http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines__comments

According to an audio recording of Mattis' remarks, 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."

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five 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."

"While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," Hagee said. "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor."

:( :eek:

:( :eek:

Well I can see where he's comming from . . . can you blame the man for enjoying his job? It's no secret that shooting people can be fun, we've got a billion dollar video game industry based on that fact, and if you've got yourself deadset into a simplistic "good guy's vs. bad guys" mentality, why not smile and enjoy yourself a bit? Better than going nuts and getting that post traumatic stress disorder.

You know, I think that there's a recruiting poster in these comments somewhere.

"Hey kids, Totaly Pwnz0r at Counter Strike? Come join the Marines! Shooting these Arabs is fun as hell, they're total n00bs! LOL!"

Actually, I think it is much more entertaining to beat people, just a fistfight, fair an square. Using guns is for cowards.

So what? He's a soldier, that's what they do. Shouldn't they love their job?

"Hey kids, Totaly Pwnz0r at Counter Strike? Come join the Marines! Shooting these Arabs is fun as hell, they're total n00bs! LOL!"

Scary enough, I think that slogan would actually work!

- N

Actually, I think it is much more entertaining to beat people, just a fistfight, fair an square. Using guns is for cowards.
It's not like it would un-fun, it would just be funner to beat them to death. But if you had to kill like 500 arabs a day you'd probably want a gun as you'd get pretty worn out trying to fist fight that many people to death.
No I can definately understand why these guys are having fun.

I don't know why they shoot women and children though :confused: not very sporting and a waste of ammo. I'd just use a good old fashioned stone or hammer.
Are soliders issued a rusty hammer to dispatch of unarmed civilians? They should be IMHO. Might be able to save a bit of money.
If I had a country and an army I would definately issue them a rusty hammer each.
Just to show the world what a good sense of humour I have for a world leader.
And then their chuckling would die down and transform into weeping as shocking images would be shown on the news of my lunatic forces bludgeoning hysterical civilians to death. And then photos would arise of my soldiers sodomising POWs with hammer handles and pulling silly faces. And then everyone who protested about it on the streets would be gassed and savaged by dogs wearing gas masks.
When people went to vote at the next election there'd be 2 buttons, one for me, and one for my opponent that would have an electrical current running through it which fried traitors and confused old people.

George Bush really isn't that bad.

who cares, his party will kill me, so therefoer it is my right and duty to kill him first

i think that the point of the matter is that someone in his postion SHOULD exercise a little bit of compassion, the fact that he is killing is his job, what bothers me, and what gives our military a bad name is how lightly he speaks of it.

I don't know why they shoot women and children though :confused: not very sporting and a waste of ammo. I'd just use a good old fashioned stone or hammer.

I think the classic low tech method is to use a shovel to the back of the neck. It is rather efficient in a way. You first let the victim dug his own grave and then you let them stand in front of the grave and take the shovel. And a well placed hit in the back of the neck ends all.

Used to be the method of choice in Cambodia.

"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."

Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, USMC

If they have no manhood left, isn't it cowardly to shoot them?

Without war, we might instead call for justice, which has no place in a theater of combat.

Anyway, talk about fueling the fire ....

That kind of philosophy from generals is why abuses like AG happen.

So what? He's a soldier, that's what they do. Shouldn't they love their job?
I have yet to meet a combat veteran, myself included, who enjoyed it. A lot of guys talk game before they get up in it and find out what combat is really like, but after the fact they're much more somber when the topic comes up. I promise you, any veteran who talks big about the "action" they saw did not see much of it.

There is a reason for this. How do you explain the atrocities you committed against your enemies, and that they committed against you? Not only are the memories unbelievably painful to recount, but their horror transcends words. Every time a combat vet tells his or her story, we have to relive the experience. Many times it's amazingly difficult to even finish sentences because the images keep flooding back and their memories can be overpowering.

Anyway, I think all of you guys are reading too far into this. The LtGen. was speaking to a crowd of Marines, and having a history with them, I can tell you that this sort of gung ho rhetoric is par for the course. It's just a different culture in there; one that civilians universallly have a hard time understanding. That said, General officers are micropoliticians, and this guy should have known somebody would get their panties in a bunch over these statements.

Stokes Pennwalt...well said. We've come a long way from Patton's speech to the 3rd army.

