Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tinybear · Feb 4, 2005, 04:34 am

Yep. You heard the man. It's no wonder American troops are hated wherever they go. I think US military men should have more training in how to win the hearts of the people, because, unless you do that, you're bound to lose any guerilla war. And we're doing just that in Iraq: losing the war. What do you think?

U.S. General Says It Is 'Fun to Shoot Some People'

Feb 3, 3:09 PM (ET)

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. Marine Corps general who said it was "fun to shoot some people" should have chosen his words more carefully but will not be disciplined, military officials said on Thursday.

Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, made the comments at a conference Tuesday in San Diego.

"Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," said Mattis.

"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."

In a statement, Gen. Michael Hagee, commander of the Marine Corps, praised Mattis as "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."

Full Report: http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...ENERAL-DC.html

Paavo · Feb 4, 2005, 04:48 am

Quote:

"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."

Ouch... that'll look swell in the eyes of the Arab world. Well, more recruits for terrorist groups heading for American soil. :(

**Matt W** · Feb 4, 2005, 04:54 am

Why would they bother going to America? Plenty of US troops in Iraq & Afghanistan to shoot at...and people say it's a success that there's been no further attacks on US territory! :rolleyes:

MerlinsByte · Feb 4, 2005, 05:57 am

Quote:

US General Says It's Fun To Shoot People

Merlin writes ;The terrorists are already doing all that they can (to accomplish their goal). So I don't think that his remark created more terrorist seeds. Bin Laden and his comrades have more sad human fodder than can be self martyred.

We need warriors. We train our warriors to kill on an order. This officer was doing his job. This officer was not committing a crime. Maybe he should have lied, or candy coated it. War is hell, and sad. Killing to accomplish goals is a vile state of affairs that proves mans inability to govern himself. "There will be wars and rumors of wars" is prophesy or religious prediction written over 2000 years ago, that has come to pass. I feel the next world war one will be the battle at Armageddon, with China, Gog (Russia). and others, coming against Israel.

mb

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 4, 2005, 06:40 am

Some people "enjoy" war. It's been that way for all of history. The life and death fight that is war has been described as the ultimate adreniline rush.

The guy should have not said it like that, but there you have it.

These people train thier whole lives with two objectives, Break things and kill people. That's the point of the military.

**Matt W** · Feb 4, 2005, 06:55 am

Indeed. People enjoy fighting - people enjoy watching fighting. It's a buzz. Being in his position, he should've watched his mouth - it's the kind of comment you'd expect from a grunt, not a general.

Scribbler1 · Feb 4, 2005, 07:24 am

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?

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 4, 2005, 07:41 am

Well I mean it's not very hehe PC to point out that some people enjoy the actual "job". Few people I have EVER met in the military want to go to war. Even fewer say so after having faught.

Perfect example, my father flew F-4 Phantoms, he never fired a shot or dropped a bomb in actual combat, but... he retired from flying just a few months before Desert Storm I, and some of the guys he flew with were over there (Yes there were a few Phantoms over there ) and he said "I really wish I was over there." When I asked "Dad? Do you really want to kill people that badly?" His answer:

"No, but I have spent my life training to do a job, and now that there is a war, I want to be there."

Very profound IMHO look into what drives many of the members of the Armed Forces. We don't want to kill people, but if it comes down to it, we do want to do our jobs.

RickSp · Feb 4, 2005, 08:31 am

The fool was probably just telling the truth. You would think that by the time he got to be a general he would have learned better.

I am consistently sickened by the glorification of militarism in the US. It is contrary to our finest traditions. Early military leaders, including George Washington, admired Cincinnatus, who took up the sword for Rome in times of crisis then went back to his fields.

We now live in the cult of the soldier. We are told that it was a soldier who "gave us" our rights, not wimpy civilians, like journalists, lawyers, or folks who get up every morning and go to a job where they actually make something. All a soldier can do is to destroy. That is his or her job.

It is all a lie. The military never "gave us" our rights. Our rights are inalienable, not something to be handed out like K-rations. Regrettably the time comes when we all have to defend our country, but this has nothing to do with invading other countrues who never attacked us on the other side of the globe, all in the name of empire.

Scribbler1 · Feb 4, 2005, 08:37 am

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

Well I mean it's not very hehe PC to point out that some people enjoy the actual "job".

