Soldiers are not heroes. They are tools of war.

[Fearlessly Expressive]

While upon my travels and activism on facebook I stumbled upon the following page. Soldiers are not heroes. They are tools of war.

About:

How can you assume that we have nothing to fight for?
Why are you assuming that we don't believe in the constitution?
It's not that we, or I at least, do not hold anything in high value. I respect the constitution, I enjoy studying it, and the idea that I, or anyone else, is inferior and weak because we do not wish to promote a flawed concept is anti American to the extreme.

I respect my country. I believe that it is fair at times. Do I think that the U.S. has a long way to go before it's a perfect country? Yes.
Am I willing to vote, promote social change, act to promote what I believe this country stands for? Yes.
Am I willing to let young men and women die for illegitimate wars? No.

Do I believe every soldier is a hero?
No. But I do believe that there are heroes, but the title does not come with a uniform and a job.

Soldiers do not fight for our freedoms. We are born with natural freedoms. These rights can only be upheld by putting them into practice. The idea that we are somehow given our natural rights by armed men is savagely invoked by their representative power-hungry governments who, au contraire, are willing to remove those freedoms in replacement with the illusion that they are owed undying gratitude for bestowing these freedoms upon billions of people and using this ideology to commit acts of heinous crimes in 'our name'. Furthermore, the ruling ideology will often justify this ruthless exploitatin with appeals to some fundamental and all total human nature- one of the societal myths which holds it in place.

Soldiers are not heroes..... they can act heroically, they can do heroic things - but the act of putting on a uniform and agreeing to put your conscience in a lockbox for the next so many years does not make your life more important than others, it does not make your opinions and insights more worthy of respect than others, it does not exempt you from moral judgment. It does not make you a hero.

A "hero" is by definition someone who is in some way extraordinary, remarkable, worthy of emulation. It is at best a risky business to define someone as "extraordinary" simply by virtue of wearing a uniform and in fact it is potentially d...angerous as it makes it too easy to slip into the militaristic attitude that what soldiers do goes beyond "necessary evil" or just necessary, beyond even honorable, to admirable, to something to celebrate, an attitude that makes it all to easy to promote additional enlistments, additional weapons, and even additional wars......Why only soldiers? What does it say about us that the idea of paying soldiers' way through college gets ovations while the idea of anyone else getting the same benefit gets at best quizzical stares if not overt sneering rejections? It says that we regard the work of soldiering as inherently more important, inherently more deserving of praise and reward, than the work of others - and the lives of soldiers as inherently more valuable than the lives of the rest of us. That is the attitude we are buying it becomes easy to absorb, absorb so deeply that one is unaware of it, the idea that a veteran's take on the Iraq war - and by extension, all things military - is inherently more valuable than that of others not by virtue of knowledge or logic or informed comment but simply by virtue of being a veteran. We regarded it (correctly) as a scandal when media outlets used retired generals who were actually Pentagon-trained PR flacks as "experts" on military and foreign policy questions in the runup to the Iraq War - but an overlooked point is that the reason retired generals were so prominent in that number was that their status as military people gave them added credibility in the eyes of many viewers and listeners. In our pursuit of "support the troops," we have fallen prey to that same attitude, one that regards the statements of Iraq War veterans as more valuable, more telling, than those of non-veterans. It even has become fairly common to hear dismissive references to those who "never saw combat." At first, that was a legitimate argument, directed as it was against chickenhawks, those rightwingers who were eager for fights, ready for wars, provided they did not have to take part in them. But increasingly it has been used as an all-purpose putdown, even against those on the left who have criticized soldiers - as, I imagine, it would be directed against me ...But the real danger is that as the attitude persists, it distorts our way of thinking, drops a magnet on our moral compass. In a bizarre mirror image of the fanatical right, we refuse to blame soldiers who commit atrocities, or, more exactly, we refuse to acknowledge them. We refuse to blame those who shoot civilians even when the attacks are clearly acts of vengeance; we downplay the war crimes and the routine cruelties; we make excuses for those who shoot the wounded or torture prisoners; even when official Pentagon reports casually mention how a US soldier summarily executed a wounded fighter and shot another wounded, unresisting fighter twice in the back, we pay little notice - and if we do, it's usually to brush off complaints with that all-purpose "you've never been in combat" defense. "These things happen in war," we say.

Yes, they do. And "our heroes" are doing them. Which is, even as the deniers seem incapable of recognizing it, the point. Just as the right tries to blame the individuals and exonerate the hierarchy, we want to blame the hierarchy and exonerate the individuals, to remove all their responsibility for their own actions."

http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/06/heroics.html

"it is awe strikingly dim of you to lack the capacity to understand why there would be such a lack of respect towards people who storm into other countries with gun, grenades, bombs etc and murder innocent civilians, sometimes by the thousands including woman and children so that the governments corporate leaders can earn an extra profit or screw over the country another way to make themselves richer and/or more powerful. In my opinion, there's no reason to pay respect to someone for doing this, above the common mutual respect which I would give any human being. maybe when things start affecting people like you rather than just common citizens in other countries then you will understand and perhaps grow to lose your respect for them as well." - Anonymous

As I'm sure you can imagine this page has gotten a lot of attention and has several copycat pages along with several pages trying to have it removed. I find it ironic that people who profess to love freedom and etc apparently only love freedom of speech when the speech itself conforms to their worldview, but this is beside the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is to discuss the question, "Are soldiers heroes?"

