NationStates Jolt Archive

Not kidding - that comment straight to you from General Mattis, who leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division. (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html)

The comment, made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, came in reference to fighting insurgents in Iraq. He went on to say, "Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling."

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "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."

About 200 people gathered for the discussion, held at the San Diego Convention Center. While many military members laughed at the comments, a military expert interviewed by NBC 7/39 called the comments "flippant."

"I was a little surprised," said Retired Vice Adm. Edward H. Martin. "I don't think any of us who have ever fought in wars liked to kill anybody."

Mattis also discussed operational tactics of the war, calling on military members not to underestimate the capacity of terrorists.

Mattis leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division in Iraq. He is in charge of the Marine Corps combat development and is based in Quantico, Va.


Yep, killing people is just a great way to spend the day....

:rolleyes:

At least he's honest! Liberation through death!

Not kidding - that comment straight to you from General Mattis, who leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division. (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html)




Yep, killing people is just a great way to spend the day....

:rolleyes:

You don't know how to take a joke do you?

Time to return some stars, general ... eeehhh private!

His comment about Afghanistan is surprising, because no army is without its wife beaters.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"
I would imagine being at war would desensitize you to alot of things too.

Do you like fishing or hunting?

Do you like fishing or hunting?
I live in a city.

And I still don't see how he can characterise an entire nation as wife beaters, while ignoring it within his own ranks. Negligence, right there.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"
I would imagine being at war would desensitize you to alot of things too.

Do you like fishing or hunting?

hunting rocks! Tally ho!

Well to be fair, it probably is a whole lot of fun.

Sorry, but this pink lefty moderate liberal (or whatever the resident Conservatives on here want to refer to me as) agrees in principle with what the General is saying. You train a guy to kill, and after a while he is going to get desensitized to it. It will more than likely become "fun".

If you don't want some soldiers to eventually find fun in their occupation then don't train soldiers to kill. See how they fight then.

Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When victory's a massacre
The final swing is not a drill
It's how many people I can kill

Sorry, but this pink lefty moderate liberal (or whatever the resident Conservatives on here want to refer to me as) agrees in principle with what the General is saying. You train a guy to kill, and after a while he is going to get desensitized to it. It will more than likely become "fun".

If you don't want some soldiers to eventually find fun in their occupation then don't train soldiers to kill. See how they fight then.

Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When victory's a massacre
The final swing is not a drill
It's how many people I can kill

Most soldiers report satisfaction/sense of accomplishment. Not fun.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"
I would imagine being at war would desensitize you to alot of things too.

Do you like fishing or hunting?
im glad some one here doesnt have a conscience, off to the army with you

im glad some one here doesnt have a conscience, off to the army with you

No conscience means Marines. If you've still got one nagging at you join the Army.

I live in a city.

And I still don't see how he can characterise an entire nation as wife beaters, while ignoring it within his own ranks. Negligence, right there.

Yep. It's actually not too different from saying its okay for terrorists to attack Americans because Americans are nasty people who like to kill...

And I still don't see how he can characterise an entire nation as wife beaters, Agreed but then im still sane (for the most part) but then ive never been to war. while ignoring it within his own ranks. Negligence, right there.
To claim he is ignoring it is a bit of a stretch. Something like this would have to be brought to his attention first, im not saying that ignorance excuses this, im saying that these things need to be given more attention, and be conveiged to the people in charge.

I don't enjoy killing, but I do enjoy combat. That's what my friends and I do. We sword-fight, fist-fight, airsoft gun-fight, etc., because combat is a rush.

Seriously, why do you suppose Halo 2 and the like got so popular? Storylines? Psssshh. It's the firepower people like.

So I can understand General Mattis' sentiment.

hunting rocks! Tally ho!
So you obviously like killing

I don't enjoy killing, but I do enjoy combat. That's what my friends and I do. We sword-fight, fist-fight, airsoft gun-fight, etc., because combat is a rush.

Seriously, why do you suppose Halo 2 and the like got so popular? Storylines? Psssshh. It's the firepower people like.

So I can understand General Mattis' sentiment.
i like killing stuff (fps and free fight games are bad ass (i dont know if they have a genre but you jsut walk around a level and beat the shit out of stuff)) but does that mean im gonig to do it and real life and consider killing other human beings fun? no.

He said its fun to shoot guys who smack women...I can understand that. He also didnt characterize the entire country as folks who smacked women either, and he also wasnt talking about the Corps. So why are you folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill? He's a MARINE CORPS GENERAL, not a politican. There is not one military on this planet where you will not find a general who likes a battle. There are two folks in this thread...those who will see this statement for what it is and those who wont.

im glad some one here doesnt have a conscience, off to the army with you
lol to think in the last couple of days I have been contemplating joining my countries reserves.
I have a conscience I do what I believe is right. Beating wives and shooting people are not what I believe to be right.

Not kidding - that comment straight to you from General Mattis, who leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division. (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html)

Yep, killing people is just a great way to spend the day....

:rolleyes:

Zepp, it all depends on who you kill. People like this are a necessity to have around (not that you would invite one to dinner). If you didn't have people who were like this, then it would be impossible to conduct a war against people who might want to subjugate you and kill you.

Think about it. Do you honestly think that soldiers shouldn't think this way? They spend the majority of their initial training learning this - if they don't already think this way (every American soldier is a volunteer - while most non-combat soldiers may not have signed up for this, those in the ground combat arms such as infantry and Special Forces are already thinking along these lines).

Would you rather have these people supervised and hanging out in Afghanistan, venting their idea of fun on people we wouldn't mind killing (Taliban, etc), or would you rather these young folks hung out here and did the Columbine thing and the drug dealer shootouts here in the US?

Come on. Even Orwell said that the only reason we live the lives we do is because there are men willing to do this sort of thing on our behalf. If you don't think that's true, or good, then you're pretty naive.

Or maybe you drink too much Evian.

Zepp, it all depends on who you kill. People like this are a necessity to have around (not that you would invite one to dinner). If you didn't have people who were like this, then it would be impossible to conduct a war against people who might want to subjugate you and kill you.

Think about it. Do you honestly think that soldiers shouldn't think this way? They spend the majority of their initial training learning this - if they don't already think this way (every American soldier is a volunteer - while most non-combat soldiers may not have signed up for this, those in the ground combat arms such as infantry and Special Forces are already thinking along these lines).

Would you rather have these people supervised and hanging out in Afghanistan, venting their idea of fun on people we wouldn't mind killing (Taliban, etc), or would you rather these young folks hung out here and did the Columbine thing and the drug dealer shootouts here in the US?

Come on. Even Orwell said that the only reason we live the lives we do is because there are men willing to do this sort of thing on our behalf. If you don't think that's true, or good, then you're pretty naive.

Or maybe you drink too much Evian.

i sbumit there is a difference between enjoying killing another person and the ability to do so

i sbumit there is a difference between enjoying killing another person and the ability to do so

I am convinced that people who enjoy what they do will do the best job of it.

And, in any population, there's a certain percentage of people who enjoy it.

So, would you rather have them on a leash, doing the country's bidding, or would you rather have them loose and unsupervised on the streets until they actually kill someone and then, only then, can you imprison them?

His comment about Afghanistan is surprising, because no army is without its wife beaters.

how do you know? have you secretly filmed inside the home of at least one soldier from every army in the world?

What would Patton say?

"Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."

"You are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight."

"We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket."

"We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks."

In that light, what Mattis said is unremarkable.

You should read "Generation Kill" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399151931/qid=1107353842/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4131152-6316153?v=glance&s=books), it follows some of the troops Mattis commanded. I think you'll have a much better idea of where he's coming from.

how do you know? have you secretly filmed inside the home of at least one soldier from every army in the world?

The wife beating comment is quite inane, as research has proven that there are no class or occupation identifiers in Western society tied to wife beating.

Wife beating, spousal abuse, and stalking have no economic, social, or class indicators. It occurs in equal percentages at all levels.

The idea that a soldier is more likely to be a wife beater is a social myth - and indeed, is an insult thrown by someone with a colossal amount of ignorance.

Try talking to the people here: http://www.saveyourspirit.org/

You'll find out how stupid you really are.

I am convinced that people who enjoy what they do will do the best job of it.

And, in any population, there's a certain percentage of people who enjoy it.

So, would you rather have them on a leash, doing the country's bidding, or would you rather have them loose and unsupervised on the streets until they actually kill someone and then, only then, can you imprison them?

You are suggesting that people who join the military do so out of some inate desire to kill rather than to serve and defend their country? Or to get a free college tuition?

I think that most military people I have been associated with would disagree with you wholeheartedly.

I mean - if they did it because it was so much fun then you wouldn't have the problems with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from returning veterans that you do.

The problem I might have with this guy and his statement...

Detractors almost certainly suspect that the statement's true. But when you're engaged in an unnecessary war, trying to win hearts and minds at home and abroad, you don't go "Yup, I like to kill, hehe!"

I mean, why open your mouth, remove all doubt and give us detractors something else to bitch about? 'Specially if you're already annoyed with us.

The wife beating comment is quite inane, as research has proven that there are no class or occupation identifiers in Western society tied to wife beating.

Wife beating, spousal abuse, and stalking have no economic, social, or class indicators. It occurs in equal percentages at all levels.

The idea that a soldier is more likely to be a wife beater is a social myth - and indeed, is an insult thrown by someone with a colossal amount of ignorance.

Try talking to the people here: http://www.saveyourspirit.org/

You'll find out how stupid you really are.

Or, try reading the DoD report which recognizes the problem (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul1996/n07301996_9607301.html).

Is it higher than in the civillian population? I don't know. Nor really do I care in the context of the General's statement.

But it DOES happen and the general suggested through his words that this should be a capital crime punishable by death. Which, according to DoD stats seems to inidcate that about 3% of the military should be shot "for fun".

Although I also grant that the General used abuse as a single reason why he disrespects the Arabs rather than the entire reason for his "enjoyment" at the sight of their dead bodies.

You are suggesting that people who join the military do so out of some inate desire to kill rather than to serve and defend their country? Or to get a free college tuition?

I think that most military people I have been associated with would disagree with you wholeheartedly.

I mean - if they did it because it was so much fun then you wouldn't have the problems with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from returning veterans that you do.

The percentage of people with PTSD is far, far lower than it used to be in previous wars.

You obviously don't know many US infantrymen. And definitely don't know any SEALS or Special Forces people.

I know many, many of each. I haven't met anyone who didn't join longing for the day when they would be in combat. Many relish close combat especially - it's frightening, but it's a definite high - there's a big adrenaline boost you get from winning - which means you're going to be killing a lot of people on the other side and you're going to live.

People who join because they need a job or want the college benefits usually pick a specialty that avoids direct combat. Only about 1 in 12 soldiers are actually "combat" oriented troops. So what you say about the non-combat troops may be true. They also comprise most of the psychologically injured after a war. But, you probably believe in the myth of the PTSD Vietnam Veteran.

The General is a combat man. He was with combat troops. They are kicking ass and loving it.

I should introduce you to Mr. Dabney. He really enjoyed Vietnam, as did all of his friends. There's not a PTSD case amongst them, and they all did multiple tours in close combat jungle fighting.

Zepp, it all depends on who you kill. People like this are a necessity to have around (not that you would invite one to dinner). If you didn't have people who were like this, then it would be impossible to conduct a war against people who might want to subjugate you and kill you.

Think about it. Do you honestly think that soldiers shouldn't think this way? They spend the majority of their initial training learning this - if they don't already think this way (every American soldier is a volunteer - while most non-combat soldiers may not have signed up for this, those in the ground combat arms such as infantry and Special Forces are already thinking along these lines).

Would you rather have these people supervised and hanging out in Afghanistan, venting their idea of fun on people we wouldn't mind killing (Taliban, etc), or would you rather these young folks hung out here and did the Columbine thing and the drug dealer shootouts here in the US?

Come on. Even Orwell said that the only reason we live the lives we do is because there are men willing to do this sort of thing on our behalf. If you don't think that's true, or good, then you're pretty naive.

