American Sniper: "Pro-war bias?"

[kmoose]

Ohhhhhh, so your brilliant argument proved against an extremist point no one was arguing for or against. Gotcha. You're right, you're the smartest.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

DonnieNarco said this:

In my opinion, Chris Kyle was a sick man who enjoyed killing and fabricated many ridiculous stories in his autobiography, and there should not be a movie praising him. The movie should have been focused on PTSD of veterans and not him killing Iraqis.

and this:

I also have a problem with what Kyle said about Iraqis in the book. One, he said “I don’t shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.” Second, saying he didn't give "a flying fuck" about Iraqis shows how he saw the world black and white, which it is not. He had a very simplistic view on it, and I find it disturbing when someone who had so much power felt like that.

To which Irishbounty replied:

I can tell you obiously haven't been to war so I am going to try and tread lightly here. War is gruesome and horrific. A place where one instant you are chatting with a friend, and the next you are placing pressure on his chest because shrapnel from an IED ripped through his lung. You obviously have never held the hand of a dying friend who was supposed to return home in only a short months time and witness the birth of his daughter. You see, WAR IS BLACK AND WHITE, you either live or you die. It isn't the real world, and having a real world mentality will get yourself and your men killed. War is pretty simple, you either kill or be killed. Its all pretty self explanatory out there, and if you had been there you would have witnessed it for yourself. As far as what happens to an individuals mindset once in theater, thats another story. It takes a certain type of person to go towards the sound of gunfire. Not a crazy person, or someone with a death wish, but someone who has come to the realization that death is out of their control.

To be blunt, you should find it disturbing, because it is. The whole notion of going somewhere you know you may be killed and will have to kill someone is disturbing. What do think someone in this situations outlook should be? Should you not have a hate and disdain for your enemy? How would you go about controlling the rage that comes with seeing a friend die?

I only say these things to assure you by no means is Chris Kyle a bad person, and yes he was okay with killing people. He was okay with killing people because that was required of him, and it saved other servicemembers lives. I can tell you that he wanted to kill every single enemy combatant that posed a threat to our boys, because I felt the same when I was there. Having a protectors mindset, you don't enjoy the killing as much as knowing that that dirtbag can't take the life of anymore American's.

Which caused you to observe the following:

Good post, but this does nothing to show that Kyle was a good person either. I could make the same "protectors mindset" argument for every solider in every dictator's army or terrorists cell since the dawn of time.

To which I replied:

But it does disprove that Kyle's actions automatically make him a demented sociopath, killing for fun or sport.

I think this is where the disconnect happened. I was not arguing with you. I was simply supporting Irishbounty in his contention that there was an alternative to DonnieNarco's contention that Kyle was a sick individual who enjoyed killing others.

 

[Wingman Ray]

Listen Hogg, what me and your mother do and where we do it is none of your business. We're both consenting adults and even though I cry sometimes I really do love her. It's just been hard adjusting to life with you and your sister and this isn't where I thought I'd end up. I know I'll never be your dad but I'd really like to be your friend. What do you say Buddy?

Classic. I needed this laugh today. Thank you!

 

[IRISH in MT]

Listen Hogg, what me and your mother do and where we do it is none of your business. We're both consenting adults and even though I cry sometimes I really do love her. It's just been hard adjusting to life with you and your sister and this isn't where I thought I'd end up. I know I'll never be your dad but I'd really like to be your friend. What do you say Buddy?

My face hurts from laughing for so long now!

 

[FDNYIrish1]

Actually, there is a retired Army sniper on this board.

.

And thank you to him for his service. I can't imagine what it's like to have to make those decisions. My point was more towards Kyle being recognized as the deadliest sniper in military history.

 

[Irish YJ]

Clint did a nice job of not taking sides in my opinion. Might be a bad war, shady politics, etc..... But...Great movie. Great hero. Very sad ending.

 

[BobbyMac]

And thank you to him for his service. I can't imagine what it's like to have to make those decisions. My point was more towards Kyle being recognized as the deadliest sniper in military history.

