U.S. General: It's fun to shoot people!

[FlamesAddiction]

I hope he runs into someone who thinks the same thing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ines_general_dc

And people wonder why I dislike everything military.

[Frank the Tank]

As harsh as his words sound, its people like him who I would want in my army. Sorry, but if you enlist in the army, part of you enjoys a good fight.

[Agamemnon]

Exactly. If you like to shoot and kill people, the US Marine Corps is a fantastic way to go, especially in avoiding any legal hassles associated with your hobby.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 3 2005, 09:20 PM
Exactly.# If you like to shoot and kill people, the US Marine Corps is a fantastic way to go, especially in avoiding any legal hassles associated with your hobby.

Maybe they should be enlisting in prisons then. Get some more Timothy McVeighs in there.

If someone likes killing other humans that much, they should not be in the military. The military's first goal should be establishing peace and security while minimizing the need to kill (and only do it when absolutely necessary).

If someone gets personal pleasure from killing, especially someone in command, the chances of unnecessary killing increases and peaceful resolutions drop.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Well...it IS in his job description to kill people. He just happens to enjoy his job.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by TheyCallMeBruce@Feb 3 2005, 09:26 PM
Well...it IS in his job description to kill people. He just happens to enjoy his job.

It was in the job description of Hitler's gestapo, and I'm sure if we knew of one of them saying it was fun, it would make us hate them even more.

[CaptainCrunch]

Two things

1) I agree with what he says

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

2) Killing in the military is at time neccessary, and nasty. But I would rather have somebody beside me that wouldn't have any hesitation to pull the trigger as oppossed to somebody who would take 2 or 3 minutes to moralize things in his mind to pull the trigger. That was the biggest problem in the vietnam war is that they drafted and pushed people into combat that had no business being there. The American's learned a hard lesson and had to go away from the concept of the conscript army.

General Mattis did not state anywhere that he goes around shooting and killing for no reason, and its a long stretch to believe he does. But he believes that his cause is the right one and some people are easier to kill then others.

I'm on his side here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Feb 3 2005, 09:06 PM
I hope he runs into someone who thinks the same thing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ines_general_dc

And people wonder why I dislike everything military.

Chances are he has, and as a Marine General it tells me that he's probably better then a lot of the people shooting at him.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Feb 3 2005, 09:34 PM

1) I agree with what he says

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

2) Killing in the military is at time neccessary, and nasty. But I would rather have somebody beside me that wouldn't have any hesitation to pull the trigger as oppossed to somebody who would take 2 or 3 minutes to moralize things in his mind to pull the trigger. That was the biggest problem in the vietnam war is that they drafted and pushed people into combat that had no business being there. The American's learned a hard lesson and had to go away from the concept of the conscript army.

General Mattis did not state anywhere that he goes around shooting and killing for no reason, and its a long stretch to believe he does. But he believes that his cause is the right one and some people are easier to kill then others.

I'm on his side here.

First, he doesn't know every person he kills. To say that they slap around women or whatever is ignorance on his part. Unless he actually lived at home with all of them, what does he know?

Secondly, you can't see a conflict of interest when a general says he enjoys killing? It's loud and clear. Killing because you have to is one thing, but no one should ever love to do it. That would be like veternarian saying they love putting down dogs because some are dangerous. It's a generalization, and it may have to be done, but it shouldn't be fun.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Feb 3 2005, 09:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Feb 3 2005, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheyCallMeBruce@Feb 3 2005, 09:26 PM
Well...it IS in his job description to kill people. He just happens to enjoy his job.

It was in the job description of Hitler's gestapo, and I'm sure if we knew of one of them saying it was fun, it would make us hate them even more. [/b][/quote]
Hey, I have no doubt about that, but the fact remains is that joining the military is more about maintaining peace and security, it is to train to kill without remorse. I'm not sure if the General's comments were somehow misunderstood, but maybe he is referring to a surge of adrenaline in the thrill of the battle. I know that even a simple game of paintball gives me that surge. If I cap one person, and I'm getting closer to the goal, I'm pressing forward, shooting as many "enemies" as I can. Do I enjoy it? Yeah, I do cause it's the thrill of the battle. Of course, I understand that paintball doesn't kill people (unless you shoot them in the throat unprotected or something), but I get the feeling that soldiers probably train under similar situations.