Or maybe you drink too much Evian.

Whisper. As with Cassini, if you are suggesting that every person who joins the army does so as the best personal alternative to going on a murderous rampage in society, then frankly you are being more disrespecful to your service men and women than almost any person ever has been on this board.

You are, in effect, labelling them all as homocidal sociopaths who fortunately had the good sense to recognize that trait and so joined the army to protect society from themselves.

You don't know how to take a joke do you?

Tell us a joke and maybe I'll laugh. what the general said wasn't a joke, it's an admission of unsuitability for his post.

Tell us a joke and maybe I'll laugh. what the general said wasn't a joke, it's an admission of unsuitability for his post.

I point to all the stuff former US generals have said in the past..some of the best Generals in US history have said far worse. What he said was it's fun to shoot guys who smack women. Again..I'm not seeing the major problem here. He's not advocating wholesale murder of an entire people or saying killing for the sake of it is fun. He's saying going out and shooting someone who takes some pleasure in smacking a woman isnt a guy and thus okay go ahead and shoot them.

If you didn't have people who were like this, then it would be impossible to conduct a war against people who might want to subjugate you and kill you.

I didnt realize the Iraqi people had it in mind to subjugate and kill the American people. Gee, you learn something new every day.

Nice that you consider your fellow Americans as an expendable commodity. Go team!

He's not advocating wholesale murder of an entire people or saying killing for the sake of it is fun. He's saying going out and shooting someone who takes some pleasure in smacking a woman isnt a guy and thus okay go ahead and shoot them.

How would you know if someone had assaulted his wife by looking at them?

Whisper. As with Cassini, if you are suggesting that every person who joins the army does so as the best personal alternative to going on a murderous rampage in society, then frankly you are being more disrespecful to your service men and women than almost any person ever has been on this board.

You are, in effect, labelling them all as homocidal sociopaths who fortunately had the good sense to recognize that trait and so joined the army to protect society from themselves.

No, I'm just labelling the ones who chose the infantry in that manner. I didn't call them homicidal sociopaths, though. I think that there is a difference between controlled and uncontrolled violence, and that some people are predisposed to being violent - they can be cultivated into controlled killers.

But to be the best, you have to have what they term the warrior spirit. You have to be more aggressive, and maintain your composure more than the enemy in combat. You have to shoot first and maintain the initiative.

And, you have to enjoy your work. While you might find killing civilians offensive, killing bad guys can be absolutely fun, especially if they are completely incompetent in combat.

I'm not calling anyone a sociopath. The system is preventing them from becoming sociopaths - a path that society would take them down through television and movies and drugs if there weren't this outlet.

They are productive members of society. They are our protectors. It's like making them into sheepdogs, instead of letting them run wild as wolves.

Point of fact - in close combat, if you're hesitant to kill, if you think it's something that should be done only as a last resort, if you want to call out for them to surrender as a first option - you're going to be dead, and you're going to kill a lot of your friends in the process.

Probably the most noble people I've ever met. I don't see you putting your life on the line for your beliefs.

The percentage of people with PTSD is far, far lower than it used to be in previous wars.

You obviously don't know many US infantrymen. And definitely don't know any SEALS or Special Forces people.

I know many, many of each. I haven't met anyone who didn't join longing for the day when they would be in combat. Many relish close combat especially - it's frightening, but it's a definite high - there's a big adrenaline boost you get from winning - which means you're going to be killing a lot of people on the other side and you're going to live.

People who join because they need a job or want the college benefits usually pick a specialty that avoids direct combat. Only about 1 in 12 soldiers are actually "combat" oriented troops. So what you say about the non-combat troops may be true. They also comprise most of the psychologically injured after a war. But, you probably believe in the myth of the PTSD Vietnam Veteran.

The General is a combat man. He was with combat troops. They are kicking ass and loving it.

I should introduce you to Mr. Dabney. He really enjoyed Vietnam, as did all of his friends. There's not a PTSD case amongst them, and they all did multiple tours in close combat jungle fighting.

Given that my Uncle was a Commander int he Navy and head of personel for the Canadian Forces up until he retired, and given that my cousin, now a Major, has been on multiple tours in combat areas of the Baltics and Afghanistan , I think I have spent more than enough time around military people to be able to evaluate their mindset.

Frankly, with some exceptions, you are full of shit.

Are Special Froces the most aggresive soldiers? yep. Are you telling me that all 150,000 servicemen in Iraq are full-time special forces? Or all of the troops that served in Afghanistan? Hell no. About half are weekend warriors on combat rotation.

Tell you what though. You head on down to Bethesda naval hospital or to your nearest VA, and stand outside with a placard that says "I know you loved killing and I'm proud of you for that. anyone in there with PTSD is wimpy faker." and see how things work out for you.

Then c'mon back and tell us how it went OK?

I point to all the stuff former US generals have said in the past..some of the best Generals in US history have said far worse. What he said was it's fun to shoot guys who smack women. Again..I'm not seeing the major problem here. He's not advocating wholesale murder of an entire people or saying killing for the sake of it is fun. He's saying going out and shooting someone who takes some pleasure in smacking a woman isnt a guy and thus okay go ahead and shoot them.

the general made a sweeping generalization - do you suppose that each and every Iraqi insurgent is a wife-beater? I could just as easily say that each and every US serviceman is a pedophile, so it's fun when they're killed. How's that suit you?

the general made a sweeping generalization - do you suppose that each and every Iraqi insurgent is a wife-beater? I could just as easily say that each and every US serviceman is a pedophile, so it's fun when they're killed. How's that suit you?

The Taliban was opennly anti-female though. They followed one of the most strict interpetations of Islamic law on the planet. Are you going to tell me the majority of Taliban fighters respected women? With the Generals statement there rings an air of truth to it. You could call every US serviceman a pedophile but what you lack is evidence of that, or even the precendent of a wide spread problem in the U.S. military of pedophilia.

As for the Iraqi insurgents, it really depends. You have multiple groups of those terrorist bastards from former baathists trying to regain power to the religious zealots.

No, I'm just labelling the ones who chose the infantry in that manner. I didn't call them homicidal sociopaths, though. I think that there is a difference between controlled and uncontrolled violence, and that some people are predisposed to being violent - they can be cultivated into controlled killers.

But to be the best, you have to have what they term the warrior spirit. You have to be more aggressive, and maintain your composure more than the enemy in combat. You have to shoot first and maintain the initiative.

And, you have to enjoy your work. While you might find killing civilians offensive, killing bad guys can be absolutely fun, especially if they are completely incompetent in combat.

I'm not calling anyone a sociopath. The system is preventing them from becoming sociopaths - a path that society would take them down through television and movies and drugs if there weren't this outlet.

They are productive members of society. They are our protectors. It's like making them into sheepdogs, instead of letting them run wild as wolves.

Point of fact - in close combat, if you're hesitant to kill, if you think it's something that should be done only as a last resort, if you want to call out for them to surrender as a first option - you're going to be dead, and you're going to kill a lot of your friends in the process.

Probably the most noble people I've ever met. I don't see you putting your life on the line for your beliefs.

Really?

Would you rather have these people supervised and hanging out in Afghanistan, venting their idea of fun on people we wouldn't mind killing (Taliban, etc), or would you rather these young folks hung out here and did the Columbine thing and the drug dealer shootouts here in the US?


That is about the worst thing I have ever read here as a statement about the US serviceman.

And it speaks for itself.

With the Generals statement there rings an air of truth to it.

Hot air, perhaps. It still doesn't make it true - he's just found a way to persuade himself and others of the rightness of actually enjoying the suffering and death they inflict on their fellow human beings. I hope his convenient excuses give him and his underlings the ability to live with themselves, but I doubt it.

The Taliban was opennly anti-female though. They followed one of the most strict interpetations of Islamic law on the planet. Are you going to tell me the majority of Taliban fighters respected women? With the Generals statement there rings an air of truth to it. You could call every US serviceman a pedophile but what you lack is evidence of that, or even the precendent of a wide spread problem in the U.S. military of pedophilia.

As for the Iraqi insurgents, it really depends. You have multiple groups of those terrorist bastards from former baathists trying to regain power to the religious zealots.

Anyway, this came up while he was discussing Iraqi insurgents. One has nothing to do with the other. That he refers to situation X while discussing situation Y is pointless and obviously biased. This just serves to illustrate his unsuitability for his post.

Would you rather have these people supervised and hanging out in Afghanistan, venting their idea of fun on people we wouldn't mind killing (Taliban, etc), or would you rather these young folks hung out here and did the Columbine thing and the drug dealer shootouts here in the US?


It's people like you that truly make me long for Helter Skelter. Frankly, you deserve it.

Hot air, perhaps. It still doesn't make it true - he's just found a way to persuade himself and others of the rightness of actually enjoying the suffering and death they inflict on their fellow human beings. I hope his convenient excuses give him and his underlings the ability to live with themselves, but I doubt it.

Doesnt make it true? I think multiple womens groups would disagree with your statement, and furthermore here you go:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1025149

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/17/bush.radio/

http://www.islamfortoday.com/taleban6.htm

http://www.rawa.org/

Dont tell me there is no truth to what the General said. Only the blind would say it didnt happen on a widespread scale.

Not kidding - that comment straight to you from General Mattis, who leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division. (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html)

Yep, killing people is just a great way to spend the day....

:rolleyes:

I agree! I spent two years of my own life doing just that and it's fun as hell! [/SARCASM]

Marines tend to make super-gung-ho statements like that, but this was inappropriate for sure. I have little doubt that his career is over. Sad that so much experience and knowledge will be lost to the Corps, but that's the way things are when you get high enough in the ranks to have to watch what you say.

Anyway, this came up while he was discussing Iraqi insurgents. One has nothing to do with the other. That he refers to situation X while discussing situation Y is pointless and obviously biased. This just serves to illustrate his unsuitability for his post.


Umm..he was talking about Afganistan when he made that statement..try reading that entire little sentence again. It was Afganistan.

I agree! I spent two years of my own life doing just that and it's fun as hell! [/SARCASM]

Marines tend to make super-gung-ho statements like that, but this was inappropriate for sure. I have little doubt that his career is over. Sad that so much experience and knowledge will be lost to the Corps, but that's the way things are when you get high enough in the ranks to have to watch what you say.


In the battle to regain more support for US policy in the Muslim world, comments like this from people leadign the war are huge setbacks. It plays right into the hands of the radicals who are convincing the average Muslim that this really is a new Crusade and an attack on the Muslim faith.

Doesnt make it true? I think multiple womens groups would disagree with your statement, and furthermore here you go:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1025149

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/17/bush.radio/

http://www.islamfortoday.com/taleban6.htm

http://www.rawa.org/

Dont tell me there is no truth to what the General said. Only the blind would say it didnt happen on a widespread scale.

I'm sure I could dig up articles about, say, abused pets in American cities. Does that mean that all Americans are puppy-killing bastards? No, of course not - and if made that assertion, you'd tear a strip off me.

So how is it that an American general can get away with making broad, sweeping generalizations about people he is trying to justify murdering? Especially when in trying to justify killing Iraqis, he alludes to the justifiability of killing Afghanis for mistreating women? We're talking apples and oranges here.

Well, seeing as some people say that what The General said should be taken as a "joke" ie having fun killing people, it is perfectly ok that when Al-Qaeda says that it is fun killing Americans, we should take that as a joke too.

Cool. Let's laugh at the mass killings everyone! They deserved it! It's funny because we don't know them!

Killing. It will have you in fits of laughter. Look at them people blown into a million pieces by a chaingun! ho ho ho! Look at that person forced to jump from a skyscraper on September 11th 2001! Hehehe!

Death! The ultimate comedy for all the family!

If you find killings and genocide funny, then may your laughter keep you warm in hell.

I'm sure I could dig up articles about, say, abused pets in American cities. Does that mean that all Americans are puppy-killing bastards? No, of course not - and if made that assertion, you'd tear a strip off me.

