  Heroes? Really? I've long wondered exactly how much credit to give to those who serve in life-saving professions. It's a given that they save lives, and for that I'm sure we're all very grateful. However, are they all "heroes" just for doing what they're paid to do? If that's the case, then perhaps those that help people indirectly are all heroes, and those that help their family by working crap jobs are heroes, and so forth. urlLink This article on Salon.com has an interesting take on the now routine practice of calling any firefighter that fights a fire a Hero. The same sentiment can be extended to those in the military, and perhaps to police persons and EMT's. Unless we reinstate the draft, everyone in the military is there because they chose to be there.
So when they head overseas, and are (sadly) killed by hostile forces, I'm not going to jump to calling them heroes. Not that military folk can't be heroes; I would simply rather see that term reserved for truly heroic actions. Saving your entire platoon from enemy attack might make you a hero, just as rushing into a burning building to save a family might as well. But showing up for work? Not that heroic, in my book. Perhaps "noble" is a better word for some who engage in these professions.
This entire line of thought coincides nicely with my thoughts on those who are killed while serving in the military - that while it is sad when someone dies, it is certainly not sadder when they are killed in combat, and in fact maybe it's less sad. After all, you know what you're getting into when you join up to Serve Your Country; if a war breaks out, then your job is to go and, if necessary, die.
It's not tragic, it's what they signed up to do. Maybe this seems like a cynical viewpoint, but I would stress again that it doesn't mean I have any less respect for those who work in such risky areas. But we should reserve our greatest titles and deepest sorrows for occasions that truly deserve it. 
