I've seen making the rounds so might as well buckle up and let Dakka at it. The link was just the last place that it popped up and I didn't feel like backtracking so I'm just using it atm. It is not what I would call an un-biased source, but it does show a lot of the responses to his initial Tweet.
Lots of talk about snipers this weekend (the holiday weekend of a great man, killed by a sniper), so I thought I'd weigh in with what I was raised to believe about snipers. My dad was in the First Marine Division in the South Pacific in World War II. His brother, my uncle, Lawrence Moore, was an Army paratrooper and was killed by a Japanese sniper 70 years ago next month. My dad always said, "Snipers are cowards. They don't believe in a fair fight. Like someone coming up from behind you and coldcocking you. Just isn't right. It's cowardly to shoot a person in the back. Only a coward will shoot someone who can't shoot back."
So I sent out this tweet today:
https://twitter.com/mmflint/status/556914094406926336 And then I sent this:
https://twitter.com/mmflint/status/556988226486169600 But Deadline Hollwood and the Hollywood Reporter turned that into stories about how I don't like Clint Eastwood's new film, "American Sniper." I didn't say a word about "American Sniper" in my tweets.
But here's what Deadline Hollywood posted (note how they changed "snipers" to "shooters" in their headline):
http://deadline.com/…/michael-moore-american-sniper-oscars…/ Hollywood Reporter has since corrected their story:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/…/michael-moore-blasts-ame… If they wanted to know my opinion of "American Sniper" (and I have one), why not ask me?
So here's what I think about "American Sniper":
Awesome performance from Bradley Cooper. One of the best of the year. Great editing. Costumes, hair, makeup superb!
Oh... and too bad Clint gets Vietnam and Iraq confused in his storytelling. And that he has his characters calling Iraqis "savages" throughout the film. But there is also anti-war sentiment expressed in the movie. And there's a touching ending as the main character is remembered after being gunned down by a fellow American vet with PTSD who was given a gun at a gun range back home in Texas -- and then used it to kill the man who called himself the 'America Sniper'.
Also, best movie trailer and TV ads of the year.
Most of us were taught the story of Jesse James and that the scoundrel wasn't James (who was a criminal who killed people) but rather the sniper who shot him in the back. I think most Americans don't think snipers are heroes.
Hopefully not on this weekend when we remember that man in Memphis, Tennessee, who was killed by a sniper's bullet.
Does anyone honestly believe that it is just a coincidence that the weekend American Sniper opened up that Michael Moore decided to post a tweet about Snipers?
I can understand Michael Moore's position, its a third party opinion, from veterans of WW2.
To the average infantryman snipers were he ultimate terror, and they did view it as cowardice, so long as the sniper was on the other side
However this third party opinion is directly linked to combat trauma, Michael Moore can make ethical comments but cant emulate combat trauma.
The second point he misses is that Iraq is not WW2. It's an asymmetric campaign where the enemy will do anything to win, and has no adherence to the laws of war. While the lines there can be blurred, and Moore and others have every right to point that out they fail to realise that often the best weapon against a terrorist is the bullet. As in the bullet, singular, expertly aimed, as opposed to the bomblet, guided missile or hail or rounds from an assault rifle or machine gun.
Heroism or cowardice doesn't come into it, asymmetric war comes into it, and the sniper is the cleanest tool.
Sniper work can still be cowardly, but that depends on the cause. If you pick up a sniper rifle to cause come mayhem in a crime spree, you will be marked as a coward. If you join a revolutionary cause and hit by stealth against an elected democratic government then also it can be rightfully considered cowardice.
But to use a sniper rifle against terrorists, that isn't cowardice, its necessary, and the rule of engagement are also different in a lawful combatant than from an illegal.
The main difference is the target, lawful government need to police streets, sometimes with soldiers. It takes some balls to walk along an open street in Belfast or Baghdad knowing there could be a sniper there, and in a real way its cowardly to take the shot. The sniper need not be there, while the solider has some form of right, especially when the region is under democratic majority rule.
However an ISIS team being target by special forces is different, the ISIS team doesnt have to patrol the streets in full view, and need not be there. The sniper also has to check his target, wheras a terrorist does not, and the sniper has to remain at his job, wheras the terrorist can go home.
I'm not too familiar with Chris Kyle, I know that there was that Ventura defamation lawsuit(?) but that's about it.
A few of Dakka's members served in that theatre so it'll be interesting to hear their opinions.
It certainly takes great courage to serve in the armed forces. Iraq looked like hell.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.
Is this sarcasm?
If not when do you remember Saddam seriously threatening Western freedom? It's also a little off considering the state that Iraq is in now.
That's not an intended insult to those in the military. They conduct themselves with bravery and distinction even when politicians lie through their teeth.
While I agree that he is a sad little film-maker who happened to get lucky capitalizing on a niche product, this type of gak strikes a special cord for me, mostly because this donkey-cave has moved into my home town, and has done everything he can to turn it into his little utopia.
Michael Moore is an idiot who says things like this to get attention from people he knows will agree with him. The people who are getting angry will never like him so he may as well use them to give him free advertising.
On the other hand, American Sniper is a film that is selling mostly on "America! feth ye!", the cult of the warrior and the myth of the sniper. People that are attacking Moore to veraciously were never going to like him and are now more likely to see the film. Free advertising for them too. (Don't get me wrong, it looks like a good, well made film, but thats not what it's selling on).
Both sides strengthen support from their core supporters and the rest of the world continues not giving a crap.
I'm assuming that Mr Moore would like us to go back to the days when chaps would arrange a time & date for a set battle piece, turn up in nice bright coloured uniforms and stand in long lines? No shooting of officers though, most unsportsman like
Wolfstan wrote: No shooting of officers though, most unsportsman like
That's such a European attitude. Shooting officers has been a viable tactic for us bloody colonists since the beginning. It helps that the bright red made them such good targets, too.
Moore's an idiot. Snipers have been an important and, frankly, idealized part of the US military tradition since before there was an official military.
Steve steveson wrote: Michael Moore is an idiot who says things like this to get attention from people he knows will agree with him. The people who are getting angry will never like him so he may as well use them to give him free advertising.
On the other hand, American Sniper is a film that is selling mostly on "America! feth ye!", the cult of the warrior and the myth of the sniper. People that are attacking Moore to veraciously were never going to like him and are now more likely to see the film. Free advertising for them too. (Don't get me wrong, it looks like a good, well made film, but thats not what it's selling on).
Both sides strengthen support from their core supporters and the rest of the world continues not giving a crap.
Have you seen the film?
I have not yet, but some very trusted people have told me that the film is not anything like that at all. It is more a look into the struggles that the military personnel who served in Iraq (this includes the Brits) had to deal with, when they came home.
If that is "America! feth ye!"... well then, I don't know what to say.
On the other hand, American Sniper is a film that is selling mostly on "America! feth ye!", the cult of the warrior and the myth of the sniper. People that are attacking Moore to veraciously were never going to like him and are now more likely to see the film. Free advertising for them too. (Don't get me wrong, it looks like a good, well made film, but thats not what it's selling on).
I have not yet, but some very trusted people have told me that the film is not anything like that at all. It is more a look into the struggles that the military personnel who served in Iraq (this includes the Brits) had to deal with, when they came home.
If that is "America! feth ye!"... well then, I don't know what to say.
cincydooley wrote:
So presumably you saw it?
To be fair to Steve, he said they've been selling the movie based on that idea and he's very correct. That's a been a big part of the marketing campaign leading up to release and there was a sizable reaction about how the marketing had nothing to do with what the film was actually like or about.
I have not yet, but some very trusted people have told me that the film is not anything like that at all. It is more a look into the struggles that the military personnel who served in Iraq (this includes the Brits) had to deal with, when they came home.
If that is "America! feth ye!"... well then, I don't know what to say.
cincydooley wrote:
So presumably you saw it?
To be fair to Steve, he said they've been selling the movie based on that idea and he's very correct. That's a been a big part of the marketing campaign leading up to release and there was a sizable reaction about how the marketing had nothing to do with what the film was actually like or about.
That isn't the impression that I got at all from seeing trailer's and the like. Maybe it's just a different perspective because I am in the military. *shrugs*
Snipers are one of those oddities of war. They're great if they are on your side, but not fair if the other side have them. Alongside this you have the fact that most sailors have the same feelings about submariners, even those on their own side.
That isn't the impression that I got at all from seeing trailer's and the like. Maybe it's just a different perspective because I am in the military. *shrugs*
I hadn't seen the trailer(I don't go to the movies much), but I had seen TV spots for it and the ones I had seen were trying to paint it as something other than the psyche driven biopic it really is.
