home

Fun Times in Iraq?

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:59:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

If and when Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis returns to the United States, you'd better hope he doesn't move next door. If he does, mind your manners. Mattis has a serious attitude problem.

According to an audio recording of General Mattis's remarks obtained by The Associated Press, he said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."

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

General 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."

Mattis has been "counseled" to be less honest about the delight he takes in killing people who don't pass his "manhood" test.

< Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting | Cop Avoids Prosecution For Beating >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Fun Times in Iraq? | 51 comments (51 topical)
    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#1)
    by brian on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:53:16 AM EST
    How much manhood do guys who rape women and boys in military prisons have? How about guys who kill men that they are holding in custody? Or threaten with docs? Just wondering.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    Yeah, saw this one on CNN this morning. While I'll grant that the guy does have a point about the character of some of these people he's saying "its fun" to kill, his statements are still sick and disgusting and should make him immediately ineligible for further service. The difference between this guy and a pyscho-killer would appear to be very small.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    At least he was honest about his motivations. Why would anyone join the imperial army if not because he enjoys killing people?

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    Hey, we hire and train these guys to kill people. Don't get your jockey's in a wad.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Johnny on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:45:31 AM EST
    Sorry Jim-Uday Hussein got wood from killing pople with opposing viewpoints. Besides, he's a general, what are the chances he actually pulled a trigger? What's he know about killing another human being?

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:57:23 AM EST
    johny, you don't become a general by having it handed to you. I'm sure he understands what killing a man is.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    Gentlemen, Men are weapons, just as much as guns and tanks. This sort of talk is common among successful generals, and particularly in the Marine Corps. Imagine if Patton were living today, if you can. You would find much to dislike in him I am certain. But there were few who objected when he drove the third army to the very limits of its physical abilities in the breakout from Normandy. Just like an M-1 Tank, which is not street-legal, a fighting general with a big mouth has a place in the arsenal of the republic. The sort of person who would make a successful hospital director or even a chief of police is not likely to prove adequate as a commander of a Marine division in an assault. Mattis was a "hands-on" battalion commander, leading from the front in the 1991 Gulf War.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    'a "hands-on" battalion commander'... of course, that explains and justifies everything. These commanders are all like that, then? Democracy must be proud of her guardians. Let's say it together: We've got the moral high ground.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    Mr. ?, I was just pointing out that even from what I know General Mattis has definitely seen combat. He certainly has been shot at. "Moral high ground " ? The moral high ground in war is winning it, not pleasing the press. The press hated Patton. Taking most of France in two weeks was more important to the republic than maintaining its reputation for morality.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    I get it. Because we hire and train these guys to kill people, we should not object to the leader's delight in shooting people. I'd guess folks who were hired and trained to be a butcher should, quite appropriately, ejaculate while disemboweling animals! And say so! Proudly, publicly, and as a representative of the USA!

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1295734.htm "The Iraqi police have investigated a case in the village of al-Mudhariya, which is just south of Baghdad. The villagers there say that before the election insurgents came and warned them that if they voted in last weekend's election, they would pay. Now the people of this mixed village of Sunni and Shia Muslims, they ignored the threat and they did turn out to vote. We understand that last night the insurgents came back to punish the people of al-Mudhariya, but instead of metering out that punishment the villagers fought back and they killed five of the insurgents and wounded eight. They then burnt the insurgents' car. So the people of that village have certainly had enough of the insurgents." Hey, a little good news from Iraq, not matter what side of the debate you are on! Here we have Sunni and Shiite muslims not only living together, but banding together to thrash the terrorists trying to destroy their country. I'll bet they had fun doing it too.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    Look people, I'm not thrilled someone would publicly say something like this, but let's be real. We have a military establishment whose purpose is to kill people. With this goes a certain mindset. Such comments should likely be held within the confines of a military unit, but I really don't see the problem here. However, I do have a big problem with the fact that this attitude also seems to have infiltrated our civilian leadership. That is a completely different issue, though the argument can be made that one influences the other, I suppose.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    Mr. ?, You really should read some history. Some people just like fighting (like Patton, just for instance). Very often they get very good at it. If you have a war, it is helpful to have some people who are very good at it on your side, and preferably leading your men if they have the talent for that too. The combination is rare. Lincoln, for instance, search for a long time before he found enough such leaders, meanwhile far more Union soldiers died than should have. Lincoln could have used a Mattis. Just a personal note - you are, I think, pursuing debating points rather than thinking sincerely about the world as it is.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:19:49 PM EST
    Posted by at February 4, 2005 11:57 AM johny, you don't become a general by having it handed to you. I'm sure he understands what killing a man is. that statement may or may not be true like any other corporation some individuals are selected for leadership. ?why do you think every young louie or capt'n careerist is trying to get to iraq? "combat command" is unofficially a must for promotion past major in most mos'. (mos = military occupational skill for the non vets)

