| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Soldiers in Iraq aren't Heroes?; Andy Rooney Opines... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 12 2004, 07:04 PM (841 Views) | |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 12 2004, 07:04 PM Post #1 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I posted this because: 1) This is probably one of the more controversial opinions that I have seen Andy Rooney espouse in a very long time. 2) I have read more than one opinion by ex-military on this message board and st.com showing their disapproval towards soldiers being given medals or being designated as heroes for (in their opinion) less than extraordinary acts. So this leads me to believe that at least some do see a distinction between heroic/non-heroic acts and/or soldiers. Question: Is there any validity to Rooney’s opinion that “Our soldiers in Iraq aren’t heroes?” Rooney Link All comments are welcome. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 12 2004, 07:06 PM Post #2 |
|
Admiral
|
24, IMO? No, no validity. I've recently written my brother-in-law (a Major who is currently stationed in Baghdad) that he is a hero to us (meaning for those for whom he is fighting). But I suppose that the term 'hero' would need to be defined quite specifically for others in order for it (his opinion) to be considered valid or not. Then again, we've been down the 'all opinions are not equally valid' road all too often on this Board!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 12 2004, 08:37 PM Post #3 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
MY PERSONAL OPINION ... MY PERSONAL OPINION ... MY PERSONAL OPINION Are all the soldiers in Iraq heroes - as they tried to make Jessica Lynch out to be? No, I do agree that some are good, some bad, some do great things, and some not so great things. In our church we talk of "magnifying our calling". That means to find a way to do your job that makes it better than the sum of its parts. Some soldiers have magnified their "calling" beyond whatever one of us could have dreamed. (Like the guy who started a blog and collected toys and school supplies for the Iraqi children, the commanders in the little towns who have quietly negotiated peacefully with local leaders, etc.) There are also those who have not done the minimum that they swore to do. (The ones who raped the female soldiers, for example.) Most probably are doing the best that they can. I vehemently disagree with Rooney on two points. 1) His questions border on the absurd. They were leading (to varying degrees) and would not have gotten a "truth" necessarily, but they would have resulted in a pre-determined response. 2) They most assuredly are not victims. To say they are "victims" is to deny them respect for the personal decisions that they made.
Why wouldn't they expect to be called on to fight? That is what they trained for, is it not? I do not begrudge them one single benefit that they receive, but they did receive them in exchange for the possibility that they would have to fight. END OF MY PERSONAL OPINION |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 12 2004, 09:15 PM Post #4 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Well, I have no experiance with the military at all. I mean I am only earning a minor degree in Military Science, being schooled to lead soldiers, and am learning advanced tactics to destroy the enemy without being destroyed myself. However, despite my total lack of knowledge, I believe that I will try to answer Mr. Rooney's questions. 1. Do you think your country did the right thing sending you into Iraq? A: I don't question whether or not my country did the right thing. A soldier is not supposed to question the orders of his superiors as that will most likely get him killed. One need only know whether the order was legal or not. If it is legal, then you must follow it and do your duty keeping true to the oath you swore when you first joined. 2. Are you doing what America set out to do to make Iraq a democracy, or have we failed so badly that we should pack up and get out before more of you are killed? We came out here with a mission to bring peace and stability to the Iraqi people. There are obviously many Iraqis that would rather this not happen. They will fight us, and we will destroy them. Many soldiers have and may die in this endeavor, but the worst thing that we can do to them is to leave the mission unaccomplished. That would mean that the soldiers and civilians, both Iraqi and Coalition, died for nothing. 3. Do the orders you get handed down from one headquarters to another, all far removed from the fighting, seem sensible, or do you think our highest command is out of touch with the reality of your situation? Army commanders are never out of touch with the soldiers on the ground. As somebody being trained to be a future Platoon Leader, I will either be with my troops or leave them in the hands of either my Platoon Sergeant or a Squad Leader. In any case, those individuals will be in constant communication with me and I will be in constant communication with the Company Commander. My leaders will therefore have a picture that is the next best thing to being there themselves. Also, the orders given by the Company Commander often are open enough for me to take actions based on what I believe is the best response to a situation. 4. If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take? This is a trick question as I would get both. For merely serving in Iraq, I would get a medal for being in the War on Terror and possibly a second one in Congress manages to convince the DoD to give out various campaign medals for each area of conflict. The ride home is also a given, whether I am dead or alive. Obviously though this was not the answer you were wanting. Tell me Andy, would you rather recieve an award or quit a hard job when it is halfway finished? 5. Are you encouraged by all the talk back home about how brave you are and how everyone supports you? Yes. Oh, and BTW, I doubt any of these Guardsmen were totally surprised to find out they were going to war. Let's see, 9/11 occured in 2001, it is now 2004. If anybody wanted to get out of the guard, they had ample time to. Also, I doubt that anybody in the past three years was oblivious enough to join the Guard and think that they would not be activated. What, do you think that they said "Gee, the paper says the job market is tough right now. Hey, we're sending troops into Afghanistan. You know what? I think I'll go join the National Guard, there isn't any chance I'll have to go to war." |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 12 2004, 09:46 PM Post #5 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
My personal opinion is that, as a collective body, the soldiers in Iraq are not heroes. I am extremely grateful for their service to this nation, but I think it is a misuse of the term hero to designate the whole as such. To designate all as heroes, takes a way from, or does not properly give a soldier who may perform above and beyond his/her call of duty the esteem honor they deserve (hero status). Also, as Wichita has already touched on, there are some soldiers who have not/are not performing their duty (e.g. criminal acts against others). These individuals do not deserve to be bestowed with the status of hero. Article quote:
I disagree with this victim status that Rooney seems to want to assign to our military. Whether it is the Reserves or active duty, the person who joins the military is exercising his or her free will (a conscious choice) to join up. Do they necessarily want to be fighting in Iraq right now? Maybe/maybe not. That is beside the point. Joining the military is not a conditional choice. You (the soldier) know that you may have to go into combat, whether you like the locale or not.
