the anti war hero thread

[lordblazer]

Lordblazer... first and foremost if you happen to recall correctly.. other then my [blank] reading score I am ASHAMED for the most part for my scores. I used them because they were the best [blank] example I could come up with to show what I was trying to say. If it works it works.. doesn't matter if I gotta go out of the smurfing box.

As for your comment above I was just pointing out it was highly biased.. since both sides feel they are in the right and that the other side is blind, common sense if you ask me.

Btw perhaps with the scores I should have used hypothetical scores? I don't know but that isn't generaly the way I think. The best example is the one that actually happened, and I didn't have anyone else's ACT scores.

ashamed you should be glad and oyu should jsut take it again and make better instead of dwelling over it.

anyway MY father served in hte gulf war my grandfather was forced into vietnam.My great great grandfather was a buffalo soldier during the american-spanish war.on my dad's side that is.

On my mom's side my grandfather was in the airforce. My great great grandfather was a buffalo soldier.MY great great great grandfather served in the civil war.and my great great great great grandfather fought against the US in the first and second seminole war.

YEah.lol....people die all the time in war and not directed at the person i quoted but at nik0.You can't tell me that these men and women who die everyday is just ordinary and that they didn't put in any effort because simply put they did.I mean they wouldn't have died if they didn't put in that effort would they? Do you think people become soldiers because they want to fight in wars? No no treally.In america people join the military because they live and grew up in places were the economy was hit hard.Were the only job available is the military.They don't join the military to become a war hero because they don't want to goto war.They hate war,but they have no choice but to fight in it.

[nik0tine]

nik0.You can't tell me that these men and women who die everyday is just ordinary and that they didn't put in any effort because simply put they did

For the five millionth time, I have never said that. NOT EVEN ONCE! Quite ignoring me when I tell you that. Do you just not read my posts? Next time you post, can you please respond to this post? I have never said any of the things that you accuse me of, and it's high time you got that through your head.

Also, I expect you to present me with some amount of evidence behind your baseless accusations. (Either that, or just concede that you're accusations were bull to begin with, which they were) This debate has just turned into me presenting my point of view, and you making stuff up. (And then I have to try and counter it, and then you ignore me and say the same thing again.) I ask that you stop. Please.

[lordblazer]

now you see this is what irks me a little. the whole soliders live on bread and water alone thing.

from what i know in this country living in army quarters provides you with. food, water, gas, electrcitiy, health care, deantal care, optical care, prescriptions, and on top of that a salary. and on top of that the best pension scheme you can get in this country.

and are we truly saying lindy england is a hero? the ss and wermacht (not necessarily the holocaust)? is the chinese army full of heroes? the menw who shoot ayt you on a daily basis, heroes or not? if signing up to a job that will get you killed means that all your enemies are heroes too. war angel this should ring particularly true for you. suicide bombers are 99% lilely to die. that's greater odds than any solider are they heroes for this? was 9-11 an act of heroism? and for that was certainly no pension scheme. what about acts commited by soliders? halabja? guernica? dresden? dunkirk? is all this heroism? can all soldiers really be counted as heros no matter what they do? does just the fact that you may killed make you a hero?

You presented some bad examples.9/11 was done by extremist.Most soldiers aren't extremist.They were told that if they killed themselves with millions of others that they would goto heaven.

Since your british cloud i wouldn't expect you to understand how things work in the USA concerning the military.First of all.Most people who sign up for the military really have no other option.Some are poor as dirt and really its either military or starve.Really if you've seen most of the towns in the USA the only option for people to get a job is military.And really the people who get into combat units are heroes.Simply put they could've just gotten a desk job in the airforce not having to worry about getting killed.In wars do you know how many soldier's die?lose limbs?Get paralysed for life?Get war sickness?

and nik0 im sorry i meant to address those statements at cloud no.9

[Shadow Nexus]

Main Entry: he·ro
Pronunciation: 'hir-(")O, 'hE-(")rO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hErOs
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros : SUBMARINE 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion : IDOL

Main Entry: 1sol·dier
Pronunciation: 'sOl-j&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soudier, from Middle French, from soulde pay, from Late Latin solidus solidus
1 a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army b : an enlisted man or woman c : a skilled warrior
2 : a militant leader, follower, or worker
3 a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4 /'sO-j&r, 'sOl-/ : one who shirks work
- sol·dier·ly /-lE/ adjective or adverb
- sol·dier·ship /-"ship/ noun


In the end, wether soldiers are heros or not depends on your admiration for that person. Some people think Pol Pot was a hero. Was he? Yes, of course, he was a hero for the people who supported him! Hitler is also a hero for the nazis.

