News Is Heroism Defined by One Act or a Lifetime of Actions?

[WheelsRCool]

The military doesn't brainwash people and turn them into mindless killers. They want smart people who have a brain and can think and are professionals. What you have to have is the ability to follow orders.

I believe Fallujah was a real first for militaries in that it was the first major battle in which an invading force won the battle while actively taking steps to not harm civilians who were caught in the cross-fire. Before this, this had never really been tried and no one was quite sure if it could be done. Fallujah showed the professionalism of the U.S. military and that a military can invade a country, fight an enemy in it, and at the same time take precautions not to harm innocents. Such professionalism requires soldiers with brainpower, not mindless trigger-pullers.

No one is more anti-war than the truly combat-tested soldiers. Those types are only willing to engage in a war if they absolutely believe it is necessary. And from what I have seen, usually such soldiers are very against killing unless absolutely necessary.

Look at Senator Jim Webb: Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer in the Vietnam War, won the Silver Star AND the Navy Cross and two purple hearts, served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, won an Emmy for his reporting from Beirut in 1983, is an acclaimed author, having written both non-fiction and fiction books, etc...anyway, he is a Democrat, and was (and still is) a staunch critic of the Iraq War. He also has a son who I believe just finished up a tour in Iraq.

This guy has seen a tremendous amount of combat and warfare, and is very much strong on national defense it seems, but he is not for war for the sake of war. If he thinks it un-necessary, he is not in favor it.

 

[WheelsRCool]

But for a great many people, joining the military is a way of gaining the education to become an engineer, or chemist. You don't have to stay in the military your entire life.

You can do it both ways to, for example the Navy NUPOC program (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program), to train officers to operate the nuclear reactors on those carriers and submarines. They also need nuclear-engineer officers to approve of the designs for new reactors and so forth.

 

[B. Elliott]

You can do it both ways to, for example the Navy NUPOC program (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program), to train officers to operate the nuclear reactors on those carriers and submarines. They also need nuclear-engineer officers to approve of the designs for new reactors and so forth.

I know. I just recently joined the Navy.

 

[sketchtrack]

Right now they need people who can play video games and program computers, so I bet physics Forum members would be welcomed. I watch on the military channel people were using x box 360 controllers to control remote vehicles which could carry various weaponry like rockets machine guns, fully automatic shot guns. They have cameras on them, so that you are essentially playing a video game on the screen, but it is really happening. It reminds me of the movie "toys".

 

[B. Elliott]

The military doesn't brainwash people and turn them into mindless killers. They want smart people who have a brain and can think and are professionals. What you have to have is the ability to follow orders.

I believe Fallujah was a real first for militaries in that it was the first major battle in which an invading force won the battle while actively taking steps to not harm civilians who were caught in the cross-fire. Before this, this had never really been tried and no one was quite sure if it could be done. Fallujah showed the professionalism of the U.S. military and that a military can invade a country, fight an enemy in it, and at the same time take precautions not to harm innocents. Such professionalism requires soldiers with brainpower, not mindless trigger-pullers.

No one is more anti-war than the truly combat-tested soldiers. Those types are only willing to engage in a war if they absolutely believe it is necessary. And from what I have seen, usually such soldiers are very against killing unless absolutely necessary.

Look at Senator Jim Webb: Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer in the Vietnam War, won the Silver Star AND the Navy Cross and two purple hearts, served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, won an Emmy for his reporting from Beirut in 1983, is an acclaimed author, having written both non-fiction and fiction books, etc...anyway, he is a Democrat, and was (and still is) a staunch critic of the Iraq War. He also has a son who I believe just finished up a tour in Iraq.

This guy has seen a tremendous amount of combat and warfare, and is very much strong on national defense it seems, but he is not for war for the sake of war. If he thinks it un-necessary, he is not in favor it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Too many people are fed propaganda about war and eat it up like a starving dog. Just because war is bad, doesn't mean it is ALWAYS unjust. The military cranking out cold-blooded killers is mass-fed propaganda at it's finest.

 

[LowlyPion]

Come on. He certainly exhibited heroic characteristics. He flew in combat a number of times, he was shot down and imprisoned, and subjected to difficult conditions and still managed under those travails to care for others.