While Chris Kyle is a pretty problematic figure as a hero - the recent film really whitewashes him of his what can perhaps best be described as sociopathic elements - I think it's indisputable his actions, like the actions of every American sniper, saved the lives of American troops. I find it a pretty dumb argument that a sniper has any more blood on his hands, or less honor, then a guy who drops a bomb or loads a artillery shell or pilots a drone.
In this case Michael Moore is a toolbox, which is not an atypical place for him to be.
Wolfstan wrote: Snipers are one of those oddities of war. They're great if they are on your side, but not fair if the other side have them. Alongside this you have the fact that most sailors have the same feelings about submariners, even those on their own side.
I think this is described as "the only unfair fight is the one you lose"
Wolfstan wrote: Snipers are one of those oddities of war. They're great if they are on your side, but not fair if the other side have them. Alongside this you have the fact that most sailors have the same feelings about submariners, even those on their own side.
That is because hiding and killing others from a safe position is considered cowardly in most Western cultures. Therefore, snipers, submariners, artillerists and the like are often considered cowards. (Unless, they are on your side of course)
In any case, I don't like this guy and the whole personality cult around him. It stinks of ultranationalism.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.
Is this sarcasm?
If not when do you remember Saddam seriously threatening Western freedom? It's also a little off considering the state that Iraq is in now.
That's not an intended insult to those in the military. They conduct themselves with bravery and distinction even when politicians lie through their teeth.
I didn't read that as sarcasm. It's absolutely true.
It's like flag burning is protected speech. It's a gakky thing to do... but, we allow it.
Steve steveson wrote: Michael Moore is an idiot who says things like this to get attention from people he knows will agree with him. The people who are getting angry will never like him so he may as well use them to give him free advertising.
On the other hand, American Sniper is a film that is selling mostly on "America! feth ye!", the cult of the warrior and the myth of the sniper. People that are attacking Moore to veraciously were never going to like him and are now more likely to see the film. Free advertising for them too. (Don't get me wrong, it looks like a good, well made film, but thats not what it's selling on).
Both sides strengthen support from their core supporters and the rest of the world continues not giving a crap.
I'd suggest to see the flix before making such assumption.
From what I've heard, the biggest impact in the film is it's depictation on the challenges military folks/family have when they come back home.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh... let me also add...
Remember Eastwood's "talking to empty chair" speech? And that the folks said his hollywood career is over?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.
Is this sarcasm?
If not when do you remember Saddam seriously threatening Western freedom? It's also a little off considering the state that Iraq is in now.
That's not an intended insult to those in the military. They conduct themselves with bravery and distinction even when politicians lie through their teeth.
I didn't read that as sarcasm. It's absolutely true.
It's like flag burning is protected speech. It's a gakky thing to do... but, we allow it.
If you're talking about the Military more generally I get the point but Iraq specifically as an example of fighting for freedom? I can't really see it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.
Is this sarcasm?
If not when do you remember Saddam seriously threatening Western freedom? It's also a little off considering the state that Iraq is in now.
That's not an intended insult to those in the military. They conduct themselves with bravery and distinction even when politicians lie through their teeth.
I didn't read that as sarcasm. It's absolutely true.
It's like flag burning is protected speech. It's a gakky thing to do... but, we allow it.
If you're talking about the Military more generally I get the point but Iraq specifically as an example of fighting for freedom? I can't really see it.
Well, all the Iraqi's who get to vote in elections that really count today might disagree.
There are many merits to speak of from that war. Just because we were not repelling foreign invaders from our shores does not mean that the war was not fought to serve the purposes of our nations and their people.
My problem with the movie is Chris Kyle lied. A lot. A lot of his lies have been proven. The problem is so much of the rest of it is based upon 'plausible deniability' that we really have no idea what else is lies. To assume everything he wrote that hasn't been proved a demonstrable lie is fully 'true' is naive and ignorant especially since he has shown himself to be a soulless liar and fraud for money when he was on his book tour.
The danger is people who want those lies to be true are eating this movie up, lies and all...
I understand that 6 year olds need to be shot in the face sometimes in unconventional war for the sake of peace. We shouldn't celebrate it, we shouldn't glamorize it and we shouldn't lie about the ugliness of war. If you are going to spotlight it then do it truthfully. This movie whitewashes Chris Kyle's psychopathic existence as heroism. He is not a hero, he is a psychopathic liar and everything in his book and this movie is suspect.
nkelsch wrote: My problem with the movie is Chris Kyle lied. A lot. A lot of his lies have been proven. The problem is so much of the rest of it is based upon 'plausible deniability' that we really have no idea what else is lies. To assume everything he wrote that hasn't been proved a demonstrable lie is fully 'true' is naive and ignorant especially since he has shown himself to be a soulless liar and fraud for money when he was on his book tour.
The danger is people who want those lies to be true are eating this movie up, lies and all...
I understand that 6 year olds need to be shot in the face sometimes in unconventional war for the sake of peace. We shouldn't celebrate it, we shouldn't glamorize it and we shouldn't lie about the ugliness of war. If you are going to spotlight it then do it truthfully. This movie whitewashes Chris Kyle's psychopathic existence as heroism. He is not a hero, he is a psychopathic liar and everything in his book and this movie is suspect.
Which lie was it specifically?
If you're talking about the Jesse Ventura defamation case, that was very much in dispute.
nkelsch wrote: My problem with the movie is Chris Kyle lied. A lot. A lot of his lies have been proven. The problem is so much of the rest of it is based upon 'plausible deniability' that we really have no idea what else is lies. To assume everything he wrote that hasn't been proved a demonstrable lie is fully 'true' is naive and ignorant especially since he has shown himself to be a soulless liar and fraud for money when he was on his book tour.
The danger is people who want those lies to be true are eating this movie up, lies and all...
I understand that 6 year olds need to be shot in the face sometimes in unconventional war for the sake of peace. We shouldn't celebrate it, we shouldn't glamorize it and we shouldn't lie about the ugliness of war. If you are going to spotlight it then do it truthfully. This movie whitewashes Chris Kyle's psychopathic existence as heroism. He is not a hero, he is a psychopathic liar and everything in his book and this movie is suspect.
Which lie was it specifically?
If you're talking about the Jesse Ventura defamation case, that was very much in dispute.
He claimed he shot looters in Katrina, Claimed he killed carjackers in Texas, the Jesse Ventura case wasn't in dispute as much as you think. not a single one of the actual claimed witnesses saw jesse ventura there, or even saw the fight at all. The testimony was damning. Not only was Jesse Ventura not there, but mr scruff face didn't even exist. The altercation didn't exist, or if it did, no one witnessed it, which is back to the 'plausible deniability' aspect.
He is a fraud and an embarrassment to servicemen that I know. Serving in the military can't be used as a shield for boldface lies.
Supporting veterans was only one way that Kyle tried to establish a new identity off the battlefield; it was hard to let go of being a hero. In January, 2010, Kyle later told friends, he was once again put to the test: two men tried to carjack his truck. He was parked at a gas station, southwest of Dallas. “He told the robbers that he just needed to reach back into the truck to get the keys,” Michael J. Mooney wrote in a recent article about Kyle, in D Magazine. Mooney, who had worked on the piece with Kyle’s coöperation, wrote that Kyle “turned around and reached under his winter coat instead, into his waistband. With his right hand, he grabbed his Colt 1911”—a sidearm that is popular with military personnel. “He fired two shots under his left armpit, hitting the first man twice in the chest. Then he turned slightly and fired two more times, hitting the second man twice in the chest. Both men fell dead.”
Police officers arrived at the scene. When they ran Kyle’s license, Mooney wrote, something unusual occurred: “Instead of his name, address, and date of birth, what came up was a phone number at the Department of Defense. At the other end of the line was someone who explained that the police were in the presence of one of the most skilled fighters in U.S. military history.” According to Kyle, security cameras documented the episode.
Like Mooney, I also heard many of Kyle’s friends and associates tell this story. Details varied, but the ending was the same: Kyle drove away without being charged and, as Mooney put it in a related blog post, later received “e-mails from police officers all over the country, thanking him for ‘cleaning up the streets.’ ” Mooney never saw the security tape or found other corroborating evidence, such as police files or a coroner’s report for the dead carjackers. “Consider this story confirmed by the man himself,” he wrote in the blog post, in which he described Kyle as a “true American badass” and a “real-life action hero.”
There is cause to be skeptical. The counties of Erath, Somervell, and Johnson cover the stretch of highway where the incident supposedly happened. Tommy Bryant, the sheriff of Erath County, told me that he could “guar-an-damn-tee it didn’t happen here.” Greg Doyle, the sheriff of Somervell County, said that he had “never heard” the story, which he found “kinda shocking,” and added, “It did not occur here.” Bob Alford, the sheriff of Johnson County, told a local reporter, “If something like that happened here I would have heard of it, and I’m sure you all at the newspaper would have heard of it.” These denials do not automatically disprove the story, of course. And it’s true that certain operatives, from certain government offices and agencies, drive government-registered vehicles whose license plates prompt civilian authorities to contact a call center in the event of an accident or a traffic stop. But a SEAL with extensive experience in special-mission units told me that the notion of such a provision being in place for a former SEAL driving a private vehicle was “bs.”
It was events like this which got publishers interested in him writing a book in the first place... Basically his murders on the home front when he claimed to play punisher, and almost all of those stories are highly questionable. He could literally say anything and people take it as the truth simply because it came from him.
Look up where he claimed to have shot 30 men during Katrina as part of government sniper programs. It is based upon feeding crackpots who would say 'of course the government wouldn't admit it!' when it was confirmed no such thing happened.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.
Is this sarcasm?
If not when do you remember Saddam seriously threatening Western freedom? It's also a little off considering the state that Iraq is in now.
That's not an intended insult to those in the military. They conduct themselves with bravery and distinction even when politicians lie through their teeth.
I didn't read that as sarcasm. It's absolutely true.
It's like flag burning is protected speech. It's a gakky thing to do... but, we allow it.
If you're talking about the Military more generally I get the point but Iraq specifically as an example of fighting for freedom? I can't really see it.
Well, all the Iraqi's who get to vote in elections that really count today might disagree.
There are many merits to speak of from that war. Just because we were not repelling foreign invaders from our shores does not mean that the war was not fought to serve the purposes of our nations and their people.
Conversely I'm sure all the Iraqi's killed in suicide bombings and from other types of sectarian violence might not be too bothered about having "democracy" now that Saddam's gone. Not to mention ISIS. I was just pointing out that Iraq was not a war for Western freedom.
I'm not sure what benefits Iraq brought, other than to some thrifty multinationals.
You can have respect for the military & the people who serve/served while despising the people that started the war.
I think what I dislike the most about Michael Moore is that there are, occasionally, glints of awesomeness. He starts often with a pretty compelling story. Then he always goes too far and messes it all up.
I suspect liberals feel about Michael Moore the way that conservatives feel about Glen Beck.
I'm on the fence on seeing the movie. I rather not feel the sensation of going through and remembering some incidents. Its like that chapter of my life I rather not see myself in that mode. Deployment, home, deployment, home. Mentality one has on deployment and having it carrying over when your home.
Ouze wrote: I think what I dislike the most about Michael Moore is that there are, occasionally, glints of awesomeness. He starts often with a pretty compelling story. Then he always goes too far and messes it all up.
I suspect liberals feel about Michael Moore the way that conservatives feel about Glen Beck.
Agreed.
I think it's really ironic that some on the left are claiming that this is a disgusting propaganda pro-war film... that would be what Moore actually dabbles in:
fahrenheit 911
Bowling for Columbine
Sicko
Defending his new war drama American Sniper from criticism of excessive violence and jingoism, Clint Eastwood says he’s more anti-war than people give him credit for.
Clint Eastwood is angry.
“I think that’s a stupid analysis,” the American Sniper director growls from New York, when asked about the buckshot his new movie is taking, from critics who believe he’s celebrating war, killing and jingoism.
David Edelstein of New York Magazine calls the film, opening Friday in Toronto, “a Republican platform movie” even as he praises it as “a crackerjack piece of filmmaking.” Lindy West of the Guardian newspaper bemoans “simplistic patriots” who applaud Eastwood’s portrait of Navy SEAL shooting ace Chris Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper.
“Pardon me for sounding defensive, but it certainly has nothing to do with any (political) parties or anything,” Eastwood, 84, tells the Star.
“These fellows who are professional soldiers, Navy personnel or what have you, go in for a certain reason. Their commander-in-chief (U.S. President Barack Obama) is a Democrat and the administration is, and there’s no political aspect there other than the fact that a lot of things happen in war zones.”
This interview is prior to Tuesday’s announcement by the Directors Guild of America that Eastwood is one of five nominees for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film for 2014. The DGA honour greatly improves Eastwood’s chances of a Best Director nod come Thursday, when nominations for the Feb. 22 Academy Awards are unveiled, and there have been other kudos for him recently along the awards trail.
So the mood of the silver-haired Hollywood legend has to be improving, although having previously won four Oscars — taking both Best Picture and Best Director for Million Dollar Baby in 2005 and Unforgiven in 1993 — his fireplace mantel is already crowded with gold.
This year marks his 60th year in showbiz, much of it as an actor. He began in 1955 with an uncredited role in the B-movie horror Revenge of the Creature.
“I don’t think too much about it,” Eastwood says of the current Oscar race.
“I’ve been lucky on a few occasions over the years with different shows and there are (also) a few times with nominations and no wins. But you know, it’s fine. I’m not making the movie for that. So it’s kind of an afterthought, but it’s nice when people recognize you if they just like your movie.”
Eastwood did think a lot about his American Sniper subject Kyle, who was considered the most lethal sniper in U.S. history, having logged 160 confirmed kills in four tours of duty during the Iraq War.
Both the film and the 2012 Kyle autobiography it’s based on aggressively depict the efforts of American soldiers to defend themselves and each other from the Iraqi fighters they refer to as “savages.” Bullets and profanity fly with equal intensity in the many onscreen skirmishes.
Eastwood insists he’s not the warmonger or right-wing poster boy he’s often made out to be, although he did himself no favour in 2012 with his bizarre rant about Obama, with an empty chair subbing for the president, at that year’s Republican National Convention. (He later admitted his attempt at comedy didn’t quite go as planned.)
He points out that even though he’s directed several war-themed movies and appeared as an actor in others, he’s more dove than hawk: a pragmatic libertarian rather than a red-meat Republican. Eastwood opposed both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because he’s seen enough conflict in his life.
“I was a child growing up during World War II. That was supposed to be the one to end all wars. And four years later, I was standing at the draft board being drafted during the Korean conflict, and then after that there was Vietnam, and it goes on and on forever . . .
“I just wonder . . . does this ever stop? And no, it doesn’t. So each time we get in these conflicts, it deserves a lot of thought before we go wading in or wading out. Going in or coming out. It needs a better thought process, I think.”
Still, in making American Sniper, which he took over after Steven Spielberg bowed out due to budget restrictions, Eastwood felt he had to properly represent Kyle’s version of events.
“This picture was interesting, because I’m seeing it from the point of a person who was sort of an American hero, as far as his ability to be this ultra-sniper. And his family and his beliefs were very strong about defending the country and defending the guys who are defending the country, as a sort of an oversight warrior. It was an important story, but you have to embrace his philosophy if you’re going to tell a story about him.”
Eastwood has long been interested in stories about stoic loners doing jobs that other men would find distasteful or impossible to do. I remind him that for much of his six-decade career as an actor he’s played men like these, in films such as A Fistful of Dollars (1964), Dirty Harry (1971), Unforgiven (1992), In the Line of Fire (1993) and Gran Torino (2008).
“I think so,” he agrees.
“The conflict of doing tough jobs is much more interesting than if I did something about a businessman or something. You have to have some kind of conflict, and pro and con for doing a story . . . war is sort of the ultimate conflict and conflict is the basis of drama, so they’re kind of natural.”
American Sniper is Eastwood’s second movie in less than a year; he released the music biopic Jersey Boys in June 2014. His work ethic is remarkable, and he’s not ruling out future acting or directing jobs, although maybe he’ll take the rest of 2015 off.
“I think I should just cool my heels for a while!” he says, laughing.
I definitely don't see this one deserving an Oscar and suspect it's only up for one because it's such a weak field - the nominees all sort of were nothing special. American Sniper just kind of meanders along with no real arc. There have been a lot of movies that I think much better address the strains of deployment\return, deployment\return - it's not a novel theme or one that is especially well done.
I do, however, think Clint Eastwood is a gifted director, so maybe I just have a higher bar for him. When you crank out Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino, I come to expect greatness and not less.
Ouze wrote: I definitely don't see this one deserving an Oscar and suspect it's only up for one because it's such a weak field - the nominees all sort of were nothing special. American Sniper just kind of meanders along with no real arc. There have been a lot of movies that I think much better address the strains of deployment\return, deployment\return - it's not a novel theme or one that is especially well done.
I do, however, think Clint Eastwood is a gifted director, so maybe I just have a higher bar for him. When you crank out Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino, I come to expect greatness and not less.
Such as?