I've thought the same thing. I guess there is some level of disconnect because you are there under order with a mission to carry out. I'm sure that helps each guy get through the act(?)

At some point though, a trigger is pulled and a decision is made final. Tough job.
,

 

[phgreek]

BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq! - The Political Insider

You were saying?

I saw that article...and thought...WTF?

Hadn't seen anyone take the time to pull it all together.

Thanks.

I was counted among many who took the press and critics at their word and was angered at Bush for manipulating things. Turns out there were WMDs and while the intel may have been bad about productions plants and storage facilities (or just dated)...there were armed WMDs that indeed could have been deployed...and we had a guy in Saddam whose rhetoric became more brazen, and a guy who ignored like 12 UN resolutions...this turned out to be different than the narrative out there...and in a meaningful way.

Still not a fan of the Iraq war...have always contended we could have done a Seal Team 6 on Sadaam...knowing we were dealing with a dispersed and reasonable volume of WMDs, that may have been the worst thing to do...apparently there was reason to want Sadaam down and to roll through the Iraq...wow.

Edit: I do think this is important. Too many people piled on W precisely for never having found WMDs as justification for dispelling the bad intel "excuse". Well there were WMDs so is bad intel now more plausible...

 

[Circa]

I believe the only reason we have this great movie to watch is because the producer; Bradley Cooper, talked to the family personally and took their depiction of the events as transpired. Now we have the other end of that ball..

Eddie Ray Routh.

Why do all political assassins have middle names that seem attractive to the media? Why aren't there more inquiries about this odd occurrence; in which the man who was assassinated had many secrets and killed many people in the name of freedom. How much information has been withheld that could be detrimental to our security as a family? Would the real stuff hurt us if he was able to write a book?

 

[Circa]

"The only thing that forces us to take it seriously is the extraordinary fact that an almost exactly similar worldview consumed the walnut-sized mind of the president who got us into the war in question."

Read more: 'American Sniper' Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize | Rolling Stone

 

[greyhammer90]

"The only thing that forces us to take it seriously is the extraordinary fact that an almost exactly similar worldview consumed the walnut-sized mind of the president who got us into the war in question."

Read more: 'American Sniper' Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize | Rolling Stone

(The most disturbing passage in the book to me was the one where Kyle talked about being competitive with other snipers, and how when one in particular began to threaten his "legendary" number, Kyle "all of the sudden" seemed to have "every stinkin' bad guy in the city running across my scope." As in, wink wink, my luck suddenly changed when the sniper-race got close, get it? It's super-ugly stuff).

Woah. Has anyone actually read his autobiography? Does it actually read that way?

 

[ACamp1900]

Me being a liberal is far more important than even trying to be a professional journalist!

Sincerely,
MATT TAIBBI

That comment pretty much summed it up, that was one politically bitter review...

 

[IRISHDODGER]

I have not seen the Kyle movie nor have I read his books. I might watch it if it comes out on netflix or something, but doubt I'll go to the theater for it. I have mixed feelings about the debate about both Kyle the person and the movie. The question of whether or not Kyle was good, bad, or something in-between is kind of confusing to me. His job was to be a tool of American policy, and as far as I can tell he was a good tool. There's no shame in that, and it's something our country relies on- so in a very abstract sense, Kyle did defend freedom. However, we should not glamorize what his job was. He killed people. Ended human life. Necessary, but evil.

I am for the movie to the extent that it a: tells a good story and b: highlights the challenges that go with service. I am against the movie in that it a: glamorizes a man for his "kill count" and b: treats his victim's deaths as significant only because of their impact on his own psyche. It is impossible to overemphasize the "killing PEOPLE" aspect of military force.

Anyway, this article seems particularly relevant. I don't agree with the whole thing, but I do agree that the growing disconnect between the military and civilians is a dangerous thing for our democracy. People like Sarah Palin who are wrapping themselves in the banner of supporting our heroic troops without knowing the first thing about what it is actually like to serve do nothing but widen the gap between the public and the military.

