It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

User avatar
spot
Posts: 37440
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by spot »

Let me tie a couple of news stories together. Here's today's:Marine freed in Iraq killing case

A US marine who was sentenced to eight years in military jail for his role in the death of an Iraqi civilian has been released following a clemency decision. Robert Pennington, 22, was jailed in February after pleading guilty to kidnapping and conspiracy in the 2006 killing of Hashim Ibrahim Awad, 52.In exchange, prosecutors dropped murder and other charges. His rank was reduced and he was dishonourably discharged. Of the eight members of the squad involved only one remains in prison.

In making the decision, Lt Gen James Mattis considered the defendants' ages, military experience, rank and involvement in the death, the marines said in a statement. Murder and other charges were dropped in return for Pennington testifying against three other marines in the case. He was demoted from corporal to private.

Mr Awad, a police officer, was taken from his home, put in a hole and shot in the head 10 times. A gun and a shovel were then placed by his body to make it look as if he were an insurgent planting a roadside bomb. The unit was reportedly searching for an insurgent and took Mr Awad when they failed to find their target.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6943511.stm

I posted my next quote once before, a long time ago in another thread in response to a previous massacre of civilians by General Mattis' subordinates. It's his 1st Marine Division (REIN) Commanding General's Message to All Hands, March 2003, and I hope nobody ever forgets it:Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression [...] For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles "who fought for life and never lost their nerve" carry out your mission and keep your honor clean.This is the same General Mattis who told a convention audience two years later thatActually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling. [...] You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.And now, sixteen months after eight of your marines "dragged disabled Mr Awad from his home and killed him" only one remains in prison, because you "considered the defendants' ages, military experience, rank and involvement in the death"?

Keep your honor clean, General? I don't think you know what the words mean.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37440
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by spot »

Given this week's news that "Marine Corps General James Mattis has been nominated to replace General David Petraeus as head of US Central Command", could I ask whether Americans actually remember his appalling failures of judgement in the past? Or is the epithet "United States Of Amnesia" appropriate yet again.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by hoppy »

Sh!t happens. Git over it.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37440
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by spot »

hoppy;1321277 wrote: Sh!t happens. Git over it.



But it's happening this week, Hoppy. You can't say the events are forgotten, they're in the thread for you to read. You're saying you think General Mattis is a suitable candidate, despite that record? He may be talented, I'm not claiming he's not good at getting people killed under his command, but they do tend to be the wrong people and he's incapable of either apologising or deterring others from behaving as badly in future. On the contrary, he seems to encourage indiscriminate terrorism within his command. He's unfit to lead troops in a civilized nation.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by chonsigirl »

spot;1321256 wrote: Given this week's news that "Marine Corps General James Mattis has been nominated to replace General David Petraeus as head of US Central Command", could I ask whether Americans actually remember his appalling failures of judgement in the past? Or is the epithet "United States Of Amnesia" appropriate yet again.



You would have to ask the Commander in Chief that question, he appointed him. It might be Obamnesia..........
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37440
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by spot »

chonsigirl;1321283 wrote: You would have to ask the Commander in Chief that question, he appointed him. It might be Obamnesia..........



Every article I've seens says "Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced yesterday his recommendation for Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis as next commander of US Central Command". "Gates accepted the nomination for Secretary of Defense on November 8, 2006, replacing Donald Rumsfeld. He was confirmed with bipartisan support". Naturally the buck stops with the President but I don't think he micro-manages to the extent you imply.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by flopstock »

spot;1321292 wrote: Every article I've seens says "Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced yesterday his recommendation for Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis as next commander of US Central Command". "Gates accepted the nomination for Secretary of Defense on November 8, 2006, replacing Donald Rumsfeld. He was confirmed with bipartisan support". Naturally the buck stops with the President but I don't think he micro-manages to the extent you imply.



After the Rolling Stones stink? I'm thinking, yeah, they are probably micro-managing things at the moment.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

User avatar
spot
Posts: 37440
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by spot »

flopstock;1321294 wrote: After the Rolling Stones stink? I'm thinking, yeah, they are probably micro-managing things at the moment.



I suspect the Pentagon has rather more say in who gets put forward than you give credit for. Who can tell. The Marine Corps Times thinks they do anyway - "Pentagon picks Mattis to take over CENTCOM" is their headline at Pentagon picks Mattis to take over CENTCOM - MarineCorpsTimes.com

So, given my opening post, what do you reckon to the nomination? Is the guy morally fit for the post or is he irresponsible?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37440
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them

Post by spot »

I have a quote from today's news.

Air strikes, mostly carried out by American warplanes, killed 363 people, including 89 children, in the first six months of the year, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Unama).

The US military has rejected Unama's findings, saying its own collection of evidence was more accurate and that its forces in Afghanistan "always work to avoid harm to civilian non-combatants". But it did not give its own figures for civilian casualties.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49165676




"The US military has rejected Unama's findings, saying its own collection of evidence was more accurate"? But you can't. You don't count. You don't do body counts. You officially deny that you do body counts. You brag that you never do body counts.

So how can you pontificate that the UN figures are mistaken?

And do you know what the figure for civilian casualties would be if the Taliban were allowed to win a free vote and form the next Afghan government, while "the allies" all go back to their homeland?

Zero.

The solution seems clear enough to me at least. But then, "It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them".
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

Return to “Warfare Military”