All Things "Mad Dog" Mattis (merged)
- Thread starter ark
- Start date
- Status
Wow. I dunno what to say to that. What a stupid thing to say.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Stupid thing to say in public, but you have to agree with the sentiment.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Alright, I admit, stupid thing to say in public. His reasons for wanting to do it are right, but seriously, I don't see how you can say that. I see shooting people as being a necessary evil, a last resort if you will. We live in a society where deranged serial killers are chastised by society, yet we have military officers coming out and saying things like this. This seems to be a double standard. Anyone in the CF I've talked to has said combat, while not enjoyable, is part of the job we must do. I just don't see how you can say it's fun to shoot people, I just can't. Humans are supposed to be above that.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Obviously he didn't think of them as being "Humans". He must of thought they were targets at a carnival, the 'unwashed', or varmits. Whatever. His poor judgement will come back to haunt him soon enough.
GW
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Every so often I think things like that, but it's usually my 'INSIDE' voice.......The Canadian media of course would make a big deal out of it as usual. I'm not sure everyone actually enjoys that particular aspect of the job, killing someone is a reality of military life in an operational theatre. It could and does happen. But whatever floats someone's boat.
I think the US is at a point where in public they need to make light of and somewhat dehumanise the whole idea of death and killing. Their recruitment and retention are suffering and if they make it sound 'fun' then they might attract people who might be inclined to think in a similar fashion. They're the kind of people you don't want wandering the streets in suburbia anyway, so might as well give 'em a rifle and send them to a dustbowl.
I think it's a bad reflection on the professional soldiers who serve in the US military because I don't believe that for the most part, they are like that.
Although, why do we join the Army? Because there is something involved in the idea and practice of waging warfare that appeals to us all. You don't wanna go to war or be put in a position of killing another human being, you shouldnt be in the miltary. Thats why I laugh disgustedly when I hear soldiers say on camera "I didn't actually think I'd have to go off and fight!!!".
Don't forget though, that many times Generals and whatnot are quoted out of context....Is this possible with this guy?
My $.02
I think the US is at a point where in public they need to make light of and somewhat dehumanise the whole idea of death and killing. Their recruitment and retention are suffering and if they make it sound 'fun' then they might attract people who might be inclined to think in a similar fashion. They're the kind of people you don't want wandering the streets in suburbia anyway, so might as well give 'em a rifle and send them to a dustbowl.
I think it's a bad reflection on the professional soldiers who serve in the US military because I don't believe that for the most part, they are like that.
Although, why do we join the Army? Because there is something involved in the idea and practice of waging warfare that appeals to us all. You don't wanna go to war or be put in a position of killing another human being, you shouldnt be in the miltary. Thats why I laugh disgustedly when I hear soldiers say on camera "I didn't actually think I'd have to go off and fight!!!".
Don't forget though, that many times Generals and whatnot are quoted out of context....Is this possible with this guy?
My $.02
- Reaction score
- 10,161
- Points
- 1,260
From what I understand, Gen. Mattis is a true fighter. He was the one who led 1st MarDiv on its fight up and into Baghdad and I was impressed to see pictures of him up at the front of the fight with his Marines.
Sure this may not be politically correct, but considering the source, it is not a case of "false bravado". If we thumbed through a biography of other Marine Generals like Smedley Butler or Lewis B "Chesty" Puller and found a similar quote, people would be saying "it's too bad we don't have warriors like Chesty anymore...."
Sure this may not be politically correct, but considering the source, it is not a case of "false bravado". If we thumbed through a biography of other Marine Generals like Smedley Butler or Lewis B "Chesty" Puller and found a similar quote, people would be saying "it's too bad we don't have warriors like Chesty anymore...."
mdh
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I can only hope that he survives, but this is not the 1940s (and even then we forget that Patton was removed from command for slapping a soldier, and was almost dismissed again for making inappropriate remarks about the Soviets - and this was at the very height of WWII). Unfortunately this kind of remark only plays into the hands of opponents of the Iraq expedition.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
First of all, I wonder what forum he made his comments in? Did the person who reported this violate a priveliged platform? Was the "panel discussion" a closed military event? Having met a few USMC Generals, they are usually extremely dynamic, intelligent and very well-educated guys who are unlikely to do something quite as stupid as this looks. I doubt he is the drooling clod that some might take him for.
What he is saying is true in the sense that IMHO this world contains a percentage of its population who will only cease being trouble when they are killed. This may sound nasty or shocking to idealistic and well-intentioned Canadians but I think that after spending more than a few months in some of the world's nastier spots, actually fighting people, we might share in this opinion to some degree. For example, I think that I would have little moral problem with killing people such as the Taliban or the Genocidaires of Rwanda: IMHO they earned it, richly.
Cheers.