As I said, I haven't seen it yet, but my father did call me nearly in tears after seeing it. Really brought back his post Desert Storm days. He'd never seen a movie like that.
IMO, sometimes movies just don't really have the impact for some that they do for others. Interstellar was like that for me. To me, the central theme of the movie ended up being about Murph and her father, and the pain and anguish associated with their separation. That tore me up inside. Single hardest moment of my life was when I was walking down the ramp to my airplane for a deployment, and my 2.5 year old son was behind me screaming "Daddy, don't go!".
I had a way to directly associate with that message. I've felt that feeling before. I thought they did an amazing job portraying it. A little to amazing...
I've never been in a PTSD provoking situation though, so I know I won't relate as well to this, but I've had people who have been there tell me it was a great representation.
I was just going to edit the post to add Hurt Locker.
I don't think Taking Chance is quite in that genre (stresses of returning home from deployment), though an excellent film that tackles tough subject matter without quite slipping into jingoism.
Stepping back from myself, I can see how this tweet would anger people. It is insulting, rude, and entirely petty. However, despite that being the case, I can't be pissed off by it, because, no matter what vile gak comes out of his hot dog caked mouth, I always imagine this:
Review and Commentary: American Sniper
Seth Rogan has suggested American Sniper is a lot like Nazi Propaganda... sounds like someone needs a lesson in propaganda. The issue with calling a biopic propaganda is propagabda is by necessity at least partially a lie. Well I don't think much of the story portrayed in the film's a lie, and I think even less that it's the kind of story the powers that be would want told. Having just come from the movie, I think Eastwood and Cooper did a very excellent portrayal of the man himself, and Chris Kyle was neither hero nor villain in the end, he was a very highly trained soldier, and the story told is his own. No patriotic My Country Tis Of Thee jingoistic addons, the wider scope of the war isn't even touched on, there's just the dusty chunks of hell Kyle found himself in, the men to either side of him, and the enemy on the other side of his scope. It is intimate, painful at times, brutal and jarring when it should be, Eastwood has touched on complex men that history and media have wanted to water down or white wash before, Flags Of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima depict both sides of one of the most famous battles in Marine Corps and American history, and focuses on the stories of some of the men who fought and died on that little spit of rock in the Pacific with it's black sand beaches. War and the men who fight in them are not black and white, nothing is simple and any attempt to make it so is the actual propaganda.
As I write this however, I can't help but remember this is the same group of wealthy, inbred idiots who championed "The Hurt Locker" as my generation's Saving Private Ryan and applauded wildly for it's Oscar win, and it's "complex" depiction of war. I think that says more then enough about the validity of their opinions doesn't it? The same Hollywood that couldn't figure out if the brilliant Apocalypse Now was pro or anti war savaged it, but just like that film the message is the same, it is left to the viewer to determine who is good and who is evil, who is the hero and who are the villains... if any one at all is. (Hint, usually nobody)
A further point, beyond Mr. Rogan's rather impressively stupid comments, a bunch of other well heeled mouthbreathers have been making the rounds on twitter along with Michael Moore, Arch-Commandant of the Doughnut Tray. While Moore's comment was rude and offensive at least, and his damage control after the fact highly amusing, especially when called out directly by other snipers, the more impressive comments are by people who think this film is "rewriting" the Iraq war, including one impressive idiot who thinks the film "magically" made Al Qaeda appear in Iraq despite the fact that they had been there long before the invasion in 2003, and were some of the tougher opposition, as well as the main targets of the First and Second Battle of Fallujah, and the liberation of several other cities under Al Qaeda control. The Butcher of Fallujah was absolutely a real man as well... and well... if I remember the stuff I saw on him and heard about him, the movie understates his brutal nature and operation style significantly. Like as not Chris Kyle was a real man, who's values and ideals are questionable to some, if not many (hell I don't necessarily like his mindset and I don't share his world view on a great many things). Having seen that, I don't think Kyle's opinions or world view are painted over in any way, nor was the brutality of the fighting in Iraq glossed over or polished to look prettier. If war is hell, then COIN is the lowest circle of it, I'd theorize the baying over American Sniper comes from not wanting to accept that reality more then anything else.
nkelsch wrote: My problem with the movie is Chris Kyle lied. A lot. A lot of his lies have been proven. The problem is so much of the rest of it is based upon 'plausible deniability' that we really have no idea what else is lies. To assume everything he wrote that hasn't been proved a demonstrable lie is fully 'true' is naive and ignorant especially since he has shown himself to be a soulless liar and fraud for money when he was on his book tour.
The danger is people who want those lies to be true are eating this movie up, lies and all...
I understand that 6 year olds need to be shot in the face sometimes in unconventional war for the sake of peace. We shouldn't celebrate it, we shouldn't glamorize it and we shouldn't lie about the ugliness of war. If you are going to spotlight it then do it truthfully. This movie whitewashes Chris Kyle's psychopathic existence as heroism. He is not a hero, he is a psychopathic liar and everything in his book and this movie is suspect.
Which lie was it specifically?
If you're talking about the Jesse Ventura defamation case, that was very much in dispute.
Seemed to be settled to the tune of $1.8 million to me.
Given how absurdly hard it is to usually lose a case like that as the defendant, something must have really gone wrong.
This guy made a lot of outrageously outlandish claims that are exceedingly difficult to believe as true, and if some of them are, he's committed multiple (potentially capital) felonies. (e.g. shooting people from the roof of the superdome under federal orders....)
While I'm not a fan of Michael Moore at all, Chris Kyle wasn't the figure he's made out to be in the film either.
The issue for me with the movie is that it was a biopic of a person that doesn't really exist. The Chris Kyle that Bradley Cooper portrays is a stylized caricature of the real Chris Kyle. In that Eastwood kept away from the self-mythologizing (and lying) that made Kyle a controversial figure. The problem is compounded by the irrational hero-worship that has been on display recently, because these people can't accept the fact that he was a seriously flawed man and any criticism on the film is an attack on Kyle (which is ridiculous). It could be viewed as propaganda because it presents quite a few things that didn't happen as if they were true: there was no sniper battle with "Mustafa" and it was added for dramatic effect, the character of "The Butcher" was not mentioned in his book (and character in the film was not Ahmad Hashim Abd Al-Isawi, "The Butcher of Fallujah"), he also didn't shoot the boy with a grenade (only the woman), and all the stuff that he lied about that others have already mentioned.
It was a beautifully made film and Bradley Cooper was phenomenal, but when it comes to substance in the movie it was just a collage of out-of-context battle scenes and melodrama on the home front. However, I enjoyed the film and it was definitely worth going to see.
I’m not all that familiar with Chris Kyle and I’ve not read his book, however I did go and watch American Sniper over the weekend.
I don’t know what movie the people denouncing it as Jingoistic, Flag Waving, Pro War film that glorifies a killer saw, but it certainly wasn’t the film I watched. If fact I suspect the like of Moore haven’t actually watched it at all. I don’t think the film took any particular stance over whether the Iraq invasion was justified or not but what it showed was that the war was a unpleasant and messy business and the life and death decisions people like Kyle had to take took a tremendous psychological toll on them.
I saw it as much more of a character study of a man damaged by war. Far from glorifying him it pulled no punches about the fact that the war tore him apart from his family and turned into a shell of man and it was only by helping fellow suffering veterans that his was able to put his life back on track and become a decent husband and father again.
For alleged ‘propaganda’ it arguably has a massive anti war theme running through it.
LuciusAR wrote: For alleged ‘propaganda’ it arguably has a massive anti war theme running through it.
This is what pisses me off about stuff like this. I know what you are saying, and the exact opposite opinion also irritates me. When I watch controversial movies, I don't even attempt to find whether it is pro-war, or anti-war, or anything in between.
Let's change the setting of the movie to an EMT or police officer who has seen horrible things through his time. It really jacks him up mentally, so he decides to help his fellow EMTs/Police Officers/Public Servants through a therapeutic method. Somehow he dies during said therapeutic treatments of his brothers/sisters. What opinion would you glean out of that? Anti-humanity? Pro-humanity? Some moron will decide that there was a message. How about people just watched the damned movie for what it is? A movie.
He wasn't a hero because he shot people. He was a GOOD human being because in the end he only tried to help them.
ETA: I re-read this and it kind of sounded like I'm attacking you. For clarification, I'm just saying that I find it frustrating that people tend to try and find hidden meaning behind something that wasn't meant to. People try and read between the lines waaaayyyy to much.
ETA: I re-read this and it kind of sounded like I'm attacking you. For clarification, I'm just saying that I find it frustrating that people tend to try and find hidden meaning behind something that wasn't meant to. People try and read between the lines waaaayyyy to much.
