looner2 said:

Seriously now, if he enjoys his job, then hopefully that helps him get it done better. The military is trained to murder (in a good way).

---

*blinks*

Somehow, if a foreign army invaded your city/town and killed people you knew, I doubt you'd be saying the military is trained to murder in a good way. Granted, perhaps you don't like the people surrounding you, so that point might be moot.

Yes, they're trained to murder, but in a war that's supposed to be about "liberation" and where there are already Muslims angry at the United States for killing people within their civilization, I don't think it's too bright to make a statement about how fun it is to kill Muslims. The goal of the military isn?t supposed to be murdering people for fun, regardless if that?s exactly the mentality they have. I can only imagine what would happen if someone like Bush or Powell made a statement about wanting to invade Iraq to kill people for fun. 

looner2 said:

This has nothing to do with anything related to the thread. If you want to debate the morality of a standing army, then go to philosophy forum. I would have thought most here would acknowledge that an army is a needed device, and as such, is used to kill people. That's reality.

---

Nothing to do with anything related to the thread? What do you thinks going on? Don't these people live in societies together? It's not only related to the thread, it's the same fucking thing as the subject of the thread. Saying it's "reality" doesn't mean that it's a positive thing. An army is a needed device, yes, but the whole point is that in a political world, the armies are supposed to protect nations from each other as a defense. I don't think 15,000+ dead innocent civilians is a needed device. More importantly to how this statement is negative is that it?s going to make the US military sound really awful to the world, especially people who are being occupied.

looner2 said:

The army is there to obey orders and kill when they must. If you put a bullet in a gun and pull the trigger, don't get mad at the hammer for firing.

---

So then something like the Wounded Knee Massarce, where the US Calvary slaughtered mothers & childern of a Lokota tribe, is justified simply because it was done by an army? Certainly if we are talking about self-defense, or if it's necessary, but the problem here isn't the fact that the military kills, it's that people are dying while a Marine General makes a public statement that it's fun to shoot some people. Obviously I'm not getting mad at the hammer for firing, what I am saying is that the person behind the hammer is often killing innocent people and then making a statement that it's fun. Not everyone the current military in Iraq/Afghanistan is innocent, but many, many are.

I'm really not taking this too seriously because I realize the guy is somewhat ignorant and moronic, it's just a really awful statement considering everything that's going on.

looner2 said:

He never said he likes killing muslims......

---

""You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil..... So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.""

That's not referring to Muslims? Sure, he didn't explicitly say that in literal terms, but there is no possible way to deny that he isn't talking about Muslim people.

looner2 said:

he never said he wanted to invade iraq to kill people for fun.

---

The sentence ended with the smiley "", I was being sarcastic when I said that.

looner2 said:

The general likes to fight, he likes WAR, and guess what his job is?

He is a trained killer! He is not making decisions to go to war or not.

---

You?re missing the whole entire point I'm making and filling in statements I didn't make. I never said armies aren't necessary, I never said that they're not supposed to kill, but you keep mentioning it as if I did.

looner2 said:

What's the problem?

---

The problem is that the people in Iraq & Afghanistan, as well as the whole world, are watching a guy making a statement like this when the whole war has been a public disaster. The world saw Abu Ghrab last year, and it?s obvious that it has harmed the US military?s image immensely. People are going to be much less sympathetic to the United States occupation if they hear Generals making statements like this. I?m not outraged that there are people like this in the military, even if it is a little disturbing, I?m saying that what this guy is saying is going to cause a lot of problems.

The other problem is that the military is publicly defending this guy & attempting to say that he meant to say the exact opposite of what he said. It should be clear to anyone that the other General, Gen. Michael Hagee is flat out lying. He even went as far as to say that this guy was ?one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders.? Once again, why this is important is because I?m sure Muslim people are going to take offense to the first statement, and only be more outraged that the military is backing up what he said. I can?t see how this is not relevant to the thread or what?s going on in the world right now.

Let's go over this one more time. I am not saying that armies aren't necessary, I'm not saying that deaths in war are the fault of the soldiers, it's that this is going to affect international diplomacy as well as making the US military image look really bad, and in some ways, rightfully so.

downforpot said:

Oh and by the way, the book doesn't talk about evolution over millions of years. It talks about real time situations in animals and humans. I've had this discussion with one of you people already and you talked about the same crap. It doesn't matter if we live in tribes or not, we will still murder, pillage, and murder some more. Relax, shit man. Like I said, "It's all natural, man."

---

downforpot said:

Dude, the book that I am reading does not look at genetic traits through evolution. It looks at them in real time and how they make people do certain acts. I guess you will have to read the book to understand what I am talking about.

---