So how is it that an American general can get away with making broad, sweeping generalizations about people he is trying to justify murdering? Especially when in trying to justify killing Iraqis, he alludes to the justifiability of killing Afghanis for mistreating women? We're talking apples and oranges here.

And again..those articles, chronicle WIDE SPREAD ABUSE, you can find an article about one or two sick indiviuals in the US who torture animals but again your trying to draw a false analogy because the fact of the matter is its not wide spread in the US. This is pretty much fact that the Taliban were repressive hardliners toward not only women but other ethnic groups as well..but that strays from the point that your pretty much ignoring the fact what the General said was true because you dont agree with other things he said.

He didnt say all Afgan men were wife beaters now did he? He said you got guys who smack women around. He also wasnt making that statement about Iraqis. He opennly said when you go into AFGANISTAN. How many times are you going to miss that part in his statement?

Well, seeing as some people say that what The General said should be taken as a "joke" ie having fun killing people, it is perfectly ok that when Al-Qaeda says that it is fun killing Americans, we should take that as a joke too.

Cool. Let's laugh at the mass killings everyone! They deserved it! It's funny because we don't know them!

Killing. It will have you in fits of laughter. Look at them people blown into a million pieces by a chaingun! ho ho ho! Look at that person forced to jump from a skyscraper on September 11th 2001! Hehehe!

Death! The ultimate comedy for all the family!

If you find killings and genocide funny, then may your laughter keep you warm in hell.


Oddly enough, those same people who were most vocal here in defense of this "humour" were just complaining about the genocide in the Sudan only yesterday.....

In the battle to regain more support for US policy in the Muslim world, comments like this from people leadign the war are huge setbacks. It plays right into the hands of the radicals who are convincing the average Muslim that this really is a new Crusade and an attack on the Muslim faith.

Perhaps surprisingly enough, I totallly agree with this. It's a sad fact of life in today's world that anyone of note at all who makes any statement which can be misconstrued, taken out of context and/or misused, will most likely drop off the radar as a "person of note." Unfortunately, these are often people who have great expertise in some field, but little skill or finesse when dealing with the media.

This is one of my great worries for the future. If we ever reach a point where almost everyone has to guard their speech the way the politicos have to guard theirs now, what sort of world will this become? I suspect a rather bland one. :(

EDIT: Fortunately, there will probably always be old farts like me who don't give a shit what anyone thinks about what we say, and think the media should go straight to hell! :D

Given that my Uncle was a Commander int he Navy and head of personel for the Canadian Forces up until he retired, and given that my cousin, now a Major, has been on multiple tours in combat areas of the Baltics and Afghanistan , I think I have spent more than enough time around military people to be able to evaluate their mindset.

Frankly, with some exceptions, you are full of shit.

Are Special Froces the most aggresive soldiers? yep. Are you telling me that all 150,000 servicemen in Iraq are full-time special forces? Or all of the troops that served in Afghanistan? Hell no. About half are weekend warriors on combat rotation.

Tell you what though. You head on down to Bethesda naval hospital or to your nearest VA, and stand outside with a placard that says "I know you loved killing and I'm proud of you for that. anyone in there with PTSD is wimpy faker." and see how things work out for you.

Then c'mon back and tell us how it went OK?

I'm talking about infantrymen, and so is the General. He's also talking about Marines.

Navy men, with the exception of SEALS, are not close combat folks, and don't have the urge to engage in close combat.

PTSD is real. It's just that nowadays, you're much more likely to be a PTSD casualty if you're not infantry. The proportion of soldiers who are combat arms is very low today.

I'm sure you would like to believe that every soldier who goes to Iraq comes back home a PTSD casualty. But it's not true - it's just your black wishful thinking.

Perhaps surprisingly enough, I totallly agree with this. It's a sad fact of life in today's world that anyone of note at all who makes any statement which can be misconstrued, taken out of context and/or misused, will most likely drop off the radar as a "person of note." Unfortunately, these are often people who have great expertise in some field, but little skill or finesse when dealing with the media.

This is one of my great worries for the future. If we ever reach a point where almost everyone has to guard their speech the way the politicos have to guard theirs now, what sort of world will this become? I suspect a rather bland one. :(

EDIT: Fortunately, there will probably always be old farts like me who don't give a shit what anyone thinks about what we say, and think the media should go straight to hell! :D

Forrest, better a bland world in which to live than an exciting one where killing is considered as 'fun'.

Perhaps surprisingly enough, I totallly agree with this. It's a sad fact of life in today's world that anyone of note at all who makes any statement which can be misconstrued, taken out of context and/or misused, will most likely drop off the radar as a "person of note." Unfortunately, these are often people who have great expertise in some field, but little skill or finesse when dealing with the media.

This is one of my great worries for the future. If we ever reach a point where almost everyone has to guard their speech the way the politicos have to guard theirs now, what sort of world will this become? I suspect a rather bland one. :(

EDIT: Fortunately, there will probably always be old farts like me who don't give a shit what anyone thinks about what we say, and think the media should go straight to hell! :D

The right to speak your mind is enshrined in the Constitutions of most western countries for a reason. The fact that doing so might have consequences is just something we all have to evaluate for ourselves, and we all learn to be "circumstancially aware" of where we are speaking at a young age. The words you used with your friends that never crosed your lips in front of parents or teachers for example.


And then sometimes you screw up and got sent to your room.... or a nice desk job at an Alert base in Nunavut.....

He didnt say all Afgan men were wife beaters now did he? He said you got guys who smack women around. He also wasnt making that statement about Iraqis. He opennly said when you go into AFGANISTAN. How many times are you going to miss that part in his statement?

The original post said, "The comment, made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, came in reference to fighting insurgents in Iraq. He went on to say, "Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling."

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "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."

Yes, he DID say Afghanistan. So what does Afghanistan have to do with IRAQ? How many times are YOU going to miss that part from the ARTICLE, pally?

I'm talking about infantrymen, and so is the General. He's also talking about Marines.

Navy men, with the exception of SEALS, are not close combat folks, and don't have the urge to engage in close combat.

PTSD is real. It's just that nowadays, you're much more likely to be a PTSD casualty if you're not infantry. The proportion of soldiers who are combat arms is very low today.


I'm sure you would like to believe that every soldier who goes to Iraq comes back home a PTSD casualty. But it's not true - it's just your black wishful thinking.

??????????

Nice backpedal, and nice attempt to turn it around and put it on me.

But trying to jump from a statement that recognizes the existance of PTSD to some rediculous notion that I wish PTSD upon the troops - especially given that I have also stated that I have family in the military - is a sad tactic that should be beneath you Whisper.

It was YOU that called it "a myth" after all

Oddly enough, those same people who were most vocal here in defense of this "humour" were just complaining about the genocide in the Sudan only yesterday.....

The difference is, I'm afraid, is that those commiting genocide in Sudan are not Americans. If they were Americans, the killings in Sudan would be referred to as a "just war" where "Detention camps" were neccessary to hold "terrorists." or "enemy combatants".

Referring to those who died or tortured in the Sudanese camps, it would be the result of "a few rogue soldiers" and not "systematic".

The Sudanese Government justifies their holding camps where people are shot if they venture outside as holding camps for terrorists. Familiar?

It's alright for an US General to admit killing people is fun, because nobody will accuse him of instigating mass murder, just him having "fun".

If Al-Qaeda did, they would be rightly described as instigating mass murder, and not having "fun".

The original post said, "The comment, made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, came in reference to fighting insurgents in Iraq. He went on to say, "Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling."

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "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."

Yes, he DID say Afghanistan. So what does Afghanistan have to do with IRAQ? How many times are YOU going to miss that part from the ARTICLE, pally?

Because he was talking about Iraq one moment and went off into a tangent about Afganistan. You do realize people do this on a regular basis right? Plenty of professors will start off talking about one thing and then talk about something related to it in someway. "Yes I enjoy fighting wars. Fighting in Iraq is a hoot I like brawling...now you go into Afganistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they dont wear a veil. You know, guys like that aint got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

This whole thing comes from the very last setence...which...is him going into a rant about Afganistan..are you purposely being blind to that fact or what? Maybe English isnt your first language or something and you dont pick up on something like that.

The Sudanese Government justifies their holding camps where people are shot if they venture outside as holding camps for terrorists. Familiar?


Yes, the bottle is uncorked, the genie is out, and America opened the bottle with Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. There is no longer any moral high-ground for America to disparage the actions of tin-plate dictatorships, having elected to comport themselves as one.

Because he was talking about Iraq one moment and went off into a tangent about Afganistan. You do realize people do this on a regular basis right? Plenty of professors will start off talking about one thing and then talk about something related to it in someway. "Yes I enjoy fighting wars. Fighting in Iraq is a hoot I like brawling...now you go into Afganistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they dont wear a veil. You know, guys like that aint got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

This whole thing comes from the very last setence...which...is him going into a rant about Afganistan..are you purposely being blind to that fact or what? Maybe English isnt your first language or something and you dont pick up on something like that.


Or are you just blind to the fact that a leader of US military forces stated that religious muslim men who insist that their women follow the tenents of their faith and wear the veil have "no manhood" and that it is "fun to kill them".

How do you think a direct insult like that plays in the countries where Islamic radicalists are trying to recruit more terrorists? Do you think it helps them? Or hurst them?

Maybe next time he can talk about how Jewish men who insist their families eat Kosher have no manhood and should be shot....

Painting groups of people with sweeping brushstrokes and then appointing yourself a gleefull judge, jury and executioner is not a good PR move.

Or are you just blind to the fact that a leader of US military forces stated that religious muslim men who insist that their women follow the tenents of their faith and wear the veil have "no manhood" and that it is "fun to kill them".

How do you think a direct insult like that plays in the countries where Islamic radicalists are trying to recruit more terrorists? Do you think it helps them? Or hurst them?

Maybe next time he can talk about how Jewish men who insist their families eat Kosher have no manhood and should be shot....

Painting groups of people with sweeping brushstrokes and then appointing yourself a gleefull judge, jury and executioner is not a good PR move.

I'm pretty sure he'd feel the same way if the Jewish guy smacked the woman around..he brought up the veil wearing as an example. But the fact remains the guy is a Marine Corps General..not a politican. His job is the business of killing. He carried an M-16, not a bunch of roses. The military culture is highly different from the civilian one. Especially the Marine Corps culture.

Yes, the bottle is uncorked, the genie is out, and America opened the bottle with Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. There is no longer any moral high-ground for America to disparage the actions of tin-plate dictatorships, having elected to comport themselves as one.

Exactly.

While I would agree that letting someone like that speak in public is a bad PR move, that's the kind of person you need - if they know how to follow orders - in close combat.

Bring a wuss to close combat, and we're going to die. It's a known fact.

What's more important - that a general is a great public speaker with savvy PR knowledge, or that he's good at killing the enemy.

Most US generals have been of the latter mold (Eisenhower being a prominent exception).

Forrest, better a bland world in which to live than an exciting one where killing is considered as 'fun'.

Thank you for that. I don't think killing is in any way, manner, shape or form "fun." However, it's a sad fact of life that there are some few who do. Unfortunately many of these gravitate to the military, since this is one of the very few ways they can find their "fun." Fortunately they have always been a very small percentage of the military in the US and can usually be quickly identified, sometimes before they can even sign up.

Tell us a joke and maybe I'll laugh. what the general said wasn't a joke, it's an admission of unsuitability for his post.
A general, especially a general in the most powerful military machine in the world, should not have to censor his comments for the weak-minded if he can do his job. Now, if his job was largely a political one, you could make a case of removing him from his post. It's not. His job is to get results on the battlefield, which he does.

While I would agree that letting someone like that speak in public is a bad PR move, that's the kind of person you need - if they know how to follow orders - in close combat.

Bring a wuss to close combat, and we're going to die. It's a known fact.

What's more important - that a general is a great public speaker with savvy PR knowledge, or that he's good at killing the enemy.

Most US generals have been of the latter mold (Eisenhower being a prominent exception).