Don't worry, I didn't take it as an attack and I agree with alot of what you say.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.
That would imply that Moore's right to be a dumbass was under threat, which is doubtful, and also under threat from anyone associated with Iraq before the invasion, which is even more doubtful. At best he fought to preserve western corporate interests in the middle east, assuming they were under much threat... which is doubtful.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The problem is compounded by the irrational hero-worship that has been on display recently, because these people can't accept the fact that he was a seriously flawed man and any criticism on the film is an attack on Kyle (which is ridiculous).
I'd take it a step further and say that it seems people are using Chris Kyle as a proxy for America, even, or at least our intervention in Iraq.
The jingosism aspects are how the movie simplified everything about the war. We're the good guys! Yay! Nothing about our purpose, at least in the film, is muddled or unclear. Our enemies, on the other hand, are savages! One and all. No middle ground. If an Iraqi is being nice to you, it's just because he's setting up an ambush later, because they're all savages.
I mean, a character in the movie literally says that the military is the watchdogs, over the rest of the sheep. You guys who don't see the jingoism - don't you think that's maybe a little simplistic?
Moore claims his beliefs come from what his family taught him growing up based on his family's past experiences. How many people here hold beliefs they refuse to question because that's what their family taught them?
The jingosism aspects are how the movie simplified everything about the war. We're the good guys! Yay! Nothing about our purpose, at least in the film, is muddled or unclear. Our enemies, on the other hand, are savages! One and all. No middle ground. If an Iraqi is being nice to you, it's just because he's setting up an ambush later, because they're all savages.
I mean, a character in the movie literally says that the military is the watchdogs, over the rest of the sheep. You guys who don't see the jingoism - don't you think that's maybe a little simplistic?
As I said earlier on I don’t know what movie you saw but it must have been a different one to me. There was nothing ‘clear cut’ about the films portrayal of the Iraq war, nor does it show all Iraqis as savages. In fact there is a critical scene where Kyle fails in his attempts to protect an friendly Iraqi family who tried to help the Americans and where murdered for doing so.
I think the film is very sympathetic towards Kyle and other veterans like him and praises them for their willingness to do very dirty work, but I saw nothing in the film that could be construed as support for the Iraq war.
The jingosism aspects are how the movie simplified everything about the war. We're the good guys! Yay! Nothing about our purpose, at least in the film, is muddled or unclear. Our enemies, on the other hand, are savages! One and all. No middle ground. If an Iraqi is being nice to you, it's just because he's setting up an ambush later, because they're all savages.
I mean, a character in the movie literally says that the military is the watchdogs, over the rest of the sheep. You guys who don't see the jingoism - don't you think that's maybe a little simplistic?
As I said earlier on I don’t know what movie you saw but it must have been a different one to me. There was nothing ‘clear cut’ about the films portrayal of the Iraq war, nor does it show all Iraqis as savages. In fact there is a critical scene where Kyle fails in his attempts to protect an friendly Iraqi family who tried to help the Americans and where murdered for doing so.
I think the film is very sympathetic towards Kyle and other veterans like him and praises them for their willingness to do very dirty work, but I saw nothing in the film that could be construed as support for the Iraq war.
Supporting veterans =/= Jingoism.
It is easy to make a movie sympathetic when you show lies and whitewash the foundation of fraud that the story is based upon. I know people who do not appreciate a self-proclaimed serial murder of Americans being the 'face' of their experience in Afghanistan and war veterans.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The problem is compounded by the irrational hero-worship that has been on display recently, because these people can't accept the fact that he was a seriously flawed man and any criticism on the film is an attack on Kyle (which is ridiculous).
I'd take it a step further and say that it seems people are using Chris Kyle as a proxy for America, even, or at least our intervention in Iraq.
The jingosism aspects are how the movie simplified everything about the war. We're the good guys! Yay! Nothing about our purpose, at least in the film, is muddled or unclear. Our enemies, on the other hand, are savages! One and all. No middle ground. If an Iraqi is being nice to you, it's just because he's setting up an ambush later, because they're all savages.
I mean, a character in the movie literally says that the military is the watchdogs, over the rest of the sheep. You guys who don't see the jingoism - don't you think that's maybe a little simplistic?
Okay... I'm trying to stay out of this thread a bit until I see the movie, read his book more and read more about that libel case.
I don't see it as jingoism...
However, I wanna ask this:
Can't Kyle be appreciated as a Hero™, even though he was a deeply flawed man?
Your point about that the Military is the watchdog, over the sheeps... I think it's misplaced. It isn't so much that "We're the Good Guys!"... it's more that "These are MY guys", as in fellow troops/Americans. In the book I'm reading... Kyle recalls what his dad taught him about the world being divided between sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs who defend the former against the latter... after Kyle enlists, he keeps going back simply to protect his fellow combat troops. That was the motivation every time he pulled the trigger; not sport, not glory, and not politics. That's an admirable trait.
Tannhauser42 wrote: How many people here hold beliefs they refuse to question because that's what their family taught them?
Probably quite a lot -- including, but not limited to, everyone who still believes in whatever religion they were born into. Religions are all fairly unbelievable from the outside. No one believes that sacrificing a goat to Hera, or Odin, or Ra will really bring a better harvest next year, it's just silly stories. Yet when it comes their parent's religion people take it all seriously. Even when it clearly contradicts reason and scientific observation, they go into denial and try to delude themselves by "reinterpreting" the scripture to fit, rather than admit that is just wrong because it's made up nonsense. Most sane people would disregard their parents religions as easily as they disregard other religions such as Scientology, if they were really able to be objective about it, but they usually aren't, same is true for politics, a lot of people vote the way their parents did.
whembly wrote: However, I wanna ask this:
Can't Kyle be appreciated as a Hero™, even though he was a deeply flawed man?
Of course. Chris Kyle did a great many heroic things. He saved countless American lives... which is where the movie, in my opinion, slid into jingoism, by removing all that complexity.
It might have been better to have challenged our perceptions of what American heroism is, rather than giving him the Jessica Lynch \ Pat Tillman larger than life icon status.
Anyway, that's my interpretation. If you got something different out of it, I don't think that's any less valid, that's the nature of film.
whembly wrote: However, I wanna ask this:
Can't Kyle be appreciated as a Hero™, even though he was a deeply flawed man?
Of course. Chris Kyle did a great many heroic things. He saved countless American lives... which is where the movie, in my opinion, slid into jingoism, by removing all that complexity.
It might have been better to have challenged our perceptions of what American heroism is, rather than giving him the Jessica Lynch \ Pat Tillman larger than life icon status.
Anyway, that's my interpretation. If you got something different out of it, I don't think that's any less valid, that's the nature of film.
Cool. I'll probably finish the book in the next few days and see the movie this weekend. I don't want to make anymore definitive assessments until doing so.
It's definitely worth watching. I disagree with elements of how it was presented but was pretty good to watch; the only issues I have with the actual execution was the obviously fake baby*, and Sienna Miller's acting was a little wooden. Brad Cooper definitely delivered.
*I didn't realize it until my wife started laughing and pointed it out, so YMMV.
Michael Moore was already someone I despised over the years, This makes me hate him even more. I was a sniper. I was deployed as a sniper. That time is long past, but I am still proud of my role.
I think the "kill from far away" thing has always been an interesting subject and I've heard a few different thoughts on that. On one hand I have heard the "it's easy to kill people from far away while you are nice and safe" argument, but from my understanding snipers also often operate largely alone without a squad to back them up right away of needed which makes me think that there is also a larger risk by not being able to operate in numbers. I could be completely wrong about this of course.
A more modern evolution on this could be the drone operators. If I remember right there was talk about a medal for the operators that would have a higher order than medals you could only earn while actually being there, which was changed (or scrapped) because of backlash.
Drone operators, like snipers, have an important role and save lives from far away. Does that make them less brave than other soldiers? People probably have the same argument about the guys sitting in a missile silo waiting to push the button.
The subject of Kyle is an interesting issue altogether. I think there are probably a lot of people that are better suited to become the face of "stuff current veterans are going through" than him. But he got the limelight, for better or worse.
Ouze wrote: It's definitely worth watching. I disagree with elements of how it was presented but was pretty good to watch; the only issues I have with the actual execution was the obviously fake baby*, and Sienna Miller's acting was a little wooden. Brad Cooper definitely delivered.
*I didn't realize it until my wife started laughing and pointed it out, so YMMV.
“Shooting in California poses some challenges when employing a real baby given the state’s strict laws (part of the movie was shot in Los Angeles). Infants must be at least 15 days old, and babies from that age up to six months can be employed for only one period of two consecutive hours in any given day. Moreover, that time frame has to be between 9:30-11:30 a.m. or from 2:30-4:30 p.m., and one studio teacher along with one nurse must be on set during filming.
