I can see where you're coming from with this argument, but I think you're glorifying it too much. For starters, you make it sounds like the soldiers chose to fight, whereas in reality the consequences of refusing to fight meant that they lost either way. Sure, many people signed up with a genuine desire to fight, but consider how many of them (particularly the underage soldiers) were swayed by the glorification in war from propaganda. You seem to be confusing 'giving something up' with 'having it taken away', (though admittedly that probably dos depend on perspective); most of the soldiers weren't heroes at all, they were victims. Most of them didn't sacrifice their life for others, rather every other option was taken away from them.MrDumpkins said:This is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read. Do you understand what those soldiers gave up? Everything. They'll never get to experience what a full life is, they might not have wanted to be in that battle, or the war. But their sacrifice was real.omega 616 said:I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.
I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.
Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.
Think about what you have, what you're going to have. Now imagine giving it all up, never getting to experience what life has to offer. Not everyone amounts to something, but everyone has the potential. They gave that potential up so that others could have it instead.
I think the way the first guy worded his argument was a little haphazard, but I wouldn't call it 'unbelievable'. Again, I'd say it's just a difference in perspective, since he's looking at the broader picture whilst you're focusing on a personal one. I'm not saying I have the right to judge, but personally, considering the nature of war, I think the former is generally the perspective that should be taken.