I do not admire soldiers a priori. Someone who kills and dies for a cause does not necesarily appear to me as admirable. Certainly I wouldn't call Pol Pot and his soldiers "heroes". Maybe I do admire some soldiers in particular occasions. The International Brigades in 1936 Spain, for example. They were not there defending the interests of men in suits, they didn't even represent a whole state. They were just a group of independent people that fought against the rise of fascism in Spain. USA didn't give a smurf about the Spanish civil war, neither did England, and France didn't support us all that much. Yet, the Abraham Lincon brigades came all the way from North America to fight Franco. How can't I admire them? I don't care if they lived or died, I don't care if they changed something big or something small, I don't even care we lost the civil war, this people for me are heroes. Not for Franco. Not even for the US goverment, who later prosecuted them accusing them of being communists.

So in the end, this conversation is pointless. I can't think of objetive values to determine if this person is a hero or not. I just don't like people attempting to introduce "hero-ness" crap down my throat, because well, I may not share his principles. If we were to accept all this people as heroes, there would be too many people I should adore. And in the end, most relevant people can be defended as heroes by determinate points of view. I can even play the devil's advocate with myself and defend Franco as a hero.

[The Redneck]

The disgorging of Soviet archives after it's Reagan-induced collapse proves that the Lincoln brigade was part of a rigidly controlled Soviet operation.

This doesn't change much--these guys still put their butts on the line to stop fasism, after all--but they weren't a bunch of folks who had had enough and got up to fight; they were following orders. Likewise, the US government was exactly correct in its estimation of them.

[Cloud No.9]

well alot of people who fought in the international brigades were of "dubious" political linkage. many liked communism, socialism, anarchism some like george orwell just didn't like the idea of a nazi puppet government. germany backed franco and the fascists. russia backed anyone else going.

but people died for what they believed in without pay or pension. orwell took a bullet in the neck and was never going to receive a war pension.

but does this topic all come back to "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" are hero's only hero's if they fight for what you believe in?

suicide bombers like soldiers die for what they believe in. not all belive in martyrdom some do it for liberation and freedom. it's not a case of "the best way to get into heaven is martyrdom so today i'll blow myself up to go to heaven. no real other reason but i like the idea of heaven i do" there is underpinning reason why suicide bombers do what they do. in palestine and chechnya it is for a state not martyrdom that drives these people.

but what they do is surely as unheroic as what happened in abu gahrib. so to say that war criminals and terrorists are both not heros is reasonable is it not?.

you cannot stamp every man that dies for a cause as a hero.

i personally belive heroship needs to be earned in battle (if you are a solider). not given to you when you are given your uniform.

the army works in the same way here as it does america with the people who join. most tend to be very unqualified and those who are qualified normally serve as officers. but your post actually brings up an interesting point that i will take to address now.

in another thread regarding minimum wage someone said that poor people are poor because of their own failings and things they have done (getting knocked up or being a junkie were the examples) i think your point regarding soldiers joining because of poverty surely disqaualifies the idea that poor people are poor because they deserve it.

back on topic. i know two ta members (both plan to join the regular army) and say they are not fighting for any particular cause or belief. i work with them both so aren't desperate un-employed. they are joining because they see it as a good career they are qualified for. and they want to be combat soliders (one wants to be in the paras). people are given the choice to become desk people but turn it down or aren't qualified or there isn't infinite space. some though just don't like the idea of that kind of job and want to be combat soldiers and not for belief reasons or out of desperation but because that is what they want to do.

one of them is an abosolute ass and is an arrogant, lying, ass who can't do his job probably right now let alone in the army. i would not consider him now, on the day he collects his uniform, on the day he fires his first shot. i'll consider him a hero if and when he proves himself to be one by doing somthing heroic.

same for any other soldier.

again this thread is not meant to belittle anyone or thier loss. this a thread on what counts as herodom.

also this thread is a discussion on that and is not useless or pointless as it is intended as a discussion. which it is.