According to American Sniper screenwriter/executive producer Jason Hall, there’s actually a good explanation as to why fake babies were used on the film. In response to journalist Mark Harris’ tweet “That plastic baby in American Sniper is going to be rationalized by Eastwood auteur cultists until the end of days,” Hall replied: “hate to ruin the fun but real baby #1 showed up with a fever. Real baby #2 was no show. (Clint voice) Gimme the doll, kid.”
Ouze wrote: It's definitely worth watching. I disagree with elements of how it was presented but was pretty good to watch; the only issues I have with the actual execution was the obviously fake baby*, and Sienna Miller's acting was a little wooden. Brad Cooper definitely delivered.
*I didn't realize it until my wife started laughing and pointed it out, so YMMV.
Yeah the girl I saw it with pointed it out. It was /really/ obvious. I took Sienna Miller's acting in a positive light, assuming she was trying to communicate the slight "Shut Down" people under that kind of strain find. Cooper delivered so reliably they need to change his name to UPS. I really want to know what in the hell they fed him leading up to this movie, he was never a huge guy and he bulked up /hard/ for this movie.
Conker, as a subject matter expert what are your opinions about how Kyle's role as a sniper are depicted? Obviously his experience will be unique from yours, but does it match up to reality as you'd see it?
Regarding the sheepdogs line and Jingoism, the Sheepdogs theory is very common and popular amongst military and law enforcement, I wouldn't call it jingoism, because it's not justifying military action or an extremist war monger desire. I'm relatively anti-war since getting out, and anti-intervention, I still have my sheepdog gear. It's not really about good or bad in the end, it's about those willing to step up and out and protect others and put their lives on the line doing so.
The jingosism aspects are how the movie simplified everything about the war. We're the good guys! Yay! Nothing about our purpose, at least in the film, is muddled or unclear. Our enemies, on the other hand, are savages! One and all. No middle ground. If an Iraqi is being nice to you, it's just because he's setting up an ambush later, because they're all savages.
See I think that's where you're wrong. One I don't think it depicted the Iraqis like that, but more importantly I think the avoidance of the "big picture" of the Iraq war is intentional and right. For soldiers, sailors and Marines, the big picture never mattered, for the guys that were over there, the kind of thing depicted in the movie, going out every day in the sand and gak, mixed sniper fire, RPGs, ambushes, VBIEDs, that was just the day to day, our purpose was clear, you people, and it was you people, because Americans overwhelmingly supported Iraq and Afghanistan when we kicked this crap off, sent us overseas and told us to sort this gak out. It wasn't our call, the reasons didn't matter to us because it's not like we can just say "feth you I quit!" and we wouldn't want to, because then, like Kyle's own guilt complex, we wouldn't be there for our buddies when the gak hits the high speed impeller.
I'd agree that people on both sides of this little discussion are using Chris Kyle as a symbol of our intervention in Iraq, and on both sides that's a dismal failure of thinking and logic at best. I notice the bulk of these two sides are civilians (in the wide general sense of this argument, not dakka specifically) with little knowledge or understanding of the war outside of sound bites on the News, the occasional documentary and "The Hurt Locker".
Is this the same logic of officers refusing to use guns because it was unsporting, rather preferring to charge at the enemy with a sword (and being riddled with bullets)?
Is this an argument over the right for the enemy to be able to fight back? So when tanks are sent in against some infantry is that cowardice? What if the sniper is the one fighting a stronger force and it would be suicide for them to engage them face to face?
On my first point though I'm reminded of a story about a soldier with a revolver fighting another with a muzzle loader. They both let off shots and missed, and instead of the revolver armed guy just shooting the other one he allowed him to reload. Honor before reason and what not.
But back to my other point. This logic runs along the lines of offering the enemy a fair fight. Ah, war isn't a nice friendly game. Blow the hell out an area to kill an enemy and the people back home will only care that some of their own soldiers aren't being reported dead on the news because they didn't have to duke it out in a fire fight.
A more modern evolution on this could be the drone operators. If I remember right there was talk about a medal for the operators that would have a higher order than medals you could only earn while actually being there, which was changed (or scrapped) because of backlash.
Drone operators, like snipers, have an important role and save lives from far away. Does that make them less brave than other soldiers? People probably have the same argument about the guys sitting in a missile silo waiting to push the button.
.
I'd say it's a very different relationship, while Snipers are removed from their targets, it's almost an intimate relationship, you see them, quite closely, and sometimes observe targets for days, while enduring incredibly harsh conditions. You seem the target, so very, very close.... and end them with the whisper of a finger on a trigger. Their personal angel of death. It's an even more direct and personal method of killing then many regular grunts will experience. The endurance and skill required to be a sniper are why they are given the respect they are.
Drone operators work hard as well, but pressing a button to launch a smart munition will never have the same intimacy as a sniper or a grunt's engagement, it's no different from being a pilot honestly, except the drone operator is sitting in a comfortable, air conditioned control center,can get up and stretch, piss, get some coffee, and in many cases, goes home to his family every day after work. (A lot of our operations centers for drones are in the U.S.)
Someone explain it to me, because frankly from my POV most of the hate mongering ITT seems to stem more from just disliking Moore in general than any specific inaccuracy he made in his statement. To wit, if my uncle had been killed by a sniper and I had been raised to dislike snipers my entire life... I'd probably dislike snipers.
They often operate alone without support. They can expect no mercy if captured. They actually see their target in high detail, its a very personal way of killing.
BlaxicanX wrote: So... what did Moore say that was actually wrong?
Someone explain it to me, because frankly from my POV most of the hate mongering ITT seems to stem more from just disliking Moore in general than any specific inaccuracy he made in his statement. To wit, if my uncle had been killed by a sniper and I had been raised to dislike snipers my entire life... I'd probably dislike snipers.
They often operate alone without support. They can expect no mercy if captured. They actually see their target in high detail, its a very personal way of killing.
It takes balls to be a sniper.
It takes balls to be any kind of front-line soldier, I imagine. We've lost over a thousand US troops in the war, and the super-majority of them were not snipers. See my edit btw, I tried to make the post sound less inflammatory.
They often operate alone without support. They can expect no mercy if captured. They actually see their target in high detail, its a very personal way of killing.
It takes balls to be a sniper.
It takes balls to be any kind of front-line soldier, I imagine. See my edit btw, I tried to make the post sound less inflammatory.
BlaxicanX wrote: So... what did Moore say that was actually wrong?
Someone explain it to me, because frankly from my POV most of the hate mongering ITT seems to stem more from just disliking Moore in general than any specific inaccuracy he made in his statement. To wit, if my uncle had been killed by a sniper and I had been raised to dislike snipers my entire life... I'd probably dislike snipers.
That snipers are cowards.
He's saying his uncle was shot by one in WWII in the Pacific.
BlaxicanX wrote: So... what did Moore say that was actually wrong?
Someone explain it to me, because frankly from my POV most of the hate mongering ITT seems to stem more from just disliking Moore in general than any specific inaccuracy he made in his statement. To wit, if my uncle had been killed by a sniper and I had been raised to dislike snipers my entire life... I'd probably dislike snipers.
That snipers are cowards.
He's saying his uncle was shot by one in WWII in the Pacific.
And that snipers aren't "heroes".
My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot you in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders are worse
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 18, 2015
Hmm. I never tweeted 1word bout AmericanSniper/ChrisKyle. I said my uncle killed by sniper in WWII; only cowards would do that 2 him, others
BlaxicanX wrote: I don't agree with Moore's opinion, personally, but I think the outrage levied in response on display is pretty disproportionate.
Well, Michael Moore's like Bieber - no one admits to liking him, and yet inexplicably he's always good for page hits.
Hmm. I never tweeted 1word bout AmericanSniper/ChrisKyle
Yeah, and Chris Kyle didn't initially name "Scruff Face", and yet we all knew who he meant, you disingenuous toolbox. You want to say inflammatory stuff, fine, but own up to it bro.
I don't know *anyone* over the age of like...20, especially at this point, that thinks much of Michael Moore. The college freshman with a "Che Guevara" shirt maybe, but I don't know any "lefties" that like the guy.
BlaxicanX wrote: So... what did Moore say that was actually wrong?
Someone explain it to me, because frankly from my POV most of the hate mongering ITT seems to stem more from just disliking Moore in general than any specific inaccuracy he made in his statement. To wit, if my uncle had been killed by a sniper and I had been raised to dislike snipers my entire life... I'd probably dislike snipers.
That snipers are cowards.
He's saying his uncle was shot by one in WWII in the Pacific.
