A little help

[elwoodblues]

Can someone help me understand the mentality of someone like this? Thinking it's fun to shoot people is a little too psychopathic for my liking.

[ QUOTE ]
"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot," Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling.

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said. "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."


[/ QUOTE ]

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/general.shoot/index.html)

[nicky g]

Relax, man. They're just towelheads.

[andyfox]

I heard Laura Ingraham (sp.?) defending the comments on her radio show this morning. She said you want a military guy who wants to kill people.

One would expect a certain degree of wackoism among the military brass.

Helluva hoot.

[Victor]

Well, what is a military's main operating method? Clearly, killing people. So, I would say whoever is in charge of the military should want to kill people.

It certainly is a psychopathic mentality tho.

It was also interesting to read that the crowd reacted with laughter.

[Stu Pidasso]

His statement doesn't bother me in the least. He is talking about shooting them in a fire fight and not in some indiscriminant manner. He's confident of victory. Soldiers relish and enjoy victory. It really bothers me that people have a problem with that.

Stu

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
He is talking about shooting them in a fire fight and not in some indiscriminant manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that he finds it fun to kill them. That, in my opinion, is absolutely inhumane.

[cardcounter0]

What till he moves back to the States.
I'm sure he will be making his judgements about "manhood" down at the local supermarket also.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Koller]

[ QUOTE ]
His statement doesn't bother me in the least. He is talking about shooting them in a fire fight and not in some indiscriminant manner. He's confident of victory. Soldiers relish and enjoy victory. It really bothers me that people have a problem with that.



[/ QUOTE ]

Unreal statement. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that he finds it fun to kill them. That, in my opinion, is absolutely inhumane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a very useful part of human nature to enjoy killing the bad guys. Remember that is what he talking about, not indiscriment killing. Video games are successful because they play to this innate human nature. Whats sad is people want this soldier to deny his own humanity; to supress those emotions which help him survive the rigors of combat.

You have it all wrong. Its is war that is inhumane. The only crime this soldier is guilty of is being honest about his own humanity.

Stu

[lastchance]

Exhibit A: War messes people up.

I am more disgusted by the people who laugh at his comments than the Lt. General.

[andyfox]

He said it's fun to shoot them because they slap women around. He said it's a "hoot."

One can understand that evil needs to be eradicated without thinking it's "fun" or a "hoot." The greatest soldiers realized the horrors of war and didn't consider it "fun."

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Relax, man. They're just towelheads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The greatest soldiers realized the horrors of war and didn't consider it "fun."



[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this to be a fact how? More opinionated nonsense from the left stated as factual rather than as an opinion.

[zaxx19]

That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that he finds it fun to kill them. That, in my opinion, is absolutely inhumane.


Me too, guess what, thats why I didnt aspire to being a Marine rifleman.

If what the general said is troubling should we find it troubling that an NFL LB remarks that he likes to "hit" people??

Is violence=killing? Absolutely not.

Is violence a behavior that we as a society have chosen to deem grotesque and usually verboten? Yes it is.

Do we understand the need for violence in specific activities? Yes

.......The logic might not be flawless but it certainly makes alot more sense than most of Cyrus' 4 paragraph numbers.

[BCPVP]

I would think hardcore feminists would be thanking this guy for killing men who beat/rape/kill their women...

[andyfox]

He said nothing about raping of killing their women. He talked about men who slapped women because they don't wear veils.

I have never heard any feminist recommend the death penalty for slapping. But judging from your post, I imagine there are people who are in favor of just about anything.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Care to enlighten us on your qualifications for making such a statement.... You obviously have never served in the military....

[andyfox]

I don't speak for the American left. Opinionated nonsense is in good supply all over the political spectrum, wouldn't you agree?

A quote from Dwight Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."

Rommel, besides being famous for his grasp of operational tactics and command ability, was described by many as an honourable man who did not commit any war crimes. "While many of his colleagues and peers in the German Army surrendered their honor by collusion with the iniquities of Nazism, Rommel was never defiled." [Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars] He maintained his professionalism as a soldier and observed the rules of war even as he fought. Walzer commented that not only did Rommel fight the war well militarily, he also fought it morally. When Hitler issued the Commando Order on October 28, 1942, which instructed all enemy soldiers encountered behind the German line to be killed at once, it was Rommel who burnt that order. While his colleagues would have complied with that order and taken no prisoners, Rommel had the moral courage to disobey that order and treated all prisoners of war in accordance with the rules of war. He was highly respected by his enemies and not without reason. During the North African Campaign, Rommel often cut the water rations of his troops, so that the prisoners of war could survive. He was tasked to defend the area stretching from Holland to Bordeaux to prevent an Allied invasion in 1943. When the Allies landed in June of 1944, he realized that the war was lost and condoning Hitler’s senseless continuation of it would be an irresponsible act resulting in unnecessary deaths.

