English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I think it is just plain silly that the news glorifys this man to such a higher extent than any other soldier who has been killed. Dont get me wrong i still consider it a terrible loss, but there are thousands of other soldiers that have died that people barley even acknowledge. How is this in anyway fair to the men and women we have lost?

2006-11-13 02:01:16 · 15 answers · asked by LT. DAN 4 in Politics & Government Military

15 answers

There are several reasons why Pat Tillman still continues to be a hot topic in the news:

1., this country's preoccupation with sports, particularly football;

2., the fact that he threw it away to join the Army in a time of war;

3., the fact that he was killed by friendly fire in a combat zone;

4., the fact that the military (the government and the military are NOT the same thing) initially covered it up.

The first point I personally find to be inexplicable. Had this guy been some no-name from some little town in North Dakota, I doubt that anyone would have known his name. It was (and is) his celebrity status that is making him remain in the news than more deserving war heroes (and yes, there are plenty of them)

The second point is commendable. Surprisingly few people, especially these days, would do such a thing, and this is not something I find anything wrong with. Would you give up everything--glory, fame, millions of dollars, and a cushy, easy life, to defend your country and live a very very difficult life for a short while? There are very few people left in the world now who would make a sacrifice like that, and it's depressing.

The third point is commonplace, as unfortunate as it may be, and always has been--always will be. Combat is dangerous and there is never such a thing as a guarantee of safety, much less in unfamiliar surroundings compounded by the stress of fighting for your life against terrorists who want to kill you by any means possible. While it's bad that he died that way, it's still not any more worthy of mention than anyone else who has died in the war, by friendly fire or enemy fire or by a simple accident.

The last point is also commonplace, and again would probably never have been such a big issue if it weren't for his celebrity status. The same can be said for Jessica Lynch. The media love to discredit the military any chance they get (look at all the stories you've seen or read since the war started, and think about how many POSITIVE stories you've seen them report about the military, by comparison). The military, for their part, only make it easier for them by covering up like this... part of it was because at the unit level, not Army level, there was initial deception about his death. There was also the desire to shield his family from undue grief, and of course the desire to keep the Army from looking bad, which of course backfired--and for that, the Army has only itself to blame, for that too was spurred by his celebrity status.

Still, then as it is now, this still continues to perpetrate in the news because as a country, the US is celebrity-obsessed, scandal-obsessed, and loves stories of doom, gloom, and alleged government coverups... which is silly, since this had nothing to do with the government anyway (the government is full of civilians, the military is not... in this case, they are separate). And it will continue to be a source of contention as long as the media continues to pander to the lowest level of muckraking reporting strategies, as it has for decades now. That's not likely to change anytime soon.

2006-11-13 02:41:17 · answer #1 · answered by ಠ__ಠ 7 · 0 1

I agree with you on this subject. Pat Tillman was no more a hero than ony of the other Military members who have served our nation. The fact that he quit playing football (Giving up millions of dollars) does not justify his hero status. The fact that he died as a result of friendly fire does not justify it either.
I will give Pat Tillman his props in that he felt strong enough about serving his country that he Did quit football and Did join the Military and Did serve in a Ranger Unit and that he Did go to combat. It sucks that he died from friendly fire, as it has for any soldier to dies from Friendly Fire, But the reality of it is that Combat Operations are dangerous and sometimes Friendly fire happens.

2006-11-13 10:08:47 · answer #2 · answered by JohnRingold 4 · 2 0

While it is a little hollywood that such a big deal is made of Tillman's death, but a real discussion of Tillman's death starts a heated political debate because of all the side issues surrounding his death. A simple memorial to him reminds people who remember the many government lies that both led to and falsely described his death, while not sounding like a bunch of anti-war crap to everyone who doesn't remember the news stories or who believe we'll take down Bin Laden if we succeed in Iraq.

2006-11-13 10:19:50 · answer #3 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 0 1

I agree, but I also understand the issue. Tillman was killed by friendly fire, which is OBVIOUSLY bad enough. But the government made it much worse by trying to hide the fact. I'm sure that because he was a celebrity was the underlying reason. As a retired AF officer, I understand how it can happen, but celebrity or not, friendly fire deaths are particularly sad.

2006-11-13 10:17:22 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1 1

Here is your REAL hero

Cpl Jasen Dunham
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/11/10/medal.honor/story.jason.dunham.jpg

But the reality is that when the press delves into the death of one solder, they delve into the death of every solder lost.
The Tillman incident is a tragedy, from any prospective, think about the GIs that shot him, and what all this is doing to them. Think about his family and how they must feel about all this. The list of considerations just goes on and on.

2006-11-13 10:20:14 · answer #5 · answered by tom l 6 · 0 0

I agree. He did a great thing by serving his country, but its a slap in the face to think he was more special than any other soldier who gave his life on the battlefield. I think it was the NFL team that put up that statue, and they can do that because they are paying for it.

2006-11-13 10:06:28 · answer #6 · answered by Thumper 5 · 2 0

The reason why the media loves this story is because of the friendly fire accident.He was a celebrity and its another way for the media to portray our guys in a negative way.Just like they did with the panty on the head incident at the prisions.Again,more proof that the liberals hate our military.

2006-11-13 10:18:46 · answer #7 · answered by halfbright 5 · 2 1

There are two reasons why it is a big deal, neither having to do with his being a football player.

1) A particularly inept and cruel cover-up.

2) The implication that the soldiers who fired on him were poorly trained and unready for their mission, despite being elite rangers.

2006-11-13 11:10:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I totally agree with you. Like I said in an earlier reply, he signed the line like the rest of us, he aint special. Yes it is a tragedy that he was killed, but like you said, so did a lot more soldiers.

2006-11-13 12:36:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I agree. Sounds reasonable to me.

They elevate him because he left behind a life of football and money to serve his country. That's quite a sacrifice, don't you think?

I still understand your point, however. Jennifer Lynch, for example, was glorified for no other reason than her gender. We barely heard a word about the men who rescued her.

2006-11-13 10:18:40 · answer #10 · answered by C = JD 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers