US General Says It's Fun To Shoot People

[gr8fuldaniel]

Its this kind of leadership that makes stuff like abu Ghraib possible.

You gotta be a sociopath to enjoy killing.

IMHO

[Scribbler1]

It should be noted the man didn't say he enjoys killing, period. He said there is a certain enjoyment from killing certain people, like the guy who kills innocent women and children for example.
It depends on who you are killing and what the circumstances are. Is there anyone here who would NOT put a bullet between the eyes of one of the 9/11 hijackers, given the chance? I wouldn't hesitate.
(yes, I know they're all dead anyway, so don't bother bringing it up)

[Vee]

I'm with the soldier on this one.

Who's ever played a FPS or gone paintballing. Shooting people is fun.

In the context of the situation he was in, yes he should've chosen his words more carefully but that's playing politics and not telling the truth.

It shows you this man, is a man of Integrity.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Integrety?
Nothing noble about killing for sport.
Somebody will enjoy killing him.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Your 3 star General is in good company.........

I think Charlie Manson enjoyed killing too

[Scribbler1]

I'm not a WW2 scholar, but if the George C. Scott movie "Patton" is anywhere near the truth about the man (and I believe it was), his public comments make this general look ,like Mr. Rogers, and we LOVED the guy.

[Vee]

since when was integrity connected to nobility?

[giuliano]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I agree with Vicchio. When you take the actual "killing" out of it and look at it as a job, I would rather have someone who likes his work doing something than one who either hates it or is unqualified to DO it. And to be qualified to go out and kill people you can't be repelled by the act. Of course, he should have kept quiet about that part as it was not necessary to say it. I knew this feeling exists and so do a lot of other people. After all, that IS what we want them to do, isn't it?

in leadership theory you learn about the emotional competency known as self regulation.

self regulation basically refers to your ability to regulate your own behaviour, speech, and emotions.

clearly this general is lacking in that quality, as evidenced by making what is obviously a pretty stupid statement. another example of self regulation, amongst an inexhaustive list, would be holding your fire until you had determined whether someone was really the enemy or not.

my point is: if he doesn't have the ability to hold his tongue then i wonder if he has the ability to properly consider his actions. some people seem to be saying here "oh they're two different things!" and they're not.

[MerlinsByte]

yeah, until you go and inspect what you did and see a kid laying on the ground with his guts hanging out, while his mother's there screaming wild. lotta fun, i'm sure.

Merlin writes: Do you think games such as paint ball and violent video games are an expression of societies sickness or are they just a way of expressing mans natural love for war? Or are there "other" reasons that these games are so popular for young and old alike?


mb

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Vee since when was integrity connected to nobility?

noble; 2) Having or showing qualities of high moral character, such as courage, generosity, or honor: a noble spirit.

in·teg·ri·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tgr-t) n. 1) Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. 2) The state of being unimpaired; soundness. 3) The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

You dont see a connection here?
Nothing noble about blood sport.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: giuliano my point is: if he doesn't have the ability to hold his tongue then i wonder if he has the ability to properly consider his actions. some people seem to be saying here "oh they're two different things!" and they're not.

Good Point!
Which is the more deadly member of a 3 Star General; his trigger finger or his tongue, which controls 5 or 10 thousand triggers?

[giuliano]

exactly. 19 yr old marines hang off words such as those, which must be chosen carefully.

making it sound like a guiltless turkey shoot is not doing his job very well, to say the least.

[Scribbler1]

I wonder what the thoughts of all the soldiers over there are. All of those who DIDN'T get their words published in the major media, that is. How many share the same feelings?
Personally, I think that mindset is a LOT more widespread than we think, owing to the fact that the "enemy" is often demonized by the government and military to the point I'd expect a lot of these guys to want to start annihilating the "enemy" before they're out of boot camp! If your JOB is to shoot these people it is counterproductive to tell you the "other side" is just a bunch of regular folks like yourself, with families and regular lives.

I agree that it's nasty and ugly, but I have to be honest and say I'd rather have a man who has no problem with killing members of the "other side" (in a NECESSARY war) than someone who agonizes over the morality of the situation when he is being shot at.
Unfortunately, as long as there are people who want to blow us to bits out there we will need people who think like Mattis. When this species begins to rethink the importance of war and killing we can change our tactics. Sadly, that time is not now and the fact of "violence begets violence" is a fact of life no one group can change. The solution must be found that can be agreed to by all parties. I think we are working on that with every succeeding generation but it HAS to be accepted by everyone.

[Mr.Vicchio]

You HAVE to at some level demonize/dehumanize the enemy. Otherwise the soldiers jobs become that much harder, and that means more DEAD Americans.

