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 ...
It is often hard (and sometimes impossible) to judge the sitting President. I fear that many of W's measures will be appreciated in the future. It is one Hell of a hard job to keep the country together, work on medicare, social benefits (at home) and fight a tough war overseas. Just as our founding fathers did, I too believe, that there is neither a "just war", nor "unjust peace". It's true, the war was his choice but I fear that in years to come, we might all realize the importance of fighting all those that (slick) Willy tried so hard to appease. Much of what a current President does in today's United States is the direct result of a prior administrations (mis)deeds. I wish I was smart enough to suggest a non-military solution to the problems we are now having with Al Quaida, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq (possibly soon to come). W's main drawback is acting dumb. Nobody can tell me that a Harvard graduate does not know the difference between NU-KuhL-ARRR and NUCLEAR. This "dumb as a fox" system works well at home, within the large voting blocs, and the masses identify with him readily, but the rest of us find a small discrepancy like that can be attached to his credibility - which I feel is beyond reproach. It's really a tough call and I would not want the be the one to "cast the first stone". I was also somewhat apprehensive about Ronald Reagan, but years after he left, I learned slowly of his great vision and it is only now (almost 25 years later) that we all get a glimpse into his voluminous work - not very popular among his contemporaries either.
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/mod/comments/display/9310/index.php
Since you are newer to FR than even I, here is a tip. When you post something to someone they are going to rightly assume you are talking to them
Another tip: In the beginning, you might want to refrain from insulting people.
Now we know that I stand by my thoughts of G. W. Bush's accomplishments from a third source. I knew that.
Great. Let's play a little game then, doc. Answer these questions.
1)Why do you FEAR many of his measures WILL BE APPRECIATED in the future? That does not add up with what you are saying.
2)Why do you feel the President's credibility is BEYOND REPROACH?
OK- Correct me if I am wrong.
You fear they will be appreciated in the future, menaing they are not appreciated now. You see it as bad that they are not appreciated now. You don't actually fear thet the President will be credited in the future with accomplishing something.
You mean "reproach" in an idiomatic sense, not literal.
Because Bush's achievements are so obvious they should be appreciated NOW in our lifetime - there is no need for 10 or 20 years to go by for us to see what world of good he's been doing.
OK-Then accept my apology. I read you wrong. Welcome to FR.
I mean exacly what I said: President Bush's work has been beyond reproach of any kind. I can't find one single reasonable complaint or fault with his thinking. As a matter of fact - I think I'm a pretty bright guy - but I admit it took me some time to come to appreciate the farsightedness of his decisive actions. And his work should be appreciated NOW by his contemporaries not by virtue of looking at our times in retrospect. Vision in retrospect is always 20/20. Today's vision is an issue that we could work on (and improve it) - so that this deserving American President get to understand that many of us do support him wholeheartedly.
"a lot" = hundreds since 1-1-05 (yes, hundreds). That makes this type of newbie poster very suspect and he/she needs to get "on board" before credibility is regained.
He (our president G. W. Bush) will be even more appreciated in the future, but I would be a happier person if he were to know today how much his work is appreciated without the benefit of hindsight.
It's very sweet of you to care. But quite honestly I don't give a F. F. I know who I am and I know what I believe, if others are too blind to see it - that's their problem, I am most often not in a mood to defend the simple truths that surround us all. I do pitty the fools who can't see what a great job W. is doing, and by extension: the work of his father too. Both Bushes did an awful lot for us and yet I see a bunch of ingrates - that insults me a little but I can't dignify the scum with a reply. As a result I don't reply often - ever. Sorry, I didn't know your rules of the game.
I don't mean to sound bad here but you are still posting to me and this has nothing to do with anything I've said to you. I keep coming back to this thread because it looks as if you are pinging me when in reality you are directing your comments to someone else!
This isn't a game, but I tried, maybe poorly, to show the reason for the less than enthusiastic reponses. When we have hundreds of anti Bush/anti Americans register and post vanities or articles from liberal sources, we tend to view all new posters with suspicion. BTW, most of the time we are right about the troll designation.
sorry that reply was meant for Croberts, but it's worth reading it anywhere. I wouldn't mind having it tatooted on my forehead.
It is going to be a cold day in Hell when I post anything anti-Bush.
Let me add something to that cold day in Hell. I actually did think (in all seriousness) of starting an action to allow for our president G.W.Bush to join the faces on Mount Rushmore, but I was discouraged by the many ideas against it.....
Who knows, maybe 20 years from now the rest of the country will see, what I saw in these last 4 years, and we may end up having Bush on Mount Rushmore.
OK children, my last post for today. In a collective manner of speach, most comments from this forum have been exactly as negative and stupid as the SF Chronicle's comment on General Mattis' words. Does that tell you something? It tells me that my insight (allowed to me by my education, I suppose - which was also ridiculed in a few posts) was absolutely on the money. People are far too quick to judge, and judge negatively and that judgement is what can defeat us*.
*us - I mean most of the hard fought freedoms that we now enjoy on account of being rash and hasty. Most human erronious thinking comes from VANITY exactly and it is often thought to be the first and the original sin, from which other sins would eventually arise. And I freely say to most of you: get a hold of that vanity of yours before it gets a hold of you. Look at the example of SF Chronicle, now we can all see how ridiculous it was - well guess what - most of you made that same unforced error, out of sheer haste. True, I don't know what is a troll or a ZOG (ZAT, ZAM), but I know what I wrote and was able to clarify it a little bit at a time. If my idea of allowing the face of G.W. Bush to be carved on Mount Rushmore was implemented, I'm afraid you wouoldn't even think twice about being enthusiastic about my posts no matter how stupid they were. In closing, the PhD in comparative sociology is no small potatos. It sometimes gives me the vision that the rest of the world can't even begin to see.
You still never explained what the hell that three-pointer comment was all about.
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.