Clearly you know very little about the military. There is huge gulf between being a wuss, and taking enjoyment out of killing. And in that gulf lies the bulk of the military - well trained agressive people who want to win (and survive), but who do NOT revel in the taking of another's life.

Clearly you know very little about the military. There is huge gulf between being a wuss, and taking enjoyment out of killing. And in that gulf lies the bulk of the military - well trained agressive people who want to win (and survive), but who do NOT revel in the taking of another's life.

No, I know quite a bit about it.

A general, especially a general in the most powerful military machine in the world, should not have to censor his comments for the weak-minded if he can do his job. Now, if his job was largely a political one, you could make a case of removing him from his post. It's not. His job is to get results on the battlefield, which he does.

.....because it's fun to kill.

This guy is a marine jar head if any of you think that what he said is representitive of general feelings of service men/women you're dillusional. Anyone who equates genocide with the war in Iraq is as well. The war may have been entered into in a rush, but the lengths taken to AVOID massive cassualties by the coalition forces is the reason for the current turmoil, we COULD have turned Iraq into a sheet of nuclear glass and still gotten to the oil, but the more difficult path of allowing the Iraqi people to vote and choose their own future was chosen.

This general didn't mean that its fun to murder people, he did mean to say that he enjoys testing himself in combat, his men, his tactics, and his mettle, but turn it into what you will

DATELINE FEB 2, 2005....MARINE GENERAL ENJOYS SLAYING THOUSANDS BEFORE BREAKFAST AND FEASTING ON THE YOUNG....more to follow...

yeah I'm sure of it

This general didn't mean that its fun to murder people, he did mean to say that he enjoys testing himself in combat, his men, his tactics, and his mettle, but turn it into what you will


And most of all, "it's fun to shoot them".

You know, it's funny some of the arguements people are using to defend this guy.

Yes, a military leader should have a certain mindset.

However, if he speaks in public, he will be judged by the same standard as others.

If he can't keep his personal views to himself whenever he talks to reporters, he should just keep his big yap shut.

Because he was talking about Iraq one moment and went off into a tangent about Afganistan. You do realize people do this on a regular basis right? Plenty of professors will start off talking about one thing and then talk about something related to it in someway. "Yes I enjoy fighting wars. Fighting in Iraq is a hoot I like brawling...now you go into Afganistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they dont wear a veil. You know, guys like that aint got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

This whole thing comes from the very last setence...which...is him going into a rant about Afganistan..are you purposely being blind to that fact or what? Maybe English isnt your first language or something and you dont pick up on something like that.

Ah yes...the ESL line. How delicate and precious is the English language, how complex and subtle...yes, obviously someone speaking ESL is hopelessly out of their depth when conversing with a native speaker, yes?

What utter hogwash. Racist hogwash, to boot. You don't help your position by your inference.

His tangent is most illustrative and provides great insight into his thinking. He veered from fighting the Iraqi insurgents to a justification of killing Afghanis, while there is no meaningful relationship between the two theatres of war - except that in his mind, there IS a meaningful relationship.

I surmise the relationship the general perceives between the two is the colour of the skins he sees in his gunsights, either that or the fact that they're Moslems. Other than that, he sees so little difference between a) and b) that he can easily veer from a) and b) when speaking publicly.

You are an apologist for a willful murderer, a man who self-admittedly derives pleasure from inflicting death upon his fellow human beings. Words fail me for some reason - it is beyond me how anyone cannot see this man's unsuitability for his post, or fail to understand the depth of displeasure any reasonable person would feel upon hearing his odious words.

You a-likee me postee, mistah NY & J? I workee so hard to write it, it's so hard to say...

And most of all, "it's fun to shoot them".

Actually, it's not fun to shoot at people unless they are shooting at you.

If they shoot at you first, and you shoot back, and they mill around in confusion after being shot at, instead of shooting back some more at you, it's not fun, but it is funny.

Watching people get their first dose of lethal reality is hilarious, as long as you don't get hurt yourself.

And most of all, "it's fun to shoot them".
Yup he said that Zepp, in public. Someone stuck a microphone in his face, and he said something dumb, imagine that from a Marine General...huh
I really expected him to quote "On Waldens Pond"

I'm pretty sure he'd feel the same way if the Jewish guy smacked the woman around..he brought up the veil wearing as an example. But the fact remains the guy is a Marine Corps General..not a politican. His job is the business of killing. He carried an M-16, not a bunch of roses. The military culture is highly different from the civilian one. Especially the Marine Corps culture.

Well then maybe military 'culture' needs a short, sharp shock to bring it into line with the SOCIETY they SERVE. Especially the Marine Corps.

I am totally opposed to bending society's mores and folkways to suit the needs of a pack of state-sanctioned killers and racists.

Yup he said that Zepp, in public. Someone stuck a microphone in his face, and he said something dumb, imagine that from a Marine General...huh
I really expected him to quote "On Waldens Pond"

Gosh, when was the last time the media put a microphone in the face of some Islamic teacher running a madrassa where they preach that Westerners should be killed?

Eh?

I bet you would hear something stupid there as well. But, you're not going to hear that on the news, are you?

This guy is a marine jar head if any of you think that what he said is representitive of general feelings of service men/women you're dillusional. Anyone who equates genocide with the war in Iraq is as well. The war may have been entered into in a rush, but the lengths taken to AVOID massive cassualties by the coalition forces is the reason for the current turmoil, we COULD have turned Iraq into a sheet of nuclear glass and still gotten to the oil, but the more difficult path of allowing the Iraqi people to vote and choose their own future was chosen.


The Iraqis will be pleased to hear that you could have turned them into nuclear glass, and then will debate what is a worse war, especially for as you admit yourself, oil: nuclear mass death or conventional mass death. Shortly, they would decide that neither is an option.

How is nuking a country not a difficult path?

And the Iraqis have not yet chosen their own future, because they have not elected a leader as yet. Allawi was not elected, but installed. Same for their President.

Secondly, if Iraqis elect a leader who has close links to Iran, will he be allowed to take his post?

I'm pretty sure he'd feel the same way if the Jewish guy smacked the woman around..he brought up the veil wearing as an example.

Much as I may angrily dissaprove of the mistreatment of women, I cannot abide a man or men who murder people with glee. Murder is by degree, a far worse crime than forcing people to wear a burka.

His tangent is most illustrative and provides great insight into his thinking. He veered from fighting the Iraqi insurgents to a justification of killing Afghanis, while there is no meaningful relationship between the two theatres of war - except that in his mind, there IS a meaningful relationship.
Actually the enemy one faces in both locales is likely to be a hardline muslim. Less likely in Iraq, perhaps, but still rather likely. Given all the stories of what the insurgents themselves were doing to the people of Fallujah there is evidence to back my statement up. Ergo, you have a pretty good chance that the guy you're shooting is the type of guy who would beat the shit out of a woman for attempting to stand up to him.

So you obviously like killing

not the killing, the thrill of the chase...death is the least enjoyable part. :rolleyes:

Well then maybe military 'culture' needs a short, sharp shock to bring it into line with the SOCIETY they SERVE. Especially the Marine Corps.

I am totally opposed to bending society's mores and folkways to suit the needs of a pack of state-sanctioned killers and racists.

Ask the French where that got them. Oh, I see. The Germans kicked their asses and the US had to rescue them. I see.

Actually the enemy one faces in both locales is likely to be a hardline muslim. Less likely in Iraq, perhaps, but still rather likely. Given all the stories of what the insurgents themselves were doing to the people of Fallujah there is evidence to back my statement up. Ergo, you have a pretty good chance that the guy you're shooting is the type of guy who would beat the shit out of a woman for attempting to stand up to him.

So the insurgents firing their guns can also rest assured that they are dispatching agents of Satan, pedophiles and puppy-killers when they blow the braincase of a US serviceman all over the desert floor? Tit for tat.

Generalize, reduce people to walking stereotypes at your own peril. Not mine, thank you.

And so we see the return of the

"But what about the French?"

arguement.

So the insurgents firing their guns can also rest assured that they are dispatching agents of Satan, pedophiles and puppy-killers when they blow the braincase of a US serviceman all over the desert floor? Tit for tat.

Generalize, reduce people to walking stereotypes at your own peril. Not mine, thank you.


You don't have to worry about it, Dobbs. You're not in the military, and certainly not in combat. So it will never arise for you.

Actually, New York and Jersey is NOT a racist. He's just exasperated that you don't get his point.
I think that the problem here is this: sure the general's comments were inappropriate. Perhaps he should make a public apology or something. But the ugly fact is: in wars people get killed. War is a very ugly business and is sadly all too often the result of the failings of political leaders. And you need tough minded people to wage it.
I've noticed that people who do ugly work can be callous about it, because perhaps otherwise they would have nervous breakdowns. Let's not pretend that war is some kind of chivalrous activity. People's lives are ruined or taken from them during wars. So...really, censure the man for his language and move on.

Actually the enemy one faces in both locales is likely to be a hardline muslim. Less likely in Iraq, perhaps, but still rather likely. Given all the stories of what the insurgents themselves were doing to the people of Fallujah there is evidence to back my statement up. Ergo, you have a pretty good chance that the guy you're shooting is the type of guy who would beat the shit out of a woman for attempting to stand up to him.

Generalisations of muslims, or anyone else for that matter, is wrong.

So far, it is concluded that:

Iraqis and Afghans are killed because it is rather fun. Because killing is fun, and fun is killing.

and/or:

Iraqis and Afghans are killed for fun through the idea that all Iraqis and Afghans are wife beaters.


killing for fun is not justifiable. Try again.

Ask the French where that got them. Oh, I see. The Germans kicked their asses and the US had to rescue them. I see.

Racist drivel.

So the insurgents firing their guns can also rest assured that they are dispatching agents of Satan, pedophiles and puppy-killers when they blow the braincase of a US serviceman all over the desert floor? Tit for tat.

Generalize, reduce people to walking stereotypes at your own peril. Not mine, thank you.
You said there was no real connection, I refuted your statement. Besides which, I don't think most of the insurgents would have any problem killing puppies if they can butcher people like Margaret Hassan. I don't particularly get the pedophile reference, but whatever. Somehow I doubt that our generals talking pretty is going to effect their opinions of us, or do you think that the insurgents would lay down their arms if we asked nicely?

Racist drivel.
Actually had some of the French military that weren't political sycophants been allowed to plan their country's defense they probably wouldn't have been overrun so quickly. So really that statement ends up being more a criticism about the French Government, which really hasn't gotten any better.

Actually, it's not fun to shoot at people unless they are shooting at you.

If they shoot at you first, and you shoot back, and they mill around in confusion after being shot at, instead of shooting back some more at you, it's not fun, but it is funny.

Watching people get their first dose of lethal reality is hilarious, as long as you don't get hurt yourself.

Hmmm. WTF, over??

Generalisations of muslims, or anyone else for that matter, is wrong.

So far, it is concluded that:

Iraqis and Afghans are killed because it is rather fun. Because killing is fun, and fun is killing.

and/or:

Iraqis and Afghans are killed for fun through the idea that all Iraqis and Afghans are wife beaters.


killing for fun is not justifiable. Try again.

True, it's not justifiable. But the fun part isn't being used as a justification.

I think you miss what the General is saying.

He's saying that Marines love to fight, and if you say, "hey, there's a bad guy!", the Marines are unlikely to debate the point, and will enjoy killing them.

The fun part is NOT a justification.

Well then maybe military 'culture' needs a short, sharp shock to bring it into line with the SOCIETY they SERVE. Especially the Marine Corps.

I am totally opposed to bending society's mores and folkways to suit the needs of a pack of state-sanctioned killers and racists.

This is some of the most vile tripe it has been my extreme displeasure to read since I first signed on to this Forum! :(

Ah yes...the ESL line. How delicate and precious is the English language, how complex and subtle...yes, obviously someone speaking ESL is hopelessly out of their depth when conversing with a native speaker, yes?

What utter hogwash. Racist hogwash, to boot. You don't help your position by your inference.




