Okay, I am going to dissect your response a bit (and on the way I will derail this thread a bit, if you mind that, I am fine with transferring this to a new thread). I hope you don't mind.
Yes, as a matter of fact I mind, and I'm going to ask a mod to close the thread.
Doing dangerous work for less pay than possible seems a strange criteria. Are you sure that is it?
Ah that seems more plausible. I guess relatively cheap dangerous work only adds to that.
So there are actually two statements in this sentence. That soldiers fight for a higher cause (and not the benefits) and that this higher cause makes them heroic because it is "for their country".
The former: Do you think this is a reasonable claim in light of the fact that soldiers tend to notoriously be those kind of people who have the most to gain by being soldiers? I am thinking of people with not so great job prospects (it is a common criticism that those with the least means fight "for the country"). Moreover I think of programs like financing of college education and other nice benefits. Any honest recruiter will tell you that those benefits are not about simply "honoring the heroic" (while that of course is a nice side-kick justification, like it is also nice to justify greed with the well-being of the economy) but about making people see personal gain in being a soldier so enough "fight for their country". I am not denying that many may also see the higher cause in doing so (just as many non-soldiers see a higher justification in those benefits rather than mere recruiting tools - and there my former analogy doesn't hold up well I readily concede). But to claim that is what clearly differentiates ordinary soldiers from mercenaries is to not fight for personal gain simply seems - frankly - nonsense. (So I suppose I concur with GoodSarmatian.)
No, it is not nonsense. Mercenaries get paid far more, and yes, that's even with military benefits being taken into account. You have not provided a single fact or statistics for your claim, rather, just rambling.
Let's get to the latter part of your statement, the higher purpose: "for their country". Aren't mercenaries often also serving your country by doing their job? They also work for the US government and in general make the streets of Baghdad more secure and in general help the Iraq to develop. In deed, many people put up a struggle which serves your country well. Wage slaves. Entrepreneurs. Etcetera etcetera. Are they also heroes? Or what is the distinction here? That ordinary soldiers get their orders directly from government officials? So do clerks. So what differentiates them from clerks? Ah there it is - dangerous work and physical violence towards non-US-citizens. But oh that also applies to mercenaries. So I suppose it is a combination of dangerous work and direct obedience to government officials that makes soldiers fight "for their country" in at least a very special way. I already implied that dangerous alone is a unconvincing criteria and I clarify that it rather can merely serve to enhance what is already virtuoso.
Mercenaries do not have to work for America. They can work for anyone who hires them. If your job is to defend shipping cargo from Pirate attacks, you're a mercenary. And yes, even the ones that are employed by the U.S government are much different from soldiers. Their contracts are generally much shorter, with their pay being much more. Please stop ignoring the facts.
So what is so virtuous about (under considerable danger and discomfort) taking direct orders from government officials to exert physical violence on non-US citizens? What about this act makes one particular "heroic"?
Unless I am missing some crucial distinction here. If so, please explain it to me.
I just leave that because I don't think you want to argue that heroic simply means "He is on our side".
The fact that they're risking their lives for very little pay should tell you everything.
