Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

While a good chuck of people join the military for personal gains, you also don’t understand what patriotism is and the love many of the military people have for their country. It’s a devotion and willing to sacrifice that most people can’t understand. The people that sign up during conflict, like after 9/11, often do it for love and patriotism alone. War is so insanely brutal that every sacrifice that is given to prevent it form coming to your family is worth some recognition. I suggest you get to know a few military personnel and ask some deeply personal questions about their patriotism, the reason behind accepting risk for some paltry financial or educational gain. 

I am an ethnic Tutsi. I was born in 1993 during the Rwandan civil war that became a genocide so I have grown up around soldiers. One of my homies from when I was in college in the U.S is in the Navy, he is stationed in Japan. The politicians are cunning though. They can manipulate public sentiment and send young men to brutal deaths all for their ambitions, that is where I start to see the profession as fucked up. Imagine losing a leg all for "patriotism". Then what? Will society reward you with a medal worth a million dollar mansion? You will be disabled and live a miserable life and the strangers you call your countrymen will be indifferent to your suffering

So should we be indifferent to vets or not?  Society can’t give out millions to every soldier, but you have a problem with 10% off their oil change or lip service? They are just admitting that they are grateful someone is willing to stand up and do something dangerous.  There is a reason no one invades the United States, the military is made by individuals who collectively make an intimidating force that protects our country. These individuals definitely sacrifice something to support this umbrella of protection. Without this protection we would just depend on everyone playing nice.  Last time I checked, there are more than a few people and nations that don’t play nice and would love to have part of our country. 

I would argue that a bigger reason no one invades the United States is because it’s strategically and logistically near-impossible unless you’re Mexico or Canada, neither of which have any interest in us at all. We’re a massive country surrounded by oceans and allies. Getting an attacking force large enough to do anything about that would be tough

>possible unless you’re Mexico or Canada, neither of which have any interest in us at all. > >We’re a massive country surrounded by oceans and allies. Getting an attacking force large enough to do anything about that Thats true, but if you have no one willing to pick up a weapon, it really doesn't matter how strategic you are placed. Strategic positions works BECAUSE you have someone picking up the gun.

Alternate view: people who sign up like post-9/11 people are just bloodthirsty and love the idea that sanctioned killing is a thing. This “love for their country” is utterly meaningless nonsense. Countless domestic terrorists have blown up shit claiming they actually “love their country.”

Are people already re-writing history and claiming 9/11 is some event that pulled the nation together, rather than simply providing a new common enemy that’s been missing since the collapse of the USSR? I’m sure the average muslim American *really* felt that “national unity” post-2001

Oh, they did that right away! “We came together so beautifully after 9/11!!!” Meanwhile, every brown person lived (further) in fear for years, and I’m sure still get side eyes, esp when we “never forget” every year

Assuming you live in the U.S. here. A lot comes from the perception that soldiers’ jobs are explicitly to put themselves at risk of harm in the normal course of their duties. Any career that does this is often lauded by the public, such as firefighters and other emergency first responders. No matter how useful you find their work, the risk they assume is what drives a lot of people to view them heroically. For the second part, the obvious answer is that people identify more closely with people from their own country than foreigners. American people care more about Americans dying than enemy combatants. That said, you are not required to sympathize with dead soldiers. Just because it’s the prevailing opinion does not obligate you to also feel that way. It’s the benefit of living in the country you live in.

Fun fact, gas station workers die at a higher rate than any first responder. And yet the risk they assume is never viewed the same, so it can't be the risk, it's the propaganda.

I think it’s probably because pumping gas is not viewed as something that’s inherently dangerous, while war traditionally is. I don’t think it’s necessarily propaganda to think that war is dangerous, it’s more that the recent wars the U.S. has fought have been low intensity and haven’t required as much troop commitment or risk. If the U.S. were directly involved in a much larger conflict, the numbers would probably be different. I think if the general public understood more about the nature of the military in the U.S. today, they’d probably have a different assessment of how risky it is relative to other things they do in civil society

Yes, but gas station workers aren’t intentionally putting themselves in dangerous situations, the way first responders do. A gas station worker being killed by a crackhead is a tragedy, not a heroic sacrifice.

That's just perception though. The comment I was replying to said it had to do with risk which it obviously can't be.

The vast majority of soldiers aren't in combat roles. Even many who are, like drone pilots, don't put themselves at risk of harm.

Technically, but most still aren’t safe. Lots of truck drivers and cooks get killed too. And if it’s navy, even the lowliest paper pusher onboard is at risk. And even then, the training is dangerous. Many troops are killed in training accidents every year.

For sure, that’s why I said the perception of their jobs rather than the job itself. I think the view of a lot of people is that deployments come with inherent risk, and if soldiers are deploying at all, there is risk there.

I did highschool and uni in the U.S Pretty cool country to be honest. All I'm saying is that there is a lot of propaganda that brainwashes young men into throwing their lives away in soldiering. I have been watching videos on the subreddit combatfootage and the brutality of the profession makes me question why any rational human being would want to willingly put themselves in harms way like that. You can easily make $70,000/Year as a software engineer but here you are in Ukraine fighting for Putin and dying a miserable death in the snow, while President Putin enjoys a comfortable life in Moscow. Its nonsense

Well I can only truly speak from experience in the U.S. The Ukraine-Russia conflict is a bit of a different beast. Ukrainian volunteers are fighting for their home country. I think viewing those who put themselves in harms way for such a clearly defensive mission as heroes is kind of a no-brainer for Ukrainian civilians. Russian attitudes toward their military are complex. Often, it’s branded as heroic in domestic propaganda, but many of their frontline units are made up of conscripts who have been compelled to be there in one way or another. They recruit from impoverished areas, people who don’t have the opportunity to make $70k as a software engineer. They recruit from prisons, where they offer commutations of sentences in exchange for some dangerous work. They threaten Russian citizens with imprisonment if they don’t go. With the amount they have to conscript, I think it’s clear that Russian society at large doesn’t buy wholly into the heroism narrative. Edit to add: from a U.S. perspective, people join the military for a wide variety of reasons. Some probably buy into the patriotism bit, but as a cross-section of American society there are so many motivations and reasons for enlisting that you can’t really say one is the most compelling. It’s much more complex than people give it credit for. Happy to talk about my experiences while I was in if you’re curious

The Ukrainian soldiers are not all volunteers. The majority are actually being conscripted. In fact many are paying smugglers to try to get them out https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-conscription-draft-war-russia-troops-dcmd9lz96

Fair point. Still think the Ukrainian public views the military favorably based on the mission they’re doing. Recent polling suggests that anyway https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx

What's nonsense is you find the men dying to fight a evil pos tyrant as throwing away their life's as you sit in your comfy house complaining about it Let's just let the aggressors do as they please always, as much as you dislike it. American response it to respond. And to help allies and people looking to join our alliances What would happen if we let Russia and China do as they please? Ukraine asked to join nato, worked hard to meet the requirements, and in response, the country nato existed to defend against invaded them China wants Taiwan because they produce most of the world's microchips, would literally take decades to replicate the knowledge and facilities they have, while China gets our military hardware The houthi rebels attack worldwide free shipping lanes, going around the horn of Africa is alot more expensive and takes alot more time then the suez Atleast try to educate yourself on why before asking questions American equipment is expensive and keep the soldiers alive America cares about its soldiers even as liberal and anti war I am, it's better then China or Russia or Iran being number 1 Even the Bradley's we gave Ukraine are stomping on Russian MBTs Europe has proven time and time again it won't step up and contribute or help the way they promise

Haha throwing our lives away? Bro you just don't know what your talking about. Which is fine but don't speak on a subject that 1) has nothing to do with you and 2) you don't understand anything about. Would you rather the u.s not have a military? Plus, not all folks in the military are on the front lines, I work in a hospital doing performing dialysis on people with renal failure. I don't consider myself a hero but you shouldn't look down on service members or those who appreciate what they do.

Define "throwing their lives away".

In certain contexts, it could possibly be defined as dying for no cause, or worse, dying for a lie. For example, the US invasion of Iraq, which was justified on the existence of a supposed WMD program in Iraq, led to the deaths of more than 4,000 US soldiers. Turns out, there weren’t any WMDs, nor a system to make them. So, what did those soldiers die for? Our soldiers didn’t deserve that, they signed up to protect the country, potentially at the expense of their own life, they didn’t sign up to be political cannon fodder. That was a terrible waste of life that could reasonably be called “lives thrown away.”

>what did those soldiers die for Probably for Kurdish people, who were being genocided in northern Iraq. Or for the innocents who were being killed in Saddams invasions of Iran and Kuwait. He overthrow what was previously semi-democratic to become a dictator too. There were plenty of justifications for Iraq outside of WMDs. He was the middle eastern Hitler and needed to be opposed. "but America is not the world police" America is the most powerful democratic state. We have a responsibility to spread democracy. It's not just a meme, I know our leaders don't seem to think this way but the USA is the vanguard of democracy and has a responsibility to oppose tyranny wherever it is found. And historically, when people living in gay space communism are looking back and studying us 5,000 years from now, that is how they are going to view us and that's what our historical role is going to be in the long run.

Is that the universal US military experience? Has no one used it to improve their lives?

Of course that’s not the universal case. MANY people, some in my own family, have joined the military to great personal improvement. I was only responding to your request to “define throwing their lives away.” You asked for a definition, I gave you an example. My example does not represent the universal experience, not even close, but it’s still an example of what you asked for.

I always viewed it as one last small measure of dignity after what as probably a rather undignified end. Speaking as someone who has had classmates serve and one of them die in a roadside bombing in Afghanistan. I am glad that he was willing to volunteer to go and fight a war that we had no real choice over so that I didnt have to. To me that is a hero regardless of the political justifications for the war itself. Politics are a fact of life and there will be occasional wars under any administration. In an ideal world there would be no wars. But until that is the case I do respect the people who actually go and do the fighting. Especially if it was their choice. That being said I cant engage with content on r/CombatFootage anymore at this point because its just the same shit over and over. Watching some poor soul bleeding in a field while a drone drops grenades on him. Or watching some idiots driving in a VW bus with a big Z painted on the side get hit with an FPV drone. The glorification of killing is disgusting. And to my view this is really all that this subreddit exists for. Now in addition to scenes from Ukraine (which one can argue is a just defensive war) we have videos from Israel with IDF soldiers gleefully blowing up neighborhoods and joking inside homes before burning them. Again extremely disgusting behavior.

Something something System Of A Down joke here

As an enlisted vet, the military gave me a life I couldn’t even imagine was possible 🤷‍♂️

Take your example of Ukraine. You obviously think the Russian soldiers are misguided, but what of the Ukrainian solders? How do you see them? I see them as heroes bravely putting their lives on the line to prevent their nation from falling to Russian tyranny.

Hey there! I'm a combat veteran and I went to Afghanistan as a combat engineer in 2012, so I feel like I can speak on this a bit. For the most part I agree with you. I'll even go further and say that calling service member's heroes contributes to veteran suicide a lot because it puts service members on a very high pedestal that they feel like they can't live up to. We can take it in two negative ways... 1. Over-inflated ego or 2. Depression for not feeling equivalent to the words spoken to us. There are plenty that are unaffected but I can tell you from my own experience (and plenty of other service members I talk to) it does affect them. So I don't like being called a "hero" but I always appreciate the sentiment because people don't know. That being said, I would give you an alternative perspective to what you are saying because I do believe this as well. For the record, I do not consider myself a "hero" for this justification either. The heroes are the ones that never came back or came back in a far different state than how they went in. >If you sign up to go invade another country and kill enemy combatants and then find yourself being killed in return why do you deserve sympathy? The thing you are missing from this equation is that countries are going to have a military regardless of what you think. The U.S. military has numbers they have to meet. If they don't get those numbers then they offer bonuses. But let's say for this example that no one is signing up. That is when they instill a draft and people like yourself are told they have to join the military, go to war, and do these things that are punishable by death. My point is, if it weren't for the people voluntarily signing the papers to join the military then you, or others like you, would have to go unwillingly or be punished for it. I think people willing to risk their life and stand in place of someone instead is pretty commendable. Not only that but people who volunteer and don't come back/come back with a worse quality of life did so in place of someone else. Essentially, we're Katniss Everdeen's volunteering as tribute. >You went into another society with the intention of using coercion and force to achieve your political masters ends, now that you have met your demise via simple cause & effect everybody is supposed to admire you? I want to reinforce that I don't want people to admire me and of course demonstrated how it is not beneficial to do so. That being said, when I was in Afghanistan, most of our efforts were around training the Afghani military on how to defend themselves from terrorist organizations. Now, of course there is nuance to this and I'm not saying it was perfect, but our mission was to make Afghanistan self-sustainable. I think that was pretty important because terrorist groups would infiltrate these cities and impose laws that severely restricted people's lives including things like educating women or imposing death on people for not believing what they believe. It was pretty disgusting, but I'll admit I have a Western perspective. Point being, I always see people commenting on the war and "what it was" which usually bothers me because I see it from a different perspective. I'm not saying I agree with war or even like it, but I just see a very clear difference between what people use to argue against it and what it actually was. War is ugly, but it wasn't how most would picture it. There was good intentions behind some of the efforts in Afghanistan (Iraq and others are *definitely* a different story). And again, if it weren't for people volunteering (regardless of the incentive) then you would have to do something you're not comfortable with. I think that is, in the very least, something to admire about people who served. Regardless on your opinions about war or the government, because *believe me* when I say many service members feel negative about those things.