I'm glad that our soldiers enjoy killing people.
I'd hate to send people over who didn't like shooting people, both ethically and for efficiency.
You know, make sure I'm getting my bang for my buck.

I'm inclined to think Stokes Pennwalt read about as far into it as it can go, but if the guy was serious, you have to take into account the military, whose job it is to essentially kill people (though we all know it's one of the most important jobs a nation can have) will attract SOME crazy people who just want to kill. I think the percentage of people like that in the military is maybe 1, perhaps less, because I haven't been in it and couldn't tell you. But, any lunatic who wants to kill someone without getting in trouble will join the army, and that can't be projected on the ENORMOUS majority of the military which is comprised of decent people serving duty to their country. Out of hundreds of bases and thousands of operations throughout military history, incidences like Abu Ghraib are bound to happen. They do, there's controversy, people get their asses handed to them and it doesn't happen again for a while. I don't think the US military is anything especially bad; as most of it is fine and other militaries can be just as corrupt.

Stokes, thats all rad and everything but you're forgetting the vets from the wars of roman times who after a lifetime of hacking people to bits and hammering POWS into crosses would still speak very fondly of warfare.
I also know papua new guineans personally who've been involved in territorial hatchet fights and have the scars to prove it. They speak very fondly of conflict and the pleasure they derive from cracking open the skulls of their enemies.

It's possible the stresses of modern war are unnaturally unnerving to homo sapiens, it's also possible that the irregularity of conflict in the modern world breeds soft people who aren't up to the task.
But killing enemies isn't something that we traditionally abhor as a species. It's naturally very rewarding, as it's a part of our instincts.
Like sex, you fullfill that desire and you're rewarded with satisfaction. Fighting is something we're supposed to be doing. We're urged to do it, and rewarded when we successfully satiate that urge.

Agreed. However, Dr Lou, as self-aware and language-adept beings, we have the oportunity to empathise with others; as such, we have the option, provided to us by our intelligence, to step beyond our instincts if we decide to.

“Weapons are instruments of fear(tools of destruction). They are not a wise man’s tools. He uses them only when he has no choice. Peace and quiet are dear to his heart, and victory no cause for rejoicing. If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing. If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfil yourself (become a successful leader). The killing of many should be mourned with sorrow. A victory should be celebrated with funeral ceremonies.” - dao de ching

...we have the option, provided to us by our intelligence, to step beyond our instincts if we decide to.

But if we've found that killing some people is fun, then why would we "step beyond our instincts..."? See ...that's just the issue here -- for some people, killing some people IS fun. At that point, all we're discussing is whether it's "right or wrong" ...and only our society can tell us that.

Baron Max

I'd venture to say that while society tells us what is right and wrong, we in turn are what make up our society. We have the chance to accept what we are told, or branch off if there is something better available to us.


As for the morality of killing: its a tough question. We have many different cultures around the world with many different views on the subject. Situation plays a huge role in morality, so a blanket statement one way or the other is not going to really work.

We are omnivores, and we obviously have something which allows us to alter the natural world like no other species.
These days, what is natural? Houses and cell phones? meats chopped into cubes and sold wrapped in plastic? Is this sort of thing better than it used to be? worse?

Just because something is fun, is it good? Just because society says it's OK, it is good?
Is killing a requirement of survival? Are requirements "good", simply because they can't be avoided?

edit: clarity

You know what’s better than shooting people?

Torturing them and watching them plead for their miserable lives as you laugh and spit in their faces, right before you stick them with a knife and let them bleed out.

Now that’s fun.

We have the chance to accept what we are told, or branch off if there is something better available to us.

Oh, I agree with that. However, I also consider that anyone who "steps" outside the bounds of society's rulings are no longer a part OF that society. I.e., they've voluntarily removed themselves by their actions. (No, this has nothing to do with the topic!)

I'd also venture to say that we're also not talking about the morality of killing some people, but just the fact of whether or not it's fun to do so ...moral or not.

>"Just because something is fun, is it good?"<

I don't know ...depends on from who's point of view, I suppose. But again, we're not talking about whether something is good or bad or evil ....we're talking about whether killing some people is fun.

>"Is killing a requirement of survival?"<

Well, it don't have to be a requirement for survival to still be fun. In fact, it could be from ambush, the victim never knowing his assailant. And it could still be fun.

