Heroism and the language of fascism

The part of the phrase he should have added was :

But it's a big mistake to mix up the idea of service -- or the idea of sacrifice and suffering for the benefit of others.


And the author is wrong. This is another lib trying to diminish the sacrifice made by our troops who volunteer. The 50 cal machine gunner has made the same sacrifice as the next guy. The point man on any patrol is just at risk as the next guy. Every member of our armed services are heros and should be honored as such. Maybe the author should take up an m-16 and walk a patrol in Bagdad instead of spouting off about what he knows nothing about.

 

Yes, real heroes always suggest that the women should get out there on the front line with the men. You're just hyper-sensitive to criticism of the establishment. She in no way diminishes the sacrifice made by our troops who volunteer. But her point is that some people put themselves at extraordinary risk in order to help others. Those are the folks that we should call heroes. Calling every man who picks up a rifle a hero diminishes the sacrifice that those individuals made and diminishes the impact of heroism on others. While children of our fathers' generation might have been encouraged by stories of men like Audie Murphy, our children have been swindled out of greatness through self-esteem and the idea that you can be a hero just for showing up.

 

To me, they're all heros, anyone who would enlist with all the hatred & vitriol directed at their mission. Anyone who chooses to give up their life, and hand it over to a military force, is a hero. Anyone who has ever served honorably, is a hero. To me they are.

 

If we are to go with the premise that all enlistees are heroes...What do we call an enlistee that dishes slop in the chow line versus one who puts his helmet on a grenade and jumps on the helmet to save the lives of his fellow soldiers? Are they both heroes or do we need to come up with a new word to describe the one who gave up his life for his brothers in arms?

HE''RO, n. [L. heros; Gr. a demigod.]

1. A man of distinguished valor, intrepidity or enterprise in danger; as a hero in arms. (Source: Webster's 1828)​

 

We used to call those people veterans, and that was an honorable title in itself.

 

To me, anyone who enlists in the armed forces, and serves honorably, is a hero. Do what you want with the definitions. There are levels of heroism, but that's all I'm going to give you, especially today, with the slurs against the military by folks who have zero idea of what they are talking about, anyone who chooses to give up their freedom to protect mine, is a hero.

 

They're both. Praise God for them.

 

It must be the same mentality that says every kid who competes is a winner. Even though nobody wins if nobody loses...

 

No it's not. At all.

Everyone who competes is a competitor. Only the winners are winners. But playing a game or any other competition does not begin to compare with voluntary enlistment in an armed force. Not even close.

 

Nor does voluntary enlistment really begin to compare with throwing yourself on a handgrenade.

 

Well, like I said, there are levels of heoism. So I got that one covered, as well.

 

Thats a problem though, when we start using one word to mean everything, it begins to mean nothing.

 

What level should be assigned to the guy that jumps on a hand grenade? What level to the cook?

 

Let's see, perhaps a Medal of Honor and a widow's pension along with a folded flag to the handgrenade jumper, and a base salary for the spud guy.

 

Kinda like NEOCON, eh ?

The problem, as I see it, is folks don't like my view and want me to change it. I'm not telling you what to call these guys, why are you telling me what to call them ?

 

Just want us all to hold fast the form of sound words, and stop letting the media define words for us. Words have meanings and when those meanings are changed you are changing a lot of words that have already been spoken.

 

An enlistee in the service is not a hero as he has not engaged in anything resembling valor. He's filled out the right forms, passed the right tests and is on his way to boot camp. It might be said that he's going to be trained in the ways of valor but until he applies this training he has nothing to demonstrate his heroism. Consider too, it is commonly said that he's doing his duty for his country. There's nothing heroic about doing your duty. If his assignment is dishing spuds there is nothing heroic about that. However, there is something most certainly heroic about jumping on a grenade and saving the lives of your fellow soldiers and that is a hero.

Your neocon word is a good example too. A neocon is not a conservative, especially considering a neocon's ideology is more liberal than it is conservative. Neocons like to take the word "conservative" and have it apply to them. This changes the meaning of the word "conservative" and just like "heroes" we have a whole group of people that are not what the word means.

 

I assure you, Mr. Newman, the media has nothing to do with my opinion of our service folks.

Hero is a subjective term. A hero is only a hero in the eyes of one who would call him such. Some folks call Che Guevera a hero, or Cindy Sheehan, or Ron Paul. None of these are my heros, but they are in some folks eyes. Hero is an opinion.

 

I disagree, Rufus. There is something heroic about enlisting, especially today.