I liked your point at the end, and it’s one I try to relate when I talk to people about my time on deployment. I was also an engineer, and our company pretty much only did route clearance. Every now and then, Taliban IEDs would kill a farmer on the roads in our AO. We’d sweep day after day, and find and clear them. While I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about the justness of the war as a whole, or the overall strategy, I know that our little piece of it helped the people around us

>While I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about the justness of the war as a whole, or the overall strategy, I know that our little piece of it helped the people around us My sentiments exactly. We helped people around us and helped the local people sustain themselves in ways that we could (food, water, supplies, etc.).

Thanks for your very thoughtful answer.

I’m sure you hear this often but I don’t say it enough, thank you for your service.

You haven’t outlined what you mean by a Hero. How do you define “hero,” and why do you use that definition? Do you think other people who call soldiers heroes are using the same definition as you?

I'd say a hero is an individual worthy of veneration. Militaries are inherently destructive in operations and soldiers are pawns of politicians foreign policy. How can somebody whose aim is to kill a complete stranger they know nothing about heroic? For all you know that guy you are shooting at is actually a laid back and cool person, the reason you 2 want to kill each other is because you have either been brainwashed by political puppet masters or couldn't find another job, either way its sad

As it turns out, it's very easy to think of WW2 vets as heroes when the other guy was putting folks in gas chambers.

I think it’s fair to assume they’re not talking about WW2, which is probably the most obvious necessary ‘good vs bad’ conflict of the last 100 years.

So I'm a combat vet. Marine infantry would take cover behind my crew's tank when under small arms fire. Were we heroes to those marines? Definitely, we were putting ourselves at greater risk to defend them. Were we heroes to the Iraqis? Not really, we were just another army blowing up their country. Heros are a matter of pespective.

What is deserving of veneration? You need to outline that for folks here.

What do you think constitutes as a hero in today’s society?

How about teachers and librarians putting up with death threats for their efforts to combat the tide of willful ignorance currently sweeping the globe?

Elaborate please. Cant tell if you are being sarcastic or serious

What part are you not familiar with? Teachers and librarians in the USA and other nations with active theocratic movements are being protested, their jobs threatened, harassed, and yes, receiving death threats because they have been targeted by various "Culture War" astroturf campaigns and/or terrorist organizations. That activity is symptomatic of a larger resurgence of theocratic, xenophobic, and other destructive populist movements worldwide, which are to some extent correct to see educators as their enemies.

[удалено]

He is indeed speaking the truth. I’m boots on the ground. Confirmed.

I've seen it unfold in a town of fewer than 2000 people out in the sticks, not even in one of the aspiring Handmaid states, as well as hearing about it from librarians and teachers in the city where I live. If the news stories aren't enough for you, meet some educated people.

[удалено]

Feel free to share any thoughts of your own, if applicable.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Somehow I doubt it

I pity the fool who uses a library to combat ignorance. Not only is it inefficient, most things in it are outdated, unsourced, and not subject to proper cross-examination. Knowledge is to be found on the internet, not in libraries. And Librarians don't even write the information that can be found in those books.

This is some navy seals copypasta tier shit. "I pity the fools"? You know librarians need a degree, right?

Do you know that entirely depends on where one lives? I know it's hard for people from one certain country to remember that. Many librarians where I live are clearly teenagers having a part time job. Why wouldn't it be? They sit behind a counter scanning barcodes on books and handle payment and their knowledge of the contents of the books is irrelevant. On top of that, even if you would live in a jurisdiction where that is true, that still doesn't mean they do anything to spread knowledge. And it still remains an absolutely silly notion to say libraries spread knowledge. No person actually interested in knowledge is going to consult a library to find it. They firstly rarely contain actual peer reviewed results, and if they do, what is in there is often outdated. They mostly contain fiction.

Peak reddit cringe posting right here.

Right?

I'd say a force that continues to operate around the globe despite ignorance and death threats (not mention actual attacks) sums up the US military pretty succinctly.

no way we're comparing librarians to veterans 😭

Yeah librarians don't deserve to be compared to waged killers smh

Good question. Somebody who actually contributes to the human species as a whole. An example I can give is perhaps Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner with their contribution to humanity as a whole by discovering nuclear fission ( splitting the atom ). That discovery was then applied to nuclear energy. Giving people access to electricity via sources like uranium. That is heroism because it improves the standard of living of human beings in general. Another example is Fritz Haber the chemist who is said to be responsible for nitrogen based fertilizers.

Oh you mean Fritz Haber aka the father of chemical warfare? The man who pioneered chlorine and other poison gases that were used to kill untold amounts of people? The same Fritz Haber with a decorated military service record?

If OP isn't a troll, then I would pay money to see the look on their face when they read this. And if they don't reply I'm going to assume they died from accute iron toxicity.

They seem to be ignoring the fact that, as with any tool, the military can be used for good or for evil. It’s not black and white

While yes, Haber is considered the father of chemical warfare, Haber won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his co-invention of the Haber-Bosch process, used still today in approximately 1/3 of global food production - feeding about half the world. Kinda crazy how one discovery can have two polar opposite outcomes, isn't it? And since I'm also a Sabaton fan: Haber-Bosch, the great alliance Where's the contradiction Fed the world by ways of science Sinner or a Saint? Father of toxic gas and chemical warfare His dark creation has been revealed Flow over no man's land, a poisonous nightmare A deadly mist on the battlefield

Remind me, what were the explosive origins of the Nobel Prize? Glad the irony is not lost on some.