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    Posted by justpaul at February 4, 2005 12:41 PM I'll bet they had fun doing it too. ain't $hit fun about a fire fight especially when your family and home is in peril. it was a good post until that last sentence. killing is never easy, and it never is fun unless your twisted. and rising to the rank of general in the marines, that boy's character is probably like a pretzel.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:30:23 PM EST
    xVet, The fact that you did not enjoy your combat experience does not mean the people who successfully defended themselves from a terrorist attack did not enjoy doing so. We'd have to ask them. I'm sorry if my attempt at a bit of humor and reference to the main topic of the thread upset you.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    Tempest in a teapot. With all the real issues in this world we don't need to fabricate ones based on a soldier's machismo. I'm not saying this statement doesn't sound nuts, but he's not the problem to be trying to fix.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    Just as I would like my Doctor to be compassionate and good at what he does the same goes for my profesional soldier, he must be willing to kill and live with it, if he likes what he does he's a lucky guy. After all how many people really love what they do? As best as I can tell his men love this guy and how many of us can say that about their boss? So a professional killer loves his job? Great. IMHO, I don't want a wuss leading from some misguided love of his enemy and an inate softness of heart.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    I'd much prefer a man with a conscience leading our military man and women, who will kill when he has to to protect himself and his men, not some one who enjoys it. Games are fun, war shouldn't be a game.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:10:11 PM EST
    Mr. Kdog, Consider General McClellan. He was, in fact, a man as you describe. An extremely competent organizer, a skillful strategist, thoughtful and responsible towards his men, who loved him. He was a failure, because he had no will to close with and destroy the enemy, to exploit every opportunity for victory. He failed to take advantage of his opportunities and thereby extended the war. Lincoln sacked him. War is not a science, it is an art, and successful generals, like artists, come in many flavors, some of them bitter.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    "Mattis was a "hands-on" battalion commander, leading from the front in the 1991 Gulf War. " Luisa, if you don't realize that lowering the bar of our moral standards HARMS OUR TROOPS and our Republic, then not much can be done for your IQ. This was an event paid for by arms manufacturers trying to sell their wares. Oorah. A three-star general stretches his suspenders and opines about how he loves killing the little chink bastards. And the crowd guffaws like they were in the Fuhrer's employ. Whatever else he is, Mattis is not a professional soldier. He's just another Pentagon COWARD and warmonger. What he said was unprofessional, and if indeed he gets sick pleasure out of doing what he is ordered to, or if indeed he uses deadly force against persons out of the suspicion that they beat their wives, then it is time for him to lose some stars and retire. He's harming the services. The C-in-C is an outright traitor to the services, so this is not unexpected behavior. It is INTENDED to lower the bar, to make laughing about killing OK in our society, provided you're killing people who 'beat their wives' or whatever other excuse voids the code of conduct of an officer, the responsibility not to teach by example what it is to be a thug and a racist in uniform, rather than a professional soldier.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#22)
    by cp on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    consider gen. grant, who successfully pursued and defeated gen. lee. grant had no love for killing. yet, he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of his and lee's men. unlike mclellan, grant recognized a harsh reality: in war, people get killed. the best way to stop the killing is to end the war as quickly as possible. however, he never expressed any enjoyment in killing his foe, it was a necessary evil. when you reach the point where you actually enjoy killing, than it's time to quit, your humanity has been lost.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    Mr. Cp, General Grant and his army in general had a high opinion of their opponents, as both sides were fundamentally culturally compatible, and both sides kept to the same customs of warfare. Similarly, the Germans, Italians and Allies in North Africa during WWII treated each other well and held each other in respect. These things make a difference. Elsewhere, opinions were different. The Japanese aquired a stink of odium after word got out about their policy of atrocity. The Taliban and Iraqi insurgents have that flavor I believe.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    Mr. Paul in LA, I mentioned Mattis role in the Gulf war because someone said that he had not been under fire. I understand that he was indeed under fire, and I also understand that his battalion had a superb reputation for efficiency. Arms manufacturers and their politics have nothing to do with the running of an infantry battalion, I assure you. Yes, the press hated Patton for the same reasons, and others too. The press cannot see beyond the words to the heart. They are not soldiers at war. Patton (and countless others) also said similar things. He berated and insulted the enemy, to inspire his men. This is an old tradition, going back millenia. Was he a moral man ? I think so. The rest of what you say is I think more than a little paranoid.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    "Military glory: the attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood." -Abraham Lincoln 16th U.S. President not a word about fun, but then the USMC is having a recruiting drive at the moment. Got to stress the positive side to the kids.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    Luisa: Paul in LA "more than a little paranoid"? You have a wonderful gift for understatement.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    Johnny - He wasn't born a General. You do understand the Bronze star and close combat award, don't you? (Probably not. Oh well.) lusialegria - Well said. Paul In LA - If it were just possible for you to meet the General, up close and personal, after he had just read your comments. I swear I would pay to see that.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#28)
    by chupetin on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:44:29 PM EST
    A member of the armed services is considered a profesional and should act accordingly; they should do their work with skill and efficiency. Murder is not something to enjoy but if your job is killing people I would imagine that there is some satisfaction in a work well done just like any other job. I know soldiers, other than their profession they are ordinary people and you know how people are; there is good and bad no matter what other classification you give them.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:13:10 PM EST
    LOL Jim. Excellent point. I'd pay to see it too. Lusialegria, I second that. Well said.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:24:44 PM EST
    "Posted by luisalegria: "General Grant and his army in general had a high opinion of their opponents...similarly, the Germans, Italians and Allies in North Africa during WWII treated each other well and held each other in respect." HILARIOUS. The Allies had respect for the Nazis? That's a slander. "Elsewhere, opinions were different. The Japanese aquired a stink of odium after word got out about their policy of atrocity." Like killing 50,000 Iraqi children, eh? Like using cluster bombs, uranium-tipped shells, and in the case of the Rape of Fallujah, preventing the wounded from reaching medical care? Yeah, the stink of odium around that is DENSE. "I mentioned Mattis role in the Gulf war because someone said that he had not been under fire." Anyone who knows a tap about the Marines would know that a three-star has seen plenty. Not my point. "I understand that he was indeed under fire, and I also understand that his battalion had a superb reputation for efficiency." Also not the point. And if he was in the first Gulf War, also started on lies, then he may have participated in the major warcrimes at the end of that conflict. "Arms manufacturers and their politics have nothing to do with the running of an infantry battalion, I assure you." Indeed. Then explain why he was there. Just there to share his racism with the salesmen? "Yes, the press hated Patton for the same reasons, and others too. The press cannot see beyond the words to the heart. They are not soldiers at war." Mattis isn't fit to be Patton's arsehole. Patton was a professional soldier, and he fought a REAL enemy, unlike the bullsh*t artists' enemies, who happen to live on top of our oil. WE ARE NOT AT WAR, under our Constitution, no matter how much you jingos think it. Invading an innocent, disarmed country, on lies now PROVEN to be lies before the whole world, is not something to be proud of. It has damaged our military at least as much as Vietnam. 1,450 dead GIs and not ONE weapon of mass destruction. At that rate, there aren't enough soldiers on the earth to eliminate terrorism or whatever it is they are supposed to eliminating ('wife-beaters,' so he says). Marines have never beaten their wives in history. They still have their manliness. Is that what you really believe, Luis? It's too stupid, but since you think Grant can be compared to the Nazis, maybe I give you too much credit.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:33:07 PM EST
    "Posted by Jim: "Johnny - He wasn't born a General. You do understand the Bronze star and close combat award, don't you? Wow, seems to me six months ago you were attacking a man who has one of them Bronze stars, a Silver, and a couple of Purple Hearts. "Friday 17 September 2004 Washington - The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo." Paul In LA - If it were just possible for you to meet the General, up close and personal, after he had just read your comments. I swear I would pay to see that." More of your juvenile threats, Jim. I bet that really makes your b*lls tingle to think about it. It's probably right up there next to your thoughts about what a "real" man you are. How you worship those who are, BY THEIR OWN WORDS, unfit for service.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:50:12 PM EST
    Mr. Paul in LA, What does the political justification or otherwise of any of these wars have to do with the professional qualifications of Gen. Mattis ? I'm sorry, I don't see where tab A fits into slot B. As for respect among enemies, absolutely, believe it or not. This did in fact exist between the British 8th Army and the German Afrika Korps (for instance). It is in every contemporary source I have read. Both sides were determined to fight a "clean" war in Africa. The British held Rommel in very high repute as a soldier an as an honorable opponent. The same considerations were extended to the Italians in the various campaigns, and by osmosis persisted through the Tunisian campaign, with the Americans and the other British armies. This attitude, between the front-line soldiers, did not extend to other theaters of war and deteriorated later, and incidents of mistreatment and atrocities multiplied in Italy and France. I really think that this is a more interesting subject than just some other venue for political bashing.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:06:54 AM EST
    Posted by luisalegria: "Gentlemen, Men are weapons, just as much as guns and tanks." Funny you mention tanks. Rumsfeld thinks people ARE tanks, which is why he did the illegal invasion "on the cheap," with ONE tank element, instead of the FIVE that the Pentagon said was their minimum. The effect of this cost-saving? Quite a few soldiers died trying to be tanks. In the first days of the Bagdad push, two Marines were ordered two cross an irrigation ditch to secure the flank, because the ditch had bermed sides. Both men disappeared instantly, and the unit spent the rest of the day looking for the bodies. Thanks Don!! It didn't help that the Marines were not permitted by their -reservist- leader to have either of the two required body lines, and they were ordered to enter in full battle dress, in total violation of policy. Ooorah. Because of Don "On the Cheap" Rumseld, those soldiers didn't stand a chance. And the generals who accepted that decrement in their requisition, ooorah, also forgot to pack enough Kevlar, or to armor more than 2 PERCENT of the vehicles in the rush to Rape Bagdad. Those two Marines were some of the first soldiers I mourned because of Bush's trumped up war for profit. There have been 1,450 more, but then there are the tens of thousands of permanently wounded, and the toxic cases, like these poor skin disease who are being medivaced back in the states. You may not remember, but I do, that the Bush plan originally was not to repatriate remains of soldiers. They can't wait until they can just leave some poor son's ashes all over someone else's backyard. Bush signs the notices in Marks-a-lot. Gee, that looks so caring on the wall with the others. Don doesn't bother -- f*k 'em.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:19:51 AM EST
    "I really think that this is a more interesting subject than just some other venue for political bashing." Yeah, that's your major malfunction. You think it's an interesting "subject," while I recognize it as RACISM. You lot are fond of saying the world changed in 2001, and that's BUNK. The world changed in 1945, forever, and NEVER AGAIN. Your heroes include modern racists? Not mine. Your 'boys-will-be-boys' moral equivalency is actually innocent mothers and their daughters, splattered against kitchen walls all over Iraq. 50,000 children killed. NOT A SINGLE TRUTH TO BUSH'S LIES.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:57:43 AM EST
    Excellent posts, Paul. I share your disgust.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:52:30 AM EST
    I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#37)
    by cp on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:53:26 AM EST
    luisa, best go back and re-read your history. grant also served in the mexican-american war of 1848. he was none to fond of killing then, either. he did his job as a west point trained officer, against a foe that was considered low end (remember the alamo?), but he also questioned the legitimacy of that war, and never expressed any enjoyment for killing that particular enemy. as for the japanese in wwII, again, your memory is selective. while it's true they were responsible for some of the more savage incidents of the war (rape of nanking, anyone?), no one questioned their skill as soldiers, or their tenacity in combat. they were respected by both the marines and the army on those scores. if there was any joy expressed at killing them, it was for two reasons: 1. the sneak attack on pearl harbor., and 2. the ferocity with which they fought. the only way to stop them was to kill them.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:07:55 AM EST
    Paul, you are the very racist you profess to condemn in others. You perp the very ignorance you profess to condemn in others. You are so full of vitriol, you can't see past your orthodoxy. If you could see yourself the way reasonable people see you, you would snap out of your mad sef-important delusions, but then you would be someone you obviously are not.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#39)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:20:25 AM EST
    PPJ writes to PinLA: "If it were just possible for you to meet the General, up close and personal, after he had just read your comments. I swear I would pay to see that" To which Doctor Ace of course smugly agrees. What in hell is wrong with you people? Are you just pure rednecks or are you playing that on TV? Let me tell y'all somethin': I'd love, relish, apprectiate the opportunity to tell that General where he can stick his bloodthirsty, autoerotic treatment of the shedding of human blood. I'd have no qualms calling him a COWARD andf a warmonger to boot, because that's exactly what he is. What's he gonna do, guys, exactly, that makes you want to pay to see someone tell him what he is to his face? Let him go ahead and do whatever it is. It won't change the monstrosity that he is.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:24:52 AM EST
    Reasonable people have no time for, or interest in your puerile fantasies, glanton

