Pages: 1

 

Poll

After committing a crime can a war hero be regarded as such?

Yes, you can't erase his good actions in the past30%30% - 8
It depends on the crime42%42% - 11
No, you become a criminal and you are no longer a hero26%26% - 7
Other0%0% - 0
Total: 26
2008-04-07 04:47:48
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina
I took the idea for this poll from ATG's thread about Waco.  Timothy McVeigh served in the Gulf War and received the Bronze Star.  You may say the guy was a war hero.  In 1995, he drove a truck filled with explosives and blew a federal building, killing 168 people, 19 of which were small kids in a care center.

The question is,

When anyone commits a hideous crime like this, should the good actions done by this person in the past be still considered?  Can the said person be considered a war hero after this?  Answer without thinking of McVeigh but generally speaking.  Do your bad actions today erase your good actions in the past?
2008-04-07 04:52:19
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7110|United States of America
I doubt it. Look at Specialist John Stebbins from Black Hawk Down who earned the Silver Star during the battle. He was convicted of child molestation (arguably not as bad as that bombing) and court-martialed. That disgrace pretty much solely kept him out of the film version when it was made and it's difficult to look at him as the heroic type of individual after that.
2008-04-07 04:54:26
Ollie
Formerly known as Larkin
+215|6410|Halifax, West Yorkshire
You can be a "hero" and not necessarily a good person.
2008-04-07 06:20:29
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6968|Texas - Bigger than France
Current actions always outweigh the past.
2008-04-07 06:27:47
jord
Member
+2,382|7104|The North, beyond the wall.
You jump on a grenade and save your squad you're a Hero and nobody can take that away from you. I don't care if you come home and rape someone. Nobody can take your efforts in action away from you.
2008-04-07 06:38:02
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6968|Texas - Bigger than France
You can be both of course, it's a point of view.
2008-04-07 06:38:17
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7047|London, England
You have to look at each case individually to see whether someone should retain "hero" status, however big or small that may be.

In the case of McVeigh, hell no. A Bronze Star doesn't overcome killing 168 innocent people. Even A Victoria Cross/Medal of Honour doesn't overcome that.
2008-04-07 07:58:27
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire
The two remain separate...the heroic actions do not cease to exist but the person's good reputation might. You can be both a hero in the past and a monster in the present. At home here in Ireland at the moment there is a debate raging about whether or not to remove the poetry of Gaeilge poet Cathal O'Searcaigh from the high school syllabus on account of a film painting him out to be a sex tourist...are they trying to say that recent allegations mean his poetry is no longer to be considered good because of events outside of his writing? That to me doesn't make sense, it's the same with the topic in question here.
2008-04-07 08:12:29
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7069
no.
2008-04-07 08:41:42
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7187

Hmmmm...we consider our founding fathers heros and they owned slaves.
2008-04-07 08:48:46
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina

usmarine wrote:

Hmmmm...we consider our founding fathers heros and they owned slaves.
It wasn't a crime at the time.  Morally it was a crime, but legally it wasn't.
2008-04-07 08:55:46
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7187

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Hmmmm...we consider our founding fathers heros and they owned slaves.
It wasn't a crime at the time.  Morally it was a crime, but legally it wasn't.
So?
2008-04-07 08:57:45
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina

usmarine wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Hmmmm...we consider our founding fathers heros and they owned slaves.
It wasn't a crime at the time.  Morally it was a crime, but legally it wasn't.
So?
They didn't break the law.
2008-04-07 09:23:16
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6648|Escea

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


It wasn't a crime at the time.  Morally it was a crime, but legally it wasn't.
So?
They didn't break the law.
So can that be applied to the Native Americans and stuff?
2008-04-07 09:28:27
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7187

M.O.A.B wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine wrote:


So?
They didn't break the law.
So can that be applied to the Native Americans and stuff?
That's what I am trying to understand.  I don't think "legality" should have anything to do with this question.
2008-04-07 09:30:41
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7197|PNW

Pug wrote:

Current actions always outweigh the past.
Shooting someone in the head randomly can't erase having, say, lead an escape from a POW camp and saved a dozen lives in the process. A war hero who's still gone bad is still a war hero. Doesn't mean you have to like him or unconditionally agree with everything he's done since.

M.O.A.B wrote:

So can that be applied to the Native Americans and stuff?
Sporadic war is a bit different, but I suppose you could say that they were killing and stealing from non-Indians and one another before non-Indians present united and killed and stealed from them en masse.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-07 09:35:38)

2008-04-07 09:46:58
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire

usmarine wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


They didn't break the law.
So can that be applied to the Native Americans and stuff?
That's what I am trying to understand.  I don't think "legality" should have anything to do with this question.
This is philosophically choppy water, morality is a slippery fish...it's very subjective. Timmy McVeigh may very well consider himself a true patriot who was morally justified in what he did but on a legal level he was ostensibly guilty. In the days of slavery there was probably a huge school of thought that saw nothing morally wrong in owning a black man to work the land for you.

Morality has changed greatly over the years and will no doubt continue to do so for the rest of time.
2008-04-07 10:30:02
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina

usmarine wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


They didn't break the law.
So can that be applied to the Native Americans and stuff?
That's what I am trying to understand.  I don't think "legality" should have anything to do with this question.
Yes, it has to do.  Since those were different times, you can't apply the example today.  If that were the case then almost everything that mankind made in the past would be illegal today. 

@Moab The slaughter of the natives has nothing to do with the answer in the OP.  And yes, I think it was morally wrong to kill all those indians.
2008-04-07 10:41:53
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7026|132 and Bush

You must consider historical context when judging the actions of the past. I'm sure the things we do today will be seen differently through the eyes of future generations.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-07 11:17:01
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6917|Northern California
The word HERO is overrated and over used.

I was a hero for saving a woman from her burning home.  I got sick of hearing it, got sick of seeing the video clips from the news, and as my "heroism" faded, it got put in the perspective it should be in...I did an unusual, stupid thing, and lucked out by saving some stupid junky from dying after she put other tenants and property at risk for lighting her bedroom on fire.  Firemen seem to think I'm stupid for doing it, and I partly agree.

Most people don't like to be called heros, so it seems that heros are for people uninvolved with the so-called "heroic" deed.  On that note, this is a moot argument. 

If it's the media who decides, then yes, a person can still be a hero, but "the hero who did the bad thing" will now be their media derived title.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard