What I hate about the way Americans think

I agree.

I haven't tried to define it. Well, I did in the fb post and that was a mistake.

I have never understood how people could ever define armed forces as ''heroes''. The military kills people, to me a hero is someone who saves a life without endangering another. Sadly I think there are very few heroes in our world and there is way to much killing because there should be none.

I agree in part. But I still think some members of the police and armed forces ARE heroes, that is just a very low amount of them. Hero shouldn't be taken lightly, its supposed to mean something, and it really means nothing in our current world.

I define a hero as someone who does something extraordinary, something that the average person can't do. Many members of the military qualify for that. Just because the military fights wars and kills enemies(not all they do, countless humanitarian missions and charities are organized by our military) does not take away from the fact that they face challenges and overcome obstacles that most people could not.

If one with the username of Spartacus said anything different I would be dissepoint.

That is an odd definition of hero.

In my opinon, just the fact that they know they are putting their lives in danger, something they certainly don't have to do, makes them heroes for the fact that no ordinary human being would even contemplate doing that unless they absolutely had no other choice.

There are many different "types" of heroes in my opinion. There are the "everyday" heroes like police officers and firemen. Everyday heroes are not necessarily "heroes" in my opinion, but since I can not really find a word that fits them well enough in between hero and ordinary (yes I know there are some like extraordinary). That's why I add the term "everyday".

Then there are the true heroes. The people that do something spectacular, or somehow find a way out of the toughest of situations (out of military situations), and the people that endure it and manage to come out on top. Of course, the dead also fit in with the "true" heroes in my opinion. A true hero is someone who landed in the first wave on Omaha beach, or lead his squad on Iwo Jima (or hell, anyone who managed to fight on Iwo Jima, otherwise known as hell, should get a fucking medal.).

I hope that made sense. It made a lot more sense in my head.

So getting gunned down/gunning down on a beach along with your friends makes you a hero?

This seems to be going around in circles.

No, the fact that you were willing to go to that beach in the first place for something you believed in makes you a hero.

So if you follow that logic Brevik must be a real hero.

Nope. Brevik slaughtered children in some inept plot to free his country from foreigners. A soldier is admired not because he kills people, but because he is willing to put his life on the line for his country or the man next to him.

Going into hell on earth makes you a hero. Managing to not lose your mind and stay calm and make a split second decision to hop over the side of the boat and grab the guy next to you and take him with you, while everyone around you is getting machine gunned before they can do anything, makes you a hero.

Those medics or "corpsman" on Iwo Jima were true heroes. They were deliberately targeted by the Japanese, and were almost guaranteed to get at least wounded, if not killed on Iwo Jima for that very fact. (they didnt where big white crosses on the helmets for this reason but the Japanese found other ways of identifying them). They ran out into what seemed like suicide missions, to save people, who for all they know could be beyond saving or already dead.

Also, the flamethrower people, especially on Iwo Jima, were true heroes. Being one of those people was a virtual death sentence. One shot and your whole tank could explode, basically incinerating you. They were the ones that had to run up to the Japanese pillboxes, and shoot flames at them at extremely close distances. How would you feel if you knew, you were basically assigned to a suicide mission? And then if you were to succeed, you lived the rest of your life with more trauma than most, because you just set people on fire, at a distance of a few feet, and watched them burn.


They are the true heroes.

I will never understand how people is branded heroes if they die or kill for that country and it's people. A country is just a border to split people. What about the Germans in D-day they died for their country and their fellow man, so now you mean that everyone who risks their life is a hero. I just don't get it .

The military is designed, funded, and perfected to kill people. In most cases the killing of person is hardly heroic. It is merely a necessary evil that citizens fill out because for some reason people feel that invading sovereign nations is more productive than giving food to the hungry.

The Germans on D-Day were not in a position where there was no possibility for retreat. For the allied troops, (especially the ones on Omaha), it was either accomplish your mission, or die. There was no alternative, besides being wounded obviously, and even then, being guaranteed a safe transport back, could only be achieved through taking the beaches. There are many German soldiers who fought who could be considered heroes. However, unless there are some who did some extraordinary act during D-Day (which I don't doubt) I wouldn't call most of them heroes, because they had an option. They could retreat, and they did eventually to a better defendable position in the Bocage. For the allied troops on D-Day, for the most part, retreat was not an option. You couldn't just refuse to get off the boat, or swim back. They were on what Sun Tzu would call death ground.

and you ignore all the humanitarian efforts people of the military have done. Newsflash: the military is not all about killing teh ebul mooselamz.

BUT THEY KILL PEOPLE !!!!

You are missing the entire point. Lions kill zebras. Owls kill mice.

Well they do not kill their own species.
And they do not have nearly as interesting thoughts and interactions as humans. Their is no need for thousands of young men (that got family,friends etc) to die now is there?

Wolves sometimes kill each other. Packs fight packs. Same with most pack hunters. Is there a need for thousands of young men to die? Not at all. But if we look at modern day, thousands of young Americans are not dying in Afghanistan daily, weekly, or monthly. And many members of the Taliaban think dying a martyr is the greatest thing that could ever happen to them. Would you rather have a taliban soldier blow up a coffeehouse and kill 30 civilians, or die in a gunfight, injuring maybe one or two people who's job it is to take them on?