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#41)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    It is not my fantasies that are at issue, Doctor, but those of the General. And remember, yuou and PPJ are the ones who brought up this ridiculous, "I'd like to see you say it to his face," mantra. Well, I'd like to see me say it to his face, too. He deserves it. The bigger question is, what fantasy do you think you'd be buying to see the General confronted with his ignorant bloodthirst. Think he might "whoop some ass!"? oorah. blech.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:11:15 AM EST
    Just pointing out what's plain for any reasonable person to see, glaton. Ridiculous to you? Fine.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#43)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:21:11 AM EST
    Well, it's nice to know that you can defend the General with such a cavalier air. I suppose you think he is a hero. If, for partisan reasons or whatever, you cannot condemn what he has said and who this reveals him to be, as a human being, then you're a damned sight removed from being a quality human being yourself. Period. What a joke for you, while defending the sadistic rhetoric of this American military officer, to take the moral high ground in terms of the "War on Terror" or anything else. But then, to the petty and the callow go the spoils, these days.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    Jim, Remember, your pit bull is only allowed four posts per day.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    Only a soldier who has served during wartime can truly appreciate where the General is coming from. From the moment you start basic training it is embeded in your mind to Kill. I can remember walking to church services during basic training saying "kill, kill, kill" with every left step. Just like a football player is taught to take glory in hitting hard, a soldier is taught to kill or be killed and to take extreme pride in attaining kills. I can remember when I first went into Panama during "operation just cause" I was timid, and scared. But later during the Gulf War and Somalia it didn't even faze me whatsoever to pull the trigger. In fact most of my fellow soldiers at this time were looking for someone to shoot at. Just waiting for another oppurtunity. I know exactly what the general is saying. You take pride in doing your job and doing it well. He's a soldiers soldier!