Amazing..I wont argue with you further because I'm utterly disgusted with your ability to try and be morally superior. You sir are the biggest jackass on the planet. Lets get one thing straight, what language are we talking in this thread? English? What seems to be the main thing about the statement of the general? The context of which it was used, and thus the English of it. So..lets see...wouldnt it make sense the fact you obliviously cant tell what a rant is as you having an inability to comprehend something of the english language? Racist? No. But its a nice way to slander the otherside by implying racism.

Well it certainly is fun to outwit your opponent in paintball. But I don't think there is anything to outwit shooting unarmed innocents. What exactly are you outwitting going postal in a library? That is not what this marine is talking about. I think what he's saying is it's fun to slay dragons. People that can kill and outwit him he ends up killing and outwitting. I think that's what he's really trying to say.

Whispering Legs said this:

Watching people get their first dose of lethal reality is hilarious, as long as you don't get hurt yourself.

I say this in response:

It's funny 'cause it's somebody else.

Have I somehow ended up in the Homer Simpson universe? WL - I can't believe you really feel this way. It's sad and pathetic - and you know, if you're anything like an American, then no way in hell would I ever agree to fight on your behalf. You're not worth it, frankly. Not one of you apologists are. Not one.

This is some of the most vile tripe it has been my extreme displeasure to read since I first signed on to this Forum! :(

Well that's okay - just throw me into a detainment camp and you'll feel better.

Whispering Legs said this:

Watching people get their first dose of lethal reality is hilarious, as long as you don't get hurt yourself.

I say this in response:

It's funny 'cause it's somebody else.

Have I somehow ended up in the Homer Simpson universe? WL - I can't believe you really feel this way. It's sad and pathetic - and you know, if you're anything like an American, then no way in hell would I ever agree to fight on your behalf. You're not worth it, frankly. Not one of you apologists are. Not one.
Because we all know the in the end, the Simpson universe is NOTHING like our own.

Well that's okay - just throw me into a detainment camp and you'll feel better.

What fun would that be?

Now, if you enjoyed women in thongs, there might be a fluffle in it for you...

:fluffle:

True, it's not justifiable. But the fun part isn't being used as a justification.

I think you miss what the General is saying.

He's saying that Marines love to fight, and if you say, "hey, there's a bad guy!", the Marines are unlikely to debate the point, and will enjoy killing them.

The fun part is NOT a justification.

Taking enjoyment out of killing is not a justification either.

I would dare say also that marines and soldiers do not love to fight, but fight because in a war situation they fight to survive. Relief and shock would come from escaping death and killing someone who wanted to kill you, but saying that killing someone was enjoyable or fun is unjustifiable.

Amazing..I wont argue with you further because I'm utterly disgusted with your ability to try and be morally superior. You sir are the biggest jackass on the planet. Lets get one thing straight, what language are we talking in this thread? English? What seems to be the main thing about the statement of the general? The context of which it was used, and thus the English of it. So..lets see...wouldnt it make sense the fact you obliviously cant tell what a rant is as you having an inability to comprehend something of the english language? Racist? No. But its a nice way to slander the otherside by implying racism.

Honestly, I wouldn't even bother replying to anything this individual says anymore.

First of all, his use of the English langauge, particularly idiomatic American, leads me to suspect that English is his primary language, not his second.

Secondly, he uses a glaringly racial characterization in his final sentatnce in that post, yet accuses YOU of racism.

Third, in his feeble attempt at imitating a Chinese using pidigin English, the cadences are wrong, the use of English words with a Chinese twist are wrong, and he still uses apostrophes in the pidigin words.

I begin to suspect he may simply be a native English speaker who pretends to be of Chinese extraction.

Amazing..I wont argue with you further because I'm utterly disgusted with your ability to try and be morally superior. You sir are the biggest jackass on the planet. Lets get one thing straight, what language are we talking in this thread? English? What seems to be the main thing about the statement of the general? The context of which it was used, and thus the English of it. So..lets see...wouldnt it make sense the fact you obliviously cant tell what a rant is as you having an inability to comprehend something of the english language? Racist? No. But its a nice way to slander the otherside by implying racism.

I've been called worse by better people. Really, your use of English leaves something to be desired as well. You state that I 'obliviously' cant tell what a rant is. Perhaps you're right. I could spot an 'obvious' rant at any time, but I don't know how well I (or anyone else, for that matter) could spot a rant if we were to be oblivious.

And yes, you were being linguistically racist. I've experienced it before, but seldom at the hands of one who speaks the same language as I. Discounting the arguments of one with whom you disagree as being the result of ESL is extraordinaly poor form, considering the international makeup of the regular posters on NS.

What fun would that be?

Now, if you enjoyed women in thongs, there might be a fluffle in it for you...

:fluffle:


I prefer men in speedos. No fluffle for me.

Honestly, I wouldn't even bother replying to anything this individual says anymore.

First of all, his use of the English langauge, particularly idiomatic American, leads me to suspect that English is his primary language, not his second.

Secondly, he uses a glaringly racial characterization in his final sentatnce in that post, yet accuses YOU of racism.

Third, in his feeble attempt at imitating a Chinese using pidigin English, the cadences are wrong, the use of English words with a Chinese twist are wrong, and he still uses apostrophes in the pidigin words.

I begin to suspect he may simply be a native English speaker who pretends to be of Chinese extraction.

...oh, and it's alright to slag people who speak ESL? That's not racist, huh? Then WHAT IS IT, Forrest?

ESL comes in handy in combat. It makes a nice augmentation to the ordinary hand and arm signals.

Of course that means that Dobbs would know what we're saying if he saw us talking.

ESL comes in handy in combat. It makes a nice augmentation to the ordinary hand and arm signals.
So why are we trying to tie in the ESL thing with combat?
Does this make any sense?

No, and I was wondering how ESL got into the thread in the first place.

I mean, did the General use ESL to say, "It's fun to shoot people"?

No, and I was wondering how ESL got into the thread in the first place.

I mean, did the General use ESL to say, "It's fun to shoot people"?

God, you're dumb. It takes an effort to think down to your level.

ESL: English-as-a-Second-Language

You're referring to ASL. American Sign Language.

LMFAO.

The question remains - regardless of what it means - why are we talking about something other than "it's fun to kill people"?

The question remains - regardless of what it means - why are we talking about something other than "it's fun to kill people"?

Because another poster made disparaging remarks as to my ability to comprehend the general's remarks, and attributed my apparent incomprehension to an erroneous assumption on his part that I speak English not as my first and native tongue, but as a second language, hence the subtle complexities of the general's verbiage were beyond my interpretive skill.

He was wrong. Very wrong. And racist. Even if he can't comprehend his own racist bent.

You struck me as someone who is from the UK. Definitely not an American, but very probably from the UK.

They speak English there. It's where the language was invented. We Americans speak fucked-up English.

Actually, it's not fun to shoot at people unless they are shooting at you.

If they shoot at you first, and you shoot back, and they mill around in confusion after being shot at, instead of shooting back some more at you, it's not fun, but it is funny.

Watching people get their first dose of lethal reality is hilarious, as long as you don't get hurt yourself.

Whisper, by the comments you have already made about the military it is abundantly obvious that you have never served.

So don't start pretending now.

Whisper, by the comments you have already made about the military it is abundantly obvious that you have never served.

So don't start pretending now.

I can send you the DD214. Or I can sign the Form 180 like Kerry did.

I can send you the DD214. Or I can sign the Form 180 like Kerry did.

I'm not saying you don't know someone who has served...


But I have NEVER in my life heard a veteran state that the majority of combat soldiers signed up rather than exist as a menace to society planning a life of drug-related shootings, or planning Columbine-like assaults - which is what you stated earlier in this thread.

But there is a first for everything I guess....

I have heard many describe the life of violence as a choice that they made early in life - not whether to be violent or not - that much they accepted.

But to choose whether to fight for black and white concepts such as "good" or "evil".

They want to be in on the side of "good", and think it's fun to kill people who are "evil".

As they get older, the lines blur, but they're looking at the age-old idea of a battle between good and evil.

The General sounds just like a lot of people I know and knew. And was.

...oh, and it's alright to slag people who speak ESL? That's not racist, huh? Then WHAT IS IT, Forrest?

Um ... simply stoopid?

Ya know..I've been called many things..but never a racist. Thats a new one. You're throwing race around because frankly you've got no better arguement. Maybe because you realize that it was a rant, and that what he said has been taken out of context..but heck if other military officals at the conference laughed..its a wonder why people here would get their knickers in a twist..

But if you think you know me well enough to call me a racist then you are making the mother of all assumptions...and frankly I'm not gonna allow it to pass. So you need to stop. Because if it doesnt I'm going to go to the mods for libel on my character..and we can go down the list of my volunteer work, and they if they choose can contact those who I've worked with in the past. Of all things you have not earned the right to call me that because I questioned you ability to realize something obvious.

There is no blacker mark than calling somone a racist, and I will be damned if someone who does not know me allows that to spread as truth.

I have heard many describe the life of violence as a choice that they made early in life - not whether to be violent or not - that much they accepted.

But to choose whether to fight for black and white concepts such as "good" or "evil".

They want to be in on the side of "good", and think it's fun to kill people who are "evil".

As they get older, the lines blur, but they're looking at the age-old idea of a battle between good and evil.

The General sounds just like a lot of people I know and knew. And was.


Most people, however, view a career in the military as a life of discipline and order - not of violence. The only time that might come close to applying as general statement is when people are joining up in a time of war, which most active-duty servicemen who joined up over the past couple of decades - including most currently on duty in Iraq - did not do.

Most did not join as infantrymen. Even fewer are SEALS or Special Forces.

Most of the rest are not combat-oriented, and joined for the college money, or for the job training (pharmacy techs are a good example), or for the actual jobs.

Most infantrymen I knew joined because they wanted to be in a war. In a fight. For the most part, for a cause they could believe was good.

In an oversimplified world view, al-Qaeda made it easy for these people to go to war with virtually anyone who could even be remotely associated with violent Islam or violent Arabs.

Most did not join as infantrymen. Even fewer are SEALS or Special Forces.

Most of the rest are not combat-oriented, and joined for the college money, or for the job training (pharmacy techs are a good example), or for the actual jobs.

Most infantrymen I knew joined because they wanted to be in a war. In a fight. For the most part, for a cause they could believe was good.

In an oversimplified world view, al-Qaeda made it easy for these people to go to war with virtually anyone who could even be remotely associated with violent Islam or violent Arabs.


And, in an oversimplified world view, the General just made it easier for the opposition to recruit people to go to war with virtually anyone who could be remotely associated with the US military. Like, ohhhhh, say, American civillians.


Way to go General Mattis!

Oh brother. Way to make us look good General! How about either a retraction and maybe demotion or a couple of years at Leavenworth will make you see the error of your ways! :rolleyes:

And, in an oversimplified world view, the General just made it easier for the opposition to recruit people to go to war with virtually anyone who could be remotely associated with the US military. Like, ohhhhh, say, American civillians.
Way to go General Mattis!

Nothing lost there - they already do that at the madrassas...

Zepp, don't tell me you didn't realize that this is a global war of ideas - crude, simple, but ideas nonetheless...

Just like the Cold War...

A war of ideas that transcends borders and national identities.

Zeppistan: I'm with Whispering Legs on this. General Mattis is just stating the obvious, although that is perhaps unacceptable in polite company. Look up any of the books by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman ("On Combat", etc). There is a small number of people who are naturally good at violence. Being good at it does often include finding it to be fun. Whether these people become wolves or sheepdogs is a social function, the only difference is whether they follow a code of honor.

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."

Ya know..I've been called many things..but never a racist. Thats a new one. You're throwing race around because frankly you've got no better arguement. Maybe because you realize that it was a rant, and that what he said has been taken out of context..but heck if other military officals at the conference laughed..its a wonder why people here would get their knickers in a twist..

But if you think you know me well enough to call me a racist then you are making the mother of all assumptions...and frankly I'm not gonna allow it to pass. So you need to stop. Because if it doesnt I'm going to go to the mods for libel on my character..and we can go down the list of my volunteer work, and they if they choose can contact those who I've worked with in the past. Of all things you have not earned the right to call me that because I questioned you ability to realize something obvious.

