US general sez it's 'fun to shoot some people'

Redleslie2

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A three-star Marine general who said it was "fun to shoot some people" should have chosen his words more carefully, the Marine Corps commandant said Thursday.

Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who commanded Marine expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, made the comments Tuesday during a panel discussion in San Diego, California.

"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."

CNN story.

Reminds me of Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. I wonder what savages like this are going to do when they finally admit they've lost the war and have to retreat.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

as offended and all as I'd like to be... I'm sure it is quite a rush.

MizzKattt

Lt. Gen. James Mattis does not speak for all Americans. The very fact that his statement caused a stir in our community should exhibit how most Americans felt about it. Additionally, it seems our own media has a tendency to expose and advertise our less appealing citizens and shadow our good. His statements and those like them are shameful. For a man of such high rank, I was hoping for a little more honor. Being of a military family, I can safely say how glad I am he is the exception rather than the rule.

therecklessone

Sounds like a man who's happy in his work to me.

Redleslie2

To be fair, it's probably the first truthful thing any of the scum who support the war have come out with.

sovtek

MizzKattt wrote:

For a man of such high rank, I was hoping for a little more honor. Being of a military family, I can safely say how glad I am he is the exception rather than the rule.

Except that it doesn't seem to be all that exceptional anymore in the upper command.
You put that with Tommy Franks "we don't do body counts" in reference to civilian casualties, the complete lack of accountability for Abu Ghriab both in the military and civilian command and a picture of a complete lack of respect for human life seems to be emerging (or at least for people that don't look like us).
On the other hand I find that the American media hides alot of very brutal attitudes and callous behavior by our military as well as our civilian leadership.

DadaKopf

There were all these studies done after WWII into why only 2% of combatants actually did the killing that secured allied victory, but the same analysis was applied to German soldiers, too.

The answer was that the 2% were all sociopaths. Not that they didn't function normally in civilian life, but when faced with the neccessity to kill other human beings, they often relished in the act. These are the people who were called 'heroes'. The remaining 98% broke down under the pressure of battle because there's something hard-wired into the human body that makes killing others such an overwhelming act that they simply hid, ran away or broke down. It looks like we're programmed not to murder each other.

After the study, military psychologists found methods to improve on that 2% - they found ways to manufacture sociopaths. In war situations, anyway.

Yer man's comments are probably commonplace within the military because creating sociopaths makes armies more effective, but for obvious reasons it's not something that the general public is made aware of.

Of course, I'm not remotely excusing his comments. I think it's a disgrace.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

a complete lack of respect for human life

Gee whiz, really? In the military? You're having me on.

vibe666

there wasa very good debate on the late late show last night between 2 people, who, I believe were a war corresponant/photographer who's spent a lot of time actually in iraq with the iraqi people and some pencil pushing bureaucrat who seemed to think he had some idea of what was going on because he's been rubbing shoulders with a few people who also think they know what's going on.

was very good.

i wonder if anyone has it available anywhere. must go look now.

Frank Grimes

vibe666 wrote:

there wasa very good debate on the late late show last night between 2 people, who, I believe were a war corresponant/photographer who's spent a lot of time actually in iraq with the iraqi people and some pencil pushing bureaucrat who seemed to think he had some idea of what was going on because he's been rubbing shoulders with a few people who also think they know what's going on.

The older guy is Robert Fisk and the other guy is a journalist for the Indo. I think his name is Mark Dooley.
Fisk totally outclassed him, parts were funny although that remark that the Indo. guy passed about the mortar attack (they must have know you were there Robert, or something to that effect) was totally out of line and showed him up for what he is.
Don't forget, he reads blogs too so he must know what's going on

SkepticOne

DadaKopf wrote:

There were all these studies done after WWII into why only 2% of combatants actually did the killing that secured allied victory, but the same analysis was applied to German soldiers, too.

The answer was that the 2% were all sociopaths. Not that they didn't function normally in civilian life, but when faced with the neccessity to kill other human beings, they often relished in the act. These are the people who were called 'heroes'. The remaining 98% broke down under the pressure of battle because there's something hard-wired into the human body that makes killing others such an overwhelming act that they simply hid, ran away or broke down. It looks like we're programmed not to murder each other.

The apparent low figure probably comes from a book by S.L.A Marshal called "Men Against Fire", except that his figure was 15%-20%. His methods have since come under attack (see Roger Spiller, "SLA Marshal and the Ratio of Fire") and most historians believe the figures were higher than this. The figure in Vietnam was, apparently, 90%.