No need to Swift boat the man.

War hero might carry other connotations like falling on grenades or Sgt. York type one man actions, but that shouldn't diminish how we might view his performance in the circumstances that he was presented with. I believe he still carries effects of his treatment, or failure to be treated from his imprisonment. War is not a pretty thing. And if he served honorably and behaved on principle and not personal expediency, then I think he should be given some credit, regardless of his politics.

I won't vote for him, but for other reasons. Neither will I demonize him for acting upon his own convictions in a war time situation.

 

[B. Elliott]

Right now they need people who can play video games and program computers, so I bet physics Forum members would be welcomed. I watch on the military channel people were using x box 360 controllers to control remote vehicles which could carry various weaponry like rockets machine guns, fully automatic shot guns. They have cameras on them, so that you are essentially playing a video game on the screen, but it is really happening. It reminds me of the movie "toys".

It is true. The primary goal being to minimize the loss of life... on both sides. If you look at the weapon technology which has progressed over just the past 40-50 years, we've come a long way. Minimizing collateral damage is the name of the game and the military will always be progressing in that direction.

 

[sketchtrack]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Too many people are fed propaganda about war and eat it up like a starving dog. Just because war is bad, doesn't mean it is ALWAYS unjust. The military cranking out cold-blooded killers is mass-fed propaganda at it's finest.

War isn't always unjust, but the one in Iraq probably is.

There is some truth to the cranking out cold blooded killers thing, at last in certain areas of the military. If you are to be assigned to be a nuclear engineer, then you probably skip that part, but if you are a Marine to see combat, then there is some of that going on for sure. At least that is what Marine vets tell me. When my uncle was in the service, they're saying was, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil because I'm the most evil mother f***** in here." He also talked about how they would vote on weather to kill their officer if he was the type of guy that would get em killed. Vietnam was a different type of war though. Never the less, it is tradition that Marines get trained to kill without emotion.

 

[B. Elliott]

War isn't always unjust, but the one in Iraq probably is.

There is some truth to the cranking out cold blooded killers thing, at last in certain areas of the military. If you are to be assigned to be a nuclear engineer, then you probably skip that part, but if you are a Marine to see combat, then there is some of that going on for sure. At least that is what Marine vets tell me. When my uncle was in the service, they're saying was, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil because I'm the most evil mother f***** in here." He also talked about how they would vote on weather to kill their officer if he was the type of guy that would get em killed. Vietnam was a different type of war though. Never the less, it is tradition that Marines get trained to kill without emotion.

But at the same time, after the war, I'm willing to bet that they value life more than someone who was not in that position. Just like everything else in life, you never know till you experience it.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate?

The US is defended best by the fact that most of its people are madly in love with the freedoms and quality of life afforded to them by the Constitution and the citizenry (from law enforcement and emergency response personnel to teachers and doctors to construction workers and sushi chefs to bankers and lawyers). The military is charged as much with defending other countries' citizens (Koreans, Japanese, Europeans, Saudis, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), carrying out responsibilities for the UN/NATO and now and then deposing one terrible government in some country in exchange for another terrible one than with actually defending the nation (mostly carried out by the Guard, Border Patrol, Intelligence, etc).

 

[sketchtrack]

But at the same time, after the war, I'm willing to bet that they value life more than someone who was not in that position. Just like everything else in life, you never know till you experience it.

I think being confronted like that in war can make a person become more responsible, less childish, makes people more serious minded about world issues. It also makes you make judgments in less of an emotional way. In war, you take no chances, and you eliminate threats before they actually threaten you. If you think being in combat will make you be more senative to killing to the enemy, then that is totally wrong.

 

[B. Elliott]

If you think being in combat will make you be more senative to killing to the enemy, then that is totally wrong.

I now see our differences in stance, and its understandable. At the time of war, they will kill the enemy at all costs. After the war, they ARE more sensitive to killing. If you believe that is wrong, it's obviously an assumption. I've talked to more WW2 and Vietnam vets than I can remember., and one common thread that weaves through all of them, is the value of life. Respect for those who they killed along with a greater value for their own lives

 

[sketchtrack]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

 

[B. Elliott]

The US is defended best by the fact that most of its people are madly in love with the freedoms and quality of life afforded to them by the Constitution and the citizenry (from law enforcement and emergency response personnel to teachers and doctors to construction workers and sushi chefs to bankers and lawyers). The military is charged as much with defending other countries' citizens (Koreans, Japanese, Europeans, Saudis, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), carrying out responsibilities for the UN/NATO and now and then deposing one terrible government in some country in exchange for another terrible one than with actually defending the nation (mostly carried out by the Guard, Border Patrol, Intelligence, etc).