I believe that heroes come from all walks of life. Children can be heroes. Are some soldiers heroes? Sure, but not all of them are. Are all police officers heroes? Obviously not since there are those that would murder and rape just like there are among soldiers those that would murder and rape. Joining the military does not make you a hero, your individual character does or does not make you one.

[3rdHeaven]

I will agree that it's not really the uniform that makes you a hero, it's your ability to put others first and risk your life for them. To call all solders hero's simply because they wear a uniform is wrong. Just as we are all not special, if we were what is so special then? It takes a cut above the norm to be special and certainly to be a hero!

[Amali]

I pretty much agree with the article.

[Corodon]

Originally Posted by Fearlessly Expressive

While upon my travels and activism on facebook I stumbled upon the following page. Soldiers are not heroes. They are tools of war.

About:



As I'm sure you can imagine this page has gotten a lot of attention and has several copycat pages along with several pages trying to have it removed. I find it ironic that people who profess to love freedom and etc apparently only love freedom of speech when the speech itself conforms to their worldview, but this is beside the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is to discuss the question, "Are soldiers heroes?"

I believe that heroes come from all walks of life. Children can be heroes. Are some soldiers heroes? Sure, but not all of them are. Are all police officers heroes? Obviously not since there are those that would murder and rape just like there are among soldiers those that would murder and rape. Joining the military does not make you a hero, your individual character does or does not make you one.

I don't like diluting the idea of heroism any more than I like the breezy way the word "genius" is thrown about in place of "talent." I do believe reflexively calling service personal "heroes" is one-third an attempt to encourage enlistment, one-third an attempt to cover the fact that those speaking are not so enlisted, and one-third truth.

I don't recall hearing any of "our brave men and women in the armed services" call each other heroes. My hearing is probably selective, though.

Anyway, "tools of war" is a political slam I can't agree with, but I'd like "heroism" to be a very rarefied accolade.

[djharkavy]

Originally Posted by Corodon

I don't like diluting the idea of heroism any more than I like the breezy way the word "genius" is thrown about in place of "talent." I do believe reflexively calling service personal "heroes" is one-third an attempt to encourage enlistment, one-third truth one-third an attempt to cover the fact that those speaking are not so enlisted, and one-third truth.

I don't recall hearing any of "our brave men and women in the armed services" call each other heroes. My hearing is probably selective, though.

Anyway, "tools of war" is a political slam I can't agree with, but I'd like "heroism" to be a very rarefied accolade.

Just a note: You have 4/3, 2 of which are truth.

[Corodon]

Originally Posted by djharkavy

Just a note: You have 4/3, 2 of which are truth.

fxd

[djharkavy]

Originally Posted by Corodon

I don't like diluting the idea of heroism any more than I like the breezy way the word "genius" is thrown about in place of "talent." I do believe reflexively calling service personal "heroes" is one-third an attempt to encourage enlistment, one-third an attempt to cover the fact that those speaking are not so enlisted, and one-third truth.

I don't recall hearing any of "our brave men and women in the armed services" call each other heroes. My hearing is probably selective, though.

Anyway, "tools of war" is a political slam I can't agree with, but I'd like "heroism" to be a very rarefied accolade.

Very well put. Unfortunately, I have to spread it around...

[Fearlessly Expressive]

Originally Posted by Corodon

I don't like diluting the idea of heroism any more than I like the breezy way the word "genius" is thrown about in place of "talent." I do believe reflexively calling service personal "heroes" is one-third an attempt to encourage enlistment, one-third an attempt to cover the fact that those speaking are not so enlisted, and one-third truth.

I don't recall hearing any of "our brave men and women in the armed services" call each other heroes. My hearing is probably selective, though.

Anyway, "tools of war" is a political slam I can't agree with, but I'd like "heroism" to be a very rarefied accolade.

While you may be correct in the intent of "tools of war" being a political slam by the originator of the term, it is however technically correct. Soldiers are in fact a tool of the government to wage war. I might agree though that to use the term as a slam might be unjustifiably harsh.

[RosieS]

Originally Posted by Fearlessly Expressive

While you may be correct in the intent of "tools of war" being a political slam by the originator of the term, it is however technically correct. Soldiers are in fact a tool of the government to wage war. I might agree though that to use the term as a slam might be unjustifiably harsh.

Not really harsh. Not when soldiers can be replaced by unmanned drones. Unmanned drones aten't heroes but they make it so that fewer heroes are made. Hopefully drones can take over the need for soldiers completely and war will have zero heroes and be fully computerized and partially automated.

We are at the dawn of No More Heroes right now.

Regards from Rosie

[Fearlessly Expressive]

Originally Posted by RosieS

Not really harsh. Not when soldiers can be replaced by unmanned drones. Unmanned drones aten't heroes but they make it so that fewer heroes are made. Hopefully drones can take over the need for soldiers completely and war will have zero heroes and be fully computerized and partially automated.

We are at the dawn of No More Heroes right now.

Regards from Rosie

I have grave doubts that this is a good thing. What we really need to do is overcome the culture of warfare, militarism, and endless human slaughter, but it won't happen unless we can overcome fascist attitudes that prosper it.