I saw the movie but have yet to read the book. Based on the movie (which can take creative license to adapt to their needs), I didn't see a glamorization of his "kill count". Yes, his fellow soldiers reminded him and dubbed him "Legend", but Cooper played his character as shying away from that and being embarrassed by it IMO. Also, when Cooper's character has to shoot a child & his mother before they run a suicide RPG into a tank, he's is visually torn on what to do until it's obvious they mean to kill Americans. Finally, he is visually relieved when another child picks up an RPG and aiims it after the initial terrorist is shot by Kyle. He's begging the kid not to fire it & miraculously he just throws it on the ground & runs off at which Kyle is relieved. Again...this was the movie...not the autobiography.

To me, the main theme was the true havoc that PTSD wreaks on our returning soldiers. The guy joined the military at the age of 30 so he went in with eyes wide open...not some young renegade wanting to thrill kill. The first attack on the WTC inspired him to join...so blame the terrorists for that b/c that event & 9/11 led a lot of citizens to sign up.

Finally, I wouldn't know Palin & Gingrich were still relevant if this thread hadn't mentioned them. Look at it this way, they are far outnumbered by the Hollywood Left, most of the mainstream media & the Leftists politicians who hate everything the military stand for and are fine w/ showing bigotry to Christians & conservatives as long as others don't do the same to Muslims, atheists & Leftists. So as bad as you & Bluster are turned off by Palin & Newt, be glad you're not exposed to 1000x's that from the elitist Left.

 

[ARALOU]

There are all kinds of people that serve in the military. Some change while in. Psychologically speaking. War is not pretty. Some talk about their experience, some keep it to themselves, some can't handle the experience, some brag about it. Most of the time the ones that say "I was just in the Navy" or "I was just in the Army", usually have real "war" stories to tell.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I saw the movie but have yet to read the book. Based on the movie (which can take creative license to adapt to their needs), I didn't see a glamorization of his "kill count". Yes, his fellow soldiers reminded him and dubbed him "Legend", but Cooper played his character as shying away from that and being embarrassed by it IMO. Also, when Cooper's character has to shoot a child & his mother before they run a suicide RPG into a tank, he's is visually torn on what to do until it's obvious they mean to kill Americans. Finally, he is visually relieved when another child picks up an RPG and aiims it after the initial terrorist is shot by Kyle. He's begging the kid not to fire it & miraculously he just throws it on the ground & runs off at which Kyle is relieved. Again...this was the movie...not the autobiography.

To me, the main theme was the true havoc that PTSD wreaks on our returning soldiers. The guy joined the military at the age of 30 so he went in with eyes wide open...not some young renegade wanting to thrill kill. The first attack on the WTC inspired him to join...so blame the terrorists for that b/c that event & 9/11 led a lot of citizens to sign up.

Finally, I wouldn't know Palin & Gingrich were still relevant if this thread hadn't mentioned them. Look at it this way, they are far outnumbered by the Hollywood Left, most of the mainstream media & the Leftists politicians who hate everything the military stand for and are fine w/ showing bigotry to Christians & conservatives as long as others don't do the same to Muslims, atheists & Leftists. So as bad as you & Bluster are turned off by Palin & Newt, be glad you're not exposed to 1000x's that from the elitist Left.

Huh. Outside of Michael Moore, who is about as far from a politician as you can get, I never got the impression that there was any difference in the level of support shown for the troops by politicians on the left vs. politicians on the right. They all wear their little yellow ribbons and talk about how the troops are heroes, and then f**k the troops by allocating money based on what's good for their district instead of what's good for the military.

There's a reason Obama and Ron Paul got more money in donations from the military than any republican candidate in 2012. At least they weren't talking about "supporting the troops" on one hand while advocating policies that amounted to boundless global police actions on the other.

 

[brick4956]

The Real American Sniper’s 5 Alleged Lies -- Vulture

someone I know posted this on facebook about Chris Kyle's book

 

[greyhammer90]

The Real American Sniper’s 5 Alleged Lies -- Vulture

someone I know posted this on facebook about Chris Kyle's book

Brick is in this thread.

 

[brick4956]

Moviegoers love Chris Kyle’s story, that much is certain: American Sniper, the movie version of the former SEAL's same-named 2012 memoir, earned a record-smashing $90.2 million over the weekend. But did they get the whole story? As Clint Eastwood's movie tells it, Kyle — the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history, played on film by Bradley Cooper — was a hero despite a few faults. But one of the faults that the film ignores is that Kyle was sort of a fabulist. Though his accomplishments on the battlefield have never been in dispute — he's credited with 160 confirmed kills — a few of his tall tales are. Here are Kyle's five biggest whoppers.
He punched Jesse Ventura in the face, knocking him to the ground.
The most famous of Kyle’s lies. According to his book American Sniper, a celebrity who used to serve in the military showed up at a San Diego bar in 2006 during a wake for a fallen SEAL. In the book, Kyle refers to the celebrity as "Scruff Face," but later identified him as Ventura on The O'Reilly Factor and "The Opie and Anthony Show." A former SEAL himself (though some dispute that), Ventura allegedly railed against the war and said the Navy SEALs “deserved to lose a few guys.” That’s when he got punched.
Related Stories

Here’s Why American Sniper Used That Creepy Fake Plastic Baby

Clint Eastwood Turns American Sniper Into a Republican Platform Movie
Ventura denied it happened and then sued. After Kyle was tragically killed in 2013, Ventura refused to drop the suit and last July he won. A jury ruled that Kyle defamed Ventura and awarded him half a million dollars in defamation damages along with $1.35 million for “unjust enrichment.” Though Kyle didn’t live to see the verdict, he defended himself in a deposition he gave a year before his death. But that didn’t do him any favors. According to a report in the Star Tribune, Kyle told a story that was full of inconsistencies and admitted that some of the details in the book were not true. Still, he maintained that he punched Ventura.

He killed dozens of looters during Hurricane Katrina from atop the Super Dome.
According to Nicholas Schmidle, a reporter for The New Yorker, Kyle once told a group of fellow SEALs about the time he traveled to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and, according to Schmidle’s 2013 article, shot “dozens of armed residents who were contributing to the chaos.” When Schmidle tried to corroborate the story with SOCOM, he was told no SEALs from the West Coast were sent to New Orleans after Katrina. Kyle’s officer told the writer he “never heard that story” and another SEAL told him Kyle’s story of murdering Americans on American soil “defies the imagination.” It’s hard to argue with that.

He shot two guys who were trying to steal his truck.
Unlike the previous two stories, it’s less obvious that this one is a lie, but plenty of people have called it that. It happened in January 2010 when Kyle was filling up his gas tank outside Dallas. Two men approached Kyle and demanded his keys, the SEAL told a reporter for Dallas’s D Magazine. Instead, Kyle deposited two bullets in their chests. Then the story goes off the rails. Police allegedly let Kyle go because they were told by “someone high up in the government” what a valuable asset he was. The only reminder of the incident, says Kyle, was the occasional email he received from law enforcement thanking him for “cleaning up the streets.” The Fort Worth Star-Telegram tried and failed to corroborate the story. So did The New Yorker.

Protesters called him a “baby killer.”
In Kyle's book, he claims he saw war protesters carrying signs that said "baby killer" — which is a bunch of bull according to Michael McCaffrey, who combed through American Sniper for inaccuracies. McCaffrey questions the story because, “That would also make not only the local news, but national news. And other vets would have reported the same thing on their own websites or chat rooms. None of that happened.” Instead, McCaffrey alleges, Kyle is repeating an “urban myth from the Vietnam era.”

He found chemical weapons in Iraq that came from France and Germany.
Another allegation from McCaffrey centers on a short passage in Kyle’s book in which he writes “we found barrels of chemical material that was intended for use as biochemical weapons,” and “writing on the barrels showed that the chemicals came from France and Germany.” McCaffrey writes that this story is lie because “there is no proof or evidence that this incident occurred.” Makes sense.

 

[Redbar]

In order to know that, you would have to have killed.

