Are we "too loose" with the term hero?

[DawnCt1]

Hero is a word that seems overused a lot lately. Anyone who was honorably discharged from the military served honorably, however, when I was growing up, hero was used for those who took great risks, under fire to rescue someone else. The military recognizes hero status with medals of distinction. Max Cleland is often referred to as a hero. Actually Max Cleland served honorably but was injured in a grenade accident. He picked up a grenade in a non combat situation and it went off. That doesn't change the severity of his injuries or the fact that he served honorably, but the term hero does not apply.

 

[Pop Daddy]

yes, and I like a hero to not like to talk about it, I like quiet heros

 

[browneyes]

I bet you say that about all Democrats from Georgia.

 

[Abracadabra]

A hero can be anyone who is admired for significant achievements and/or qualities of character. A hero is someone who displays great courage in the face of adversity or danger. I don't believe that a hero necessarily has to have served in a war/combat situation nor be injured/maimed in combat.

Regarding Max Cleland's injuries...

"Cleland volunteered as communications officer for 2d Battalion, 12th Cavalry, which had been chosen for Operation Pegasus – the relief of Khe Sanh – in April 1968. CPT Cleland was on a mountaintop with his Signal team to set up a radio relay when he lost his legs and right arm to a grenade explosion. For Khe Sanh he received the Bronze Star for meritorious service and Silver Star for gallantry in action." From http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/rdiv/REGTNCO/cleland.asp

The awards of star medals appear unrelated to the grenade explosion accident which caused hs injuries. The Silver Star Medal Citation references action on 4 April. The grenade explosion was on 8 April.

Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968 … during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh.

When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions.

Continuing to expose himself, Captain Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment, which had been damaged by enemy fire.

His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army. From http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Testimony&TestimonyID=416&HearingID=83

On April 8, 1968, I volunteered for one last mission. The helicopter moved in low. The troops jumped out with M16 rifles in hand as we crouched low to the ground to avoid the helicopter blades. Then I saw the grenade. It was where the chopper had lifted off. It must be mine, I thought. Grenades had fallen off my web gear before. Shifting the M16 to my left hand and holding it behind me, I bent down to pick up the grenade. A blinding explosion threw me backwards. From http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/poc/cleland.htm

It would seem to me from these items that Max Cleland has more than earned the title of "hero." It also appears that some, if not all, of his injuries are combat related.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
A hero can be anyone who is admired for significant achievements and/or qualities of character. A hero is someone who displays great courage in the face of adversity or danger. I don't believe that a hero necessarily has to have served in a war/combat situation nor be injured/maimed in combat.

.

A hero IS some who displays great courage in the face of danger. Achievemens and qualities of character, while admirable, do not make one a hero. To use the term so loosely diminishes those who are true heros; fire fighters for instance who ran into the WTC, unsure that they would ever return.

 

[browneyes]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
A hero IS some who displays great courage in the face of danger. Achievemens and qualities of character, while admirable, do not make one a hero. To use the term so loosely diminishes those who are true heros; fire fighters for instance who ran into the WTC, unsure that they would ever return.

Merriam Webster seems to disagree with you.

Main Entry: he·ro
Pronunciation: 'hir-(")O, 'hE-(")rO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hErOs
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros : SUBMARINE 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion :

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
A hero IS some who displays great courage in the face of danger. Achievemens and qualities of character, while admirable, do not make one a hero. To use the term so loosely diminishes those who are true heros; fire fighters for instance who ran into the WTC, unsure that they would ever return.

So running directly into enemy fire, mortar & rocket attacks doesn't qualify as great courage in the face of danger? I think I understand. If Max Cleland were a REPUBLICAN, then you would tout him as a hero, but since he is a democrat, there's no way he could be considered a hero. This despite the fact that his service record in Vietnam indicate that he exhibited the exact same character and qualities as the firefighters who ran into the WTC on 9/11. Maybe it really is all about politics and the silly attempt to score points in some ridiculous "tit for tat" game.

This is a fine example of why the political chasm between the parties grows ever wider and deeper each passing day. There are too many people worshipping at the idol of partisan politics lately.

 

[jrydberg]

Well, yes, I think the term hero is applied in many cases where it isn't really warranted. That being the case, from what I know, I don't have a problem with that term being applied to Max Cleland.

 

[peachgirl]

No, but we are too loose with the words "human being".


Edited because it's just not worth it.