[Shadow Nexus]

The disgorging of Soviet archives after it's Reagan-induced collapse proves that the Lincoln brigade was part of a rigidly controlled Soviet operation.

Rigidly controlled? I seriously doubt everyone there was involved with the soviets. It's true Russia did help us back then, but I can't see why International brigades were necesarily following the detailed orders of the Soviets, more considering the fact many of the brigadists were anti-Soviet. And if they were, I doubt they even knew.

[Cloud No.9]

the soviets did not control or direct actions in spain the same way germany did for the fascists. there was no soviet guernica. and no real orders issued.

but they happily supplied "advisors" and weapons and stuff like that. but there was no real russian military contribution in the same way there was from germany.

[The Redneck]

the army works in the same way here as it does america with the people who join. most tend to be very unqualified and those who are qualified normally serve as officers.

Those who are qualified normally serve as officers? Now I know you don't know much about the Army....

[lordblazer]

in another thread regarding minimum wage someone said that poor people are poor because of their own failings and things they have done (getting knocked up or being a junkie were the examples) i think your point regarding soldiers joining because of poverty surely disqaualifies the idea that poor people are poor because they deserve it.

well tell that person that its not everyones fault that they are oor.Its not there fault that they were born poor with nothing.And they grew up in a depressing enviroment and this is were the classes clash with each other.Middle class people jsut can't seem to understand what it's like to be poor.What its like to live in a project.Wer eits depressing.Were people have parents who grew up itn eprojects which was all they knew.The chain of poverty.Most middle class and higher people don't think of it unless they were in that situation.And when your poor nad oyu had parents who didn't goto college.Well you really don't know much on how to get into college because good grades aren't the only things that get you into college.Theres information people need to know.And when you grow up without knowing it and being poor really the only escape from it all is the Military

[theundeadhero]

No, not all soldiers are heroes, but an overwhelming majority of those who serve in a combat zone are.

Let's start from the beginning...

you are still the same person in iraq that you were at home.

No, being in a warzone in an orginazation like the Army brings about changes in your personality.

The duty itself is extraordinary. Duh.

If served in a combat zone, yes.

the duty though is not extra-ordinary.

While serving in combat it is.

it isn't a grat feat of courage and bravery to sign up and go through training. to take a bullet for someone else. to throw back a live grenade

Yes, it does take a lot of courage and heart to go through training and become a soldier. If you take a bullet for someone that would make you a hero. I won't even comment about the grenade.

if you suddenly say that all soldiers are heroes then you must say the same about your enemy and all your enemies of past. and this is not true.

If they served in combat, than yes, they are heroes too.

being a soldier does not change a man.

Being a soldier in war does change a man.

most will not recieve a brave for heroic duties or bravery because they did not perform as such

Every American soldier who serves in war comes home with a medal on their chest.

I agree with this, although most likely in a different way than you do. A soldiers job is not to "protect people" it's to protect the interests of people. (In other words, political interests. To believe otherwise is foolish.)

The reasons for the orders don't have much to dowith individual heroism.

I don't think the term "hero" should be thrown around so lightly though. A hero must go above and beyond what they are required to do. (And when I say 'above and beyond' I mean it)

If your going to judge "above and beyond" then do it at a universal level and not at a higher standard for soldiers. How often do McDonalds employees get shot at? How often do bankers have to worry about getting blown up driving down a highway? How often do farmers wake up in the middle of the night to their house shaking from a mortar that just blew up?

Anytime someone puts their life on the line, or enters a situation where there's a chance it will be on the line, for their country, they're doing something extraordinary--it doesn't matter if there's a billion other people doing it.

YAY!

Moreover, experience has proved again and again that just because you don't go all-out bullet-stopper infantry grunt doesn't mean you won't see combat.

I'm a smurfing bulldozer operator and people still shoot at me/ try to blow me up with an IED while driving down the highway/ attack my camp with mortars.

Extraodinary(out of the ordinary I believe is the dictionary def.)- I personally don't think it is overly extraondinary to be a soldier..

It must most certainly be ordinary to live thousands of miles away from home, not see your friends or familiy for a year at a time, and always have someone who wants to kill you.

Here is the dictionary listings:
Beyond what is ordinary or usual
Highly exceptional; remarkable
Employed or used for a special service, function, or occasion

Soldiers in combat meet 1 and 3.

