And they are there of their own volition..........having volunteered to enlist (not having been coerced or misled).
Which is exactly what makes them heroes. They sign up to do dangerous things in service of their country, things that non-heroic people (Hayes for example, and McWhorter & Goldberg too) don't have what it takes to do.
Little wonder they are uncomfortable using the word.
Yep. Me, neither. I understand maybe every third of Longprime's posts.
Hayes has now walked back his comments to a degree due to the outrage. Our military men and women die in wars. They die in training accidents. They die in crashes to get to said wars or training.
They put themselves on the line in service to our country, much like police and firemen do.
For Hayes to spout that they aren't heroes - or that he isn't "comfortable with that word because of what it suggests" (to paraphrase), just shows how out of touch he is with reality.
Our fighting men and women are out there is uncomfortable situations, every freaking day they are deployed. Hayes is sitting in a room having a nice discussion, probably having a nice cup of Starbucks afterwards. Then he gets to go home to his nice comfy couch and nice tv and watch something nice. Our men and women are getting blown to pieces. But they aren't heroes?
If Hayes spent one day in their shoes...he might have never said something so ridiculous.
-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Wednesday 30th of May 2012 06:05:58 AM
'Heros' in Our recent wars could be taken another way. If you look at my avatar pix, you see Grimm pointing at Attila, trying to implicate Attila for the oopsie that Grimm did. Is Attila the Hero for implicitly taking the fall/blame?
Or perhaps Grimm is more of a coward for not accepting responsibility for the consequences that he assigning to Attila. Perhaps, We should be looking to our selves rather than annointing fallen soldiers as Heros; Who accepted the burdens.
Another analogy is the Jesus's acceptance for our individual and collective sins before God.
What have, We, given up [sacrificed] for our recent Wars? Are our Wars justified in our soldier's death?
MSNBC is not known as a network that sympathizes with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but this Memorial Day weekend, rather than put aside their political differences to salute our men and women in uniform, a panel on Chris Hayes’ show instead engaged in a debate over how to refer to our fallen soldiers.
Specifically, the panel debated over using words like “hero” because– in their words– the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t “worthy” causes.
Chris Hayes introduces the issue:
“I feel uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’ because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers, and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that…”
John McWhorter of the New York Daily News continued: “…I would almost rather not say ‘hero’ and come up with a more neutral term…I share your discomfort with those words because they are argumentational strategies in themselves, often without wanting to be.”
Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast, who recently compared Ann Romney to Hitler and Stalin on the same network, added: “There are people who are genuine heroes, but the kind of implication is that death is what makes you a hero, you know as opposed to any kind of affirmative act or moral act…”
After reassuring that there is honor and valor in the military, Goldberg said: “It’s more just that, it’s a way of ennobling sacrifices that have a lot of nobility for the individual, but to say that someone kind of died heroically suggests that they died worthily, or that they died in the pursuit of a worthy endeavor…” [Emphasis added]