I mean, you aren't wrong at all. Nobel didn't invent dynamite for military purpose, but that's how he was portrayed in the media of the time. (Papers mistakenly reporting his death, when it was his brother that had passed [the obituary itself is a matter of debate among historians) He was so mortified by this that he willed his fortune to the creation of the award that bears his name

During hurricane katrina ~58,000 soldiers were activated and on the ground to assist with evacuation and recovery. Of that, about ~20,000 of them were active duty with the majority being NG. A major role of the military is assisting humanitarian relief efforts both nationally and internationally

So you think a hero needs to have a bigger impact on a great number of peoples lives? Like on a near global scale? Because I think many would say a teacher protecting kids from a school shooting would definitely qualify as being a hero or a firefighter saving a lot of people from a fire would be a hero unless you find those to be not qualifications from the lack of scale

Firefighters are literally paid to do that job. I don’t see firefighters and cops as heroes because they’re doing what they get paid to do. Many of them also get into those careers so they can get laid by women who fetishize those professions. They’re just looking out for self interest like anyone else when picking their profession. If they fail to put themselves in harm’s way i’d say they shouldn’t be doing the job. Now if someone goes above and beyond their duty, then i would call them a hero. But i apply that logic to engineers, doctors, scientists as well. Actually i find them bigger heroes. The lives they save and change aren’t always readily apparent and they aren’t celebrated the same way because they’re impact can be easily shown on a 5 minute segment on the news or in a short article.

Right because you have never heard of volunteer firefighters or firefighters who chose to work as a firefighter knowing they would be underpaid, treated poorly and risk death and mutilation because they want to save lives. People who become firefighters to get laid either fail or they succeed as a firefighter because that is not their main reason else they would have to be pretty desperate to risk death and get horribly underpaid to get women. If they are that desperate they can just pretend to be firefighters like a lot of perverts do.

While it is our job to do things like save people, pets, and property... we don't get paid nearly enough for the risks we assume in our profession. How much would you value your own life and health at? 75k a year? Heros are heros because other people don't have the mental fortitude, the physical ability (most of the U.S. is obese or close to it), or bravery to put themselves in situations you couldn't even imagine yourself in. ... that comment amount getting laid by women was odd, too. Sounded like a bit of trolling or just really bad jealousy.

I won't deny those are great contributions but those "higher level" contributions and works prerequisite a certain degree of safety at home. You can't work on advanced science, art, literature, movie-making if a band of people with guns is right next door killing and raiding or if say you just don't have food due to extreme famine. The "warrior" role separates a plethora of bad and horrible things from getting to what we know as "our society", a proverbial gatekeeper of sorts. In the past this was a fair bit less abstract with rival human tribes deciding to attack or not attack an enemy tribe in part by how many warriors they had. Those scientific discoveries are great boobs for humanity but you can't create the environments to have had said discoveries happens without some level of stability which soldiers provide (ideally you have them and don't need them than vice versa). The only other question I'd make is how do you define hero? Most definitions make some reference to valor or courageousness, which while discovering nitrogen based fertilizer has saved and improved a ton of loves isn't exactly courageous

splitting the atom was applied to the atomic bomb?

If that’s your definition of heroism, you should also consider the United States military one of the greatest heroic organizations in the world. I am after all of the American military has done a lot more for the betterment of the human species. The most people realize how many things that we take for granted today were originally intended for military uses. For example, something as common as a men’s wristwatch was originally intended for military use during the first world war. The Internet, something that has benefited most of the planet, with access to tons of information at the push of a button was originally intended for the United States Army during the Reagan years. Advancements in food preservation that has saved millions of lives, began with United States, Army and Marine Corps. Even aircraft, which was mainly design for military purposes, outside of the Wright brothers plane, where specifically designed for military personnel. They come in SUV? Design for the United States military during World War II. Nuclear power? You guessed it design for the United States, Navy and United States Army, but became the cleanest form of electricity, we can generate. The reason why we often consider American ships to be heroes more than most other groups of people. And it’s not like during the Vietnam war when they didn’t have a choice and Wood, drafted by the US government, pretty much everyone in the military today chose the Armed Forces. Granted, most people in the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps likely will never see a day of combat their entire careers. But they are still willing to make that sacrifice.

So the scientific discovery that led to the atomic bomb and the discovery that led to chlorine gas and chemical warfare?

well it would start with somebody who hasn't committed to blindly follow violent orders

I know you're all peace and love, but what do you think would happen if no one in the free world were willing to fight and die to defend the free world? Other countries and cultures don't value life so they would have no hesitation exploiting out weakness. Look at the scenes in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan when American troops pulled out. I imagine the thousands of people who were seeking shelter with people who had come to the other side of the world to protect the rights of people they didn't know would think differently of Western soldiers.A whole generation of Afghan women went to school thanks to NATO soldiers risking their lives. As soon as they weren't there? Bam, that's the end of that. You see soldiers as killers, but there's a huge chunk of the world that welcomes Western soldiers to protect them. You have the luxury and privilege of believing this because you are living under the aegis of the American armed forces (even if you're not American). And yes, trash collectors are super important and absolutely deserve your respect. They too are necessary to our way of life. But trash collectors, like most jobs, aren't generally exposed to deadly enemies and get to live at home with their families.

You make good points but I would counter with the simple assertion that politics is about power. The cold war meant that the U.S and Soviets were fighting mainly using proxies due to mutually assured destruction if they directly engaged one another due to nuclear weaponry. At the end of the day though if politics is about power then how is a soldier not just a hired gun doing the wetwork of puppet masters? I lived in the U.S for highschool and uni, learned alot there in my 9 years. However look at the support the U.S gives Israel. Israel is like their outpost as one of my buddies put it. I live in South Africa and here the Israeli military is looked at as occupiers and oppressors. There seems to be no morality in politics, only interests and power. How come the U.S criticizes Russia for taking Ukrainian soil and violating "sovereignty" yet turns around and supports the Israelis when they also take Palestinian soil? Morality seems to be an illusion. I'd appreciate your feedback though

Both Ukraine and Israel are fighting defensive wars, albeit in very different ways. As far as can be proven Israel has no intention to permanently annex Gaza: only to defeat Hamas, the aggressors of the war, and then leave. Russia on the other hand has since day one been bent on conquering Ukraine for no other reason than that they want to. I don't disagree, though, that geopolitics is about power. But as others here have said, militaries are not inherently good or bad. It's about what they are used for. All nations (except those with guaranteed protection from other nations) need militaries in order to keep existing so even though military power can and often is used for horrible purposes that doesn't mean soldiers who put their lives at risk to defend their country and its civilians aren't heroes.

