; while soldiers are no longer drafted, there is a definite socio-economic impact that "forces" many people into the army.

Its important to note that that isn't the only prerequisite for me, though. Intention plays an important role as well.

huh

obviously there is no right or wrong answer here, I suppose I just have a more, inclusive?, definition of hero. people can do things, above and beyond, to make them more heroic, or at least, more worth our praise.

For instance, I certainly don't think every soldier deserves a medal just for being a soldier. Though, I do think, just by the nature of them deciding to put themselves in the position they do, they are acting heroic.

there is the socio-economic aspect, and if you want to do a case-by-case analysis of each soldier, sure, not everyone one of them would be a "hero" in my eyes, but the OP seems more about the concept of "soldier" in general, which to me, is a heroic occupation.

Originally posted by Mindship
Anyone who risks his/her life to save or fight for others is a hero.

preach on brotha man

I just can not agree, man. I really don't see how some red neck who joins the army because he wants to "shoot up some sand ******* and get some pussy on the side" is "heroic" for doing so.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I just can not agree, man. I really don't see how some red neck who joins the army because he wants to "shoot up some sand ******* and get some pussy on the side" is "heroic" for doing so.

well, yes, and if you showed me an example of that individual, sure, they are less heroic than the concept of "soldier" that the OP is asking about.

I personally don't think all soldiers are like that. Our army, for instance, is lacking on the redneck front from what I've seen.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I just can not agree, man. I really don't see how some red neck who joins the army because he wants to "shoot up some sand ******* and get some pussy on the side" is "heroic" for doing so. b/c guys like Bush redefined what it is to be a hero:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CsNAB1sCKNg/SkQkGSueW7I/AAAAAAAAExo/gM9-igldTMU/s400/Bush+Hero.jpg

not a hero:
http://www.buildingself-esteem.com/images/gandi.jpg

Without going into the morality of the war itself and even considering that soldiers make no decisions and are just given orders, I don't think serving in the military and following orders is enough to make anyone a hero, though they might behave heroically in the service and thus become actual heroes.

The few who refused orders to fight a war they thought was immoral while knowing they'd get get thrown in jail on the other hand, I'd call those ones heroes

Just because someone is a soldier does mean they are a hero. They could be a hero, but to me fire fighters are heroes; doctors in the emergency room are heroes; good cops are heroes.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, and if you showed me an example of that individual, sure, they are less heroic than the concept of "soldier" that the OP is asking about.

I personally don't think all soldiers are like that. Our army, for instance, is lacking on the redneck front from what I've seen. So then you do agree that it's the motivation behind an act that defines wither a person is heroic or not, not the act itself.

As long as we're on the same page, here.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So then you do agree that it's the motivation behind an act that defines wither a person is heroic or not, not the act itself.

As long as we're on the same page, here.

sort of, I think its more of an opt out thing, in that, I would consider a soldier a hero until I found out something terrible about them

Originally posted by inimalist
sort of, I think its more of an opt out thing, in that, I would consider a soldier a hero until I found out something terrible about them That's not good enough.

Tell me you love me.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's not good enough.

Tell me you love me.

look, I told you things are complicated for me right now

Its not that I couldn't love you, I just can't put myself out there like that

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I just can not agree, man. I really don't see how some red neck who joins the army because he wants to "shoot up some sand ******* and get some pussy on the side" is "heroic" for doing so. In this instance I would agree, which is why I avoided specific references in my comment. It's like the police officer who sodomizes someone in custody with a broomstick. These are morons in hero's clothing.

even regular cops wouldn't be heroes by default. just public employees that provide necessary services

Originally posted by 753
even regular cops wouldn't be heroes by default. just public employees that provide necessary services

are firefighters heroes by default?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVX-cUJGdxs

(skip the first minute)

Originally posted by inimalist
are firefighters heroes by default?

Who knows, but women love them.

Originally posted by inimalist
are firefighters heroes by default? wouldnt say that. those who actually happen to risk their lifes to save others while on the job, sure. but actual firefighting work isnt like it is in TV with them running into buildings on fire against orders to save children every monday.

some times they rescue dogs, cats and ducks from fires...

Originally posted by King Castle
some times they rescue dogs, cats and ducks from fires... IMO that counts just the same

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I just can not agree, man. I really don't see how some red neck who joins the army because he wants to "shoot up some sand ******* and get some pussy on the side" is "heroic" for doing so.

I met a lot of those when I was in the First Gulf War. In fact, the translator that was in my unit actually responded to "dune-coon" as if it was a valid nickname or a term of endearment. It was obviously a running gag among us, since he had no idea what it really meant.