I think the biggest problem here is the fact that the General actually said something like this to the media. People who aren't in the military would understandably be shocked by comments like that.

[Agamemnon]

1) I agree with what he says

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Super-broad generalization. Just like shooting Germans in World War II was 'fun' because they were killing Jews. Most individual German soldiers were probably no more guilty than American or British soldiers, you follow orders and kill who you're supposed to kill. I'm sure some Afghan fighters were guilty of spousal abuse, just as _many_ Americans are. Why don't we shoot abusive husbands here? Pretty simplified 'justification' for taking pleasure in shooting people.

If its a job to be done, thats one thing, but be a Pro about it and realize your game is death, and no one wins. This guy seems to think he's a winner.

2) Killing in the military is at time neccessary, and nasty. But I would rather have somebody beside me that wouldn't have any hesitation to pull the trigger as oppossed to somebody who would take 2 or 3 minutes to moralize things in his mind to pull the trigger. That was the biggest problem in the vietnam war is that they drafted and pushed people into combat that had no business being there. The American's learned a hard lesson and had to go away from the concept of the conscript army.

True. You need hardened killers if your military is going to be effective. What's the point of having educated wusses in the field? The last thing one wants is thinking grunts... those are the types that disobey orders. You want bloodthirsty trigger-pullers who truly believe the other side is less than human... thats how you kill people.

General Mattis did not state anywhere that he goes around shooting and killing for no reason, and its a long stretch to believe he does. But he believes that his cause is the right one and some people are easier to kill then others.

He represents the US military in his comments. Since he later admitted that the choice of words was wrong, I'm not sure how others can defend them.

Believing your cause is right doesn't make it right, and when people who don't believe in the 'cause' hear this kind of talk, can you blame them for thinking the worst? There's a chance that his side isn't 'right', shouldn't he contemplate that chance when picking his words?

Then again, he's not a diplomat. Foolish to say anything.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Feb 3 2005, 09:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Feb 3 2005, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Feb 3 2005, 09:34 PM

1) I agree with what he says

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

2) Killing in the military is at time neccessary, and nasty. But I would rather have somebody beside me that wouldn't have any hesitation to pull the trigger as oppossed to somebody who would take 2 or 3 minutes to moralize things in his mind to pull the trigger. That was the biggest problem in the vietnam war is that they drafted and pushed people into combat that had no business being there. The American's learned a hard lesson and had to go away from the concept of the conscript army.

General Mattis did not state anywhere that he goes around shooting and killing for no reason, and its a long stretch to believe he does. But he believes that his cause is the right one and some people are easier to kill then others.

I'm on his side here.

First, he doesn't know every person he kills. To say that they slap around women or whatever is ignorance on his part. Unless he actually lived at home with all of them, what does he know?

Secondly, you can't see a conflict of interest when a general says he enjoys killing? It's loud and clear. Killing because you have to is one thing, but no one should ever love to do it. That would be like veternarian saying they love putting down dogs because some are dangerous. It's a generalization, and it may have to be done, but it shouldn't be fun. [/b][/quote]
The fact is that there isn't any proof anywhere that shows this guy is running around shooting dogs, or cats or woman or children. He is killing people who take up arms against him and his men.

Its a large difference from the Gestapo or the SS, who lined up unarmed prisoners or civilians and gunned them down in cold blood.

In fact I take offense to that comparison the more I think about it.

I've always said that if somebody is armed against me, and I pop him before he pops me, I have no problem with it.

Some people might actually enjoy it, is it right, no. But the fact is that none of us have sat in a war zone, or had bullets fired at them (ok, I did once, and that wasn't cool, so much for a peacekeeping mission). So to sit here and try to conceptualize that this guy is an evil nazi or generalizing that he is a remorseless killing machine is kinda foolish.

He's even stated and his superior stated that he misspoke, and probably didn't put thought into what he saying, and we know that the press and the military aren't a mix made in heaven, so now its come out in the worst possible way.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Feb 3 2005, 09:49 PM
Some people might actually enjoy it, is it right, no.

Thank you for agreeing!

[Cowperson]

Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!!

Couldn't resist.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

QUOTE
1) I agree with what he says

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."


