Posted on 02/06/2005 9:00:32 AM PST by ILL
Mattis told about 200 people at the San Diego Convention Center: "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 up front with you, I like brawling."
Do we mean to say they shouldn't use all the goodies they were given in order to kill the enemy? Hell no. They should kill as many of the enemy as possible. A verbal "faux pas" is not something that these generals are schooled at. If they were schooled as politicians they would have given us some sort of a hogwash story how heartbreaking it was to kill an Iraqi unit that set their convoy with road blasts. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Rush to judgment has traditionally been easy for all of us and moralizing has never won a war. OK, he was a little too open or clumsy but he's not paid to be a speaker, his job was to command a unit in combat. If he's ever judged for anything that should be the scope of our interests. It is unacceptable to train these men to kill and later hold them liable for having killed (who cares if they enjoyed it or not). Such similar stupidities have befallen some other great American generals like William Tecumseh Sherman, George S Patton Jr. and Dwight D. Eisenhower. During their tenure they were severly criticized but after a few decades have elapsed we glorified their exploits. Let's not be that hasty and that hypocritical. We trained these people to do exactly what the General said he was doing, and we equipped them with plenty of toys to accomplish that goal (kill as many of the enemy as possible).
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
ZOT!
No way, he's got nothing to be ashamed of. He should be free to say what he thinks (even if that entails killing the enemy - which is in his job description). The title does say, (doesn't it): The silly way we treat our generals. SF Chronicle should be more watchful that he doesn't kick their butt.
Do you believe the President's credibility is beyond reproach? If so, why?
Do you fear many of the President's measures will be appreciated in the future? If so why?
Are you Dr. Pavlovich or a supporter of his?
Hard to come up with a response if the readers don't get the first point about the article. I'd rather wait for you to re-read it and make some sort of a worthy remark to which I would gladly reply. There is nothing to debate. This man did his job (and in the course of doing it, made the greatest advancement in the history of the Marine Corps on only one MRE a day, with no cots). The man should be given a medal not criticised - anybody that doesn't see that point has to have his eyes examined.
I get the article. I don't get the 3-pointers refernce, however. I question the use of your name and what that name represents.
Your big mistake was thinking that people here can comprehend what they read. Obviously many can't.
Hey, Sandy. Get off your soapbox. I don't question the intent of the article/comments. Get it? I question what the name represents. Are you comprehending what you read? It appears not.
I am not sure that our military has any number of generals unfit for duty. It is more probably our "civilian life - squemish morality" that is unable to understand these noble men.
I got nothing to defend. I am happy to be able to understand and appreciate the openness of this high ranking Marine officer, instead of questioning his words. His deeds speak plenty. I looked into his biography and it is a peerless Marine. Anybody trying to smear him is in for a rude awakening. On the other hand I didn't know it was mandatory to post one or more of the following:
1. Gay bashings
2. Democrat ridicule
3. Liberal's fears
on these boards. I just took what I though was an excercize in Vanity on the side of the SF Chronicle which happens to be a respectable paper. I'll be sure to include some of the above three elements in the future.
I can't believe that one person actually understood this simple post without the need for massive gay bashing or democrat ridicule. Thank you Sandy.
Sorry, it was my first post. I didn't know the protocol was such as to ridicule gays, democrats, and all of San Francisco Chronicle as if it were in China.
Patton and Sherman were also needlessly criticized during their active duty. Both proved to have been officers of outstanding merit (only after they died). That shouldn't happen to Mattis. Mattis advanced his Marines faster and farhter than any other Marine Unit in the history of the Marine Corps (on one MRE ration a day - and with no cots, no running water).
My mistake. I got you confused with the JCRoberts who posted those comments. Never mind.
- Hmmmmmmmmmm
- Hey, troll. Want some of this?
- Please elaborate.
- What the hell does this Dr.'s post even mean?
- Are we in agreement that this is a troll?
- DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE!? There are doubters amongst us.
Lots of folks do like to ridicule the SF chronicle, it's a very liberal, usually not credible source. However, we get a lot of trolls around here, so when someone posts a vanity/semi-vanity for a first post, then doesn't reply to any comments made to you by others, the level of suspicion goes way up very quickly. So if you're going to post a vanity and you have no track record here, you need to be prepared to defend yourself.
We're sorry - your line has been disconnected or is no longer in service.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic Jim Robinson
Posted on 03/22/2004 8:22:17 PM CST by Jim Robinson
I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I'm receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I'm NOT fair and balanced. I'm biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
Jim Robinson
So, if you fit in, welcome to FR. I have my doubts, but I am just one voice.
OK- I see your point. I questioned the three point reference because it seemed unclear as to how it fit in with the article and what it was supposed to mean, thus the need for elaboration. Seemed odd for a first post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.