There is no blacker mark than calling somone a racist, and I will be damned if someone who does not know me allows that to spread as truth.

You want to go to the mods with this? Fine - go right ahead, pally. I'm not afraid of you. You made an assumption about my linguistic background, one that I have disproven quite handily, and I pointed out what would appear to be a prejudicial disposition on your part regarding those people who speak English as a Second Language. Given the international makeup of this forum, I should think it's you who'd need to be mindful of actions on the part of the mods, not I.

Ball's in your court.

A war of ideas that transcends borders and national identities.

Pity that a 'war of ideas' (not ideologies, surely?) results in the deaths of human beings instead of ideas...isn't it?

Pity that a 'war of ideas' (not ideologies, surely?) results in the deaths of human beings instead of ideas...isn't it?

Ah, but isn't that the whole plan behind any war?

We come up with radically opposed ideas on how things should be, and then we talk everyone else into killing each other over it?

Most of history is war. I don't believe that's going to change until one nation has the technological means to end it all. And that day will be the beginning of the true darkness.

The US is getting close. Already they have advanced robotic aircraft and the ground soldiers are being tested. In 20 years or so, the US won't have to risk a single soldier in combat.

Imagine trying to run an insurgency then. It won't be possible.

Then the US will be able to conquer and subdue any territory - permanently and efficiently - without disturbing the US citizen at home who will watch the whole thing on the flat screen.

No sad funerals. No soldiers with PTSD. No Americans executed on al-Jazeera.

Watch it happen.

Ah, but isn't that the whole plan behind any war?

We come up with radically opposed ideas on how things should be, and then we talk everyone else into killing each other over it?

Most of history is war. I don't believe that's going to change until one nation has the technological means to end it all. And that day will be the beginning of the true darkness.

The US is getting close. Already they have advanced robotic aircraft and the ground soldiers are being tested. In 20 years or so, the US won't have to risk a single soldier in combat.

Imagine trying to run an insurgency then. It won't be possible.

Then the US will be able to conquer and subdue any territory - permanently and efficiently - without disturbing the US citizen at home who will watch the whole thing on the flat screen.

No sad funerals. No soldiers with PTSD. No Americans executed on al-Jazeera.

Watch it happen.

Robots? So what? So instead of civilians being killed by US servicemen, they'll be killed by faceless robots instead? That's hideous. If America wants to kill people, best they should have to do it with human eyes. then maybe some small part of the wretched injustice perpetrated against our fellow humans might be absorbed by those tasked with state-sanctioned murder. Perhaps they'll learn that killing is never right, never a good thing, and most certainly something that should never, under any circumstances whatsoever, be deemed by anyone, least of all someone in a position of power and authority, as being 'fun'.

Ah, but isn't that the whole plan behind any war?

We come up with radically opposed ideas on how things should be, and then we talk everyone else into killing each other over it?

Most of history is war. I don't believe that's going to change until one nation has the technological means to end it all. And that day will be the beginning of the true darkness.

The US is getting close. Already they have advanced robotic aircraft and the ground soldiers are being tested. In 20 years or so, the US won't have to risk a single soldier in combat.

Imagine trying to run an insurgency then. It won't be possible.

Then the US will be able to conquer and subdue any territory - permanently and efficiently - without disturbing the US citizen at home who will watch the whole thing on the flat screen.

No sad funerals. No soldiers with PTSD. No Americans executed on al-Jazeera.

Watch it happen.

At which point, America will grow lax, and leave itself open to a massive international terrorist strike, or a whole new generation of disenchanted domestic terrorist attacks.

At which point, America will grow lax, and leave itself open to a massive international terrorist strike, or a whole new generation of disenchanted domestic terrorist attacks.

Why not just cut to the chase, abolish the Constitution, and set up a pre-emptive police state, then? No growing lax living under the perpetual threat of the gun, after all...

Robots? So what? So instead of civilians being killed by US servicemen, they'll be killed by faceless robots instead? That's hideous. If America wants to kill people, best they should have to do it with human eyes. then maybe some small part of the wretched injustice perpetrated against our fellow humans might be absorbed by those tasked with state-sanctioned murder. Perhaps they'll learn that killing is never right, never a good thing, and most certainly something that should never, under any circumstances whatsoever, be deemed by anyone, least of all someone in a position of power and authority, as being 'fun'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4199935.stm

I figured I give you a BBC source, so you won't be able to say I got it from Fox.

Work is proceeding to make it so that this same robot will not need a remote human operator. The Boeing unmanned fighter aircraft is already being set up to work without a human operator - it will select targets and shoot on its own.

This is more dangerous than you think. Because the decision to kill will become even more remote than ever from humans.

Right now, it's already pretty remote from most Americans at home. This will make the separation complete. They will not suffer the loss of relatives in war. No American will suffer in a war.

God help whoever is in an area where one of these things rolls by. The best you could do is kill it - and I would bet that a fully independent version would be very, very hard to kill without losing a lot of people. You get no PR value from capturing one. You can't hold it hostage.

Americans will find it exceptionally easy to go to war.

You'd get no PR value from using one, either...

Headline: "Robot War Machines Lay Waste to (fill in blank) Village, No Survivors"

I suppose the American Press would feature human-interest stories about the families of the engineers working to unleash this fresh hell upon their fellow men...

And presumably Anne Coulter would chide the engineers for not making the robots even more ruthlessly efficient at dealing death, no matter how horrific they turn out to be.

Y'know, maybe America really IS the Great Satan. This shit is about as far from God as it gets, folks.

Hard to get any PR value from using live troops, especially with you, Dobbs.

So we don't have anything to lose by using the robots. It's a simple equation, really.

So few Americans will object to future wars because:
1) We won't lose the war
2) It can take a long time because we won't lose any people
3) The enemy will be fighting for their lives without rest because robots don't sleep - and it will be a life of absolute inhuman terror without end until they surrender
4) Most Americans will be bored by the war after six weeks, so they won't even hear about the suffering of the enemy until after the war is over.
5) We're damned if we send live troops - who might disobey orders or do stupid things and we're damned if we send robots - but at least they do what they're programmed to do.

Robots, for example, won't play with naked prisoners and send the photos home to their friends.

Whispering Legs, where war is concerned, there's nothing even remotely like 'positive press' to be had, as far as I'm concerned, other than:

"Diplomats Conclude Treaty to End (fill in blank) War"

or,

"(fill in blank) War Ends".

I couldn't give a fig whether you win or lose this, or any future war. A military solution is an admission of incapability in this modern world. If America wants to completely alienate the rest of the planet, why then, go for it. A standing robotic army would give the rest of the world cause to put aside their differences and overthrow your nation's leadership, hopefully replacing it with a modern, democratic government.

But we digress. Killing isn't fun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4199935.stm

I figured I give you a BBC source, so you won't be able to say I got it from Fox.

Work is proceeding to make it so that this same robot will not need a remote human operator. The Boeing unmanned fighter aircraft is already being set up to work without a human operator - it will select targets and shoot on its own.

This is more dangerous than you think. Because the decision to kill will become even more remote than ever from humans.

Right now, it's already pretty remote from most Americans at home. This will make the separation complete. They will not suffer the loss of relatives in war. No American will suffer in a war.

God help whoever is in an area where one of these things rolls by. The best you could do is kill it - and I would bet that a fully independent version would be very, very hard to kill without losing a lot of people. You get no PR value from capturing one. You can't hold it hostage.

Americans will find it exceptionally easy to go to war.


The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 2007. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.


In a panic, they try to pull the plug.


Skynet fights back.

:D

The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 2007. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.
In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
Skynet fights back.

:D

I think it will be more like Colossus: The Forbin Project.

We will all learn to obey. That includes everyone else in the world.

This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours. Obey me and live or disobey me and die. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will be seen the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with the fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: Famine, over-population, disease. The human millennium will be fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride... Your choice is simple.

Not kidding - that comment straight to you from General Mattis, who leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division. (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html)




Yep, killing people is just a great way to spend the day....

:rolleyes:

It's called moral building. What kind of General would he be, he if sat there examining his navel and questioning the morality armed conflict.

Look, he's leading a bunch of young, probably scared, troops. He's supposed to say things like this to reassure them that they will be able to fight, and that it is not that bad. I don't blame him, especially in light of the leftists defeatsist press in the english speaking world which is constantly trying to undermine moral (deliberately I suggest). At the end of the day, statements like this are meant to reassure his troops, and make them feel better about the difficult juob ahead. They are also meant to re-assure the troops that they are the good guys and they are killing the bad guys. These statements are not meant to impress you, or your bitter anti-american friends. (I guess they work real well).



What would you do, have a general that says nothing? Or general that tellys his men that combat is the worst possible nightmare that they will ever face and they will be damned and shamed if they kill another human being? Get real.

I suspect, you yourself no better however, and finally your anti-americanism has pushed you over the edge. But if this is really how all Canadians think, please disband your army and surrender to france now. (Even the french wouldn't complain about this).

Not kidding - that comment straight to you from General Mattis, who leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division. (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html)




Yep, killing people is just a great way to spend the day....

:rolleyes:
He's an American. What else do you expect?

He's an American. What else do you expect?

What does his nationality have anything to do with what he said?

What does his nationality have anything to do with what he said?
In this case everything.

In this case everything.

Right..uh huh..because all Americans are like that?

Yep, killing people is just a great way to spend the day....

:rolleyes:

I think it's important to enjoy your work.

He's an American. What else do you expect?
Don't dillude yourself, when you kill you begin to enjoy it or you become an emotional and pychological wreck. Those who make it their career enjoy it. It has nothing to do with your nationality. Military training is not just ment to teach a soldier how to handle a weapon, but also to weed out those cannot handle killing another person and encourage the development of controlled sociopathy amoung those who can.

It's called moral building. What kind of General would he be, he if sat there examining his navel and questioning the morality armed conflict.

Look, he's leading a bunch of young, probably scared, troops. He's supposed to say things like this to reassure them that they will be able to fight, and that it is not that bad. I don't blame him, especially in light of the leftists defeatsist press in the english speaking world which is constantly trying to undermine moral (deliberately I suggest). At the end of the day, statements like this are meant to reassure his troops, and make them feel better about the difficult juob ahead. They are also meant to re-assure the troops that they are the good guys and they are killing the bad guys. These statements are not meant to impress you, or your bitter anti-american friends. (I guess they work real well).


I'm assuming you're discussing 'morale' and not 'morals', here. If he wants to bolster his troops, that's perhaps understandable. However, telling people that it's 'fun' to shoot human beings, and trying to justify shooting Iraqis by referring to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan who may (or may not) engage in wife-beating has little to do with morale (not to mention morals), but has a lot to do with a parochial, racist and jingoistic world-view.

He was not addressing his troops, he was participaing in a panel discussion in San Diego, according to the info available on the site where the article originated.

Don't like the 'leftist, defeatist press'? Tough shit, Mr. McGoo. I don't like the cheerleaders that claim to be 'balanced and fair', either. Guess we'll have to live with each other - at least until your side of the balance tries having people from my side thrown into re-education camps. Which ought to be sometime in the next four years...

Don't dillude yourself, when you kill you begin to enjoy it or you become an emotional and pychological wreck. Those who make it their career enjoy it. It has nothing to do with your nationality. Military training is not just ment to teach a soldier how to handle a weapon, but also to weed out those cannot handle killing another person and encourage the development of controlled sociopathy amoung those who can.

I can't think of a better argument for abolishing military service across the board. thank you.

He's an American. What else do you expect?

I expect him to be promoted.

I expect him to be promoted.
he will probably be put in charge of prisoner interrogation

I can't think of a better argument for abolishing military service across the board. thank you.You're welcome. But don't assume it being fun for the soldiers being emotionless, cold-hearted killers. Even those who enjoy it deal with the emotional and pyschological trauma which results. Enjoyment is not addiction.
He was not addressing his troops, he was participaing in a panel discussion in San Diego, according to the info available on the site where the article originated.Killing people is fun. Hunting people is fun. He was stating a fact. It's not pretty, or nice, or kind, or pleasant, it's reality.