But I would say you are correct that training is necessary for most people to overcome their natural aversion to killing other human beings.

Moriarty

I'd contest it being a 'natural aversion' - rather, it's one of the most basic principles instilled by society. There's a difference.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pete

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Now that you mention it, I seem to remember someone promising streets lined with flower-waving Iraqi's....

The guy is a discredited Anti-American commentator.

Discredited? By whom? John Malkovich?

For some reason *cough* (leftist bias) the media in this country love to give him the airwaves.

The airtime he gets wouldn't have anything to do with his experience and insight, then?

Zombrex

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

:rolleyes:

Doesn't support the war so he must be Anti-American ... oh please, is that old chestnut still going around, you sound like a Republican Senetor ... he hates everything american does he? .. the music, the culture, the people .. or maybe he just doesn't agree with the current american government's foreign policy :rolleyes:

And how exactly was he "discredited"

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Liberial media bias ... in Ireland ... are you f**king kidding me ... what drugs are you smoking and where can I get them

Frank Grimes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Regardless of what you may think of him in general, he really did show up that guy from the Indo. on the Late Late, that's what I was referring to.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

solas

If I remove myself emotionally from the situation I can see that America is doing what it thinks is right in the given situation, whether I or anyone else here thinks it's right or not is irrelevant. (obviously)
Ireland does have a leftist slant with regard to the current American administration, do you think we are all missing a huge big point, (if so will ysomeone please point it out) or are we just all very weak minded liberal fanatics and that we really can't tell the difference between right and wrong?
I remember the US and Ireland have always been as close as peas in a pod, is the relationship failing because of economic and political developments or is it just a failure via irish mentality, or is it something more sinister like sublime media control of the masses? (because it does seem to be a majority conscience thing)
Why are the Irish so anti-US foriegn policy, surely we don't want them to fail..do we?



Bear in mind it's late, the answer to my question might be blindingly obvious and I just can't see it.

pete

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Not true? The results of some quick googling:

CNN / Reuters:

Iraqi forces moved on Saturday to set oil-filled trenches ablaze around the city in an apparent bid to create a smokescreen to hinder air strikes by U.S. and British forces.

CBS News:

In 106-degree temperatures, amid the smoke of trenches of oil set afire by the Iraqis, Marines pressed past clusters of refugees on foot, begging for water.

http://www.suntimes.co.za/2003/04/06/news/world/world01.asp

A column of 30 US armoured vehicles penetrated southern areas of the city, at one stage reaching what a spokesman called the “heart” of the city. They destroyed several Iraqi tanks...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83336,00.html

Along the way, however, the skeletons of about 30 Iraqi tanks, armored personnel carriers, army trucks and other vehicles could be seen along the roadside.

http://www.dailyherald.com/special/iraq/wwi_paststory.asp?intID=3771654

They met occasionally stiff resistance, battling Iraqi tanks as well as army, Republican Guard and Fedayeen forces.

so I think it's fair to say that Fisk let us down with his reporting.

Well based on the above evidence of both Iraqi tanks in Baghdad & burning oil-filled trenches, I think it's fair to say that you're wrong.

In fact it was like he was repackaging Comical Ali press releases. Take this quote for example.

So, two years on, you think it's been "quick and easy"?

Redleslie2

pete wrote:

So, two years on, you think it's been "quick and easy"?

No mention of the 1,342 Iraq Forces Killed Since June in those stats I notice. They don't matter.

sovtek

Redleslie2 wrote:

No mention of the 1,342 Iraq Forces Killed Since June in those stats I notice. They don't matter.

Operation Get Behind The Darkies.

The 20k-100k Iraqi civilians aren't important either.

Zombrex

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The death of Arafat was covered as if an important world leader had died. I don't remember any commentary on the mans moral orientation, at least from RTE, which is exactly how it is supposed to be. You seem to think that leftist bias is the same as not denouncing him or putting forward an personal opinion of him that you agree with. If they don't denounce him as a terrorist they must support him[/i. THat is exactly the same crap Fox News come up with when attacking CNN or NBC. It is not a news organisations responsibility to express personal feeling of an individual, be they good or bad. Not denouncing him is not that same as supporting him. You can make up your own mind if you support him or don't support him.

daveirl wrote:

How about the fact that Morning Ireland presenters were grasping at straws for a Kerry victory on Nov 3rd. Pat Kenny almost did a funeral like show that morning. And that's just the foreign stuff, the anti-sucess bias in Ireland is clearly evident. Guys like Michael O'Leary are regularly slated in the papers not praised as the fantastic sucesses they are.

