Hmmmm
I agree that the Forces are a job, and that everyone who signs up does so with at least some idea of the basic risks. I agree that at that point, the moment that ink joins form they do not automatically become a hero. I also agree with your point about other forms of recognition for genuine heros and the overall devaluation of heroism by the overuse of the word.

However, I do feel that when someone joins the services they are entering into a mutual agreement - I risk my life and in return the State stands fully behind me, provides the best possible training, equipment and support if anything does happen. It's called the Armed Forces Covenant.

www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/covenant.shtml

I don't think that anyone could disagree that the Forces are underfunded. Or rather, that they don't have enough cash to do what they are being asked to do and fully uphold their side of the Covenant. Many may think that the funding should be slashed. Okay, but then so should commitments. The point is that when soldiers sign up, they expect (reasonably, due to the Covenant) a level of care that the Forces cannot currently provide. So if it falls to outside agencies to help them along then they should be able to do so. No, not all injured soldiers will be heros. Perhaps most of them won't be. But calling the organisation Help for Mediocres would lack quite the same punch.

Therefore, to me, calling themselves HfH is morally justifiable.

ps. always avoided these kind of arguments. Slightly nervous awaiting any responses.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Fri 5 Feb 2010, 12:49, Reply)