Now, why would you say something like that? Zeitgeist didn't suggest anything like that. He acknowledged that killing is sometimes necessary.

If the soldier's desire is to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion, then his expression of joy over an opportunity to kill doesn't reflect poorly on him. Rather, it reflects poorly on those who rushed us into war. Having never been soldiers themselves, they were unable to appreciate the full impact of putting men and women in the position of having to kill other humans. Killing done in our national defense is honorable, but it injures the people doing the killing, IMHO.

Nothing wrong with someone taking pride in their work. :D

A dead enemy is a good enemy. I cease to consider them anything else once they are trying to kill me. They do the same to me so where is the conflict?

Okay....now we're getting somewhere!

Get GW on Dr. Phil :dizzy2:

:confused: Who, other than you, said anything about Dr. Phil?

Whaa...you no like Dr. Phil? He could probably contribute quite a bit to this thread. I also happen to know he is quite the car enthusiast, and a personal friend of Oprah's!

I agree with all of that. The conflict mentioned in my post meant the overall war in Iraq. My point is that I assume the soldier wants to bring that conflict to a successful conclusion, not to kill for the sake of killing.

I've seen him on TV a few times. He seems like a nice guy. I just don't see what he has to do with this thread.

If you say so.

Yep, you're naive.

Often dealing with the issue comes later. But when important dangerous things are going on around you it is the NOW that takes precedence.

Zeit's got a point but it could well be battlefield bravado. I think the difference will be if he shoots the guy in the face does the soldier wake up sweating, seeing his face for the next 5 years or does he wake up with a hard on and want to do it again.

It's my (some might say expert) opinion that Sgt Jordan's reference to loving that ***** (presumed expletive) was a reference to the adreneline rush one gets when finally given the opportunity to call upon many months, or years of intense training for that one, single moment in time - and was probably not intended to express his desire to kill another man. Understand that in combat, the taking of life must be viewed as little more than an unavoidable by-product of the successful performance of one's duties. Who among us doesn't take satisfaction in a job well-done?

It's simple...they don't.

I know a young man who returned from Desert Storm looking forward to a post-military career in law enforcement. That career was indefinitely delayed because of employer concerns about his 'shoot first' training.

A different kind of collateral damage.

Humans without respect for humanity. These are not innocent civilians were talking about killing. They are real bad guys who would like nothing better than to kill an American. They dont wear uniforms so they can blend in with innocent civilians and use them as cover. They have no respect for human rights and would murder children to acheive their objectives. Taking some joy for ridding the Earth of those scumbags, I see nothing wrong with that.

I don't thinks it the question of "How does a society successfully absorb back into the fold persons who are "psyched about the prospect of killing", but rather how does the soldier blend back into a civilized civilian life.

Silly me, I guess growing up the son of an internally/externally wounded battlefield survivor means zippo. I wish I could say my ignorance was blissful...but it isn't.

Until all the goverments and religions of the world are merged into one, war is inevitale and someone has to pay the price. Your Dad did his duty, be proud of that.

Now we have an all volunteer military so the people who join are not forced into something they don't believe in, that makes a big difference.