I think I see what you're saying, but I could be wrong. I believe that people should earn their freedom. I do not believe that anything should ever be handed to anyone on a silver platter. If you want to have your way of life, you're going to have to work for it. To me the free healthcare issiue is one of those freedoms. Free healthcare is something people should earn... and military service is one way of attaining it. Like I was indirectly implying, and as sketchtrack stated...

I think being confronted like that in war can make a person become more responsible, less childish, makes people more serious minded about world issues. It also makes you make judgments in less of an emotional way.

It's an excellent foundation which every single person should experience. IMO, the lack of discipline and 'childish expectations' is one of the primary problems with the United States economy; crime rates, poverty, lack of drive for education, ect.

The spoonfed mentality is growing.

 

[B. Elliott]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

Do you know for a fact this is how he feels, or is this just an assumption?

The commander of the Enola Gay also just 'dropped a bomb'.

'My God, what have we done?' - the commander of the 'Enola Gay'

 

[sketchtrack]

Do you know for a fact this is how he feels, or is this just an assumption?

The commander of the Enola Gay also just 'dropped a bomb'.

'My God, what have we done?' - the commander of the 'Enola Gay'

I never said anything about how he feels.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Some good military forums with very intelligent and quality people on them (of the caliber of this site) and lots of real soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, etc...are:

http://www.airwarriors.com
http://www.socnet.com
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com

 

[Gokul43201]

After the war, they ARE more sensitive to killing. If you believe that is wrong, it's obviously an assumption. I've talked to more WW2 and Vietnam vets than I can remember., and one common thread that weaves through all of them, is the value of life. Respect for those who they killed along with a greater value for their own lives

I remember reading that incarcerated vets were just as likely as incarcerated non-vets to be doing time for homicide, but thrice as likely as non-vets to be doing time for sexual assault. Also, I think these ratios were much higher for combat vets than for non-combat vets, but my memory is shaky on that. I'll look for a reference.

Free healthcare is something people should earn... and military service is one way of attaining it.

But you haven't explained why military service is a better way to earn it than say, laying bricks.

 

[B. Elliott]

I never said anything about how he feels.

Don't take the wording that technically. You know what I meant.

Assuming that that's how he would run the country, is also assuming that's how he experienced his time as a pilot 'dropping bombs'. You don't know John McCain that personally, so it's a pure uneducated assumption.

 

[vincentm]

I think he is considered to be a hero by the men who were POWs along with him.

IMO, he deserves to be honored for his service, but that was over 40 years ago. It has no bearing on the election. And it certainly doesn't give him any unique qualifications to be President.

 

[LowlyPion]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

That may be a little harsh. Wikipedia which I am sure has been cultivated carefully for political purposes does show this though:

"By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Can't we at least respect the man for his accomplishments? Can't our national choices be made on the basis of policy choices between two worthy candidates without the need to diminish those we would disagree with?

 

[B. Elliott]

But you haven't explained why military service is a better way to earn it than say, laying bricks.

I didn't see that question, sorry. Military teaches structure, professionalism, critical thinking and reasoning skills, leadership skills, ect, ect, ect. The military also PUSHES you you better yourself as an individual and provides avenues for better education.

Laying bricks, is just laying bricks. There's is also no reason for military personnel not to be called fourth do jobs such as that... building houses, constructing highways, better the community.

Serving in the military isn't just 'carrying a gun'.

 

[B. Elliott]

I remember reading that incarcerated vets were just as likely as incarcerated non-vets to be doing time for homicide, but thrice as likely as non-vets to be doing time for sexual assault. Also, I think these ratios were much higher for combat vets than for non-combat vets, but my memory is shaky on that. I'll look for a reference.

The real question is;

What percentage of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies, ect, ect, are committed by non-vets vs. vets?