Oh yes lets define hero while we are at it.
Hero:
A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life:
A person noted for special achievement in a particular field

Soldiers in combat risk and sometimes sacrifice their lives every day.

Many people will give up liberties, luxury, and/or life for what they believe in

Who says they're not heroes?

But I am not sure that many people join the army thinking they will die. They don't think it can happen to them.

All soldiers who join the Army know it's a possibility they will be sent to war and could die.

being a soldier is not what it was in the second world war. it's a career.

I didn't join the Army for a "career". We don't have a true enemy but people can still join the Army for the same reasons.

Oh yes one last thing, most people I know go to the military for money, and college stuff... thus they aren't giving it up for thier country, rather for the benefits THEY can gain.

Thats original intent. Don't confuse it with later actions. A soldier who joined the Army purely for money can still sacrifice his life just as easily as someone who joined the Army simply to be in the Army, like I did.

The thing is, we never asked to be called heroes. We believe in selfless service, support is a wonderful thing but it's not manditory. Being thanked for my service means alot to me and I appreciate it, but I didn't sign up for titles.

I think it's great that people can look up to soldiers as heroes and can respect the profession. Unfortunately not everyone feels that way, but we'll drive on.

YAY! Don't be fooled by my username. I registered with it here a year before I ever joined the Army.

when it turns into "support the troops" bumper stickers, and refrigerator magnets, and stupid yellow ribbons it crosses the border from support, to absurdity. I must ask, how does having a bumper sticker that says "support the troops" do anything to support the troops? It does nothing. The troops that need support can't even see it.

I personally think the ribbons and stuff are retarded, but they still bring a sense of comfort. I might not be able to see them directly but I still know that they are there.

soldiers do not give up their life and liberty on some little selfless path they have. it is a career choice they made for alot of reasons in the same way doctors, lawyers and engineers make the same decision at the same time.

Again, not all soldiers join the Army for a career. Many do join for those reasons.

Well I sure don't know 'bout your area but I know in my area the people here would fight like wildcats for the defense if we were being invaded. Goodness gracias it isn't too far of a strech to say that farmers would try and make tanks out of thier combines, we have many LARGE, and sometimes NASTY, HUMAN BITING dogs here as well. Not to mention we have a nuclear plant withing 20-40 miles(if I recall correctly) that is still active enough we could use it as bomb.

How well would a "town mob" stand up to highly trained and supplies troops? I don't even want to think about causing a Nuclear Meltdown. Your just killing yourself there.

Fighting for money/benifits which is why most people I know go into the military

You can't base the whole Army joining for money based on the people you know.

I was showed pictures of soldiers who were mutilating Iraqi bodiees after they were dead, shooting prisoners of war for throwing sticks and stones at them, breaking their legs and carring them out around the 25 degree weather like it's some sort of game. Keeping civilians in prison for 6 months to a year for doing nothing, and then treating them like crap.

How do you know what was really happening in those pictures? Anyone can make a believe able story to say whatever they want by manipulating what they show in pictures.

Actually, our soldiers spend a lot more time doing everything from digging ditches to shuffling paperwork than we do walking around shooting people.

If only they knew how much manual work is involved. The media doesn't show that. They just show the killings and bad things.

Give a bad guy a gun, and well... Thats what happens.

And then UCMJ kicks in, but the average civillian doesn't see any of that or the super strict rules we are required to follow.

most will never see active duty in iraq. many will spent a year or two in cyprus or malta and never have a bullet go past their ear

LIKE HELL! That's striaght up, BS.

I would love to see someone trying to invade the US. When you consider the number of gun owners in this country, the military would be the least of their worries.

Yes, because a man in a flannel shirt with a shotgun is much more scarey than a sniper, or whatever.

And you know this becuase??
Every army has trigger happy idiots. It isn't something that is preventable. You are going to get bastards in the army, and those bastards are going to be bastards when given the chance.

Yes, and then they go to jail, just like the civvy world.

Second of all, you seemed to ignore the fact that actual times im which American Soldiers fought for our freedom is not often, and most wars or conflicts fought by American troops are done by political motives, not necessarily for the total intrest of the American people.

The overall point he made that people seem to miss is that because we have the Army their are very little times we have to fight for our own freedom. The Army is what keeps them at bay.