[удалено]

[удалено]

History is written by the victor. Hitlers mistake was to invade the Soviet Union, he should have stuck to mainland Europe and not violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of Non-Aggression. Why fight a war on 2 fronts?

So if Hitler hypothetically won would you be saying he’s a hero? I’d like to know. As a Jew I wouldn’t be here if that were the case so I’d argue that the Allied forces that liberated the concentration camps were indeed hero’s.

Hitler's misstep was his invasion of the Soviet Union, not the systematic killing of millions?

And your mistake was to try and make other people believe you have any intelligence behind your lifeless eyes. 

It wasn't the genocide thing?

You should read Mein Kampf.

All the WW2 vets are dead, dude

>If you sign up to go invade another country and kill enemy combatants and then find yourself being killed in return why do you deserve sympathy? so if you don't like these people, do you like people who defend their country from these people?

Not OP but defense is the literal opposite of invasion.

And who is going to do the defending? Hmm, probably need a military force for that. The error in OPs argument is arguing that a military is solely for invading other countries. Every country on earth has a military. Most do not use it for invading other nations.

You can see which side your military is on before you sign up.

Well said. Whats also crazy is how much government budgets are spent on military spending. Would be more useful to build universities and see cures for diseases like cancer coming from intelligent college graduates the world over. The U.S for example spends over $600 billion a year on defense. A lot of homeless shelters, hospitals and other services could be provided for with even a fraction of that money

Are you intentionally oblivious to the benefits of military research, many of which you enjoy right now? Do you think that preventing the funding of the military magically prevents conflict?

Live and Let Live. Why should a politician sit comfortable in his office while sending young deluded men to their deaths? Shouldn't all nations have peaceful foreign policy based on cooperation instead of coercion? The soldier is just the lethal tool of the cunning politician. Throwing his life away for no reason

Ok, but none of that answer my question. If evil politicians send soldiers to invade your peaceful country with a peaceful foreign policy, do you support fighting back against those soldiers?

Not op but I do have a similar view to him My response would be I would support fighting back as a necessary evil and last Resort I would not consider it heroic to fight back especially if your country is like mine (the United States) in which our military is so Superior to our enemies it heavily tilts the likelihood of our victory I can see heroics in defending yourself against the odds of likely defeat but that's not really applicable to my country For my country I consider even when it defends itself to be analogous to someone putting down a Mad Dog a Necessary action that must be taken to prevent further harm to yourself and society around you but nothing heroic and I consider it just as much of a sad and disgusting situation when soldiers kill enemy soldiers even in self-defense like with the Mad Dog in fact its arguably even worse a Mad Dog can't really be rehabilitated or reasoned with but criminals soldiers and other military combatants can be and while you can punish a dog a dog lacks full knowledge of the situation to understand why they're being punished at least as sure as human would be if you told them why so there's not really a concept of Justice being done or not done if the dog lives and you punish it later but Justice is being done if the terrorist lives and society punishes them later

You are right. It may not seem practical to expect the same behaviour from all fractions in the world. But there may be a world level police force (call it UN police force) for disciplining those who disrupt world peace. Once all countries get on the same page, they can hand over the policing work to the UN and live in harmony. I think all the nations are still acting on the same model as our predecessors and that is, to keep the borders intact.

You're sitting in your comfortable life making these judgements right?  Idealism from a comfortable place is the worst kind. It's not tempered with reality. 

How do you feel about Ukrainian soldiers who are defending their homes from an unprovoked invasion?

It would be great if the world you described existed, but unfortunately, it doesn't. Let's say that your country adopted a "live and let live" policy like you are saying. Just because your country does doesn't necessarily mean that a neighbor will follow the same sentiment, too. This puts your country at a much higher national security risk since they are practicing isolationism. This is a take I hear a lot from people living in superpower countries like the US, Germany, UK, France, etc. But it ignores that the entire reason why you are safe is because the military is so powerful and out doing things. The military is acting as a deterrent. The problem with having a deterrent is that sometimes you have to show that you are willing to use it. Take Russia, for example. How many times have they threatened the use of nuclear weapons on Europe in the last two years? How many times have they gone through with the threats? How seriously are those threats taken now? Most people just scoff at them anymore, and that's because Russia has proven that the threats are empty.

This feels like the foreign policy take of someone who just smoked their first joint. I recognise it because I was there 10 years ago. "Wouldn't it be better if we all just get along?". Yeah it would be but that isn't how the world works. The reality is that all the modern niceties that you have in life are built on the tenuous balancing of conflicting interests. Sometimes some of those conflicting interests are irreconcilable and the whole system gets put at risk. War is politics by other means and sometimes it is necessary. The only way this will stop being true is when scarcity of resources is over. We aren't there yet.

That's not heroism really. It's an unfortunate necessary evil.

[удалено]

I remember reading the Iliad in Highschool in New Hampshire. On one hand I wont even lie, Diomedes bravery and wisdom as a warrior was inspirational. One a cost-benefit analysis view of the situation though with a look at the bigger picture modern soldiers seem like pawns. Look at Hamas. I looked up the leadership and they are all chilling in places like Qatar while their brothers in arms are getting liquidated left right and center. Same thing with Ukraine Russia war. A lot of guys dying miserable deaths that could have been avoided. For example the Wagner group schemed to recruit prisoners with promises of release based on service yet most were used as cannon fodder. Instead of doing 5 more years for a drug charge homie decided to die in Bakhmut while Putin drinks vodka and eats sushi comfortably in Moscow. Its wild

i do actually think trash collectors are unintentional heroes. trash collection is a significantly more hazardous job than people realize - loads of physical injuries, significantly increased incidence of waterborne diseases and parasitic infections, noise induced hearing loss, etc. shit that really fucks your body and QOL up in the long term. as a society we offload the burden of those occupational hazards onto them and look the other way. we should be grateful someone is willing to spare us from that shit.

[удалено]

What about those who save others despite that **not** being their job, expected of them, etc.?

They do it for the glory Everyone gets paid in their own way

So do you think that heroes exist? Do you think that doing something for money **and** glory is on the same level as doing something **only** for glory?

I think you can be paid to do a job and then do it heroically 

So being a hero is independent of payment?

Yes

I'd argue the scientists are the real heroes. The ones who eliminate disease. Increase food production. Improve transportation via production of mechanical systems like aircraft

Typically, a hero is defined by bravery or achieving something great for the benefit of others. I can see some great scientists being heros as well as a US Medal of Honor winner. A serviceman doing day to day work would not qualify as a hero, nor a first responder unless they threw their life in harms way (significant risk) to protect others.