And that snipers aren't "heroes".
My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot you in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders are worse
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 18, 2015
Hmm. I never tweeted 1word bout AmericanSniper/ChrisKyle. I said my uncle killed by sniper in WWII; only cowards would do that 2 him, others
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 19, 2015
If you had a close relative killed by a sniper you might have similar feelings.
Snipers are common. When you get a trained sniper that's when it gets interesting.
Remember when that cargo plane went down in Bagram? That road the vehicles were on ran out past in front of the flight strip for another quarter mile to the AHHA (Ammo Handling/Holding Area). From early morning to about 1400 one guy closed down that area pretty effectively, 2008. In fact he disrupted the entire operation of the airfield. For fighters/cargo aircraft were screaming down the runway towards the sniper. Found out later four assorted aircraft were hit by him, one jogger he planted in place with a wound to the thigh. The Up Armor 5-ton used by the AHHA was hit 13 times as it was going back and forth on the road. Sniper tried to take out one of the guards in the perimeter tower but they went "bunker" into the harden portion of the tower.
So Camp Vance party goers (SF/Delta operators) on Bagram sent one of the their sniper team on top the Air Traffic Control tower and got the guy around 1400 with the 50 cal sniper rifle.
Reason why I said party goers was they got busted for flying in Strippers from the US on a Special Flight.
Just saw "American sniper" great movie wanted to know if it is true and most of it is movie dose not go into detail about the Ventura scandal or some of the random things Chris said he did after his tours. But what I do know was he was no coward he supported his men with sniper support he also Lead men into combat situations.
Also a sniper who goes behind enemy lines sits in a building for days just to take out a VIP and run away before the enemy gets him is epic.
All I can say is american sniper wasn't a propaganda film like Seth Rogen said more of a film about the hardship of war which we all know is grimdark.
Iraq war may in some people eyes been a waste of time but that dose not mean we discredit the people who served in it.
Going to leave this here now before someone else does.
"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
Snipers go for the medics once they are identified by the medic bag on their back
Snipers go for officers/NCO's once identified
Snipers do the "bait" to draw out more targets
Snipers are Snipers and are expected in the battlefield
Some people cannot accept snipers do exist to kill people and do it in a "under handed way"
Interesting discussion. My brother was a sniper in Afghanistan, and people often react with distaste or morbid fascination to that.
Personally, my feelings on it are conflicted because while I love my brother I find his choice to volunteer for a foreign military and go kill people half way across the world who happened to live in the wrong country at the wrong time (Still baffled as to why the US didn't bomb the crap out of the Saudis, given the circumstances of the 9/11 attacks), well, let's say I don't entirely approve.
I don't think bravery even comes into it that much. I mean, sure, bravery is a fairly good quality, but who cares whether he was brave or "had balls". Plenty of the insurgents are also really brave, it takes some serious bravery to try and fight the American/British war machine. Of course, they're also sneaky bastards with little care for colateral damage, so is their bravery important when determining their value as people?
The discussion makes me want to ask my brother about the movie now. But he's off on another job for two months so I won't be able to ask him til he comes back.
Oh yeah, and Iraq was a war for American freedom? American freedom to bomb the crap out of whoever they feel like, maybe.
Oh yeah, and Iraq was a war for American freedom? American freedom to bomb the crap out of whoever they feel like, maybe.
That was pretty gratuitous. We'll remember that when the aliens come and want to use your eyes for jujubees (what thell are jujubees anyway and what happened to that actor-he was awesome) and you come crying to us asking for 500 B-52 strikes of FREEEDOM.
I dunno if it's US bashing really. It's my perspective on things, I don't hate the US at all but like many people I think the Iraq war was less than a noble act.
I don't blame the soldiers involved though, it's not like you guys get much of a choice, and many had signed up post 9/11 to try to help their country, which is admirable.
I don't think pointing out that the US fight in Iraq wasn't actually protecting American freedoms is exactly "American bashing", and I think that kind of simplistic thinking is what has lead to exactly the situation that other thread is about.
Ouze wrote: I don't think pointing out that the US fight in Iraq wasn't actually protecting American freedoms is exactly "American bashing", and I think that kind of simplistic thinking is what has lead to exactly the situation that other thread is about.
When has the US ever needed to wage war in order to protect American freedom? What is the last time the US was invaded by an enemy with the intent to conquer? Since the Revolutionary War, the US has never had to protect its freedom from foreign agression. "Protecting American freedom" is just government propaganda. The US wages war in order to defend its international interests, not to defend its people and their values.
Japan was not interested in conquering the US, they just attacked in the hope to take them out of the fight and prevent them from stopping Japan (the exact opposite happened )
9/11 was just a terrorist attack, not anything even remotely threatening to the existence of the US.
Okay, that one counts. But it is a threat to the entire world, not just the US, altough you guys are certainly suffering the most of it. Your bravery in this dwarves even that of Russia in the Great Patriotic War. Hordes of genocidal Germans are nothing compared to this monstrosity.
If you want some good advice, I would say you should nuke the entire area. Sure, you may lose up to 90% of your population, but it is nothing compared to what will happen if you do not destroy this greatest of all evils.
Frazzled wrote: Mexican incursions into SouthWestern US prior to WWI.
To be fair, those weren't carried out by the Mexican gov't but by "revoluntionary" bandits, and a whole lot more of Villa's guys died in the process, not quite anticipating how heavily armed people were here
Smacks wrote: That would imply that Moore's right to be a dumbass was under threat, which is doubtful, and also under threat from anyone associated with Iraq before the invasion, which is even more doubtful. At best he fought to preserve western corporate interests in the middle east, assuming they were under much threat... which is doubtful.
Yeah, I was speaking generally. As in "soldiers fight for their country to protect the rights that allow people to denigrate them". I wasn't speaking about the war in Iraq, but feel free to beat that dead horse as much as you like (or even snipe at it from a mile away, Chris Kyle style!).
Okay, that one counts. But it is a threat to the entire world, not just the US, altough you guys are certainly suffering the most of it. Your bravery in this dwarves even that of Russia in the Great Patriotic War. Hordes of genocidal Germans are nothing compared to this monstrosity.
If you want some good advice, I would say you should nuke the entire area. Sure, you may lose up to 90% of your population, but it is nothing compared to what will happen if you do not destroy this greatest of all evils.
Agreed. The 10% that survive will be stronger, an entire nation of Mega Texans. Then we'll launch Waugh Queso upon an unsuspecting world.
Frazzled wrote: Mexican incursions into SouthWestern US prior to WWI.
To be fair, those weren't carried out by the Mexican gov't but by "revoluntionary" bandits, and a whole lot more of Villa's guys died in the process, not quite anticipating how heavily armed people were here
Someone utterly missed the point of the movie and somehow thinks that a quote intended to typify a character as losing their humanity and the goal of their own mission is somehow a great testament to the struggles of soldiers.
Basically another person who probably missed that Holden Caulfield is the villain of his own story.
Actually the U.S. has been under existential threat or threat of invasion since the Revolution a few times, not counting the Civil War, there's been multiple scrapes with Mexico and a knife fight with Spain in Cuba, that whole little event where the British decided they wanted a round two and they burned Washington before we sent the world's foremost powdered wig aficionados back to the land of poor dentistry, the aforementioned Pancho Villa incidents, California was an Empire for all of about 30 seconds, and of course WW2, which was supposed to start with a sucker punch from Japan taking us out from the fight in the Pacific, and end with another Invasion on our Southern border by Mexico.
And of course, as previously mentioned, the Canadian weapon of mass destruction.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually the U.S. has been under existential threat or threat of invasion since the Revolution a few times,
If by a few you mean once. The War of 1812, which was a war we really shared equal part in starting, cause you know. The first revolution went so well, why not have another one?
there's been multiple scrapes with Mexico
All of which we started. We we're the mean play ground bully pushing poor little Mexico around the sand box. Honestly I'm surprised people in Mexico don't hate us. They'd probably be a lot better off if they hadn't been our whipping boy for most of the 19th century.
and a knife fight with Spain in Cuba
We started it. We got tired of pushing poor Mexico around the sand box and decided the kick the poor chemo patient in the nuts (19th century Spain is the chemo patient)
the aforementioned Pancho Villa incidents
Villa couldn't invade the US anymore than a rough and tumble motorcycle gang could. Really it's kind of laughable we pay as much attention (then and now) to his antics as we do.