That's why I said if you take the act iof killing out of the argument and approach it as a job that must be done then you can see where this guy is coming from.
This has nothing to do with this particular war or any reasons to GO to war. It is their job and sometimes it IS in our interest or even necessary for our survival. I don't want anyone going to war with a Pacem In Terris membership card in their wallet.

bishop · Feb 4, 2005, 08:50 am

i agree with rick on this one.. soldiers didn't give women the right to vote, they didn't give us our bill of rights, etc... this general is nothing more than a hick bully - albeit one who's bullying other bullies. it's almost to the point where americans seem to look for praetorian rule. presidential candidates are criticized if they aren't veterans, or from the military.

rmnunez · Feb 4, 2005, 11:02 am

Its hard to defend such a lousy statement, but what if what the general meant was that given the chance of shooting honorable and decent people or sexist abusers, its more fun to have a go at the latter?

RickSp · Feb 4, 2005, 11:32 am

Quote:

Quote by: rmnunez

Its hard to defend such a lousy statement, but what if what the general meant was that given the chance of shooting honorable and decent people or sexist abusers, its more fun to have a go at the latter?

Right, as if the jerk could tell which was which through the sight of an assault rifle.

Quoting Juan Cole again:

Quote:

One of the reasons that the Neoconservatives are wrong that unilateral war can be used for good, for spreading democracy, is that war brings out the worst in human beings, making some of them sadists and racists. Sometimes it is necessary to fight a war to defend oneself. An elective war is always a mistake. It twists one's own society, and someone else's as well.

Just as few priests are pedophiles, few soldiers are sadists. Mattis has brought dishonor on the US Marine Corps with his words. Killing is never appropriately called "fun." I think he should resign.

Plegmund · Feb 4, 2005, 02:30 pm

I don't think there can be much doubt that shooting people is fun - think of how many computer games are essentially about gun-wielding mayhem. I heard a WWII airman interviewed once, describing how when he successfully hit a train and saw the whole thing explode, his "heart was full of joy". I think we have to draw a distinction between people who kill for good reasons and can't help enjoying it, and those who kill merely because they enjoy it. You can't legislate for people's feelings, only their behaviour.

Can't disagree with those who have suggested that a General should know when to shut up, though.

bishop · Feb 4, 2005, 02:37 pm

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.

Plegmund · Feb 4, 2005, 02:48 pm

Some things that are fun to do have dreadful consequences, but that doesn't stop them being fun. To say that something is enjoyable is not to say it's all-around good. If the General shoots people for his own amusement, that's wrong, but if he enjoys doing what he considers his rational duty, it isn't (of course, you may think he's also wrong about it being his rational duty to kill people at all, but that's another issue).

bishop · Feb 4, 2005, 02:49 pm

the fact that he's being ordered to kill does not make any difference. he's killing and clearly enjoys it. the overanalysis you're attempting here is distorting reality. keep it simple.

rmnunez · Feb 4, 2005, 02:56 pm

What bothers you more bishop, the general's job or the fact he enjoys it?

bishop · Feb 4, 2005, 02:58 pm

that he enjoys killing.

i always used to joke when i was a kid about how if i wanted to kill someone, i'd just join the military where i could do that and be rewarded for it. of course, i was never serious, but i never doubted that there are many out there who said the same thing, but were serious.

rmnunez · Feb 4, 2005, 03:13 pm

You have a very distorted way of seeing the military if you think its made up of people who enjoy killing and have a found a way to get paid for it. In my experience, the most senior and experienced (usually the higher ranked) are the most adverse to action, but I'd expect them to be much more 'gung-ho' about it if they actually enjoyed killing.

Feb 4, 2005, 04:34 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	US General Says It's Fun To Shoot People Yep. You heard the man. It's no wonder American troops are hated wherever they go. I think US military men should have more training in how to win the hearts of the people, because, unless you do that, you're bound to lose any guerilla war. And we're doing just that in Iraq: losing the war. What do you think? U.S. General Says It Is 'Fun to Shoot Some People' Feb 3, 3:09 PM (ET) By Will Dunham WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. Marine Corps general who said it was "fun to shoot some people" should have chosen his words more carefully but will not be disciplined, military officials said on Thursday. Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, made the comments at a conference Tuesday in San Diego. "Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," said Mattis. "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." In a statement, Gen. Michael Hagee, commander of the Marine Corps, praised Mattis as "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders." Full Report: http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...ENERAL-DC.html