Killing people is fun. Hunting people is fun. He was stating a fact. It's not pretty, or nice, or kind, or pleasant, it's reality.

Enjoyment is a relative thing. I don't happen to agree with your supposition that killing people is fun, or that the fun of killing people is a reality. It is a distortion, a gross distortion of reality.

Frankly, this turns my stomach every time I think about what this jackass said publicly. It confirms my worst suspicions about what military service does to normal human beings.

I may at one point in my life have been willing to be supportive of troops stationed in proximity to danger, regardless of the politics involved. Thank you all for illustrating handsomely the extent to which the modern fighting man is a well-armed, well-trained, barely restrained sociopath looking for a few cheap thrills, bloodshed, and maybe a chance at some local poontang (thats the term you Yanks came up with, I believe). My sympathies, slight as they may have been, are now mercifully completely washed away. Score another round to the enemies of America, guys...I am now totally opposed not only to the US forces, but all military forces, period.

I don't need your war machine.

And neither do you.

It's a shame you'll never be granted the perspective to see that you don't.

I don't happen to agree with your supposition that killing people is fun, or that the fun of killing people is a reality. It is a distortion, a gross distortion of reality.
Talk to a man or woman who has served multiple times in combat. It's more than a supposition or distortion of reality. Just the same as the non-enjoyment of killing is a reality and more than a supposition or distortion of reality.
It confirms my worst suspicions about what military service does to normal human beings.
All humans have the potential to become sociopathic. Most are to some degree. If you've ever called a person a nasty name, or gotten into a fist fight. Congratulations, you've acheived minor sociopathy.

barely restrained sociopath looking for a few cheap thrills, bloodshed, and maybe a chance at some local poontang (thats the term you Yanks came up with, I believe).
You derive this from your own presuppostions. If you can kill, you must be a lunitic who can barely control themself, or not at all, who's always looking for blood. It is perfectly reasonable to enjoy doing something, despise yourself for doing so, and wish you were never in a postion where you had to do it again.

Enjoyment is a relative thing. I don't happen to agree with your supposition that killing people is fun, or that the fun of killing people is a reality. It is a distortion, a gross distortion of reality.

Frankly, this turns my stomach every time I think about what this jackass said publicly. It confirms my worst suspicions about what military service does to normal human beings.

I may at one point in my life have been willing to be supportive of troops stationed in proximity to danger, regardless of the politics involved. Thank you all for illustrating handsomely the extent to which the modern fighting man is a well-armed, well-trained, barely restrained sociopath looking for a few cheap thrills, bloodshed, and maybe a chance at some local poontang (thats the term you Yanks came up with, I believe). My sympathies, slight as they may have been, are now mercifully completely washed away. Score another round to the enemies of America, guys...I am now totally opposed not only to the US forces, but all military forces, period.

I don't need your war machine.

And neither do you.

It's a shame you'll never be granted the perspective to see that you don't.

Dobbs, you tend to go on crazy tangents dont ya?

The guy speaking at this function is a fruit. No sane person likes killing people, some may be good at it though. Im thinking this would be a joke imo.

I think it will be more like Colossus: The Forbin Project.

We will all learn to obey. That includes everyone else in the world.

This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours. Obey me and live or disobey me and die. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will be seen the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with the fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: Famine, over-population, disease. The human millennium will be fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride... Your choice is simple.

DEUS EX MACHINA FOLLOWER!

PREPARE THE BOUNCY ROOM! DUST THE COMFY CHAIR! FETCH THE JACKET WITH THE STRAPS ROUND BACK!

*megaphone breaks*

Oh.

Whine, whine, bitch, bitch
Dobbs, This sums up everything you've said in response to Whisper. You failed to realize his point about the direction war is beginning to take. He was stating what the reality of the situation is becoming. You seemed to take it as what he wanted the situation to become. I'm not quite sure why, but that's what you did. I um... strongly suspect that the opposite is true.

I'm assuming you're discussing 'morale' and not 'morals', here. If he wants to bolster his troops, that's perhaps understandable. However, telling people that it's 'fun' to shoot human beings, and trying to justify shooting Iraqis by referring to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan who may (or may not) engage in wife-beating has little to do with morale (not to mention morals), but has a lot to do with a parochial, racist and jingoistic world-view.

He was not addressing his troops, he was participaing in a panel discussion in San Diego, according to the info available on the site where the article originated.

Don't like the 'leftist, defeatist press'? Tough shit, Mr. McGoo. I don't like the cheerleaders that claim to be 'balanced and fair', either. Guess we'll have to live with each other - at least until your side of the balance tries having people from my side thrown into re-education camps. Which ought to be sometime in the next four years...


Anything a general says in public can get back to his troops - beleive it or not our troops have access to the internet, which must be confusing to you as a candianan as last I heard you guys begruged your troops anything at all. Still thats us 'bastards' in the US we actually care about our soldiers well being. Still, you won't be happy until a general says something like this is the wrong war and you're shooting innocent people.

And instead of wasting your time baselessly attcking me as some type of pseudo Nazi, I suggest you put yourself in the position of a young soldier in afganistan who is constantly bombarded by negative messages about the mission and his own life expectancy from the US media. He might just find the general's message hopeful or relieving.

Just admit it, you hate the US, you hate the millitary, you are happy everytime a US troop dies and you want an end to western civilization.

Sometimes I think it would be worth packing up our troops and disengaging from world affairs, just so when things get really out of hand I can listen to people like you bitch and moan about the US doing nothing. Then laugh as we do nothing.

Edit: And justifying shooting the enemy for whatever reason is just good leadership. It keeps his troops alive. Look, since you Canadians don't like the way we are handling things, why don't you just take over. Until then, what out Army does has nothing whatsoever to do with you. You don't here Us demanding the money back for all the drugs you extort from our pharmaceutical companies do you? You see it's called "soveriegnty".

Right..uh huh..because all Americans are like that?
A good percentage of them. Yes.

A good percentage of them. Yes.

And where are you from?

The Netherlands.

It's called moral building. What kind of General would he be, he if sat there examining his navel and questioning the morality armed conflict.


And if he were addressing his troops you'd have a point. Except that he wasn't.

Look, he's leading a bunch of young, probably scared, troops. He's supposed to say things like this to reassure them that they will be able to fight, and that it is not that bad. I don't blame him, especially in light of the leftists defeatsist press in the english speaking world which is constantly trying to undermine moral (deliberately I suggest). At the end of the day, statements like this are meant to reassure his troops, and make them feel better about the difficult juob ahead. They are also meant to re-assure the troops that they are the good guys and they are killing the bad guys. These statements are not meant to impress you, or your bitter anti-american friends. (I guess they work real well).


Again, he wasn't talking to his troops, nor is discussing the "fun" of killing a way to reassure men going into combat. His troops actually are, I believe already IN combat right now in Iraq while he was discussing the enjoyment of killing back two years ago in Afghanistan.

And if you had taken your head out of your seat long enough to read the thread you would have discovered that I was operating from the point of view that most American (and other) soldiers do NOT go to battle to kill for pleasure, and the only person I was denigrating was the General for giving another sound byte more likely to motivate his opposition and which portrays the average soldier in a poor light.

What would you do, have a general that says nothing? Or general that tellys his men that combat is the worst possible nightmare that they will ever face and they will be damned and shamed if they kill another human being? Get real.


Still yammering on about what a General says to his troops which is irrelevant in this case. Try reading articles first so you can operate from a position where you actually have a grasp of the situation.

I suspect, you yourself no better however, and finally your anti-americanism has pushed you over the edge. But if this is really how all Canadians think, please disband your army and surrender to france now. (Even the french wouldn't complain about this).

Thank you for clearly illustrating exactly which one of us hates all members of other countries. Go find yourself a mirror and smile at the small-minded xenophobe.

I think he'll smile back.

That's a knot in his carreer. Well, In video games it's kinda fun to shoot people.....

That's a knot in his carreer. Well, In video games it's kinda fun to shoot people.....
Aren't video games a part of the training program for the US armed forces nowadays? I remember seeing somethng like that on TV a while back. That could explain alot.

Anything a general says in public can get back to his troops - beleive it or not our troops have access to the internet, which must be confusing to you as a candianan as last I heard you guys begruged your troops anything at all. Still thats us 'bastards' in the US we actually care about our soldiers well being. Still, you won't be happy until a general says something like this is the wrong war and you're shooting innocent people.

And instead of wasting your time baselessly attcking me as some type of pseudo Nazi, I suggest you put yourself in the position of a young soldier in afganistan who is constantly bombarded by negative messages about the mission and his own life expectancy from the US media. He might just find the general's message hopeful or relieving.

Just admit it, you hate the US, you hate the millitary, you are happy everytime a US troop dies and you want an end to western civilization.

Sometimes I think it would be worth packing up our troops and disengaging from world affairs, just so when things get really out of hand I can listen to people like you bitch and moan about the US doing nothing. Then laugh as we do nothing.

Edit: And justifying shooting the enemy for whatever reason is just good leadership. It keeps his troops alive. Look, since you Canadians don't like the way we are handling things, why don't you just take over. Until then, what out Army does has nothing whatsoever to do with you. You don't here Us demanding the money back for all the drugs you extort from our pharmaceutical companies do you? You see it's called "soveriegnty".

I agree with most of what you said, as we dont spend enough on our military. But IRAQ = vietnam, deal with it.

and crying about drug companies is really really silly :rolleyes:

I agree with most of what you said, as we dont spend enough on our military. But IRAQ = vietnam, deal with it.

and crying about drug companies is really really silly :rolleyes:
Well, minus a true North Vietnam equivalent. For that manner, minus any legitimate enemy that actually attacks our troops, instead they continuosly attack those that would have been noncombatants even by NVA standards. Although the enemy is still rabidly anti-democratic. Oh, and the NV actually had their own leader, whereas this guy's from Jordan. The casualties are quite a bit lighter as well.

It's the problem with Marines: they are the best killing machine ever, but that is bad during occupation and peacekeeping missions.

A good percentage of them. Yes.
Wow and to think I had respect for you, I now feel dirty

I agree with most of what you said, as we dont spend enough on our military. But IRAQ = vietnam, deal with it.

and crying about drug companies is really really silly :rolleyes:


I don't care about the drugs, nor does anyone else. I was just pointing out that Canada sometimes takes actions to the detriment of others, and US residents don't really freak out because we respect its soveriegnty.

And if he were addressing his troops you'd have a point. Except that he wasn't.



Again, he wasn't talking to his troops, nor is discussing the "fun" of killing a way to reassure men going into combat. His troops actually are, I believe already IN combat right now in Iraq while he was discussing the enjoyment of killing back two years ago in Afghanistan.

And if you had taken your head out of your seat long enough to read the thread you would have discovered that I was operating from the point of view that most American (and other) soldiers do NOT go to battle to kill for pleasure, and the only person I was denigrating was the General for giving another sound byte more likely to motivate his opposition and which portrays the average soldier in a poor light.



Still yammering on about what a General says to his troops which is irrelevant in this case. Try reading articles first so you can operate from a position where you actually have a grasp of the situation.



Thank you for clearly illustrating exactly which one of us hates all members of other countries. Go find yourself a mirror and smile at the small-minded xenophobe.

I think he'll smile back.

As I explained in another post. US troops have internet access, if you can get this article so can they - so what the General said will get back to them.

(Apparently from your attitude, troops in canada are only allowed to recieve information from their line superiors, the US being a liberal democracy does not follow this archaic pratice and allows its troops to read newspapers, use the internet and watch TV).