What evidence can you provide that the greatest generals considered war "fun"?

[andyfox]

See my response to wake up CALL. Also, a famous quote from General Sherman:

"Cadets of the graduating class, boys I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here. Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is hell!"

Perhaps he actually said war is fun and it was misreported.

[cardcounter0]

Do you have any links or proof of opinionated nonsense from the left stated as factual rather than as an opinion?

[cardcounter0]

Yes. I think the exact quote was "WooooHooooo! War is Fun! Let's go kill some Ragheads! WOOOOOO!"

Of course, this just shows what a great General Sherman was, to recognize the threat of ragheads hundreds of years before 9/11.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
He said nothing about raping of killing their women. He talked about men who slapped women because they don't wear veils.

I have never heard any feminist recommend the death penalty for slapping. But judging from your post, I imagine there are people who are in favor of just about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
I realize he didn't "say" it. But please, let's be honest here. The Taliban basically enslaved the female half of the Afghan population. I suggest you read up on how women were treated pre-Operation Enduring Freedom.

[cardcounter0]

Ahhh yes. If only we can get America back to the "good old days".

[ACPlayer]

Good soldiers dont relish killing.

[vulturesrow]

I think I am going to have to side with the lefties on this one, with one caveat. First off, I dont doubt that there are soldiers that do enjoy the killing. I would even go so far as to say that you need a certain amount of those types if you will. That being said, it is easy to underestimate the satisfaction of engaging in armed combat and coming away the victor, it appeals to our most base instincts. With all that, here are teh reasons this comment really bothers me. One, a top General needs to understand the repercussions of saying something like that. That is strictly the political, pragmatic issue. More importantly, as a leader in the Marine Corps, he needs to be at the forefront of not allowing his Marines to get themselves in the position of beginning to think like this, because this is the sort of mindset that leads to atrocities. By necessity, you must become somewhat desensitized to the violence of the job but at the same time not get consumed by it. Its easier for we aviator types, as it is a lot less impersonal. But really this General had no business saying what he said.

[andyfox]

I posted about the Taliban very shortly after 9/11, talking about the horrors of their "administation." What's that got to do with what the man said?

[BCPVP]

What I said was a poke at hardcore feminism, and, as usually happens on the internet, spiraled out of control. What the man said was probably a little too gung ho. Maybe he got caught up in the moment of trying to inspire his troops? I don't know. But I'm not going to pass judgement on someone keeping me and my family safe.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's America feeling its oats.

America is far, far superior in military strength than anyone else -- and knows it. The arrogance comes from that knowledge. And from the policies that encourage the assertion of that power without any restriction whatsoever (i.e. America refuses to be tied to any commitment whatsoever to laws, treaties or rules).

If the confrtontation was more equal, e.g. WWII, no American officer in his right midn would dare utter such crap. It would be hybris.

To his soldiers first and to Fate second.

[andyfox]

I'm not passing judgment on the man. He might be a great and wonderful man who said something objectionable. I don't know whether he's keeping me and my family safe. We're all discussing what he said. I've quoted Eisenhower and Sherman and posted about how Rommel was viewed by his adversaries. Their views were the opposite: that war is a terrible thing and that there is no fun in it. Yet they never shrank from what they saw as their duty and while I'm by no means a military expert, there seems to be a consensus among historians and the general public that they were great generals. It was just shocking to me to hear him say that killing people was fun and a hoot.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It was just shocking to me to hear him say that killing people was fun and a hoot.



[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it was! You don't even own a gun, how could we expect you to understand?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
That's America feeling its oats.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is bosh. One Marine General does not represent all of America. I might just as well say all Frenchmen are cheese eating surrender monkeys. Your continual all or nothing ‘analysis’ and statements wear thin.

-George Orwell

[Felix_Nietsche]

You claimed the best soldiers hate war. Here is what you wrote:

"The greatest soldiers realized the horrors of war and didn't consider it 'fun.'"
****You mean like General Patton, America's best General of WW2. Obviously you did not read his biography.

Good soldiers come in all shapes, sizes, and attitudes. If you read the book, Band of Brothers. One of the best soldiers under Lt. Winters, enjoyed war.

Being ex-military I've known a lot of veterans. I've heard thousands of "war stories". Some of the best soldiers enjoyed the excitement and comraderie of war.

Claiming the best soldiers hate war is just wishful thinking on your part. Your statement was just plain silly.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming the best soldiers hate war is just wishful thinking on your part. Your statement was just plain silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yours is worse.

I'll let others elaborate.

[Felix_Nietsche]

You are unable to elaborate....because to do so requires CRITICAL THINKING which I suspect you are incapable of doing.....

Either *BACK UP* your assertions with *SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS* or don't bother posting.....
Intellectual lazy posters who confuse their emotions with reasons are a dime a dozen....