(By the way: Timothy McVeigh was in my division, but I didn't learn that til several years after the fact.)

A Hero is what you make them! Anybody can face a situation and react as they react, may make you a hero or a coward! Up to you at the point of the problem you face, thats what defines us! You either do it, or not! Wars a waste of time anyway, let the Zombies sort it out, Lol!

Originally posted by Robtard
Who knows, but women love them.

that makes them a hero in my book

Originally posted by 753
wouldnt say that. those who actually happen to risk their lifes to save others while on the job, sure. but actual firefighting work isnt like it is in TV with them running into buildings on fire against orders to save children every monday.

lol, no, obviously not

I still disagree, to me its the act of being prepared to do that, or taking on an occupation where saving lives is something that comes with the territory

once someone becomes a fireman, idk, i think it would be terrible to be like, "pfft, what, you haven't dragged an unconscious woman out of a burning building, well, you are no hero to me".

ok, so thats a bit tongue in cheek

you can respect a person for choice in profession not necessarily assume he is a hero or should be considered one.

or, you can assume they are a hero. The who thing is subjective. I can't imagine you are going to convince me that firefighters aren't heroes.

EDIT: or, in general, soldiers

Originally posted by inimalist
or, you can assume they are a hero. The who thing is subjective. I can't imagine you are going to convince me that firefighters aren't heroes.

EDIT: or, in general, soldiers
Because you have 'bought in' or as I prefer to see it 'sold out' to the patriotic propaganda of the machine.

Originally posted by Free_Speech
Because you have 'bought in' or as I prefer to see it 'sold out' to the patriotic propaganda of the machine.

oh yes, I am one with the system

a cog in the machine, my friend

tune out, turn off, join in

i dont consider firefighters heroes nor soldiers.

at times one or the other can be heroic like, Brave and whatnot..

but more often then not this is how i view them behind the curtain of illusion ppl place around them..

http://www.vetfriends.com/MilitaryPics/Images/9936_untitled31.bmp

nothing heroic or noble about it and downright unprofessional

fair enough, I wont try to tell you how to evaluate what a hero is

it helps if you were their equal in profession if not outright their superior.

Warrior>>>Soldier.

hence, why i dont have the awe aspect and see them for what they are, kids and adults. some should never bn allowed to wear their uniform unable to uphold their code of ethics.

you and ppl who never serve can assume they are heroes but those of us who stood shoulder to shoulder and saw them fail to measure up are not heroes but disgraced their uniform

Originally posted by King Castle


http://www.vetfriends.com/MilitaryPics/Images/9936_untitled31.bmp

nothing heroic or noble about it and downright unprofessional

Hot though!

Yea I believe that they are.After all they are giving up there life for us so yea they are heros.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
they are giving up there life for us They don't all die.

Originally posted by King Castle
i dont consider firefighters heroes nor soldiers.

at times one or the other can be heroic like, Brave and whatnot..

but more often then not this is how i view them behind the curtain of illusion ppl place around them..

http://www.vetfriends.com/MilitaryPics/Images/9936_untitled31.bmp

nothing heroic or noble about it and downright unprofessional wtf? They're relieving tension, for christs sake. It's not like they're doing that in the middle of a firefight. I can not understand how the hell you would think that they're in the wrong for... enjoying themselves, when they're off-duty.

my thoughts exactly

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
wtf? They're relieving tension, for christs sake. It's not like they're doing that in the middle of a firefight. I can not understand how the hell you would think that they're in the wrong for... enjoying themselves, when they're off-duty.

A while back, I saw a photo-shopped version of that picture on some website. In it, the guys in the back are all wearing the Greek letters of some frat, and the pool is filled with Jello instead of water.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A while back, I saw a photo-shopped version of that picture on some website. In it, the guys in the back are all wearing the Greek letters of some frat, and the pool is filled with Jello instead of water. Or in other words: every second Friday in Baghdad.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Or in other words: every second Friday in Baghdad.

Well, they've come a long way in diversions and R&R. When I was in Iraq, the most entertainment we got was from scorpion fights and playing poker.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
wtf? They're relieving tension, for christs sake. It's not like they're doing that in the middle of a firefight. I can not understand how the hell you would think that they're in the wrong for... enjoying themselves, when they're off-duty. it's conduct unbecoming article 131,. depending who hosted it, article 138

civilian standards dont apply any Nco/officer worth their salt would have broken it up gotten names send them to their "can" and began reprimand.

there are a lot of things military personal dont do that you do that is punishable.

from having your hands in your pocket, slouching, mumbling, swearing etc etc..