Sigh ... you should really work for Fox News.

Firstly, fundamentally it is the responsibility of news and current affairs programs to tackle the spin and dis-information that is put out by governments and corrporations. Why? Because who else will. The purpose of the press is to protect the interests of the general public, not to praise and applaud and support companies or individuals, like O'Leary. Are you fecking kinding me. You want Morning Ireland to run a we love Michael O'Leary program.

Secondly the Pat Kenney show represents the views of Pat Kenny, who is not someone I would classify as "left wing" (not being a Bush supporter doesn't mean you are left wing any more than not being a Nazi means you are Communist). But forgetting that, it is very easy to find much more right wing talk shows and discussion programs on Irish radio, that express right wing views on everything from immirgration to politics to religion. If you don't agree with don't listen to it, no problem.

The idea that Irish media is largely left wing is completely laughable

bbbaldy

Its basically down to what you want to believe.

Fisk: an independent reporter in the country, not embedded, reporting on what he sees and hears.

Indo guy: Not there and wont go there, reporting on second hand information recieved from god only knows.

Quote: Winston Churchill, 'The first casualty of war is the truth'

Hairy Homer

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Yep. Fisk got that very wrong. Stalingrad only lasted seven months. How long has it been since Bush proclaimed 'Mission accomplished'?

And people who complain about a leftist bias in today's media are talking through their hole. What was biased about RTE putting on a debate between Fisk and some munchkin who spends most of his time criticising him in print?

Apart from the fact that it was as big a mismatch as putting Naseem Hamed up against Mike Tyson.

If Dooley gets all his info from blogs, as he admitted, then he should be in here arguing with us numpties instead of mixing it with real reporters who actually go to the places they write about, speak the indigenous language and present their honest conclusions about what's going on.

RTE should bring back George Dempsey, the retired Yank diplomat who barfacedly called the 100,000 people who marched in protest against the start of the war 'dupes' of Saddam who were 'nasty minded and anti-American' and who were persuaded by 'spurious arguments based on bogus facts'.

Er, no George. That would be you lot.

sovtek

From what I can tell Mattis is responsible for that wedding party massacre in Iraq last year....because...you know any big gathering in the Iraqi desert must be a group of terrorists....

http://counterpunch.org/cloughley02082005.html

""Ten miles from the Syrian border and 80 miles from the nearest city and a wedding party? Don't be naïve. Plus they had 30 males of military age with them. How many people go to the middle of the desert to have a wedding party?"."

Bard

Back on topic, I'm sure many people who have played FPS games (like Quake, Unreal, etc.) or who have paintballed before would agree that it IS fun to shoot some people (and in the virtual world, to "frag" them into small kibbly squishy bits).

/me runs off to play some more Unreal Tournament 2003.

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes but that is a game

This is real

The lines are very blurry between what is real and a game when you are killing people from a couple of miles away.

SkepticOne

I'm not really surprised by what he said. I wouldn't be surprised if an insurgent said that they enjoyed killing American invaders either.

What would have surprised me is if he said it was fun to be shot at by some people. This is not a view any army would want to encourage.

Bard

Ah sure the danger and the bullets pinging around your ears is half the fun... canoeing would be nowhere near as much fun if you never capsized.

As for the lines being blurry between the two... I'm sure there's some people in particular I'd seriously thoroughly enjoy eviscerating with a rocket propelled grenade...

SkepticOne

Bard wrote:

Ah sure the danger and the bullets pinging around your ears is half the fun... canoeing would be nowhere near as much fun if you never capsized.

But this would show a disregard for your own safety. As another US general said, the point is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his. Or something like that.

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

I'm not really surprised by what he said. I wouldn't be surprised if an insurgent said that they enjoyed killing American invaders either.

This isn't another "ye sure but they're worse" kinda Rumsfeld defense is it?

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

I'm not really surprised by what he said. I wouldn't be surprised if an insurgent said that they enjoyed killing American invaders either.

I've had/have a few friends in the US military and one sure way to make them get real quiet and glare at you is to ask them if they ever killed anyone.

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

This isn't another "ye sure but they're worse" kinda Rumsfeld defense is it?