Super-broad generalization. Just like shooting Germans in World War II was 'fun' because they were killing Jews. Most individual German soldiers were probably no more guilty than American or British soldiers, you follow orders and kill who you're supposed to kill. I'm sure some Afghan fighters were guilty of spousal abuse, just as _many_ Americans are. Why don't we shoot abusive husbands here? Pretty simplified 'justification' for taking pleasure in shooting people.

If its a job to be done, thats one thing, but be a Pro about it and realize your game is death, and no one wins. This guy seems to think he's a winner.

I can see your point, but the main members of the resistance were members of the Taliban, who had a horrible history of abuse, and degradation in thier country in the name of religion, so I'm really shedding no tears if a member of the Taliban is zapped.

You don't get to the rank of Lt Gen of the marine corps without being a pro and without being a winner, and having that mentality.



QUOTE
2) Killing in the military is at time neccessary, and nasty. But I would rather have somebody beside me that wouldn't have any hesitation to pull the trigger as oppossed to somebody who would take 2 or 3 minutes to moralize things in his mind to pull the trigger. That was the biggest problem in the vietnam war is that they drafted and pushed people into combat that had no business being there. The American's learned a hard lesson and had to go away from the concept of the conscript army.


True. You need hardened killers if your military is going to be effective. What's the point of having educated wusses in the field? The last thing one wants is thinking grunts... those are the types that disobey orders. You want bloodthirsty trigger-pullers who truly believe the other side is less than human... thats how you kill people.

Where in the hell did I generalize between educated and uneducated people in the military. And who's generalizing in that statement? The fact is that I've seen educated people in the military who wouldn't hesitate in combat to pull that trigger, just like I've seen uneducated people that don't belong there.

But thanks for calling me uneducated and blood thirsty. I appreciate it.

This whole thing that its all the educated people that have a set of morals and all of the uneducated thugs that gravitate to the military is a load of garbage.

And the whole thing about disobeying orders, you know its the right of every soldier to disobey an order that he see's as incorrect or immoral right? Soldiers aren't killing machines like terminators, the are living breathing human beings who do have a thought process, and for the most part of pretty good people who aren't random murderers,

But then again there are some who are over the edge and are mearly joining up for the legalized killing, but every one of those that I've seen or met hasn't made it thought basic training, because we actively weed those people out.

Life in the military isn't full metal jacket, where an unbalanced person, or nutcase killer is given a rifle and sent to war, they're way to undependable.

QUOTE
General Mattis did not state anywhere that he goes around shooting and killing for no reason, and its a long stretch to believe he does. But he believes that his cause is the right one and some people are easier to kill then others.



He represents the US military in his comments. Since he later admitted that the choice of words was wrong, I'm not sure how others can defend them.

Believing your cause is right doesn't make it right, and when people who don't believe in the 'cause' hear this kind of talk, can you blame them for thinking the worst? There's a chance that his side isn't 'right', shouldn't he contemplate that chance when picking his words?

Then again, he's not a diplomat. Foolish to say anything.

Yes your right he does represent the U.S. military and he said a incredibly stupid thing, and he probably caught an incredible amount of heat for it.

But combat leaders aren't required to take PR courses, or interview 101. And I actually prefer somebody who's fairly upfront as oppossed to a politician who lies when he tells the truth.

And believing your cause might not neccessarily make it right, yes correct, but then again he was asked to go to Afghanistan and fight against a fairly brutal enemy in the Taliban and members of Al Queda so I'm not seeing where he's going to think that his cause is wrong.

And I'm pretty sure that if he chose not to say anything in the panel discussion the press would have spun that to a negative too.

Dealing with the press is a un-winnable situation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Feb 3 2005, 10:03 PM
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!!

Couldn't resist.

Cowperson

Best line and best delivery in that entire wretched movie

[arsenal]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Feb 3 2005, 03:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Feb 3 2005, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Feb 3 2005, 10:03 PM
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!!

Couldn't resist.

Cowperson

Best line and best delivery in that entire wretched movie [/b][/quote]
dammit CC you beat me to it.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Weird...I considered joining the military a couple of years ago because of that quote. Some of the other things that influenced me are:

To serve my country.
To protect the people I love.
To ensure freedom for not only my country, but the country of others.

here comes the part that most peace loving people will take offense to...
To shoot the hell out of those that aim to take all of the above away from me.