What he is saying is true in the sense that IMHO this world contains a percentage of its population who will only cease being trouble when they are killed. This may sound nasty or shocking to idealistic and well-intentioned Canadians but I think that after spending more than a few months in some of the world's nastier spots, actually fighting people, we might share in this opinion to some degree. For example, I think that I would have little moral problem with killing people such as the Taliban or the Genocidaires of Rwanda: IMHO they earned it, richly.
Cheers.
L
LowRider
Guest
Anyone who thinks that it is fun to shoot people should not be in the army.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I recall hearing someone in their gov't say that he is a hell-of-a warrior but they won't ever be able to make him into a diplomat where as our gov't/public would have called for his head.
P
P Kaye
Guest
>> Stupid thing to say in public, but you have to agree with the sentiment.
You most certainly do not.
>> Anyone who thinks that it is fun to shoot people should not be in the army.
Well said.
Carrying weapons into a foreign country is a huge responsibility. I don't think enough soldiers take the idea of this responsibility seriously enough. I once heard a MCpl say "We're in the army... our job is to kill people... it's kinda fun...". If I ever heard one of my troops say something like that, I would take serious measures to correct his/her attitude. I encourage all the other officers and NCMs out there to do the same.
Part of our responsibility is to teach our troops how to fight, and how to kill. Sometimes, in combat, this would require a certain mindset where you dehumanize the enemy to distance yourself from the fact that you're killing other human beings. But we haven't been in that situation since Korea. When Canadians go on operations like we've been doing for the past several decades, it is vital that we respect the individuals in the countries we travel to as human beings, with their own cultures, ways of thinking, and beleifs.
I am deeply shocked by how bad the american seem to be at this. I recently read in an issue of The Economist about how American Soldiers were treating civilians in Iraq. It made me incredibly angry. To read that an american GENERAL said what was posted above angers me more. How the hell did this man ever make it to GENERAL??? Officers are supposed to be men and women of good character. Generals should be men and women of exceptional character.
Canadians have always been better and smarter about this, but I feel we are slipping too... perhaps unconsciously becoming more american in our attitudes about foreign people. This attitude needs to be corrected, and it certainly needs to happen first and foremost amongst our soldiers on deployment.
Defense by violence is our ultimate purpose and duty. But it is a serious and solemn duty that we should treat with respect. If we think it's some kind of party, we're behaving like animals.
You most certainly do not.
>> Anyone who thinks that it is fun to shoot people should not be in the army.
Well said.
Carrying weapons into a foreign country is a huge responsibility. I don't think enough soldiers take the idea of this responsibility seriously enough. I once heard a MCpl say "We're in the army... our job is to kill people... it's kinda fun...". If I ever heard one of my troops say something like that, I would take serious measures to correct his/her attitude. I encourage all the other officers and NCMs out there to do the same.
Part of our responsibility is to teach our troops how to fight, and how to kill. Sometimes, in combat, this would require a certain mindset where you dehumanize the enemy to distance yourself from the fact that you're killing other human beings. But we haven't been in that situation since Korea. When Canadians go on operations like we've been doing for the past several decades, it is vital that we respect the individuals in the countries we travel to as human beings, with their own cultures, ways of thinking, and beleifs.
I am deeply shocked by how bad the american seem to be at this. I recently read in an issue of The Economist about how American Soldiers were treating civilians in Iraq. It made me incredibly angry. To read that an american GENERAL said what was posted above angers me more. How the hell did this man ever make it to GENERAL??? Officers are supposed to be men and women of good character. Generals should be men and women of exceptional character.
Canadians have always been better and smarter about this, but I feel we are slipping too... perhaps unconsciously becoming more american in our attitudes about foreign people. This attitude needs to be corrected, and it certainly needs to happen first and foremost amongst our soldiers on deployment.
Defense by violence is our ultimate purpose and duty. But it is a serious and solemn duty that we should treat with respect. If we think it's some kind of party, we're behaving like animals.
C
CivU
Guest
"perhaps unconsciously becoming more american in our attitudes about foreign people"
This point reminds me of a book by Sherene Razack "Dark Threats and White Knights"
Though I don't agree with much of what the book says, it does discuss the "othering" your suggesting, as exemplified by the Somalia Affair...
Interesting thought...
This point reminds me of a book by Sherene Razack "Dark Threats and White Knights"
Though I don't agree with much of what the book says, it does discuss the "othering" your suggesting, as exemplified by the Somalia Affair...
Interesting thought...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I am a proud Canadian soldier. I am not a US "wannabe" like some of the people who occasionally grace these pages. Sometimes, the US pisses me off, bigtime. I am well acquainted with some of their bad points. All that aside, I find P. Kaye's post distasteful in the extreme.