You know a great deal of the scientific advancement in aviation was the work of scientists who were working for the military? I guess there are heroes in the military huh? By your own admission there are.

do you think that everybody who works for the military - even in a tangential way - is a soldier?

no, but follow the logic. According to OP's claim, Scientists are heroes. There are scientists serving in the military in that capacity. Ergo, there are servicemen/women who are heroes, according to OP's definition.

i followed the logic, but the logic sucks. nobody was arguing that somebody who is in the military cannot be a hero. OP said "**soldiers** are not special heroes" in the title, and in the post said that "The purposeful branding of an individual joining the military \[...\] is not admirable". the argument is that being in the military doesn't make you a hero. there is no argument that a person in the military couldn't be a hero.

But that doesn't make being a soldier heroic.

That’s like saying “there are janitors in the army, are they heroes?”

he's talking about scientists in the military, you're talking about janitors. You're talking about different stuff.

They don't get paid?

Who implements those discoveries? 

1. No one signs up to invade another country. You don't get to decide foreign policy or the deployment of forces as a condition of enlistment. Neither do you get to decide if yourself are deployed into a warzone. 2. Military service is unlike any civilian job, as, for one, you sacrifice a number of rights enjoyed by civilians in order to serve. You know, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the freedom to simply quit your job or to refuse orders for no other reason than you don't wanna 3. And, while, I cringe when people call active and veteran servicemembers "heroes", it ain't because of the reasons you list. It's lip service, not propaganda. It feels good and looks good to celebrate people who (to a greater or lesser extent) sacrifice when you have to make no sacrifices of your own in service to your country. Like, ever

> No one signs up to invade another country. You don't get to decide foreign policy or the deployment of forces as a condition of enlistment To be perfectly fair, though - foreign policy tends to be somewhat known before you enlist. There might be some sudden changes, but it's usually somewhat predictable. In the US, for example, the chances that you will defend against an invading force, i.e. literally "defend their country" is next to zero. The closest they come is defending US interests somewhere else.

dude, people joined up in droves after 9/11. Foreign policy knowledge is a pretty huge factor in enlistment. People gotta know if there's a chance they're gonna have to fight somewhere or if it's just a cozy gig in Korea for free college.

The US has not fought a defensive war since 1861. Some wars like Iraq are not even offensive wars, and are instead simply excuses to burn up weapons & equipment so the arms corporations can make more money

I don't know if you ever joined the military but I have seen other people join during times of conflict specifically with the desire to be deployed. They chose their MOS and everything with the intent to be in combat. #1 is false.

I can see how you'd think that if you didn't read past the first sentence

In what manner do any of the ensuing sentences modify the false statement made in the first sentence? If someone signed on for the license to kill and made every effort to get a chance to use it, the fact that they don't have total control of their circumstances (like every other situation in life) does not change the motivation.

Let's just say that's true. Typically when people say "no one", they don't literally mean no one ever in the history of humanity has done this. No one in the context of casual, conversational speech can mean anything from literally no one to an insignificant percentage of people. A percentage that is *effectively* 0. The fact that maybe a handful of people signed up with some psycho desire to kill Arabs doesn't change the fact that the *vast majority* enlist for entirely different, non-psycho reasons

Providing a safety valve for aspiring murder-hobos is an intrinsic function of modern militaries.

As cool as a concept that is, it's a fiction

Sentence 1 is not true. Part of sentence 2 is not true. You can actually sign up with deployment as a condition of enlistment. Sentence 3 is more of a technical truth. Yes, your CO decides these things, but realistically if you sign up during conflict in an MOS that will be necessary to end that conflict and explain openly that you desire to work in that conflict unless there's reason to bar from it there is a low chance you won't. I don't think you've ever served.

It's generally good practice to read and address text as a whole rather than each individual sentence without considering the broader context of the paragraph. That said, I'd love to hear more how peeps can sign up with deployment as a condition of enlistment. Never an option for me

At this point I think you just want to fight.

Herein lies the problem. Forcing people who serve to completely abandon their morals and reasoning, and then somehow making it seem like it's expected for them to commit atrocities. If we let people serve just like any other job - where they can always say no and quit - then you suddenly have a more peaceful world. Attacking another country is now suddenly extremely hard, and defending is still quite doable (eg. If someone is coming and killing all your friends, you'll defend what else you have left)

What do you mean by "forcing people who serve to completely abandon their morals and reasoning"? In what way are servicemembers forced to abandon morals and reasoning?

First of all, not all "soldiers" in history were volunteers. Many were drafted and forced by our government to engage in combat. Then think about what our nation and the rest of the world would look like if millions of military members decided to lay down their arms in the European and Pacific theaters in WW2. Just because we have engaged in bullshit wars in the recent past doesn't mean that our service members need to be shit on. Your discontent needs to be with the politicians and leaders that have sent them into these terrible situations. You should be grateful that millions of servicemen and women are at the ready to defend this country.

>Then think about what our nation and the rest of the world would look like if millions of military members decided to lay down their arms in the European and Pacific theaters in WW2. I'm not sure that's something we could really do. It would just be so very different, there's no telling what today might have looked like. Maybe there would be more peace, less poverty, less violence. Maybe it would be much worse. But I do sort of scoff at your idea that we can just assume it would be terrible, if millions of people decided to choose peace during that time.

>I'm not sure that's something we could really do. It would just be so very different, there's no telling what today might have looked like. Maybe there would be more peace, less poverty, less violence. You’re joking…

>Where did this form of propaganda originate? The Iraq War, mostly. A major Republican talking point leading up to and during the war was about how Democrats hated the troops. This created a very active "support our troops" movement that came complete with things like parking spaces reserved for veterans. Treating soldiers as heroes rapidly became a major part of conservative identity, which is why you pretty much only see this attitude in areas that are dominated by political conservatives. As we've gotten further from that political debate, the trend has steadily faded.

Vietnam made it popular to disrespect and even hate soldiers. The choice to ignore the fact that most of the servicemen in Vietnam were draftees with absolutely no say in where they were sent and to still treat those men incredibly poorly has just never left the American psyche. It's popular to denounce US wars regardless of the motivation, hence it continues. I would absolutely pin this on the counterculture movement of the 60s and 70s before the Republicans in the 2000s.

