Tough question.

It depends on your perspective. If you are generally defeatist or totally pacifist, you won't be able to see them as heros.

But if warfare is your cup o' tea, then you'll probably see them as heroes.

Me, I see them as heroes. They relinquish rights that everyone else takes for granted for the purposes of defending people who often don't even care about them.

And to me, that self sacrifice is worth the title hero.

Being active duty military, I just see it as doing my job. I hope that other military personnel don't see it in terms of hero vs victim. Jessica Lynch? Please.

If anything, victims. The heroic stuff is almost always propaganda.

You could also say that "victim" stuff could be a form of propaganda for those who oppose whatever operation is being conducted by military forces.

I dont know many guys in the military who consider themselves victims.

In fact, I dont know any.

Now as for the public, they're generally arrogant and smart enough to believe whatever the heck they want. Maybe they do see more 'victims' than heroes.

Looking back, and generalising the question consider this:

What generally defines a miltary hero? A single man, who has killed many other men. It's not complicated maths to figure out that there must have been more victims than heros, otherwise there would be no heros.

I think it would be dificult to quantify.

I would say that a hero is someone who turns the tide of battle by doing something beyond the call of duty, or rescues his colleagues whilst putting his own life at risk.

I wouldn't necessarily call soldiers victims either, they knew what they were doing when they signed up to the army, it all comes with the risk.

Soldiers can easily be victims: conscription.

I was thinking more of this current war in Iraq though.

Pawns.

In Bush's America they're victims

More hereos, but they are also victims

Victims out number the heroes.

None are victims. Some are heroes. The rest are doing the best they can while stuck in a sometimes bad position yet serving honorably.

None are victims. They make the choice to be willing to defend their country knowing well that they might not come home. All heroes in my eyes.

Unless a soldier is drafted, he knows very well what his fate could be before he signs up for the military.

It is a matter of choice and they are surely heroes, but not victims. If you don't want to take the chances, don't sign up.

They are both...even the victims are heros...they gave their lives and body parts to help keep their country in order and in the case of America...Free..

there are many circumstances for which people join the military you cannot stereotype...some had no choice as to whether to become a part of the military or not. Maybe they weren't drafted, but some had no other options. It is a way to start your life if you have parents who were or are veterans or current military personnel, they might have been forced or felt obligated.

I think any soldier who dies or is gravely wounded can be considered a victim in one sense, regardless of whether he or she was there willingly or not. Being willing or actually doing it, willing or not, is pretty heroic, even if I don't sgree with your representing me that way.

Difficult question - I'd say they can be described as both - but even when they become the victim they were heroic in the first place.... heroes for me.

The people themselves are victums, but as a whole they are heros.

heros

I beleive all soldiers are heroes. truely

They are really both. Look at the vietnam war. All the soldiers came home to angry crowds of protesters and ended up as victums of their hate. We were spat upon, pissed upon, and treated like hell. We were never received as hero's and that made us victums. But to our ownselves we were all hero's and we treated others like us like hero's.

Are the two mutually exclusive? I don't think so.