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, they've come a long way in diversions and R&R. When I was in Iraq, the most entertainment we got was from scorpion fights and playing poker. also lizard fights, spider fights...

Originally posted by King Castle
it's conduct unbecoming article 131,. depending who hosted it, article 138

Article 131 is perjury. Article 133 sets no standards for what qualifies as "conduct unbecoming" and I doubt they're going to be court marshaled for relaxing off duty.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
wtf? They're relieving tension, for christs sake. It's not like they're doing that in the middle of a firefight. I can not understand how the hell you would think that they're in the wrong for... enjoying themselves, when they're off-duty. Originally posted by inimalist
my thoughts exactly
It's a bit like KC's ludicrous position that Spider-Man isn't a hero or "warrior" because he actually feels sad whenever some crazy shit happens to him or his loved ones.

Sometimes I think KC is a sociopath.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's a bit like KC's ludicrous position that Spider-Man isn't a hero or "warrior" because he actually feels sad whenever some crazy shit happens to him or his loved ones.

Sometimes I think KC is a sociopath.

His mother beat emotion out of him with an extension cord. That's how they show caring in his family.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Yea I believe that they are.After all they are giving up there life for us so yea they are heros.
Statistically speaking, they're more likely to give up the life of an innocent civilian than themselves.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
His mother beat emotion out of him with an extension cord. That's how they show caring in his family.
And then washed the bloody chord wounds with grain alcohol.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Article 131 is perjury. Article 133 sets no standards for what qualifies as "conduct unbecoming" and I doubt they're going to be court marshaled for relaxing off duty. no one said they would or should, they should have bn NJP'ed.

^ You're the enemy of fun. Originally posted by King Castle


and two women playin in a pool falls under it.
CcyiskNIiBI

Originally posted by King Castle
no one said they would or should, they should have bn NJP'ed.

If it were conduct unbecoming the rules seem quite clear about it requiring a court marshal.

the rules give discretion to the command to a point, their behavior allows for immediate discipline at the lower lvl...

the kids can refuse to recieve an NJP and take it to a court mashal but they have to have some brass to try that BS...

damn, i'm getting old i left out article 134 and confused it with another, no harm done... since they all overlap and cover one another.

maybe i should return to help instill discipline to the masses... it be harder with soldiers rather then the Marines

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
They don't all die.

I know that I am talking about the soilders who had.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Statistically speaking, they're more likely to give up the life of an innocent civilian than themselves.

How brave.

Originally posted by King Castle
it's conduct unbecoming article 131,. depending who hosted it, article 138

civilian standards dont apply any Nco/officer worth their salt would have broken it up gotten names send them to their "can" and began reprimand.

there are a lot of things military personal dont do that you do that is punishable.

from having your hands in your pocket, slouching, mumbling, swearing etc etc..


You proved my point right there and weakened your own. Military has its own specific and sometimes ridiculous standards; how the military handles things isn't "normal". So, "conduct unbecoming of an officer" is hardly a reflection of a person. You used that picture as an example of people who aren't heroic. How does that make them not heroic? Regardless of some silly regulation they may have broken, for all you know many of the people in that picture, who there are smiling and happy, can be dead right now, and for a variety of reasons. The women there could have been killed trying to throw back a grenade, or evacuating a building before a bomb went off, yet to you they're bad people because they have the nerve to enjoy themselves while off-duty, in the middle of some god forsaken desert.

That's not even just illogical, it's downright retarded.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You proved my point right there and weakened your own. Military has its own specific and sometimes ridiculous standards; how the military handles things isn't "normal". So, "conduct unbecoming of an officer" is hardly a reflection of a person. You used that picture as an example of people who aren't heroic. How does that make them not heroic? Regardless of some silly regulation they may have broken, for all you know many of the people in that picture, who there are smiling and happy, can be dead right now, and for a variety of reasons. The women there could have been killed trying to throw back a grenade, or evacuating a building before a bomb went off, yet to you they're bad people because they have the nerve to enjoy themselves while off-duty, in the middle of some god forsaken desert.

That's not even just illogical, it's downright retarded. You're missing the point: it's against regulations. Which are>>>common sense.

Damn, you're right. This is why I'll never be a good soldier.

Originally posted by 753
IMO that counts just the same

Originally posted by Free_Speech
In the U.K. we get told they are heroes all the time. Do you think they are?

We're told the same thing.

I think they have the greatest potential to be heroes. I've had the chance to meet quite a few soldiers, current and former. A lot of them are not in it to be heroes. They want to serve their country and pay for college. Others, however, are in it to be thanked and have their asses kissed by everyone they meet for the rest of their lives. It's amazing how something can humble one person and make an arrogant prick out of another.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
This is why I'll never be a good soldier. Me too, shooting from a heli on innocent reuters reporters isn't really my way of life.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're missing the point: it's against regulations. Which are>>>common sense.
Reminds me of Life of Brian where Brian is being led away by Roman soldiers and Brian says "you don't have to follow orders!" and one soldier replies "I like following orders!"

King Castle is that Roman soldier.

I voted Sometimes/Some.

WW2 Soldiers, now they WERE heroes.

I don't consider a soldier that comes back who has had both his legs blown off while walking along a road a hero, but definitely brave, but a soldier that has disposed of bombs that could have hurt the innocent people of that country, that's a hero in my eyes.

I think anyone who fought in any kind of wars are heros which is why we have a day just for them!

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I think anyone who fought in any kind of wars are heros which is why we have a day just for them! http://www.kommunisten-online.de/blackchanel/adolf-hitler1.jpg

Not including Hitler I mean American Soilders!

LOL.

****ed up.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Not including Hitler I mean American Soilders!
Yes, obviously you have to be an American to be a hero. If all soldiers are heroes, then why should that only apply to Americans?

b/c prejudice rears it's ugly lil head and believes american soldiers are not enemies nor in the wrong when it comes to the world's foreign affairs nor are they used to oppress ppl..(sarcasm)



wonder if African soldiers, gorilla fighters during civil wars are heroes?mhmm

Originally posted by King Castle
gorilla fighters

It's guerrilla, pal.

Was that a one-time typo, or did you think it was "Gorilla" this whole time?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's guerrilla, pal.

Was that a one-time typo, or did you think it was "Gorilla" this whole time? i was too lazy to figure out how it was properly spell and just went with gorilla easier for me.

thx for pointing out my reading writing comprehension skills to every one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drn9EMbDj2Q

It's a common mistake, I think. Based on a mis- or at least non standard pronunciation,

Admittedly, the concept of soldiers being "gorilla fighters" is kind of funny. Though unfair, given they are endangered and all that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Admittedly, the concept of soldiers being "gorilla fighters" is kind of funny. Though unfair, given they are endangered and all that. which?

also it would explain why they are referred as grunts.

I mean gorillas, the actual animals. When you said "gorilla fighters", I had the image of gorillas dressed in army uniforms, holding guns, etc. Then I thought, that gorilla wars would be bad because their species is endangered.

http://lowposts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/gorilla.jpg

i thought it be funnier to considering humans endangered when putting them in gorilla fights.

plus always dodging bullets, IED's and so on..

also:

i want my ape man army!!jr_shakefist

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fa8d0bb756/monkey-armies-human-hybrid-experiments-lost-on-dr-moreau-s-island

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, obviously you have to be an American to be a hero. If all soldiers are heroes, then why should that only apply to Americans? In America it is optional and there are many countries where it isn't. I'd say that if a person is willing to sacrifice themselves to serve and protect their countrymen then they are a heroic person. They have the potential to become heroes. Soldiers have many people like this amongst their ranks no matter what country they come from. Even a nazi soldier that saved the life of his friend in a battle is perhaps a hero to that friends great great grandchildren. They may not regret that the heroic fellow was in those ranks.

Originally posted by The MISTER
In America it is optional and there are many countries where it isn't. I'd say that if a person is willing to sacrifice themselves to serve and protect their countrymen then they are a heroic person. They have the potential to become heroes. Soldiers have many people like this amongst their ranks no matter what country they come from. Even a nazi soldier that saved the life of his friend in a battle is perhaps a hero to that friends great great grandchildren. They may not regret that the heroic fellow was in those ranks.
Um, yes. Thank you for making my point. I agree with that.

Originally posted by The MISTER
In America it is optional and there are many countries where it isn't. I'd say that if a person is willing to sacrifice themselves to serve and protect their countrymen then they are a heroic person. They have the potential to become heroes. Soldiers have many people like this amongst their ranks no matter what country they come from. Even a nazi soldier that saved the life of his friend in a battle is perhaps a hero to that friends great great grandchildren. They may not regret that the heroic fellow was in those ranks.