No. It doesn't really make sense to talk about one side being worse than the other when they are engaged in war with each other. The situation will only be resolved when one side prevails over the other or some common ground can be reached between the two. When I say I'm not surprised, I'm neither approving or disapproving of the statement.

Bard

sovtek wrote:

I've had/have a few friends in the US military and one sure way to make them get real quiet and glare at you is to ask them if they ever killed anyone.

Pfft. I did that before. He neither went real quite nor glared at me, but instead went into a sudden "yee-haw!" southern hick rant of something along the lines of "yeah-hah! I bagged me some kills alright, - back in Afghanistan it was. Got them sonsabitches good too... you should have seen the looks on thar faces, boy...". Cue further details about killing random Afghans which I had to cut him short on due to both lack of interest and lack of really needing to hear it.

The guy was a total ass.

sovtek

Bard wrote:

Pfft. I did that before. He neither went real quite nor glared at me, but instead went into a sudden "yee-haw!" southern hick rant of something along the lines of "yeah-hah! I bagged me some kills alright, - back in Afghanistan it was. Got them sonsabitches good too... you should have seen the looks on thar faces, boy...". Cue further details about killing random Afghans which I had to cut him short on due to both lack of interest and lack of really needing to hear it.

...and that's the class of soldier that Mattis belongs to as well. My point was that shouldn't be normal...although the military may be very different today...if Mattis is any indication as well as your backwards-ass friend.
There are also those "wanna be" types who talk **** but have never done the deed nor even been in combat.

The guy was a total ass.

Obviously.

sovtek

Then there are sadistic morons like this .
I don't recognize this place any longer.....

Victor

US general sez it's 'fun to shoot some people'

It possibly is exciting and excitement can be fun.

However, it ain't nice (a) being shot (b) having friends / family shot or (c) having to clean up afterwards.

Ivan

Awh come on. If he had of said its fun to kill muslims (Insert better derogatory term here) then you'd have a point. But ffs, people play computer games to get the rush of "killing" someone. There is a certain thrill in it, you cant fault the man for his honesty or perhaps more accurately, his lack of subtlety.

sovtek

Ivan wrote:

Awh come on. If he had of said its fun to kill muslims (Insert better derogatory term here) then you'd have a point. But ffs, people play computer games to get the rush of "killing" someone.
I mean I love CS like the next computer geek....but feckinhell.......

Is it just me or is there a world of difference in the thrill of competition when nobody is really going to die and actually committing the act.
And is it just me or is it really repugnant to take pleasure in killing someone not to mention pathological.
Soldier or no I don't think it's normal to enjoy killing people.

There is a certain thrill in it, you cant fault the man for his honesty or perhaps more accurately, his lack of subtlety.

Really???!!!!! Have you done it yourself?

solas

Is it just me or is there a world of difference in the thrill of competition when nobody is really going to die and actually committing the act.
And is it just me or is it really repugnant to take pleasure in killing someone not to mention pathological.
Soldier or no I don't think it's normal to enjoy killing people.

I went paintballing last year, wheras I would have been considered a pacifist prior to it, it took me a couple of months to get back to normal after it.
I know its only a game but there is a certain amount of bloodthirstyness involved, you see an enemy and its your job to shoot, better them than you. I was all pumped and ready to join the army afterwards tho.
It does give you a different perspective, in real life its what these people are trained to do and I doubt many of them see the difference in reality, in many ways I suppose they are breeding patholigical soldiers.

<warning: paintball hurts>

A Dub in Glasgo

sovtek wrote:

Is it just me or is there a world of difference in the thrill of competition when nobody is really going to die and actually committing the act.
And is it just me or is it really repugnant to take pleasure in killing someone not to mention pathological.
Soldier or no I don't think it's normal to enjoy killing people.

It is not just you. I think some people equate killing someone to a game they once played and think the person will get up for another potshot.

Moriarty

The US could always say it's not a crime for their soldiers to murder people. Redefining what is and isn't a crime is all the rage these days, apparently


Note: I'm just pointing out certain percieved inconsistancies here, I want to debate norn'iron about as much as I want to pull out my toe nails.

Redleslie2

It was my understanding that armies don't want psychopaths in their ranks because they're undisciplined liabilities who get others killed. I've read piles of soldiers accounts of this and that and I don't think many of them ever described the business as fun. Siegfried Sassoon did I think.

Amazing the amount of rubbish that gets put up here. What next. Rape: a bit of a giggle, human nature, no one dies lol. I wouldn't put it past one or two of the emotionally retarded far right loonspuds here anyway.