I'd also say that most of the people who've responded have never killed anyone, yet they're making statements about it. How could they know about it if they ain't done it?

I'll repeat: Killing some people is fun. That's a fact ..plain and simple ...ain't no easier way of saying it. Oh, I could write a few thousand, highly eloquent words in some lame-assed attempt to explain it, but would it matter? I don't think so. Killing some people is fun.

Baron Max

I think they are just telling themselves it's fun to transcend the horror. I mean, if you can find fun in it, I guess that's better than nothing, but I suspect you would have to become someone ill-suited for normal society.

Well, you're permitted to think what you like. But the main question I have is ...just how do you know what you think?

Horror? No, it's fun to kill some people. How much simpler can I put it?

Ill-suited for normal society? There are many, many of us who fit right in and no one is the wiser. In fact, if we lie about it, no one will even know.

All you're doing is making a judgement based on your upbringing and your "education", nothing more, nothing less. You've not killed someone, so how could you know?

Baron Max

Just because something is fun, is it good?
Something is fun because it is good.
Ever notice how much children love playing "chasies".
For fun, but unbeknown to them they're practicing for when the time comes when they'll need to evade and outrun someone or thing in a life or death situation.
Things are ingrained to be fun inside us for reasons we don't really know and don't need to know, it's the same for all mammals, and most birds.
Just because we don't know the reason doesn't make the reason unimportant. They're more important than we know, and more important than any arbitrary importance we could come up with. Like civilised society.
Using your human abilities to pay attention to the natural world can reveal the reasons behind many behaviours.
And it becomes clear that the restrictions law and order have put on humanity are ecologically detrimental. We are naturally built to behave a specific way which is harmonious with the natural world.
If you put electrodes on some of the plants in the amazon, so that the animals who previously ate them had to start eating something else, we'd see a huge problem arise.
This is what has happened to us, on a bigger more complicated scale.
It probably didn't seem important that we stay territorial to the "rational" minds of men in history. The urge was there but that was merely percieved as a bothersome quirk in the species. And they went about trying to fix it, with laws and what have you.
It was a rocky road, and the natural territorial urges still manifest themselves in human behaviour today, but with irregularity and in unnatural settings which came about via a lapse in the satisfying of basic urges.
Now we have "environmental problems" which entirely stem from this altering of the behaviour of one of the parts of the environment, us.
It would be impossible for environmental problems to arise were tribes of human beings competing for tenure over territories which they depended on.
The tribes territory would have to be in perfect ecological order for it to produce a living for the tribe, the tribe would die off before a substantial dent could be put in the productivity of their territory because they'd be on the top of the food chain, and they'd rely on the chain beneath them to hold them up.
Tribes would battle over territory, and they were doing this long before they were human beings. The vast majority of organisms compete over territory in some way. It's the way of the world. It's what species have to do to exist appropriately on earth.
The organisms are disposable, it's natural they don't feel that way because they need a strong desire to survive to be successfull, but technically they very much are disposable. The "territories" aren't disposable, they're the solid which governs everything else.
By altering the behaviour of humans, they've spilled out of this confinement, they eat up territories and spread like a plague.

Is killing a requirement of survival?
Traditionally yes, but as evidenced by humans, there's a way around it.
But our survival is actually quite pointless without the survival of the planet, we only exist to work for it. Why are we finding a way around it? Because we don't like getting hurt or killed? Duh. We don't like getting hurt or killed so we will be good at hurting and killing others. If we aren't doing that we might as well not even have an aversion to death and pain.

Killing is a requirement for the survival of the planet. Very much so. When we aren't killing eachother we're collaborating to form an unnaturally devestating force, one that competes with the planet itself. Our cities are like round welts on the surface of the planet with our mass production agriculture on the outer fringes of those welts.
We really are a disease consuming earth, I know that's far from an original concept but I fear people don't truely understand how real the concept is.
It's not a matter of whether killing is absolutely necessarry or not. Is not-killing really that important? It's actually laughably petty to avoid conflict considering the price of such comfort.
Keeping people friendly and happy and scrape free is a ridiculous goal to have at the cost of the very earth itself.
It's like being a heavy smoker and demanding that your every cigar is lit with a burning baby. Use a lighter bro, it's not that extreme of a sacrifice, considering.
It really wouldn't be that bad to live with your extended family off a piece of land which you occassionally needed to defend from rival families.
You could still build a house and do whatever your family was capable of. You could even produce alcohol.