I can't help but to feel a bit of enjoyment and satisfaction when I think about that. I guess I'm really no different from that General

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by TheyCallMeBruce@Feb 3 2005, 10:20 PM
Weird...I considered joining the military a couple of years ago because of that quote. Some of the other things that influenced me are:

To serve my country.
To protect the people I love.
To ensure freedom for not only my country, but the country of others.

here comes the part that most peace loving people will take offense to...
To shoot the hell out of those that aim to take all of the above away from me.

I can't help but to feel a bit of enjoyment and satisfaction when I think about that. I guess I'm really no different from that General

My reasons for joining were a little different

1) To serve my country - I wasn't as aware as I am now about how screwed up Canada is, and how poorly the government served the people.

2) To protect - I thought that the protection of people and thier rights was a hugely important task. Remember I joined during the cold war when the Russians errr Soviets were still considered to be a huge threat

3) Adventure - Where else could you travel the world and meet interesting people

4) The hardware - c'mon guns, grenades and tanks were the ultimate for me. But thinking back if I knew what I knew now I would have joined the Navy instead of the Infantry

5) Beats working at burger king or some other dead end job. - I had no interest in being a waiter, or a fry cook or a car washer, and I wasn't ready for University

6) The bucks - back then we were pretty well paid, so while my friends were scrappping by with minimum wage or student loan dollars, I had some independance

7) Direction - I was a screwup throughout school, and I needed my ass kicked.

[Agamemnon]

I can see your point, but the main members of the resistance were members of the Taliban, who had a horrible history of abuse, and degradation in thier country in the name of religion, so I'm really shedding no tears if a member of the Taliban is zapped.#

Yeah, thats the story anyway. I'm sure some members of the Taliban were ***holes, and some were decent guys. Unless you think those 'humans' in general are prone to be abusive and evil. I don't. Like Cow likes to say a lot, they have the same concerns we do, security, family, health, etc.

You don't get to the rank of Lt Gen of the marine corps without being a pro and without being a winner, and having that mentality.#

You also don't get there by shooting your mouth off in public, especially to the media. Obviously a lapse in judgement.

Where in the hell did I generalize between educated and uneducated people in the military.# And who's generalizing in that statement?# The fact is that I've seen educated people in the military who wouldn't hesitate in combat to pull that trigger, just like I've seen uneducated people that don't belong there.

You didn't, I did, and I didn't suggest that you made any such statement. I made generalizations about the 'type' of soldier one wants in the military. You said so yourself that draftees didn't make great soldiers, I just put my own personal view in there. Feel free to disagree.

But thanks for calling me uneducated and blood thirsty.# I appreciate it.

Don't know you, don't care. This thread is about Iraq and war, not you, get over yourself. I didn't call you anything.

This whole thing that its all the educated people that have a set of morals and all of the uneducated thugs that gravitate to the military is a load of garbage.

I didnt' say that. What I was trying to present is that militaries want soldiers that will do their duties and think later. If you're ordered to 'waste a vil' of innocents, a 'good' soldier does what he's told. You don't want someone who's going to question these orders as inhumane or disruptive... you want someone to waste the Vil... or achieve any death-involved objective.

Just like police officers. They're culled to get fairly smart... but not too smart. You want someone who can follow orders to a tee... not someone who decides whether to shoot in the leg or chest at the last second because he's 'thinking'. Obviously officers have to be intelligent enough to implement orders, but I'm talking about grunts.

And the whole thing about disobeying orders, you know its the right of every soldier to disobey an order that he see's as incorrect or immoral right?# Soldiers aren't killing machines like terminators, the are living breathing human beings who do have a thought process, and for the most part of pretty good people who aren't random murderers,

Yeah, I'm sure the Army _loves_ soldiers who disobey orders. I'm sure there's no pressure to just follow orders, despite what individual grunts might think. If you think the US military is open enough that any soldier can defy any order that suits his morals... I differ.

Life in the military isn't full metal jacket, where an unbalanced person, or nutcase killer is given a rifle and sent to war, they're way to undependable.

Of course, at the same time, plenty of those people make it through. I'm sure you'll find a killer or two among the 150,000 troops in Iraq.