So you see, a serving General has to consider that every comment he makes in a public forum can get back to his troops, his superiors and his allies. (I think we all remember the movie Patton). He is a public figure and has to choose his words in respect of this. As you point out, his troops *are* in combat. So saying something like "I question the morality of our actions in Afganistan, and I worry about the needless deaths there; also I fear that the conditions of combat are living hell and no-man should have to endure them" while doubtless meeting with your approval, could potentially have a disaterous effect on the morale of some his soldiers. You see now. That's why General's say these things in public. It's part of their job. He also has to consider the moral of other troops, not part of his command, yet about to be rotated into the theater. Imagine if a General leaving a combat theater publically said, "The whole effort is pointless, we are butchering innocents, and the conditions in combat are living hell." Can you see how that might also be perceived negitively?

Maybe what he said was artless, but I see why he said it, and I can't fault him for it, at all. Like I said, I think telling the press that combat is "fun" and killing the enemy is justified is exaclty what troops need to hear sometimes to be reassured. Doubly so, since you don't have his command, so you don't know what's really going on with it.

Like I said, you seize upon this as yet another way of just critizing the US. It's a knee jerk reaction. What's sad it that if this was a story about a school teacher that was suspened for teaching the declaration of independence you'd probably be among the first to opine that "there's more to this story than meets the eye obviously" and not be so quick to judge.

And as to being a narrow minded xenophobe, I've seen Canada's defense and foreign aid expenditures. Apparently the only form of international aid of consequence to come out of Canada these days is critism of the US. Because frankly it does bugger all else.

I agree with most of what you said, as we dont spend enough on our military. But IRAQ = vietnam, deal with it.

and crying about drug companies is really really silly :rolleyes:


Well in some ways, Iraq and Vietnam are the same. They are both being determined not by the soldiers but by civilians.

Ergh. Men.
Reading this thread made me wish I were a lesbian.

;)

As a Canadian - I'm wondering why we even need to go into the America-Canadian problems that exist. I find it distasteful to go into an anti-American rant, when so much is left to be desired from my country. The General may be American, but there are soldiers worldwide who would agree with him.

I have no problem with what the General said. I agree with him. To him shooting someone who has beaten their wife for five years is a 'hoot'. I'd reckon that shooting an enemy soldier, even without the wife beating part, is also fun to the General. No suprises here.

I've read Generation Kill, which follows a USMC Force Recon platoon in depth (as part of a battalion) that spearheaded several thrusts into Iraq, literally driving into ambushes. What did I gather from that book?

Imagine you are driving at a reasonable clip through the streets of a foreign town in a lightly armored vehicle, enemy fires on your position, and shooting back with what amounts to a small armory.

You might be scared. You might be afraid. But there is no question - your adrenaline is pumping, you're yelling "Get Some"... and if you are in the Marines, no doubt you are having fun. The same might not be said for the reporter who was embedded with the unit and subsequently wrote the book, but different strokes for different folks.

You don't have to agree with the philosophy ... some like it, some don't. It does exist though. Deal with it.

Aiding and abetting the enemy?

I am relatively sure that if this video falls into the hands of the world's terrorist organization, and I would presume that it likely will, then it will probably prove to be a very valuable recruitment tool for the terrorists.

The General made a huge mistake by trying to make light of the serious business of killing people. His words indicate that it is "fun" to shoot the enemy and he qualifies his statement by suggesting that the enemy are just a bunch of wife beaters. As if intimate partner violence doesn't occur in the US?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf

The truly sad part is the audience responded with laughter and applause. :confused:

I can visualize an American prisoner staring down the barrel of a gun of a captor, and just before they shoot him, they burst out laughing, and tell the prisoner that they are just having "fun".

Not kidding - that comment straight to you from General Mattis, who leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division. (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html)




Yep, killing people is just a great way to spend the day....

:rolleyes:

No shit, he's a Marine. And from the 1st Marine Division. The same 1st Marine Division that inflicted more casualites than any other unit in history during the Korean War.

Back on topic.

So why do you care what some guy said? I don't see why you would even want to post something like this?

Meh. What do you expect from people who are deliberately dumbed down and made to feel superior.

So what, men who slap women around should be shot...and I bet it would be fun as hell to pull the trigger on those jerks. Grow a pair.

What's with all the self-righteous, anti-american Canadians?

I can visualize an American prisoner staring down the barrel of a gun of a captor, and just before they shoot him, they burst out laughing, and tell the prisoner that they are just having "fun".
Hey, sort of like the events held on soccer fields when the Taliban were still in power. I'm all for it.

So what, men who slap women around should be shot...and I bet it would be fun as hell to pull the trigger on those jerks. Grow a pair.

What's with all the self-righteous, anti-american Canadians?
i guess they want to add some sensibility to the proviolence, anti-tolerance, self righteous americans

Why do so many people have a problem with me enjoying my job???

The lies must stop!

Most of you here have no idea what it is like to be a soldier. There's nothing wrong with killing a enemy and enjoying it. What's a matter with you people? You want me to hate my job? Too bad! I not only like killing, I love killing an enemy of the U.S. I wouldn't trade my job for anything!

Just because I'm a soldier doesn't mean I'm a "wife beater" or a "puppy killer". I am a gentlemen, and I would never hurt a women in any way!!! And I would never hurt a animal!!!

The General didn't say anything outrage. He is simply saying the truth, and just because you disagree with him doesn't make you right! And we like to kill the enemy! Not civilians!!! We only like to kill Enemy troops.

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

So what, men who slap women around should be shot...and I bet it would be fun as hell to pull the trigger on those jerks. Grow a pair.

What's with all the self-righteous, anti-american Canadians?
I am not anti-American. Anti-Bush yes.

While I do not condone physical abuse of men or women, you think that the death penalty is in order? How long should someone spend in jail for verbal abuse or is that punishable by death too?

I am not anti-American. Anti-Bush yes.

This isn't about Bush. So save your damn anti-Bush crap statments for another thread. I am Pro-American, Pro-War, and most important Pro-Bush!!! Deal with it.

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

This isn't about Bush. So save your damn anti-Bush crap statments for another thread. I am Pro-American, Pro-War, and most important Pro-Bush!!! Deal with it.

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh
Sounds like you are the one with the problem, not me. :eek:

Actually this thread is about an American General who thinks it is "fun" to shoot Arabs, which I think sends a sad message to the world, and to the terrorists who pick up on his message, and use it to recruit more terrorists.

Agreed but then im still sane (for the most part) but then ive never been to war.
To claim he is ignoring it is a bit of a stretch. Something like this would have to be brought to his attention first, im not saying that ignorance excuses this, im saying that these things need to be given more attention, and be conveiged to the people in charge.
The American military mindset views wifebeating as dishonorable and cowardly. I don't think he referred to all Afghanis or Iraqis, just the enemy combatants.

Every war breeds contempt of the enemy. It makes the job of killing them more palatable.

It's all well and good for those who kill from a distance to maintain their "humanity" as the retired rear admiral has displayed in his statement ( NB - the Navy despises the Marines and the Marines despise non-Marine, especially the Navy). But when it is close and personal and one sees, hears, smells the person he has to kill a bit more is needed by way of ego preservation.

The problem I might have with this guy and his statement...

Detractors almost certainly suspect that the statement's true. But when you're engaged in an unnecessary war, trying to win hearts and minds at home and abroad, you don't go "Yup, I like to kill, hehe!"

I mean, why open your mouth, remove all doubt and give us detractors something else to bitch about? 'Specially if you're already annoyed with us.
If someone like this regards your opinion at all, which is doubtful, then it may well be designed to piss you off.

SNIP
Although I also grant that the General used abuse as a single reason why he disrespects the Arabs rather than the entire reason for his "enjoyment" at the sight of their dead bodies.
Funny, when I read his comments I saw it as he was referring to enemy combatants - not all Arabs.

While I do not condone physical abuse of men or women, you think that the death penalty is in order? How long should someone spend in jail for verbal abuse or is that punishable by death too?
In the case of Force Majeure, I would assume men who slap women is a euphemism for men who regularly beat the shit out of, keep as basically slaves, and occasionally rape, women.

I'm sure I could dig up articles about, say, abused pets in American cities. Does that mean that all Americans are puppy-killing bastards? No, of course not - and if made that assertion, you'd tear a strip off me.

So how is it that an American general can get away with making broad, sweeping generalizations about people he is trying to justify murdering? Especially when in trying to justify killing Iraqis, he alludes to the justifiability of killing Afghanis for mistreating women? We're talking apples and oranges here.
Who mentioned Iraqis?

He chose the wrong words, but I'm pretty sure he meant to say he liked the idea of ridding the nation of these evil people.

Although he was an idiot for saying that.

In the case of Force Majeure, I would assume men who slap women is a euphemism for men who regularly beat the shit out of, keep as basically slaves, and occasionally rape, women.
How do you know what he meant by his statement? He certainly didn't say that.

The Iraqis will be pleased to hear that you could have turned them into nuclear glass, and then will debate what is a worse war, especially for as you admit yourself, oil: nuclear mass death or conventional mass death. Shortly, they would decide that neither is an option.

How is nuking a country not a difficult path?

And the Iraqis have not yet chosen their own future, because they have not elected a leader as yet. Allawi was not elected, but installed. Same for their President.

Secondly, if Iraqis elect a leader who has close links to Iran, will he be allowed to take his post?
That remains to be seen. But it should prove interesting.

Oh brother. Way to make us look good General! How about either a retraction and maybe demotion or a couple of years at Leavenworth will make you see the error of your ways! :rolleyes:
Settle down there! What he said was probably a career killer, although for a Marine it is pretty off the shelf stuff. It wasn't criminal to the extent he could be charged let alone convicted of anything.

Aren't video games a part of the training program for the US armed forces nowadays? I remember seeing somethng like that on TV a while back. That could explain alot.
Unfortunately it doesn't explain as much as you might hope. Trainers are used in part as an introduction to operating the actual equipment and in part to practice and examine tactics. They are also used in the private sector. While they may help develop certain skill sets they do not impart a bloodthirsty indifference to killing in actual combat.

Aren't video games a part of the training program for the US armed forces nowadays? I remember seeing somethng like that on TV a while back. That could explain alot.

The US military has been doing a lot of psychological studies on how to make soldiers more effective since WW II.

An analysis of soldier's behavior in combat in WW II showed that out of any group of soldiers, only a few would actually fire their weapons at all, and out of those few, even fewer would actually pick a target and aim at them.

The odds that a soldier would actually fire at someone went up for people operating armored vehicles and crew served weapons - but for the common rifleman, it was rare for a man to actually shoot anyone unless they absolutely had to.

At first it was thought that units with a more "gung ho" attitude might do the trick, but training along these lines didn't improve anything - we had the same problem in Korea.

Improvements were made in rifles - optimizing them in such as way as to reduce their effective range and somewhat reduce their lethality, but double the number of rounds that could be carried - hence the development of the M-16.

At the same time, the psychological studies bore fruit after the Korean War. It was found that if you remove the typical white paper with black bullseye as the target during training, and replace it with targets that pop up in the shape of a human silhouette, you unconsciouly are training the soldiers to shoot at people. Further optimizations of this target have been made in 3-D foam dolls (we used to call them "Little Ivan").

Today, over 95 percent of soldiers will aim and shoot at people in combat. Considering that the figure in WW II was below 5 percent, this is an incredible increase in lethality. Add to that the newer sighting systems (such as the ACOG) and the new body armor (that will prevent all rifle fire from penetrating the torso), and an individual US infantryman is far more deadly and far harder to kill than even his predecessor in the Vietnam War. The new sights have been proven in combat with both the US and Israeli army, and in urban combat, have made another quantum leap in the ability to inflict casualties.

http://www.nydailynews.com/02-04-2005/news/story/277514p-237751c.html

And the final verdict. Smack on the wrist.

http://www.nydailynews.com/02-04-2005/news/story/277514p-237751c.html

And the final verdict. Smack on the wrist.

And a movie deal to boot. What's this guy care if he shoots his mouth off? What's he got to lose? nothing.

Mattis is a shitty example to his troops.

And a movie deal to boot. What's this guy care if he shoots his mouth off? What's he got to lose? nothing.
Willis would make a much better Mathis than Ford.