<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
So running directly into enemy fire, mortar & rocket attacks doesn't qualify as great courage in the face of danger? I think I understand. If Max Cleland were a REPUBLICAN, then you would tout him as a hero, but since he is a democrat, there's no way he could be considered a hero. This despite the fact that his service record in Vietnam indicate that he exhibited the exact same character and qualities as the firefighters who ran into the WTC on 9/11. Maybe it really is all about politics and the silly attempt to score points in some ridiculous "tit for tat" game.

.

Clearly running directly into enemy fire qualifies as great courage. He earned his medals for that. The loss of his limbs however was a tragic accident.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by browneyes
Merriam Webster seems to disagree with you.

I think if we were to use Webster's dictionary, then everyone at some point in time could qualify as a "hero". I do think however, that to do that diminishes those who take great individual risk for the sake of others.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by browneyes
Merriam Webster seems to disagree with you.

I think if we were to use Webster's dictionary, then everyone at some point in time could qualify as a "hero". I do think however, that to do that diminishes those who take great individual risk for the sake of others.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by browneyes
Merriam Webster seems to disagree with you.

I think if we were to use Webster's dictionary, then everyone at some point in time could qualify as a "hero". I do think however, that to do that diminishes those who take great individual risk for the sake of others.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Clearly running directly into enemy fire qualifies as great courage. He earned his medals for that. The loss of his limbs however was a tragic accident.

Then by your admission, Max Cleland is a hero. Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, his loss of three limbs was combat-related. You might want to correct that misstatement in your OP.

 

[CEDmom]

There are plenty of people that are labeled a hero that I wouldn't personally consider them to be just as there are people who I consider to be a hero but the general public doesn't. Why is Max Cleland being singled out here . Oh, I just remembered he's a democrat and is vocal in his displeasure of the President that must be it .

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
No, but we are too loose with the words "human being".


Edited because it's just not worth it.

Wow. That was fast. I was going to quote some of your message but it went POOF!

Anyway, another "lie" I heard about Kerry was from the gunner on Kerry's boat when they encountered a civilian boat trying to sneak up (or down) the river with supplies. For whatever reason, the boat was spotted too late to be captured and the man on the boat reached for his weapon. The gunner had no choice but to shoot. In doing so, he killed the man and a little boy. In the days ahead he expected an inquiry of the incident. There wasn't one. About six weeks ago he got to read the after-action report of that incident. According to the gunner, it was a complete distortion and misrepresentation of the events and it said that they were more kills than there were and they were attributed to Kerry. Not the gunner. He sounded quite convincing.

So who do we believe? The "official" record (of which Kerry himself states they were sometimes "exaggerated") or an eyewitness to the event?

 

[lovemygoofy]

I'm sorry to interupt your political debate but I have to put my $.02 in here about the word hero. Someone doesn't think a hero is a hero unless they are decorated and dsitinctly called a hero. I'm sorry but I'm going to disagree with that. My husband is a hero for proudly putting his self in danger serving with the United States Army. He doesn't have a medal calling him a hero but he knowingly joined the army thinking about the risks of war. Someone mentioned fire man being a hero and I agree with this. All public servants such as police officers and firefighters are heroes. More than 99.9% of all the above would say that they "were doing their job" and brush it off. My husband included, who has served his year in Iraq and was in the first convy into Baghdad.

Is a hero someone who gets paid millions to play sports? No!! At least it isn't in my house.

I apologize for anything I said that anyone finds offensive but that sort of stepped on my toes that to be a hero you have to wear it on your chest.

Tina

 

[Abracadabra]

Tina, earlier I said that a hero is someone who displays great courage in the face of adversity or danger. By that definition (and it appears that Merriam-Webster agrees with me or maybe that's vice versa!), your husband is definitely a hero with a capital "H."

Many thanks to you and to him for his sacrifice and service. In my book, it does not diminish the word "hero" to apply it to those who are faithfully serving their country today in Iraq.

 

[lovemygoofy]

Abracadbra,

Thank you I appreciate the sentiment very much. I guess the whole topic sort of hit on a sort spot in my heart.
Tina

 

[Abracadabra]

Tina, you're not alone with this topic hitting a sore spot. I am appalled at the way the media, the campaigns and too many others are dragging the names & reputations of those who faithfully served their country through the muck and mire. This includes anyone who served in any capacity, during war or during peacetime. Veterans and those on active duty deserve better than this. I am sorry your were hurt by this thread. Maybe one day we will find a place of healing and common ground.