War today, for the record, is simply the natural urges we have for conflict being satiated for arbitrary reasons we think up.
This can happen because we never really were aware of why we were fighting, lions aren't thinking about the huge list of ecological reasons they're fighting a rival pride, they're just urged to. The urges will play out in the correct way when we are living correctly.
When we aren't, they're embarrassingly misplaced.
You can imagine the fellatio you could recieve if you incorrectly stole a newborn baby from it's mother, crafted a doll in it's mothers likeness and slipped your penis through a hole where her breast was.
It's the same principal. There's nothing wrong with a baby who wants to suckle on the breast region of a woman shaped thing, and nothing wrong with george w bush for wanting to invade and attack other countries, they're both simply out of their elements.

Something is fun because it is good.
Cocaine is funner than hell, but it's not good.
Explain this.

And what's wrong with destroying the earth (without acknowledging that the earth must hold some intrinsic value)?

Cocaine and other drugs directly exploit and tinker with the funzone in our brains. It's not really the same thing.
That funzone was there to be inspired by things like play and sex and vanquishing enemies and generally living a satisfying life as a correct human.
Drugs go in and trick it into thinking all the right things are happening and fun is discharged.

And what's wrong with destroying the earth (without acknowledging that the earth must hold some intrinsic value)?
I don't know, if you are fine with it that's your business. As long as you acknowledge we are destroying the earth by not being the animal we are. If you're like "yeah, I know, cool huh?" after that then whatever. I can't call you incorrect.

But whats wrong with destroying people? The reason for destroying earth is so we don't have to kill eachother right?
It's a matter of choosing which is more important, for me it isn't a hard choice.
Destroying the earth leads to no earth and no people, destroying people certainly doesn't lead to no earth, it is specifically by it's nature harmonious with the earth. And it wouldn't lead to no people either.
Merely a sustainable population of the best people.
Is this so grim as to justify destroying the earth and humanity?
I won't ever be able to understand how.

Drugs are unfair? Come on. Somethings that are fun aren't good for us. Sex with hookers is fun. It's also a good way to get a disease and die.

Destroy the earth as we know it.
We would either master photosynthesis, or revert to a more primitive state in the collapse. It's win win, Doc.

Drugs are unfair? Come on. Somethings that are fun aren't good for us. Sex with hookers is fun. It's also a good way to get a disease and die.
I've covered this.
The urge to have sex is good. The urge to suckle milk is good the urge to quarrel with rivals is good.
But now our path has been skewed by law and restrictions on our natural behaviour, so people are fucking hookers, babies are sucking on the penii of kidnappers and countries are nuking eachother etc.
Everythings out of whack.
All our urges originated from them being beneficial to our success. Under natural conditions they are. Things are fun simply as a means of encouraging us to do them.
Baby bears find climbing trees to be fun but it's also secretly keeping them safe from predators.
If some nut went around putting electrical currents into trees and baby bears were dropping dead all over the place you'd be saying "climbing trees is fun for bears but it's not good for them". Thats not the point, under normal conditions it is good for them, and thats why it's fun.

Somehow you guys are now arguing about the consequences of "fun". I'm not sure how that fits in this discussion. If taking drugs is fun, but then you die because of it (which may or may not be fun), that does not negate the fact that taking drugs is fun.

Ditto for shooting some people ....the killing is fun, the REASON that more people don't do it is because the consequences aren't too pleasant. But that does NOT negate the fact that killing some people is, in fact, fun. ...and I should say "...fun for SOME people."

Baron Max

Yes, we're now debating whether things that are fun are good. In which, I say that things that are fun aren't always good, and Doc says that things that are fun are always good as long as they are natural.

So I take it you aren't an existentialist, Doc. :)

About 95% of the killing in war is done by 2% of the soldiery. 98% of soldiers never actually kill anyone throughout even the longest wars (6 years in the case of WWII). The 2% who actually do kill people are actually the psychopaths.

Looks like we found one in this General!

About 95% of the killing in war is done by 2% of the soldiery. 98% of soldiers never actually kill anyone throughout even the longest wars (6 years in the case of WWII). The 2% who actually do kill people are actually the psychopaths.