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    Real Men Love Jesus, "He's a soldiers soldier!" The soldiers I have met and known participated in the following actions. WWII North Africa & Italy (my grandfather, Desert Rat DR), Battle of Britain (Douglas Bader), Falklands (Para & Royal Marine Commando), Northern Ireland (Para), Malaya and Gulf War. None of them ever expressed the opinion that it was fun. You just grow some twisted perverts over there in the good ole US of A. Jesus don't love you m8. "The meek shall inherit the Earth."

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimcee on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:43:37 PM EST
    There is a reason this fellow is a General Officer and not a mess sergent. He is good at what he does and imparts that in his men whose job is to kill and dominate those in their path. Is anyone here suggesting that it would be better if he didn't imply that the job of the rifle toting infantry is to kill people? Ummm.. if you want peace don't hire The General, if you're into a violent conflict he's your man and we're in a violent conflict. If you want a "Birkenstock" nation then you don't want this fellow to defend you but if you want to be able to defend your sandal wearing lifestyle you'll give this guy a "look-away" pass because wimps like you will roll over no matter who is the aggressor. The sad part of the world is those that will not fight for their own beliefs put boundries on those that will. Really, unfortanatly, sad. Again, I'm let down by by my former team, the Left.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#48)
    by cp on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:21:37 PM EST
    real men love jesus & jimcee, you both can't possibly be that obtuse. or.....can you? nowhere in any of these posts, or anywhere else, for that matter, has anyone expressed the notion that soldiers shouldn't be trained well for their jobs, or take pride in doing their jobs well. sometimes, this does entail killing other human beings. had the good general said just that, no one would take issue with him, certainly not i. what i, and many others, take issue with is the concept of his enjoying killing other human beings. if you two are unable to distinguish between killing as necessity, and killing for enjoyment, there's no hope left, you are doomed to perpetual stupidity.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Johnny on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:07:26 PM EST
    This topic is hilarious. Arguing over whether a professional killer enjoys his work or not-of course they do. But imagine this guy talking about shooting people, and he wasn't a soldier. (Jim, someone made a good point about you trashing another broze star holder, and I stand by my statement that he doesn't know anything about what he is talking about-telling a 19 year old kid to kick in a door and shoot some wounded dude does not count as combat experience)