[andyfox]

I didn't say I didn't understand. I said it was shocking.

[andyfox]

Patton never said war was fun or a hoot. I used Eisenhower, Rommel and Sherman as examples, there are many more great generals talking about the horrors of war and their dislike for it. Of course there is excitement (Sherman, for example, alluded to it in his remarks I cited) and comraderie. But he didn't consider it fun.

I've heard lot of war stories too, most especially from my dad and his comrades, and lots of "war" stories from my son and his comrades, who are cops. I'm thankful neither of them considered or considers killing fun or a hoot.

BTW, I don't doubt the subject of this thread meant what he said.

[zaxx19]

Seems to me like the best soldeirs are the ones who wage war best...

I dont think that necessarily means they either-"relish killing" or undertake killing with seriousmoral reservations- I think that means they kill especially well.

[ACPlayer]

It means that they efficiently defeat an enemy and kill when it is necessary.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You claimed the best soldiers hate war. Here is what you wrote:

"The greatest soldiers realized the horrors of war and didn't consider it 'fun.'"
****You mean like General Patton, America's best General of WW2. Obviously you did not read his biography.

Good soldiers come in all shapes, sizes, and attitudes. If you read the book, Band of Brothers. One of the best soldiers under Lt. Winters, enjoyed war.

Being ex-military I've known a lot of veterans. I've heard thousands of "war stories". Some of the best soldiers enjoyed the excitement and comraderie of war.

Claiming the best soldiers hate war is just wishful thinking on your part. Your statement was just plain silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think part of the problem is perhaps we are using terms too loosely. There is no doubt that many soldiers enjoy the camaraderie of war. There is no doubt that many enjoy meeting someone in armed combat and coming out the victor. What I seriously doubt is that many people expressly enjoy the killing part of war. Many dont focus on it, which they probably shouldnt. However, war in general is not a good thing, and most people that give serious thought to it realize this.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]


Relax, man. They're just towelheads.


[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.


[/ QUOTE ]

i reeeeeeally hope you're joking.

[TransientR]

Well, it was a crowd of defense contractors, creating things that kill people is their bread-and-butter.

Frank

[zaxx19]

I hope it is....isnt that what most weapons systems are designed to do??

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]


Relax, man. They're just towelheads.


[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.


[/ QUOTE ]

i reeeeeeally hope you're joking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Do you really care wheter or not I was joking or if I was serious? Look at it like a poker decision.
1) Most terrorists who want to kill Americans are towelheads. Let us assume that the ratio is 10 to 1.
2) The chances of killing a terrorist by killing a towelhead is greater than by killing a Scandanavian.
3) For every million towelheads we kill we eliminate 100,000 terrorists.
4) It only makes sense that for our own self survival that we go all-in.

Now I may be serious or not!

[andyfox]

He is joking, but the degree of racism that attends to wars or "wars" is underestimated. We (and most countries and cultures) dehumanize and demonize our enemies. They become "gooks" or "japs" or "reds." They have little or no value for human life. Thus it becomes much easier to exterminate the brutes.

[bholdr]

yes, i do care if you're joking or not. i was close to putting you on my 'whackjob' list- which currently has only one person on it (care to geuss who?).

as a poker descision it would still be -EV, i think for every million towelheads we kil we probably create more than 100k terrorists. i think we should bet as a semi bluff and then check-call (which is pretty much what we've done). even though i'm a liberal i know that we can't fold.

did i just say towelhead? i meant camel jockey. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

KIDDING!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
as a poker descision it would still be -EV, i think for every million towelheads we kil we probably create more than 100k terrorists. i think we should bet as a semi bluff and then check-call (which is pretty much what we've done). even though i'm a liberal i know that we can't fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

You could very well be correct about creating more terrorists by the very act of killing them. Fortunately like a bankroll the number of towelhead terrorists is finite. This means that if we do go all-in often enough we will have all the chips when the game ends. Look at it like Bill Gates (USA) playing N/L poker with Phil Helmuth (Terrorist) and they must either go all-in of fold preflop.. Phil may have a better hand most of the time but all Bill has to do is suck out once and poor Phil is broke. Same with the towelheads, when they are all gone with no more to kill they aren't likely to stage a Resurrection on Easter Sunday.

[bholdr]

"Look at it like Bill Gates (USA) playing N/L poker with Phil Helmuth (Terrorist) and they must either go all-in of fold preflop.. Phil may have a better hand most of the time but all Bill has to do is suck out once and poor Phil is broke.

LMAO! nice choice in using helmuth. i don't want to base our forign policy on suckouts and our raw ability to do more killing, though. and if we all in every hand, they're just gonna wait for aces, the blinds are too small to win that way. (ok, i'll admit i'm streaching the metaphor a bit here here.)