Poll: Do soldiers deserves the title of hero?

[Ekonk]

Perhaps they do, but it's hard to say. I dislike soldiers. They do terrible things, on command of others. That they risk their lives in the process doesn't really even it out I think.

Also, Napoleon once said that if soldiers started thinking not one of them would stay in the army.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

I dont know about calling them heroes. That is a title that needs to be earned. This man is a hero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brunt

However, I do have immense respect for every man and woman in the services, and wish them all a safe return from wherever they are.

Agreed. You can't say outright "all of them are heroes" or "all of them aren't heroes", those would be sweeping generalizations, and sweeping generalizations are bad.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Obviously they aren't all heroes there are those that commit War crimes but other than that if they go over there and try do good and actually help the people then yes they should be considered heroes. Although I do agree with what the group is saying to an extent as just being a soldier does not automatically make you a hero you have to prove yourself as one first.

 

[HuntrRose]

A soldier is not a hero, but through heroic actions, may become one. A heroic action would not be fighting in a war as that is their job, but going way beyond normal duty in order to protect others (fellow soldiers, PoWs or civilians).

And as such, I must vote no to this even if it is possible for soldiers to be heros.

 

[O maestre]

soldiers should be considered heroes when they are forced into becoming heroes, as in their only choices were surrender or war. like the south vietnameese fighting the americans in the vietnam war. what people often forget is that most soldiers join up by choice so they are activly approving of all the governments decisions and opinions, or they are there for just for kicks. i personelly dont find either of the two options to being heroic.

of course there are thos who join up for the sake of free education and while not heroic, i commend it in being a last resort to better their own lives, albeit through military means


Edit: in ancient civilizations, a hero was not always regarded as a defender of men, or a bastion of good actions, but merely as a great guy who performed many great(but not necessarily good) deeds kind of like beowulf, enkidu, gilgamesh, heracles, imhotep-toth, mithras and so on

so very few people in the modern age could actually be called heroes if you take the title back to its original qualification criteria

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Not really, unless they earn it. Being in the military seems a little dense to me. A job that requires you to be shot at seems like a ridiculous career choice. Its more stupidity or madness than bravery. Besides, I don't like the idea of war. By becoming a soldier you're supporting war, and as a pacifist I disagree with that.

 

[Ryuk2]

Not all or them obviously, they are just doing their job and get paid, but when there's somebody who saved another soldier, risking his own life, even if he met that guy only one. That's a hero.

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

No, they aren't by default, they can become them but going to Afghanistan or wherever doesn't automatically make you better than another human being.

 

[mariosuperlative]

My opinion is that being a soldier does not make you a hero, only performing heroic acts. However I'm sure that a fair few soldiers do perform "heroic" acts, meaning a lot of soldiers could be considered heroes.

I voted no, because you need to actually be heroic before you can be a hero. Being a soldier and going to war does not automatically grant you the "hero" title.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

most of my family served, and still serves in our country military. Having said that not all soldiers are heroes, just a few of them

 

[ModsDeleteThisAccountPlease]

No one that I, my parents or my grandparents can remember, have ever served in the armed forces from my my family. Also, as a first generation immigrant (I was born in India), I have a deep-seeded respect for any one in the Army.

So yes, I consider them heroes. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for the safety of their country; the very least we can do is call them heroes.

I remember I was flying to Kansas with family once. A soldier had just gotten of his plane and was looking quite dejected. I went over and thanked him for his service and sacrifice. The smile that lit up his face is one I still remember. My family was appalled by this. They still considered India as their country, I don't blame them, they grew up there. The United States is my country now, My childhood was here as are my memories, so yes, I will consider soldier heroes.

 

[Axeli]

People are quick to call efficient killers heroes. Patriotism is funny that way.

I doubt most soldiers even like to be called heroes, perhaps least of all those who actually might deserve to be called that.

You know, since I'm not gonna say that war doesn't give plenty of opportunity for heroism. I mean, it's usually a extremely stressful and horrifying situation that favours sociopaths rather than good people, full of temptation to act like a beast and opportunities for self-sacrifice.
Easy to spot the strong and righteous agaisnt that background, isn't it?

 

[Capachinola]

Are soldiers heroes? Of course. Anyone with an american flag patch is a hero.

 

[Jay Cee]

Soldiers are so generalized it's not a logical question.

Various kinds different people join the army for own ulterior motives, which is rarely 'protecting freedom'.

 

[Tdc2182]

okay so your excuse for the military is that they protect thousands of people. fair enough. but they dont have to kill thousands to do it.

You say that like there is a choice. Its the sad truths of life, sometimes there is no other way. Plus, the armed forces do something that is called progressive lethality. You aim for different body parts to incapacitate the threat. The only problem is sometimes targets are hard to aim at. And it is not my excuse, it is the reason why there are militaries.

Sometimes killing someone is the only option, or at least the safest if you are tryin to save someone. If a serial killer broke into your house with a weapon and was going to murder someone close to you would you, a; shoot him before he could get to someone or , b; see if you would be able to wrestle the weapon away from him?

If you choose A, you end the threat immediatley, but you have taken anothers life
If you choose B, you may be able to spare the killers life, but if you fail you die along with the other person(s) in the house.

I know what I would choose, and I would be able to live with it.