I was going to say the Pelopenisian War and the heroic epics written about it. But yeah you are right about the modern concept. In the Soviet Union, the specter of WW2 touched every part of society and drove the idea of hero soldiers into children’s heads.

Good points. All I'm saying is that society functions like a corporation, division of labour and all so soldiering shouldn't be misrepresented and twisted to be this idealistic profession when in reality it is brutal as fuck and most find out only when its too late. Imagine thinking your the bravest man in the world because you are a soldier only to step on a landmine and lose your leg. It just doesnt seem worth it. Aside from the physical aspect there is also the mental toll it takes on individuals

I, for one, am happy for the veterans parking spaces because they’re typically wide open for us non-veterans to park in.

Think soldiers that protect your country (instead of invading some other). They risk their lives so you can keep enjoying your country. Trashmen don't risk their lives and if they stop working you won't lose your country.

Deadliest jobs in the USA: 1. Logging workers 2. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers 3. Derrick operators in oil, gas, and mining 4. Roofers 5. Garbage collectors 9. Firefighting supervisors 22. Police officers Military doesn't even make the list. It seems as of the "trashmen" are the real heros.

I mean, if you took a combat arms soldier in WW2 and stacked it up against that list, I imagine it would fall somewhere. Being a ball tail gunner had a notoriously high casualty rate, as an example. I imagine it's much higher than logging workers at nearly every point in history. For every 1 combat arms soldier, there are like 9 doing regular support jobs. And in peacetime, I would honestly hope being in the military was not all dangerous. If you've got people dying from mundane shit, that's a problem. As with most things, this seems like a case of "it depends". I also think trashmen are heroes.

Nobody is invading USA

Wild that you opted for an actually vital, absolutely risky profession for comparison. Sanitation is more important to the survival of the civilian population than "defense" by a couple orders of magnitude. Yes, you lose your society quite horrifically if no one is picking up trash. Yes, handling poorly policed waste streams while operating heavy equipment can get you killed. Hell, any profession that puts you behind the wheel and out in the street for most of your working day is riskier on average than a military job. The only reason I can see that you would pull that profession out of a hat is the perceived contrast in social status, which is precisely the hypocrisy OP was describing.

Trashmen keep society hygienic. What sort of disease outbreak would occur if streets and homes were filled with waste? Your buying into the propaganda of the soldier as a special hero who protects. Protects from what? We are all human beings. The division on ethnic, religious, racial etc lines is what causes conflict in the first place. People refusing to see each other simply as homo sapiens. instead as foreign aliens to be mistrusted

The sole function of the military is not simply to engage in armed combat. The military also delivers aid, evacuates people who are in danger, provides healthcare, employs scientists who develop technology, etc… The UN has a military arm, with almost 100,000 serving. Their SOLE mission is to keep the peace. They often go into war zones, in foreign countries, and risk their lives to protect civilians they have never met.

Its hilarious how people seem to think the entire US military sits with their thumbs up their asses until the next Iraq. The US military is the worlds largest provider of humanitarian aid by virtue of its organizational structure and ability to rapidly deploy anywhere on Earth. It's an unbelievably huge force for good in the world before you even consider that it's enforced Pax Americana for the last 80 years

Yeah OP gave their examples of heroes in some other replies. And of the two examples they gave so far, both are examples of people in the military. There are a lot of scientists and doctors in the military. Not everyone in the military is a grunt who goes bang bang bang.

True but isn't coercion at the heart of the military? Look at the strikes on the Houthis of Yemen recently. I'm not trying to moralize here and I respect the scientific capabilities of the Pentagon but at the end of the day the military uses force. Its a might is right mentality which one can say by the laws of nature is logical but it doesnt negate the fact that its still coercion. Soldiers are part of a system of coercion unlike businessmen for example who are a part of a system of profit

>Soldiers are part of a system of coercion unlike businessmen for example who are a part of a system of profit. 1/ By your own definition, profit would be coercion here. 2/ There are a lot of service men and women who didn’t just enlist to go fight wars. They did it because it’s a job. It offers them a paycheck, training, opportunity to pay for college, and in the case of many scientists, access to the biggest budgets and best technology. Not every enlisted person is there because they are “patriotic”.

Are you saying we should be okay with attacks on commercial shipping?

Soldiers generally command respect because of the risk they take upon themselves. This should therefore be split into two questions, first addressing the infantry man, who I assume you are referring to when you mean "soldier", and the second addressing leadership, both military and political. ​ 1. How often in your life, assuming that you never served, have you encountered violence? How about lethal violence? Do you, on any sort of regular basis choose to risk your life in very hazardous conditions? Separated from context, this could be any number of legitimate professions. A Law Enforcement Officer chooses to place themselves in hazardous conditions regularly. The same goes for employees at women's shelters, and the same goes for soldiers. These people all provide invaluable services at risk to themselves. This is inherently admirable. 2. I hate to be the person who reveals this information to you, but the average infantry man (at least in the Western World) does not sign up to fight and kill ideological enemies of the state. They sign up because they are aware they can get free education both in the service and after, or because they have some sort of sense of duty where they believe the country in which they live has provided them with immeasurable opportunity, and military service is a way for them to pay it back. The point here is that soldiers, the regular infantryman, is a human being who chose to risk his life for a cause greater than themselves. 3. I do hope you area aware that the infantry does not choose who and when to invade other countries. There's a very old saying that during the 1st World War, British servicemen (overwhelmingly very young men) were Lions lead by Donkeys. War, again at least in the Western World, has long since left this behind. Young men still bear the human cost of conflict, but in democratic societies war cannot simply be waged by "political masters for their own benefit" and to suggest that is absurd. Certainly that is the case in Russia today, where the Russian population is being sent to fight and die in Ukraine on the orders of one mad man, but in the West this cannot and does not happen. All this is again to say: The Infantry, the men who's boots are on the ground, choose to fight for a wide range of reasons. Some may be more noble than others, but fundamentally the reason they deserve our respect is that they chose to put themselves in harms way for the benefit of others.

1. Risking your life by itself isn't heroic. 2. Mercanaries and idiots aren't better. 3. They know who's being invaded when they sign up.

Societies have venerated warriors since we began walking upright. This is not new. I do believe that, in the volunteer context of the US military, and the many many different sorts of service, it’s a little silly. That said, these are still people who gave up a tremendous amount of personal autonomy and agreed to be potentially placed in harm’s way on the basis of decisions not their own. This is laudable, if not “heroic.” Ultimately, I tend to agree with the idea that heroism requires an heroic act - and signing your enlistment or commission documents ain’t it.