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:22:30 PM EST
    Last year in one of many confrontations with veterans (I protest at our national cemetary), a Vietnam vet told me that he suffered guilt for his actions for 30 years, until W made it OK for him to hate again. Choosing racism in order to avoid pain for one's own actions in war is the path of insanity, not freedom, and the people at the VA will tell you the same thing. John Kerry and John McCain worked hard at normalizing relations with Vietnam. That's a mature act of men who are seeking understanding. But jingo's like the General are on a different path, one which is repugnant to MOST combat soldiers. The hyped emphasis on killing is typically Marine. It is not, to my knowledge, found in similar degree in any of the other services. And it has a sick side to it, which is counter-productive, and even illegal. RACISTS, like the General and many here, have a racist theory of war. That theory enables their hatred, and in some circumstances, that gets the job done. But in other cases, it leads to needless conflict or absurd battle strategies which get the troops destroyed and accomplish nothing of value. Marines have told me, repeatedly, that they don't need no stinking Kevlar. Ooorah. But they just don't fight as well with a chest-hole you can see through. It's impractical to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars training and housing and deploying a soldier, only to have the destroyed by the lack of a few hundred dollars in ceramic body armor, regardless of what the 'Ooorah's and the jingo's think. Most soldiers survive, and succeed, by THINKING. Not by hating the enemy per se, or by heroic manliness which disdains protection. Rambo is not a good soldier, but he clearly is the hero of the armchair sadists.

    Re: Fun Times in Iraq? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:02:59 AM EST
    Competence is an alien concept to the left, eh, Paul?

    Fun Times in Iraq? | 51 comments (51 topical)