"It's fun to shoot some people."

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Scary enough, I think that slogan would actually work!

- N

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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 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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.