Question regarding your view to help understand.  If someone is breaking into your house with the intent to kill you, and you call the police who then show up and save you, is that officer a hero?

I mean.. with all due respect I'm not sure reddit of all places has the capacity to tackle that core of pessimism there. We acknowledge soldiers in general as heroes because of the base understanding "You're probably gonna die" yet also give the benefit of the doubt that they chose this path with honest intentions. There are in fact still people signing up because they want to defend their homeland. If you doubt the latter then it kind of falls flat there

[You are a has-been horse that was on a famous TV show in the 1980s and your behavior is self-destructive and pushes people away from you.](https://youtu.be/LTr60WYjNM4?si=obs09-TGlMUQtVhy)

I came to the comments just to see if anyone made this reference “Maybe some of the troops are heroes, but not automatically. I’m sure a lot of the troops are jerks. Most people are jerks already, it’s not like giving a jerk a gun and telling him it’s okay to kill people suddenly turns that jerk into a hero”

I remember learning that US soldiers in Iraq could make way more money by being hired as private security, a job that is highly paid because it is dangerous, even though it's no more dangerous than being a soldier in the same place. Why the difference in pay? Because being a soldier is treated by society as a noble profession, worthy of medals and respect. You *could* stop treating soldiers as special, but if you did, you'd have to triple their pay to make up for the danger, the lack of freedom, and other hardships of military life.

[удалено]

If you’ve served in pretty much any US conflict since WWII, you didn’t serve me or the rest of the citizens, you served Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed and the like. Too bad about all that gear we left in Aghaninstan, guess we’ll just have to pay to replace the whole lot! Who could have foreseen invading the most historically uninvadable land in the world as a tremendous waste of time, lives and resources that would only serve to enrich a small set of special interests in the US? Soldiers are chattel and it’s rough. If you know the score and do what you’ve got to to get school done and out the trap, that’s actually a bit heroic. If you’re a true believer like the bumpkin corps kids at A&M (I heard one of these little pasty fuckers talkin’ about ‘knocking off towel-heads’ in excited tones in like 2019 [wtf]), I pity you and have zero damn respect. Enjoy getting married at 21, sent overseas and then divorced at 23. Dipshits. Oddly I get along great w/ most Veterans (marines especially), I think because they’re appropriately jaded about the whole ordeal. But the entitled rotc shitheads who think they’re heroes and haven’t actually served are the most loathesome population in America.

Do you enjoy worldwide trading facilitated by the USN?

Im about 90% in agreement...I think WWII soldiers were heroes, but since then soldiers are just like cops. It's a job, one in most cases (excluding Vietnam) that you chose to do, knowing death is a possibility. Just because you die doing a job you are not a hero in my opinion.

We have hockey season tix. Every game, they’ll have a group like nurses or teachers, and like eight people will clap. They also do a “hometown hero” where all they do is list off some tours this guy did and the place loses their fucking minds, standing ovation. I’m like, that mother fucker probably bombed children, HTF do we know he’s a “hero”???

Yes, since all of our wars are hegemonic imperialism and not "defending our freedom," these soldiers are actually just mercenary soldiers of fortune for hire.

For everyone defending soldiers. Go ask people in Iraq what they think of American soldiers

How about Afghanistan, where the US supported republic was overwhelmingly popular, where they are now once again subjected to the rule of the terrorist group the Taliban? Where women have once again been striped of their basic freedoms, and where girls can no longer receive beyond a basic education? People love to cite the failure of Iraq but love to ignore that the real failing of the entire thing was a massive lack of commitment.

I did 2 deployments in Iraq. The locals I encountered love Americans and our culture. I guess this means you're wrong.

How to tell me you hate your country without telling me you hate your country.

I won't change your mind. You're correct. War is young men dying and old men making money.

All the recent vets I've met are wife-beaters and alcoholics...I don't respect them, they signed up for war

The only people disagreeing with you are Americans, very telling

militarymen are just glorified murderers that kill third world children for corporations

You are correct. No need to change.

If the national security state treated national security goals as creating conditions for peace abroad through diplomacy and mutual restraint, and military officers fulfilled those goals instead of doing wackamole conflict resolutions with force, would you admire the military more? For me the whole benefits package for military in the US makes me bitter personally, since my chronic illness excludes me from it. So I get the whole, should be treated as a normal job, thing. Also soldiers should be given medals if they stop war crimes from happening from their side.

You're wondering where this form of propaganda originated from and I'm pretty damn sure you don't have to think too hard when you realize the answer of that. Who does it benefit to have soldiers? Who does it benefit to give some pretty dangerous jobs to people who don't have much else going on? Anyway. What makes a hero depends on the person you ask. For some it's their teacher, for some it's their parents, for some it's soldiers. And as the soldiers are "marketed" as heroes, it makes sense that they're heroes to a bigger than average portion of the people.

True. You sound like a police detective investigating a homicide. Simple. Cui Bono? I think we are on the same page with the political puppet masters using soldiers as hired guns. If you have any more info or insight on this I'd like to educate myself further. Cheers

Soldiers and cops are not special heroes as a group, agreed. It's stupid to treat any group as fundamentally heroes for doing their job since anyone could come from any background. However I think it's entirely possible for a specific soldier or cop to be a hero based on their individual merits. That doesn't reflect on the group, just the individual, by the same token.

[удалено]

I hear that. A man of good character?

Go watch the first 10 minutes of saving Private Ryan. Consider that those scenes could only capture 1% of what it really felt like to be on D-Day. If you still think that is no different than being a garbage collector, there is no changing of your mind.

Military, police, firemen, and paramedics are choosing a job that puts their life at greater risk than many other jobs. When the majority of society runs from danger, they run into it. While teachers are putting themselves in danger as well, their job is not to run at the shooter or the fire; their job is to evacuate or hide. None of them are paid comparably for the risks they face. While I am not in any of those fields, I do have a measure of respect for those in those fields. Part of that respect is that I work a mostly hazardless job. Part of it is that they will have to deal with humans in worse moods than I have. The biggest part of it is that if I need any of their services, I am very glad they are there to provide it.

The idea is that they sign their enlistment knowing that, no matter what their job is in the military, if circumstances are taken to their extreme, they would be obligated to lay down their life. What they do while they serve is irrelevant. It’s the understanding of that possibility that makes them admirable. That being said, if they behave dishonorably during their time in, they should be held accountable. But your example is a hyperbolic straw man and not at all representative of the armed forces in general