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying about Kyle, though not to the degree you're saying it. He made himself a public figure by choosing to publish a book, and as a public figure he should be open to criticism. That being said, there are probably limits to that. As long as Kyle followed the ROE, the ultimate responsibility for the deaths of the people he killed lies on the policy makers who sent him there and the public who voted them in and/or enabled them by paying taxes.

Every American has blood on their hands from the Iraq and Afghan wars, which is ok, but I think it is fairly critical that the country acknowledge that instead of pretending that wars are fought by heroes and villains in a vacuum.

I thoroughly enjoy reading your perspective on most every subject and usually find myself in agreement with it. I do here as well, with one caveat. Yes, I think that we as voting, tax paying citizens of this democracy, do "tacitly consent" to the decisions of our leaders and then the actions of our military. I agree that on some level we all have blood on our hands. However, signing a document, or saying some words, or writing a check is not the same as killing someone. To absolve the triggerman of his direct culpability is in my mind to say that we are all not inherently free to chose what is right and wrong. It is to deny every living soul's God given birthright of being free and sovereign over themselves and their actions. In this "civilization" that we have built maybe a soldier or a citizen can try and rationalize their responsibility by saying the President is over me, my ruler so to speak, indeed in this manmade derivative we almost have to give OUR authority to some other individual but I don't know if that holds up when you answer to God. This is important for all of us patriots to remember given what you said so correctly about how easy it is to "pretend that wars are fought by heroes and villains in a vacuum."

Now I understand that in this world right now humans have been aligned into various groups and these groups whether it be religion, race, nationality, ethnicity, resources, revenge, evil, etc...etc...have found it necessary to engage in warfare with one another, and warfare requires soldiers that will follow orders even ones they disagree with or don't understand. Because we ask them to do this, there are no legal consequences for their actions when they follow the ROE, but I am not sure that God respects our law, or our decisions on how we have chosen to align ourselves, and what we decide is worth going into combat over. If I do not have the authority to kill you then I am not sure how I can give that authority to someone else. I never had it, it was not mine to give.

One of the things that I loved about the movie was how Chris Kyle never shirked his personal responsibility saying numerous times that, "He was ready to meet his maker and answer for every shot he took." While I know that some people are able to see and reduce complex moral issues to very simple black and white terms and sometimes that is a very good and necessary attribute, like in war, IMO it can also be a very dangerous trait and probably is a contributing factor in creating the circumstances that make it necessary.

I'm sorry if I am not articulating my point clearly.

 

[Bugzly21]

I saw the movie but have yet to read the book. Based on the movie (which can take creative license to adapt to their needs), I didn't see a glamorization of his "kill count". Yes, his fellow soldiers reminded him and dubbed him "Legend", but Cooper played his character as shying away from that and being embarrassed by it IMO. Also, when Cooper's character has to shoot a child & his mother before they run a suicide RPG into a tank, he's is visually torn on what to do until it's obvious they mean to kill Americans. Finally, he is visually relieved when another child picks up an RPG and aiims it after the initial terrorist is shot by Kyle. He's begging the kid not to fire it & miraculously he just throws it on the ground & runs off at which Kyle is relieved. Again...this was the movie...not the autobiography.

To me, the main theme was the true havoc that PTSD wreaks on our returning soldiers. The guy joined the military at the age of 30 so he went in with eyes wide open...not some young renegade wanting to thrill kill. The first attack on the WTC inspired him to join...so blame the terrorists for that b/c that event & 9/11 led a lot of citizens to sign up.

Finally, I wouldn't know Palin & Gingrich were still relevant if this thread hadn't mentioned them. Look at it this way, they are far outnumbered by the Hollywood Left, most of the mainstream media & the Leftists politicians who hate everything the military stand for and are fine w/ showing bigotry to Christians & conservatives as long as others don't do the same to Muslims, atheists & Leftists. So as bad as you & Bluster are turned off by Palin & Newt, be glad you're not exposed to 1000x's that from the elitist Left.