I wonder what you base this assessment of "enough soldiers" on. IMHO you are in danger of projecting the sentiments of one idiot onto all soldiers. It is a pretty sweeping statement about Canadian soldiers. Have you had some operational experience to bear this charge out?
I would say that if we cannot produce troops who can fight, and win, the whole game is up anyway. All killing requires a degree of dehumanization, especially for us in the Infantry who unlike some other branches stand a good chance of seeing who we kill. We expect a soldier to obey reasonable and lawful orders to kill, and our military judicial system is set up to see that we are empowered to enforce that.
Medak? Kosovo? Gulf War I? Op Anaconda?
Is this an inference that US soldiers do not respect people, or cultures, or beliefs? How do you know this? Spare me the silly Canadian holier than thou. Unless you have spent some time around US troops who are actually doing the business, then I really question your ability to formulate this opinion, based as it must be on media reporting. If you knew the facts you would never make such a sweeping condemnation.
How do you know what kind of a leader he is? What do you know of his character? Do you know what his subordinates think of him? What he has done? Where he has been? Who he is? I think not. Yet based on one extract, you are quite prepared to p*ss all over his career in the USMC, which demands high standards of its General officers, and in my experience has generally done a better job of producing GOs that are true leaders and not mumbling overweight bureaucrats who forgot what "lead by example" meant five minutes after they completed Phase Training. (A few of the present crop of our GOs excepted...a few...)
What utter sanctimonious moralizing tripe. I wish you could come to Afghanistan and see what soldiers and marines here are doing: you would retract this nonsense, I am quite sure.
No-our role is to be fully prepared to use lethal force to carry out the legal will of the duly elected government. Attack, defend, it doesn't matter. Killing and destroying, while not the only outcomes of our actions, are inseparable from our role. Whlie I have stated elsewhere on this site that we need to temper out actions with a proper military code of behaviour, and we cannot abandon our moral compasses, neither can we wish away the ultimate purpose of the Army, and indeed of any military force.
Cheers.
I wonder what you base this assessment of "enough soldiers" on. IMHO you are in danger of projecting the sentiments of one idiot onto all soldiers. It is a pretty sweeping statement about Canadian soldiers. Have you had some operational experience to bear this charge out?
I would say that if we cannot produce troops who can fight, and win, the whole game is up anyway. All killing requires a degree of dehumanization, especially for us in the Infantry who unlike some other branches stand a good chance of seeing who we kill. We expect a soldier to obey reasonable and lawful orders to kill, and our military judicial system is set up to see that we are empowered to enforce that.
Medak? Kosovo? Gulf War I? Op Anaconda?
Is this an inference that US soldiers do not respect people, or cultures, or beliefs? How do you know this? Spare me the silly Canadian holier than thou. Unless you have spent some time around US troops who are actually doing the business, then I really question your ability to formulate this opinion, based as it must be on media reporting. If you knew the facts you would never make such a sweeping condemnation.
How do you know what kind of a leader he is? What do you know of his character? Do you know what his subordinates think of him? What he has done? Where he has been? Who he is? I think not. Yet based on one extract, you are quite prepared to p*ss all over his career in the USMC, which demands high standards of its General officers, and in my experience has generally done a better job of producing GOs that are true leaders and not mumbling overweight bureaucrats who forgot what "lead by example" meant five minutes after they completed Phase Training. (A few of the present crop of our GOs excepted...a few...)
What utter sanctimonious moralizing tripe. I wish you could come to Afghanistan and see what soldiers and marines here are doing: you would retract this nonsense, I am quite sure.
No-our role is to be fully prepared to use lethal force to carry out the legal will of the duly elected government. Attack, defend, it doesn't matter. Killing and destroying, while not the only outcomes of our actions, are inseparable from our role. Whlie I have stated elsewhere on this site that we need to temper out actions with a proper military code of behaviour, and we cannot abandon our moral compasses, neither can we wish away the ultimate purpose of the Army, and indeed of any military force.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
OK it was wrong to say it in a press confrence. But this is his job people. He was trained to kill and be a leader of men who kill. This man was in the S*hit not sitting in Kuwait watching it on TV. He was on the lines doing the job his nation asked of him. And he obviously likes his job.
How much different is it then a football player saying that he likes to deliver bone crunching hits, or hockey players who thrive on beating up their opponents. They are just doing there jobs.
His choice of wording was not the best but what to you want a PC guy or a guy who gets the job done. I just hope he plays by the rules or he may be up the creek without a paddle.
How much different is it then a football player saying that he likes to deliver bone crunching hits, or hockey players who thrive on beating up their opponents. They are just doing there jobs.
His choice of wording was not the best but what to you want a PC guy or a guy who gets the job done. I just hope he plays by the rules or he may be up the creek without a paddle.
- Status
Similar threads