Feb 4, 2005, 06:40 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	Some people "enjoy" war. It's been that way for all of history. The life and death fight that is war has been described as the ultimate adreniline rush. The guy should have not said it like that, but there you have it. These people train thier whole lives with two objectives, Break things and kill people. That's the point of the military. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 4, 2005, 07:41 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	Well I mean it's not very hehe PC to point out that some people enjoy the actual "job". Few people I have EVER met in the military want to go to war. Even fewer say so after having faught. Perfect example, my father flew F-4 Phantoms, he never fired a shot or dropped a bomb in actual combat, but... he retired from flying just a few months before Desert Storm I, and some of the guys he flew with were over there (Yes there were a few Phantoms over there ) and he said "I really wish I was over there." When I asked "Dad? Do you really want to kill people that badly?" His answer: "No, but I have spent my life training to do a job, and now that there is a war, I want to be there." Very profound IMHO look into what drives many of the members of the Armed Forces. We don't want to kill people, but if it comes down to it, we do want to do our jobs. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 4, 2005, 08:31 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,491	The fool was probably just telling the truth. You would think that by the time he got to be a general he would have learned better. I am consistently sickened by the glorification of militarism in the US. It is contrary to our finest traditions. Early military leaders, including George Washington, admired Cincinnatus, who took up the sword for Rome in times of crisis then went back to his fields. We now live in the cult of the soldier. We are told that it was a soldier who "gave us" our rights, not wimpy civilians, like journalists, lawyers, or folks who get up every morning and go to a job where they actually make something. All a soldier can do is to destroy. That is his or her job. It is all a lie. The military never "gave us" our rights. Our rights are inalienable, not something to be handed out like K-rations. Regrettably the time comes when we all have to defend our country, but this has nothing to do with invading other countrues who never attacked us on the other side of the globe, all in the name of empire. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Feb 4, 2005, 04:54 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,193	Why would they bother going to America? Plenty of US troops in Iraq & Afghanistan to shoot at...and people say it's a success that there's been no further attacks on US territory! :rolleyes:

Feb 4, 2005, 06:55 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,193	Indeed. People enjoy fighting - people enjoy watching fighting. It's a buzz. Being in his position, he should've watched his mouth - it's the kind of comment you'd expect from a grunt, not a general.

Feb 4, 2005, 07:24 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	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?

Feb 4, 2005, 08:50 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i agree with rick on this one.. soldiers didn't give women the right to vote, they didn't give us our bill of rights, etc... this general is nothing more than a hick bully - albeit one who's bullying other bullies. it's almost to the point where americans seem to look for praetorian rule. presidential candidates are criticized if they aren't veterans, or from the military.

Feb 4, 2005, 11:02 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Its hard to defend such a lousy statement, but what if what the general meant was that given the chance of shooting honorable and decent people or sexist abusers, its more fun to have a go at the latter?

Feb 4, 2005, 02:30 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Plegmund Molten Ash Location: London Posts: 37	I don't think there can be much doubt that shooting people is fun - think of how many computer games are essentially about gun-wielding mayhem. I heard a WWII airman interviewed once, describing how when he successfully hit a train and saw the whole thing explode, his "heart was full of joy". I think we have to draw a distinction between people who kill for good reasons and can't help enjoying it, and those who kill merely because they enjoy it. You can't legislate for people's feelings, only their behaviour. Can't disagree with those who have suggested that a General should know when to shut up, though.

Feb 4, 2005, 02:37 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	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.

Feb 4, 2005, 02:48 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Plegmund Molten Ash Location: London Posts: 37	Some things that are fun to do have dreadful consequences, but that doesn't stop them being fun. To say that something is enjoyable is not to say it's all-around good. If the General shoots people for his own amusement, that's wrong, but if he enjoys doing what he considers his rational duty, it isn't (of course, you may think he's also wrong about it being his rational duty to kill people at all, but that's another issue).

Feb 4, 2005, 02:49 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	the fact that he's being ordered to kill does not make any difference. he's killing and clearly enjoys it. the overanalysis you're attempting here is distorting reality. keep it simple.

Feb 4, 2005, 02:56 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	What bothers you more bishop, the general's job or the fact he enjoys it?

Feb 4, 2005, 02:58 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	that he enjoys killing. i always used to joke when i was a kid about how if i wanted to kill someone, i'd just join the military where i could do that and be rewarded for it. of course, i was never serious, but i never doubted that there are many out there who said the same thing, but were serious.

Feb 4, 2005, 03:13 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	You have a very distorted way of seeing the military if you think its made up of people who enjoy killing and have a found a way to get paid for it. In my experience, the most senior and experienced (usually the higher ranked) are the most adverse to action, but I'd expect them to be much more 'gung-ho' about it if they actually enjoyed killing.