It's wasn't the WTC bombing in the 90's that encouraged him to join. It's was the bombing on the embassy in Kenya in 1998 I believe

 

[IrishinSyria]

I thoroughly enjoy reading your perspective on most every subject and usually find myself in agreement with it. I do here as well, with one caveat. Yes, I think that we as voting, tax paying citizens of this democracy, do "tacitly consent" to the decisions of our leaders and then the actions of our military. I agree that on some level we all have blood on our hands. However, signing a document, or saying some words, or writing a check is not the same as killing someone. To absolve the triggerman of his direct culpability is in my mind to say that we are all not inherently free to chose what is right and wrong. It is to deny every living soul's God given birthright of being free and sovereign over themselves and their actions. In this "civilization" that we have built maybe a soldier or a citizen can try and rationalize their responsibility by saying the President is over me, my ruler so to speak, indeed in this manmade derivative we almost have to give OUR authority to some other individual but I don't know if that holds up when you answer to God. This is important for all of us patriots to remember given what you said so correctly about how easy it is to "pretend that wars are fought by heroes and villains in a vacuum."

Now I understand that in this world right now humans have been aligned into various groups and these groups whether it be religion, race, nationality, ethnicity, resources, revenge, evil, etc...etc...have found it necessary to engage in warfare with one another, and warfare requires soldiers that will follow orders even ones they disagree with or don't understand. Because we ask them to do this, there are no legal consequences for their actions when they follow the ROE, but I am not sure that God respects our law, or our decisions on how we have chosen to align ourselves, and what we decide is worth going into combat over. If I do not have the authority to kill you then I am not sure how I can give that authority to someone else. I never had it, it was not mine to give.

One of the things that I loved about the movie was how Chris Kyle never shirked his personal responsibility saying numerous times that, "He was ready to meet his maker and answer for every shot he took." While I know that some people are able to see and reduce complex moral issues to very simple black and white terms and sometimes that is a very good and necessary attribute, like in war, IMO it can also be a very dangerous trait and probably is a contributing factor in creating the circumstances that make it necessary.

I'm sorry if I am not articulating my point clearly.

First of all, thank you. I try to make my posts entertaining. Sometimes, I overstate things, and I think that's exactly what happened with the post you're responding to.

I absolutely agree with you that nobody, not the president, not "society" can absolve the soldier from the moral consequences of his actions. We all retain our agency, and thus are responsible for our actions on a personal level.

However, I think it's important to draw the distinction between individual and societal morality. Personally, I do not think military service is compatible with Christianity. At all. However, I do think that military service is a social virtue. And that part of military service is subordinating your own moral beliefs for the "greater good." Civilian control of our military is the lodestone of democracy. It only works if we have soldiers who are willing to give everything- not only their own lives, but their own morality, to accomplish the mission given to them by policymakers.

So from a societal perspective, it seems incredibly hypocritical to judge Kyle the man. He did exactly what WE trained him, paid him, and ordered him to do. Whether he struggled with killing or enjoyed it strikes me as irrelevant. Did he stay within the rules of war? If the answer is yes, then he was acting as an instrument of our democracy, and the consequences of his actions should by borne by those who wielded the instrument.

As for Kyle's personal morality, I think you need to do some really creative reading of the bible to justify military service. I never tried to justify my actions in the military with religion, but a lot of people do. If they're wrong, that's a personal issue for them and God to deal with.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

It's wasn't the WTC bombing in the 90's that encouraged him to join. It's was the bombing on the embassy in Kenya in 1998 I believe

You are correct. Thanks

 

[irishog77]

Listen Hogg, what me and your mother do and where we do it is none of your business. We're both consenting adults and even though I cry sometimes I really do love her. It's just been hard adjusting to life with you and your sister and this isn't where I thought I'd end up. I know I'll never be your dad but I'd really like to be your friend. What do you say Buddy?

Dude, my mom is 18. So that's gross.

Oh, and that person you claim is my sister...is actually my brother. So that's gross too.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

My take is as follows :

The American Sniper phenomenon is caused by a couple of occurrences.

The war has mainly been over for some time and the American public feels they are a safe distance from it. (And remember, with the volunteer military as opposed to a draft, there are class ramifications with this war as opposed to any other recent larger conflict, i.e.., it wasn't as large, or their was a draft.)