Have you ever lived in Army barracks, ate Army food, or had Army health-care applied to you? I have, both abroad and in the US, and they're nothing to write home about unless home life really sucks.

YEE-HAA! I loves T-rats and cold showers

WE fight wars unfairly.Unconvientional warfare is the war to go now days.

Air superiority is highly important.

Anyways My personaly believe is to have a type of national guard for National defense, that doesn't go out looking for fights.

We have one.

"Hello--I'm Staff Sergeant ------, and this is Sergeant -----. We're going to be your drill sergeants throughout basic training and on behalf of the United States Army we'd like to welcome you to Fort Campbell.

NOW YOU GOT TEN SECONDS TO GET THE **** OFF MY BUS AND EIGHT OF 'EM ARE ALREADY GONE!!"

You missed all the F-words said

On top of the fact that if I wanted to reach anybody in the 'States when they were awake I had to call at about 2 in the morning.

Korea was hard to call home from, but Iraq is much harder, and more expensive.

I still do not believe that anyone in thier right mind would invade the United States of America. Why? Well, let me tell you. We have an intercontinental missle system and a boatload of nukes. Invade America, get destroyed. Period. (And soldiers aren't doing the destroying.)

And those systems are ran by high ranking soldiers.

actually i do know what army standards of living are like. i come from a very strong military family.

I heard Army stories growing up a lot too. They don'y come close to the real life Army experience.

You will live, work and die so that that ignorant, oblivious and hateful American can say whatever he wants

Are you stereotyping Americans or just pointing out the few like that?

First - suck it up! You are soldiers, doing your duty (whatever that is), so that the ideals upon which the United States are established live on, and so that American citizens are not harmed.

I haven't seen a soldier yet whining about not being called a hero, just simply debating if they should be or not.

(and yes, some troops forget why they are what they are, and lean towards the side of evil, doing dis-honourable things, disgracing the name of others)

Sadly true

I don't understand...if you're the soldier, you're the one doing the killing of the loved ones, are you not? Why is it ok so long as it's not the people you know/live next to dying?

To understand that you have to understand the difference in going out because you want to kill people or killing people in defense of your family at what not. Also, as I said earlier, people in enemy Armies can be heroes too.

A fireman who goes beyond what is required of his job and puts something he values at risk to help another is a hero.

Firemen put something they value, their life, at risk every time they go into a fire.

Being a hero is anything but common.

Being a soldier is anything but common. Again, all throughout this thread people have been judging soldiers as heroes to a higher standard, instead of everyone the same. If the average citizin risked people shooting at him to run in somewhere and save a something important he would be considered a hero, but soldiers who do it every day in Iraq are not heroes because that's there job?

[nik0tine]

Holy freaking crap that is the longest post I have ever seen!

If your going to judge "above and beyond" then do it at a universal level and not at a higher standard for soldiers. How often do McDonalds employees get shot at? How often do bankers have to worry about getting blown up driving down a highway? How often do farmers wake up in the middle of the night to their house shaking from a mortar that just blew up?

I DO do it at a universal level. You're point doesn't seem to make much sense. McDonalds employee's arent heros by default, in the same way that soldiers arent heros by default.

Many people will give up liberties, luxury, and/or life for what they believe in

Who says they're not heroes?

I do.

The overall point he made that people seem to miss is that because we have the Army their are very little times we have to fight for our own freedom. The Army is what keeps them at bay.

And how does that justify the meaningless wars that they do fight? (Like Iraq, for example) Nobody is arguing that the existance of soldiers is wrong. However, you can still have an army and not invade people for reasons based solely on power.

Quote:
Anyways My personaly believe is to have a type of national guard for National defense, that doesn't go out looking for fights.

We have one.

his point is that we should have one of those, and not use the regular army to kill people for nothing.

Quote:
I still do not believe that anyone in thier right mind would invade the United States of America. Why? Well, let me tell you. We have an intercontinental missle system and a boatload of nukes. Invade America, get destroyed. Period. (And soldiers aren't doing the destroying.)

And those systems are ran by high ranking soldiers.

Point being?

To understand that you have to understand the difference in going out because you want to kill people or killing people in defense of your family at what not. Also, as I said earlier, people in enemy Armies can be heroes too.