Not interesting at all. The questions are leading and would probably not be a good measure of current sentiment among soldiers. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 12 2004, 09:49 PM Post #6 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
I think Mr. Rooney didn't state his position well. He served (either as a combatant or corrospondent) in every armed conflict the USA undertook from WWII to Vietnam (the last conflicts of the drafted military). As such, his view is colored of men that didn't want to be there, were far removed from command, and fought in questionable wars. To my knowledge, many of these problems were solved with the end of the Vietnam War (voulenteer army, closer command interactions with field units, ect.). While I don't think that every soldier is an unthinking automiton that follows orders without question (in fact, US military doctrine has moved away from this, as shown in doctortobe's post), I also believe that the voulenteer army has shaped the group mindset to a more black and white view by the solders, so that those that go do really want to be there and support the effort. I think Witchita's comments hit it straight on the head. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Apr 12 2004, 10:50 PM Post #7 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
further :
and
And THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF HEROISM Answer - do they really meet the above criteria ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 12 2004, 11:14 PM Post #8 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I don’t get it, Is Mr. Rooney saying we shouldn’t treat solders who fight (any where) in our name with the respect and dignity they deserve? Yes in the true sense of the word Hero, not all solders have proven they are one. But they have proven they are willing to be tested and that is a lot more then many of us (Mr Rooney) can say. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 12 2004, 11:15 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Ensign
|
During Operation Desert Storm a friend of mine was distraught because her younger brother might get called up. The thought that he might actually be called upon to fight had never entered his thoughts. I said to my friend "when you join they hand you a uniform and a gun - what the hell do you think that meant?" However, it is very true that in lower income areas the reserves have been seen for years as a means of garnering some extra income and educational benefits. So it is very true that many either never really thought they would have to bear arms in anger, or thought the chances were extremely slim. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Apr 12 2004, 11:26 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Hooning about the place in a heavy battletank, or a fighter when you know the people opposing you have no really effective means of attacking you does not take much intestinal fortitude. The great equaliser is when the opposition takes the fight into the cities and it becomes street to street, house to house close fighting. Here technology and armour does not help. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Apr 13 2004, 12:09 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Aren't you late for your Pol Pot and Idi Amin appreciation party or something? Maybe it's your night to go kick some puppies? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 13 2004, 12:18 AM Post #12 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Hold on there, Somerled, Just because we can afford to fight smarter dosen't mean that our cause is any less just (okay, in this case it might be, but that's another discussion). We had a comic over here claim a while back that slamming a plane into a building took guts and firing a missile from miles away didn't. Complete bull. We aren't Klingons, you know. If we have a technological advantage, it would be stupid, wastefull, and irresponsible not to use it. Sure the risk isn't as great, but war isn't about dying for your country, it's about making the other guy die for his. And we do still have a massive technological advantage in urban enviroments, too. It remains to be seen if it's enough, however. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 13 2004, 12:22 AM Post #13 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Your musing are some of the most idiotic drivel I've read today. I'll tell you right now, our technology and armor does help while in the cities, and only a raving lunatic would believe otherwise. The only thing that really defeats the technology and armor are things specifically designed to combat the specific technology or armor. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Apr 13 2004, 03:11 AM Post #14 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
38957 : ? Dwayne : Obviously not listening what your own generals on the scene are saying . Sure your military technology and superiority over a small numbers of fighters with light arms will ultimately win the day - but it may not win the war - it didn't in Viet Nam. And escalating to total warfare where the gloves were taken off in fighting in suburban areas would be really cleaver. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Apr 13 2004, 08:04 AM Post #15 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Congratulations Somerled - you have finally said something so stupid that even those I would expect to be on the same side as you politically (Adrian for one) have seen how anti-american and idiotic you are. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |





2:11 PM Jul 11