Americans don't feel good about the war. This thread is proof that there is a myriad of opinions, (very highly political, too!) about the war. I think a whole chunk of the mechanism that both explains the discussion here and the popularity of the movie can be summed up, "We don't agree on what happened, or whether it should have happened, so let's just agree on allowing ourselves to be entertained by it."

Because let's face it; at one end you have a testicle free zone where the inhabitants are intent on making "logical" statements about an illogical and insane situation. (Any of you who know anything about human behavior and see any situation where an individual breaks with reality, [lies] which causes escalating harmful and immoral behavior, knows what that is with an individual).
And on the other hand you have a testicle free zone with a bunch of eunichs sitting around and moaning at their self-inflicted losses, looking to blame the other side for their own helpless incompetence! Both ends of the spectrum are still out of whack.

It is nothing new; things were terribly out of whack when I was in, also.

On that first : People that have been in action suffer. Some suffer greatly. Some don't even need to, to show the same mental health signs. You have jargon like GAD or PTSD, but these are real representations of what the mind does. In my case I never saw the tip of the kind of actions any of these guys did, but my stories are full of holes. I still run into guys that remind me of things I would swear never happened. Snide comments aside, I think this is the rule not the exception. So when I hear a highly polished war story my neck starts crawling.

Time and again this sense has proven accurate for me. A kid that lived down the street claimed to be a big Iraqi Marine hero. He even dropped in on Jessica Lynch, during her recovery, and was mentioned in her book. I knew this guy was never a hero, and just wasn't right. Turns out, Jessica's attorney's ended up getting a restraining order against him, his war lies were totally exposed, the job he got with the Sheriff as a jail guard ended the career of Jim Telb, and resulted in this kid getting sentenced to 10 years for prisoner civil rights violations, for severely beating several prisoners. Great story; shitty for anyone that had to live through it.

And most importantly : they advertise that this guy is the greatest sniper in American history! What a bunch of bull-shit! In Iraq you only needed the sniper and spotter for a confirmed kill. (The clichéd story from Viet Nam is that everyone inflated the body count, ironic!)

In my era, you needed the shooter, spotter, and a third independent party. That person needed to be an official "counter," an officer trained to verify kills.

So this comes around to what bugs me. Carlos Hathcock was the greatest American sniper of modern times. Sure he is listed as only having 93 kills, but those were independently verified actual kills. He, his spotters, and other members of his unit, put his numbers as high as 300, which is what he would have had if the rules were the same as in the Iraqi War.

For example, everyone has seen the scene in one movie or another of the sniper battle where one shoots the other first, and his round travels right through the others scope, piercing his eye. Well that is the outcome of an actual duel Between Carlos "White Feather," and the North Vietnamese top sniper "Tiger." Though the story has been confirmed, the kill does not count as one of his 93!

So here is to the honest and humble, that don't tell a story for false glory, and here is to those true and strong, who honor the sacrifices many have made, and do not cheapen their gift to us by politicizing their actions.

 

[Redbar]

First of all, thank you. I try to make my posts entertaining. Sometimes, I overstate things, and I think that's exactly what happened with the post you're responding to.

I absolutely agree with you that nobody, not the president, not "society" can absolve the soldier from the moral consequences of his actions. We all retain our agency, and thus are responsible for our actions on a personal level.

However, I think it's important to draw the distinction between individual and societal morality. Personally, I do not think military service is compatible with Christianity. At all. However, I do think that military service is a social virtue. And that part of military service is subordinating your own moral beliefs for the "greater good." Civilian control of our military is the lodestone of democracy. It only works if we have soldiers who are willing to give everything- not only their own lives, but their own morality, to accomplish the mission given to them by policymakers.

So from a societal perspective, it seems incredibly hypocritical to judge Kyle the man. He did exactly what WE trained him, paid him, and ordered him to do. Whether he struggled with killing or enjoyed it strikes me as irrelevant. Did he stay within the rules of war? If the answer is yes, then he was acting as an instrument of our democracy, and the consequences of his actions should by borne by those who wielded the instrument.