But then again, how can any soldier of today understand that? They aren't protecting thier families, because there is no threat to thier families. I can understand protecting your fellow soldiers, but the family argument just doesn't hold up. (At least not in this day and age)

Being a soldier is anything but common. Again, all throughout this thread people have been judging soldiers as heroes to a higher standard, instead of everyone the same. If the average citizin risked people shooting at him to run in somewhere and save a something important he would be considered a hero, but soldiers who do it every day in Iraq are not heroes because that's there job?

Depends on what he was doing, and how he went about it. A soldier CAN be a hero, but that doesn't mean he WILL be a hero.

[theundeadhero]

I DO do it at a universal level. You're point doesn't seem to make much sense. McDonalds employee's arent heros by default, in the same way that soldiers arent heros by default.

It wasn't meant as a default. My point was that soldiers volunteer for a job that involves dangerous things such as the ones pointed out, and then people seem to blow it off by saying soldiers are just doing there job. It's the nature of the job that makes them more easily qualified as heroes. The nature of McDonalds employees, bankers, or farmers aren't near as dangerous. Saying it's just their job isn't a valid argument. I'm not saying it automatically qualifies all of them, but goes a long way in in the argument of weather they are heroes or not.

Who says they're not heroes?

I do.

Which is understandable, but others might see it like they are.

And how does that justify the meaningless wars that they do fight? (Like Iraq, for example) Nobody is arguing that the existance of soldiers is wrong. However, you can still have an army and not invade people for reasons based solely on power.

How the government deploys it's soldiers isn't an issue in this topic. I never mentioned having an Army being wrong or using it for invasion. The context of that thread was that if the US didn't have an Army, other countries would not be intimidated by our civillians so they would try to invade. The Army is what keeps other countries from invading the US.

his point is that we should have one of those, and not use the regular army to kill people for nothing.

After thinking about it more I think he meant having only a national gaurd to defend the US, and not a main Army used to fight in other countries.

I still do not believe that anyone in thier right mind would invade the United States of America. Why? Well, let me tell you. We have an intercontinental missle system and a boatload of nukes. Invade America, get destroyed. Period. (And soldiers aren't doing the destroying.)

And those systems are ran by high ranking soldiers.
Point being?

What was being talked about when that was an original response was not needing an Army at all, because those systems would take other Armies out. I was saying that those systems were run by the Army, so without an Army those systems would be useless.

Depends on what he was doing, and how he went about it. A soldier CAN be a hero, but that doesn't mean he WILL be a hero.

That was meant as a general example and not something specific. The intention was that while a civillian can do something good outside of the ordinary actions of a civillian, that would consider them a hero, a soldier who does something very similar shouldn't be considered a hero because it was part of their job desricption? I see a double standard.

[nik0tine]

It wasn't meant as a default. My point was that soldiers volunteer for a job that involves dangerous things such as the ones pointed out, and then people seem to blow it off by saying soldiers are just doing there job. It's the nature of the job that makes them more easily qualified as heroes. The nature of McDonalds employees, bankers, or farmers aren't near as dangerous. Saying it's just their job isn't a valid argument. I'm not saying it automatically qualifies all of them, but goes a long way in in the argument of weather they are heroes or not.

I will agree that a soldiers job is more dangerous than most other jobs, and it takes more balls than working at mcdonalds. However, I don't think an average person, no matter what thier job is, can become a hero. I feel that one has to be truly special to become a hero, and that is where we find our differences.

After thinking about it more I think he meant having only a national gaurd to defend the US, and not a main Army used to fight in other countries.

That is what he meant.

That was meant as a general example and not something specific. The intention was that while a civillian can do something good outside of the ordinary actions of a civillian, that would consider them a hero, a soldier who does something very similar shouldn't be considered a hero because it was part of their job desricption? I see a double standard.

If a civilian did something heroic, and a soldier did something heroic, they would be heroes.

However, I think it takes more than just being in the line of fire to be a hero.

Also, I would like to thank theundeadhero for brining some amount of sense and intelligence to the opposite side of this debate. At least I don't have to argue with pure nonsense anymore.

[DarkLadyNyara]

Have you seen the forest fires in California.Its like a 200 feet tall wall of fire and fireman jsut rush and run right into it.That takes guts because from weere i was standing the heat blistered my skin.

I remember that. I was so grateful that they were willing to do their jobs, because I lived very close to the fires, and several family members almost lost their homes.