Can you prove your assertions? Do you have any solid evidence to back up any of that? If not, why did you bother posting it?

Baron Max

Er, I've heard that that is true, I believe it is the result of a survey done after the Second World War. I'm sorry I don't have anything to hand about that. But I do remember some reference to it in Jon Ronson's recent The Men Who Stare At Goats.

Well, Silas, since what you've posted has no basis in fact that you can find, I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd go back and edit that post. Leaving false or possibly false, info on a public forum is not good form and is surely doing a dis-service for those who read the posts.

Baron Max

seriously people if you really want to kill someone to get your jollies off just take a plane to another country, kill someone, and leave. If you have no police record or anything that would have you DNA or ID on a international CPU then they have no connection between you and the victim in any way. Stay a day or two relaxing in the country afterwards, and then go home. But remember to tell the persn at the airport that your here for pleasure... not business lol

Um...hello. Am I the ONLY one who read the ENTIRE quote???

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

I have no problem with that, buddy.

The role of vigilante should not be undertaken so lightly. The notion that killing anyone can be fun is in itself rather perverse. Additionally, such a bloodthirsty mentality only lends to the human tensions that contribute to the barbarity that makes certain people fun to kill. It's a convenient cycle, a nifty little package.

• • •

We might pause to consider a point I have already introduced into the discussion:

If they have no manhood left, isn't it cowardly to shoot them?

Children are often victims of their parents. In the West we acknowledge this as a standard motivation of youthful rebellion; why should other human beings not be entitled to that human process? However, at some point, the individual transforms from a victim into a perpetrator, and that transformation is not necessarily coincident with his first overt act of violence. Some get a chance to choose, are presented options and return to the comfort of dysfunction, but others never really have a chance. In the end, regardless of when one changes from victim to perpetrator, what we see is a cyclical sickness, and if it's somehow fun to kill the sick, one ought to reconsider their priorities.

The notion that killing anyone......
Children are often victims of their parents. .....
...and if it's somehow fun to kill the sick,...

I think you've turned it all around into the idea that it's fun to kill people ...that is NOT what the general said or meant!

He said that it was fun to kill SOME people .....not all people, not good people, not ones buddies, not the sick, not little kids, ..... But it's fun to kill SOME people. And I agree with him!

I also don't think that anyone can really know unless they HAVE killed someone. Most of you are making this into morality issue and that ain't what it is. It's a simple statement of fact: It is fun to kill some people. That statment says nothing about right, right, moral, immoral, good or bad, consequences or not. And you can only know if it's fun if you've killed people.

Baron Max

I have yet to meet a combat veteran, myself included, who enjoyed it. A lot of guys talk game before they get up in it and find out what combat is really like, but after the fact they're much more somber when the topic comes up. that's probably because we come in contact to the awesome power of life & death, ours & those we hold in our sights

I promise you, any veteran who talks big about the "action" they saw did not see much of it. yep, probably in the States during WWII, in Germany or the States during the Korean & VietNam Wars

Well, Silas, since what you've posted has no basis in fact that you can find, I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd go back and edit that post. Leaving false or possibly false, info on a public forum is not good form and is surely doing a dis-service for those who read the posts.

Baron Max
Well, no, Baron. I gave a reference for it, I simply couldn't find an online reference. It's not an urban myth, there was a study done. I just don't know exactly when or where, and I don't have that book (read it and gave it away as a present, but it is a very good book).

I think you've turned it all around into the idea that it's fun to kill people ...that is NOT what the general said or meant!

He said that it was fun to kill SOME people .....not all people, not good people, not ones buddies, not the sick, not little kids, ..... But it's fun to kill SOME people. And I agree with him!I think you've turned it around to whether or not it's fun to kill people. I think we're discussing whether it's acceptable for a General - a public figure and a role model - to make such statements, or whether it is acceptable to encourage the idea that it is fun to kill your enemies. True or not, I don't think it's acceptable.

If they have no manhood left, isn't it cowardly to shoot them?
You're assuming the reason it's considered cowardly to shoot women is simply because they have no manhood. No, it's because they're women and they have no manhood.
They're not supposed to have manhood so holding that against them and taking advantage of the weaker stature and lack of masculinity they're supposed to have by nature is cowardly.
A man with no manhood is a different thing entirely.