I know that's odd logic, but if the soldiers CARE about the enemy as "people/human beings" then it's harder to shoot them, to do the job. I really doubt many of the terrorist/jihadist/islamofacists give a rats ass if Solider Joe has a family, hopes or dreams. If oyu hesistate to pull the trigger, then you die, or others die, or both.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You HAVE to at some level demonize/dehumanize the enemy. Otherwise the soldiers jobs become that much harder, and that means more DEAD Americans. I know that's odd logic, but if the soldiers CARE about the enemy as "people/human beings" then it's harder to shoot them, to do the job. I really doubt many of the terrorist/jihadist/islamofacists give a rats ass if Solider Joe has a family, hopes or dreams. If oyu hesistate to pull the trigger, then you die, or others die, or both.

But wouldn't demonization mean that more occurences like the Abu Gharib prison abuses are likely to occur? I mean, if the soldiers had been thinking that these prisoners are still human beings and to be given the respective rights, I rather doubt it would've happened.

And just because the opposition uses that tactic doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to their level because then we'd become just as bad as them and we will no longer have that "moral superiority".

[Mr.Vicchio]

Prisoners are different then "combatants"
What happened at abu Garib was ass hats with a lack of supervision on a power trip. Sum total of what happened there.

The guy has a gun, he's a target. The guy is in custody, he's a prisoner.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Pooeypants But wouldn't demonization mean that more occurences like the Abu Gharib prison abuses are likely to occur? I mean, if the soldiers had been thinking that these prisoners are still human beings and to be given the respective rights, I rather doubt it would've happened. And just because the opposition uses that tactic doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to their level because then we'd become just as bad as them and we will no longer have that "moral superiority".

Pooey, imagine you are on the battlefield.

You have a scoped rifle, you see an enemy, you think "Gee, he's just like me, scared, doesn't want to die... " You hesitate. Before you can react, HE fires and kills your buddy 3 feet away.

That's not worth any moral gut wrenching you are looking for. We cannot allow our people to die because it might "feel bad" to think of the enemy as humans. On the flip side, there is a line that must be drawn, and followed. That's what makes us different from them. We draw that line and hold those that cross it accountable. They do not.

Bataan Death March, Nazi Death Camps, Suicide Bombers, Beheadings.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Pooeypants And just because the opposition uses that tactic doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to their level because then we'd become just as bad as them and we will no longer have that "moral superiority".

But we will have the satisfaction of being dead.
It is a sad fact that the first one to lay down his weapon in a war dies. Unless the agreement is reached between BOTH sides the other guy won't care about your higher morality and simply take his shot.
I reached adulthood in the 60's and I don't think there is anyone here MORE anti-war than I. However, I do have to acknowledge reality, and the reality is if someone is trying to shoot you, you taking pity on him or showing compassion for him or laying your gun down just makes HIS job all that much easier.
Remember the other side of the coin, HIS people demonized YOU, and he may not accept the stupidity of was as easily as you do.
And Pooey, we ARE just as bad as them. ALL of humanity is until we ALL, in unison rise up and denounce war as a solution to anything.
Until that time, I don't want any of our soldiers sent into battle (just war or not. I'm talking about the lives of our people here) with guilt or emotional conflict as it only makes it easier for the other guy to kill them, and that's what it boils down to.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pooey, imagine you are on the battlefield. You have a scoped rifle, you see an enemy, you think "Gee, he's just like me, scared, doesn't want to die... " You hesitate. Before you can react, HE fires and kills your buddy 3 feet away. That's not worth any moral gut wrenching you are looking for. We cannot allow our people to die because it might "feel bad" to think of the enemy as humans. On the flip side, there is a line that must be drawn, and followed. That's what makes us different from them. We draw that line and hold those that cross it accountable. They do not. Bataan Death March, Nazi Death Camps, Suicide Bombers, Beheadings.

I am happy with such a tactic as long as don't pretend to be on a higher moral ground.
Btw, if you demonise someone, even if he has been disarmed and in prison, that hatred and disregard is still there. So unless you have prison guards who haven't been subjected to this brainwashing, the problem remains.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Pooeypants Btw, if you demonise someone, even if he has been disarmed and in prison, that hatred and disregard is still there. So unless you have prison guards who haven't been subjected to this brainwashing, the problem remains.

True, but there seems to be no other way to properly motivate the soldiers, which these guards were. Perhaps to assign nothing but non-combat personnel to the prisons and save the demonization for combat troops.

And as for that, I don't think all the brainwashing is done in boot camp. I figure once you are out there and are being shot at by a lot of people you've never even met you tend to devolop a dislike for them all on your own.
Picture this: You are in a battle and a man you have come to know as your best friend just got his head shot off by a total stranger from the other side. I can't speak for you but I don't think I'd need any encouragement to blindly hate the sons of bitches and want to just start mowing them down.