Interestingly enough, those countries where it is not optional rarely go to war. Since it is the option of an individual American citizen to serve in the military, then they are no more heroes than are any other person who applies for a job and is accepted for hte position. It isn't the job that makes someone a hero, it's how a person acts in a given situation. As I said, soldiers in an active army have the greatest chance of finding themselves in a situation where their behavior can be heroic.

I think getting into the whole great great grandchildren angle muddies the waters. This isn't an abortion debate, it's a conversation about soldiers being heroes based solely on their career choice.

As Bill Maher has said, we consider firefighters, police officers and soldiers heroes because they work cheap, and we shold pay them accordingly if we really consider them the heroes we hold them out to be.

Originally posted by skekUng
Interestingly enough, those countries where it is not optional rarely go to war.
facepalm

Weren't you just trying to argue with me that there wasn't a connection there?

Originally posted by King Kandy
facepalm

Weren't you just trying to argue with me that there wasn't a connection there?

There is a difference between a draft and mandatory service. But, in this thread, I don't recall addressing you, at all.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, obviously you have to be an American to be a hero. If all soldiers are heroes, then why should that only apply to Americans?

It could had meant others as well.I was just stating a fact.

Stating very poorly, more like.

Originally posted by skekUng
Since it is the option of an individual American citizen to serve in the military, then they are no more heroes than are any other person who applies for a job and is accepted for hte position. It isn't the job that makes someone a hero, it's how a person acts in a given situation.

As Bill Maher has said, we consider firefighters, police officers and soldiers heroes because they work cheap, and we shold pay them accordingly if we really consider them the heroes we hold them out to be. If we believe that it's how a person acts in a given situation that makes them a hero then we believe that firefighters, police, and soldiers are not heroes, just employees or charity workers.

If we don't believe that they are heroes to begin with then it's contradictory to say that we hold them out to be heroes.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If we believe that it's how a person acts in a given situation that makes them a hero then we believe that firefighters, police, and soldiers are not heroes, just employees or charity workers.

If we don't believe that they are heroes to begin with then it's contradictory to say that we hold them out to be heroes.

Deployed soldiers, as well as fire fighters and teachers and nurses, are held out to be heroes, by virtue of their career choice. But simply being a soldier does not make one a hero. What they do in the situations presented by such a career choice is why I said they have the greatest potential to be heroes.

I clearly said we are told they are heroes, and many like yourself seem to believe they are simply because they chose to become fire fighters. Being a soldier doesn't mean you'll act heroic, simply because you are in a situation where they have the opportunity to act heroic.

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It could had meant others as well.I was just stating a fact.
The "fact" you stated was that all soldiers are heroes. You then said that this didn't include Nazis. Therefore, it wasn't a "fact" at all, it was nonsense.

Originally posted by skekUng
Deployed soldiers, as well as fire fighters and teachers and nurses, are held out to be heroes, by virtue of their career choice. But simply being a soldier does not make one a hero. What they do in the situations presented by such a career choice is why I said they have the greatest potential to be heroes.

I clearly said we are told they are heroes, and many like yourself seem to believe they are simply because they chose to become fire fighters. Being a soldier doesn't mean you'll act heroic, simply because you are in a situation where they have the opportunity to act heroic.

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make sense because I repeated your argument. What you clearly said was that we hold these people to be heroes because they work cheap. Your view is the same as Bill Maher according to your post. That statement starkly contradicts your previous and current one that a job title does not make a person a hero, period.

I'd like for you to quote my post that says that they ARE heroes. I stated that ANY person who is willing to sacrifice themselves to serve and protect their countrymen is HEROIC. Look up the word if you still don't understand.

All those doobie smoking emoticons... you must be stoned off your ass.

Originally posted by The MISTER
It doesn't make sense because I repeated your argument. What you clearly said was that we hold these people to be heroes because they work cheap. Your view is the same as Bill Maher according to your post. That statement starkly contradicts your previous and current one that a job title does not make a person a hero, period.

I'd like for you to quote my post that says that they ARE heroes. I stated that ANY person who is willing to sacrifice themselves to serve and protect their countrymen is HEROIC. Look up the word if you still don't understand.

I said that some of us do, because we are told they are heroes.

No, I didn't say we hold them out to be heroes because they work cheap. Bill Maher said it. The point is that we hold them out to be heroes and then pay them crap wages. He guessed they might be heroes because they work cheap and get treated like crap. So to justify their crap wages, we call them heroes. I'm pretty sure you understood that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The "fact" you stated was that all soldiers are heroes. You then said that this didn't include Nazis. Therefore, it wasn't a "fact" at all, it was nonsense.

Whatever and it is a fact.