 

[Gokul43201]

I didn't see that question, sorry. Military teaches structure, professionalism, critical thinking and reasoning skills, leadership skills, ect, ect, ect. The military also PUSHES you you better yourself as an individual and provides avenues for better education.

I meant "better" in the sense of defending the country, but I can't argue against this since I believe that you defend the country best by making yourself as productive and efficient as you can.

 

[sketchtrack]

That may be a little harsh. Wikipedia which I am sure has been cultivated carefully for political purposes does show this though:

"By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Can't we at least respect the man for his accomplishments? Can't our national choices be made on the basis of policy choices between two worthy candidates without the need to diminish those we would disagree with?

My point with that remark was just that he may not have been impacted as to affect him like a solder who was in direct combat killing people with guns. The president is responsible for many deaths, but he didn't see it with his own eyes, so it is less likely he will feel the same as the ones who committed the act. He didn't get to see who died. It is just different to look in some ones eyes and then blast them than it is to push a butting dropping a laser guided bomb. I don't really mean to insult him for it.

 

[B. Elliott]

I meant "better" in the sense of defending the country, but I can't argue against this since I believe that you defend the country best by making yourself as productive and efficient as you can.

And that's exactly what the military helps to do! It guides people and shows them efficient ways of being productive in society... how to work in groups, how to accomplish large tasks, how to properly conduct yourself as an individual and withing a group.

 

[Gokul43201]

The real question is;

What percentage of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies, ect, ect, are committed by non-vets vs. vets?

Again, I shall look for a reference, but I think the numbers said that there were lower rates among vets when you looked at raw numbers, but these lower rates were primarily due to age differences. Most vets were from the Vietnam era, and are over 60 years old now. Their incarceration rates were similar to non-vets in the same age group. But non-vets are mostly much younger. When adjusted for ages, the incarceration rates are similar. But that's for all vets. I don't really recall very much about the rates for combat vets vs. non-combat vets.

Even if you don't adjust for age, I doubt that the 3 to 1 ratio for sexual assault will be offset by the ratio of the percentage of vets to non-vets in prison for those crimes. My vague recollection of the take home message was that vets are more likely to rape, just as likely to murder and less likely to steal.

 

[sketchtrack]

Vets don't just go around committing homicide. Vets usually feel like the good guy, and if they kill someone, then they probably do it because the person was a bad guy. One vet I know had killed someone who tried to mug his wife. He didn't get into trouble, but he was quick to kill the bad guy without question.

When it comes to world issues, they may be more prone to use deadly force against the bad guys. I think John McCain isn't going to be cold except to our enemies which I think he makes clear. The only question is that use of deadly force sometimes isn't the best ay to diffuse the enemy, but it is certain that not having the guts to do it when necessary can be a bad thing as well.

 

[B. Elliott]

he only question is that use of deadly force sometimes isn't the best ay to diffuse the enemy, but it is certain that not having the guts to do it when necessary can be a bad thing as well.

Good point.

 

[chemisttree]

Again, I shall look for a reference, but I think the numbers said that there were lower rates among vets when you looked at raw numbers, but these lower rates were primarily due to age differences. Most vets were from the Vietnam era, and are over 60 years old now. Their incarceration rates were similar to non-vets in the same age group. But non-vets are mostly much younger. When adjusted for ages, the incarceration rates are similar. But that's for all vets. I don't really recall very much about the rates for combat vets vs. non-combat vets.

Even if you don't adjust for age, I doubt that the 3 to 1 ratio for sexual assault will be offset by the ratio of the percentage of vets to non-vets in prison for those crimes. My vague recollection of the take home message was that vets are more likely to rape, just as likely to murder and less likely to steal.

Maybe you were remembering your http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080114134026.aspx"
Or maybe you were thinking about http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3797346&page=1"
Or perhaps http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/183952"
The take home message is that vets are less likely to do any crime but when they do and go to prison for it, proportionally more of those vets are in for sexual assault than the other men of similar age. A meaningless comparison.

Veterans are half as likely to be incarcerated than the overall male population in the first place, researchers found, but 23 percent of the veterans in prison was a sex offender, compared with 9 percent of nonveteran inmates.

Stop trashing our Vets!