As for Kyle's personal morality, I think you need to do some really creative reading of the bible to justify military service. I never tried to justify my actions in the military with religion, but a lot of people do. If they're wrong, that's a personal issue for them and God to deal with.

I was concerned that I wasn't coherently making my point in the wee hours of the morning, but you see exactly what I was trying to touch on. Really enlightened and enlightening perspective, intelligently stated.

 

[Wingman Ray]

However, I think it's important to draw the distinction between individual and societal morality. Personally, I do not think military service is compatible with Christianity. At all. However, I do think that military service is a social virtue. And that part of military service is subordinating your own moral beliefs for the "greater good." Civilian control of our military is the lodestone of democracy. It only works if we have soldiers who are willing to give everything- not only their own lives, but their own morality, to accomplish the mission given to them by policymakers.

So from a societal perspective, it seems incredibly hypocritical to judge Kyle the man. He did exactly what WE trained him, paid him, and ordered him to do. Whether he struggled with killing or enjoyed it strikes me as irrelevant. Did he stay within the rules of war? If the answer is yes, then he was acting as an instrument of our democracy, and the consequences of his actions should by borne by those who wielded the instrument.

As for Kyle's personal morality, I think you need to do some really creative reading of the bible to justify military service. I never tried to justify my actions in the military with religion, but a lot of people do. If they're wrong, that's a personal issue for them and God to deal with.

I agree with you 100%. I have discussed with my pastor, who is a gun advocate and frequent hunter, to the Biblical merits or justification for 1) having a gun and/or 2) using a gun. Long story short, his explanation (or justification) was complete unfulfilling.

Granted we unfortunately live in a world that isn't Christian. Or at least, truly Christian. Christ never advocated violence for ANY reason. Now I realize that due to other's lack of Christian beliefs and values, that we are subject to serious repercussions for not responding or in the worldly sense, property making preparations to defend ourselves. But again, Biblical, at least New Testament, there is no point made where having (or retaining) material things, comforts or rights even.

So as an American, I realize the desire to defend one's country and home. But as a true Christian, in no way, shape or form is it justified.

 

[MartyIrish]

To be fair, it sorta seems like Chris Kyle personally had a pro-war bias...



American Sniper Chris Kyle True Story Interview

That's who you want going to war....

Do we recruit players that don't love playing football? We want guys that are excited and looking forward to helping the team/nation in the way they know how.

Some guys are meant to fly around and hit people. Some guys are born soldiers.

Doesn't make them bad people. And you're lying if you think we'd become the nation we have, without them.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Howard Dean: People Who Liked American Sniper Are "Angry," Probably in Tea Party | Video | RealClearPolitics

Two possibilities here:

1) Howard Dean is even further removed from reality than we all thought

2) The Tea Party's numbers have grown significantly if the movie made $90 million opening weekend

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think the thing about this movie and the ideological reaction to it from both sides is that none of those acknowledge the nuance and grey areas that necessarily surround the topic. That makes the ideological reaction to it from both sides utterly worthless. But in defense of the movie, I don't think it really sets out to address those things - it is probably best seen as a look at the human condition when it is subject to very extreme conditions. People are going to take every opportunity to project their own ideology onto any piece of art that tries to make sense of war. I have my own opinions about war, but I'd rather try to look at the movie as a glimpse at the impact it has on people at a personal level.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Small spoiler alert:

Just saw it. I really liked it, but felt like there were too many action scenes and not enough dramatic scenes (not that some of the action was quite dramatic).

I was eager to see more parts state side, as Kyle was picking up the pieces after his torus had ended, but that seemed to be rushed to fit time constraints.

 

[GoldenDomer]

Small spoiler alert:

Just saw it. I really liked it, but felt like there were too many action scenes and not enough dramatic scenes (not that some of the action was quite dramatic).

I was eager to see more parts state side, as Kyle was picking up the pieces after his torus had ended, but that seemed to be rushed to fit time constraints.

I can agree with that. I think 2 of the most powerful scenes were Chris staring at the blank TV and him hearing all the noises, as well as the dog playing with the kid triggering him and running over to beat it.