California was an Empire for all of about 30 seconds
I'm not even sure how that qualified as a threat of invasion since Americans were the ones who formed the Republic of California and the whole point was to take California and join the US. Somehow California managed to pull a Texas but didn't let it go to their heads, which is weird since it's California and they seem to let everything else go to their heads XD
and of course WW2, which was supposed to start with a sucker punch from Japan taking us out from the fight in the Pacific, and
Japan was never going to invade us. There was 0 capability for them to even make an attempt. The best they could do was taking some islands in Alaska that honest, we could have just let them keep those. We hardly use them for anything XD
end with another Invasion on our Southern border by Mexico.
What? Are you confusing the Zimmerman incident from WWI? Mexico was never going to invade us during WWII or WWI for that matter, so it's a moot point anyway. Especially WWII. Mexican laborers worked in US factories. Mexico cut all trade with Germany and Japan. They nominally joined the war on May 30, 1942 on our side. Hell, a Mexican foreign national was brought in to work on the Manhattan Project.
Someone saying in a private meeting "lets invade America" does not constitute an actual threat of invasion if the act is impossible for them to achieve. Germany couldn't even manage to get Sea Lion past square one half.
Sure, they couldn't have done it immediately. But in 5 years after taking over all of Europe they could have.
Its a very good idea to eliminate threats before they are capable of doing harm to you. Less bloodshed overall. Better to take out an opponent while you can than wait till you're on equal footing.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, they couldn't have done it immediately. But in 5 years after taking over all of Europe they could have.
That assumes they could have taken over all of Europe, another thing they were never going to do. Given that Hitler wasn't even antagonistic towards the US in any particular way, I fail to see how they'd be a threat to us even if by some miracle (or act of the devil?) they managed to do it.
Its a very good idea to eliminate threats before they are capable of doing harm to you.
And here I thought the punishment came after the crime ~ Chris Evans. American Actor
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, they couldn't have done it immediately. But in 5 years after taking over all of Europe they could have.
That assumes they could have taken over all of Europe, another thing they were never going to do. Given that Hitler wasn't even antagonistic towards the US in any particular way, I fail to see how they'd be a threat to us even if by some miracle (or act of the devil?) why they'd want to.
Its a very good idea to eliminate threats before they are capable of doing harm to you.
And here I thought the punishment came after the crime ~ Chris Evans. American Actor
They could have taken over Europe if they hadn't poked the Bear.
They needed to simply fortify the eastern front against the eventual Russian attack. The Germans bit off more than they could chew at once, plus Hitler was way too impatient and impulsive. Patience would have secured them Europe(sans Russia)
Its incredibly naive to say that the Germans weren't a threat to the US. Maybe not an immediate threat, but a definite long term one.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, they couldn't have done it immediately. But in 5 years after taking over all of Europe they could have.
That assumes they could have taken over all of Europe, another thing they were never going to do. Given that Hitler wasn't even antagonistic towards the US in any particular way, I fail to see how they'd be a threat to us even if by some miracle (or act of the devil?) they managed to do it.
Its a very good idea to eliminate threats before they are capable of doing harm to you.
And here I thought the punishment came after the crime ~ Chris Evans. American Actor
Europe, at least Western Europe, wasn't an issue. The problem was those pesky Russians and their gak-tons of bodies. Also, while have an invasion plan (at least not that I know of), Germany did draw up plans to bomb the eastern seaboard. They were scrapped, though more because, by the point they were drawn up, they were irrelevant.And REALLY expensive.
It didn't; Germany declared war first. Apparently the Japanese ambassador wouldn't shut about some verbal agreement they made.
That all being said, though, what does a discussion of unrelated "what ifs" have to do with a rotund jackass making inappropriate comments?
They could have taken over Europe if they hadn't poked the Bear.
And they were always going to poke the bear. Read Mein Kampf. It's got an entire section detailing poking the bear.
They needed to simply fortify the eastern front against the eventual Russian attack.
People need to abandon the ill informed notion that a country run by a mad man was every going to do the smart thing. They also need to abandon the ill informed notion that any amount of fortification could stop the bear, which eventually would have mauled Germany with or without poking. Read Stalin. His plan for mauling Germany was waaaaay better than Germany's plan for poking the bear. Poor guy had a depression fit when Hitler beat him to the punch.
Remember NATO? that military alliance formed by Western Europe when they got scared shitless at the end of WWII and realized that Russia was so insanely powerful that none of them stood a chance? Sure it turned out Russia's bad assery kind of decayed in the mid 50's and pretty much collapsed by the 60's, but hey this is why we don't make real world decisions based on 'what if in 15 years they invade us' scenarios!
Patience would have secured them Europe.
Just because someone sits in a secret meeting and says "lets be patient" doesn't mean that will actually happen. Expansionist states aren't exactly known for patience.
Its incredibly naive to say that the Germans weren't a threat to the US.
No, it's reality. They weren't a threat to us. Now granted, I have no issue with going to war to fight threats to others. Whether they are a direct threat to us is only one valid reason to go to war. But why people continually like engaging in this insanity that every ho dunk dictator is a threat to freedom in any term of time frame isn't practical, realist, sensible, or rational. It's just plain old fear mongering.
I feel like, for as many people as there are who aren't taking Moore seriously, there are a lot of people in that group clearly taking Moore seriously.
I'm kind of bewildered anyone cares. Really. It's pointless drama so that a particular person who thrives on attention gets given attention. You want him to go away? Let him.
Didnt germany have submarines and bombers designed specifically to come to america and launch a direct attack on us? Its been years but I swear I saw a documentary on it once
Ouze wrote: I don't think pointing out that the US fight in Iraq wasn't actually protecting American freedoms is exactly "American bashing", and I think that kind of simplistic thinking is what has lead to exactly the situation that other thread is about.
When has the US ever needed to wage war in order to protect American freedom? What is the last time the US was invaded by an enemy with the intent to conquer? Since the Revolutionary War, the US has never had to protect its freedom from foreign agression. "Protecting American freedom" is just government propaganda. The US wages war in order to defend its international interests, not to defend its people and their values.
There were also some Germans captured who had been preliminarily trained to be administrators of captured American territory.
They were planning well in advance, a little too much but planning nonetheless. Nazi Germany was a huge threat, one that had to be destroyed before it grew the teeth it needed to carry out that threat.
And while Hitler was crazy, his followers were not. If he had simply left the detail work to his advisers it would have gone much better for them. He should have remained an idealistic figurehead who didn't get involved in the details.
Didnt germany have submarines and bombers designed specifically to come to america and launch a direct attack on us? Its been years but I swear I saw a documentary on it once
Germany had no long range bomber program. The one man who wanted to develop one, Walther Wever, died in a plane crash before he could sell the idea to anyone. Not that it mattered. Germany didn't have the resources to build a meaningful long range bombing force anyway. They didn't even have an aircraft carrier, let along bombers that could cross the Atlantic and back. The US didn't even have those until after the war.
German U-Boats were frequent in American coastal waters, present even before we entered the war. But these boats were not for attacking so much as tracking shipping movements During the planning for Sea Lion the idea of 'what if we have to fight America' came up several times, which is often taken as a sign they intended the fight us, when really they were just discussing the inherent risk that America would intervene in a prolonged war or join the war if the UK was invaded. No one in the German military (outside the SS) thought America could be invaded. I think in one of their planning sessions they discussed the idea of submarines carrying troops, since they couldn't figure a way around Royal Navy superiority, but they never designed anything along those lines.
Crazy men do not end up in charge because they're followers are sane. The military command of Germany was saner than Hitler and his Nazi party stooges, and most of the leaders of the SS, (Himmler, who is kind of both crazy and sane at the same time. Depended on his mood ), but then they didn't get to make any decisions past 1943.
He should have remained an idealistic figurehead who didn't get involved in the details.
Again. Megalomaniacs are known for doing the smart thing. He would have never ended up running Germany as anyone less crazy.
But they were still a long term threat. A direct one to our freedom and way of life. Do you really think Hitler would have been satisfied with Europe and Africa? They would have eventually become a direct threat.
Pretending that we were not fighting for our freedom in WW2 is beyond stupid.
Pretending that we were not fighting for our freedom in WW2 is beyond stupid.
No, it's reality (granted, I often find reality stupid but that's the world we live in ). Our Freedom wasn't in danger during WWII. The freedom of others, certainly. Not ours. WWII could have ended with us doing nothing and we'd have been just fine. Whatever may have come after after the 50,000 'What ifs' necessary to make Germany actually come out of that war on top, is not WWII. It's not even reality. It's so far outside the realm of reality it's fantasy.
The very idea that WWII was even about 'Freedom' was laughable. You know what the Allies were after WWII? Of the big five, two were communist states, and France was political chaos. The UK and the US were still imperial powers with oversea colonies. Poland was under a puppet government. The post war Baltic states were either Soviet Satellites or Dictatorships. We split Germany in two (completely ignoring German right of self determination). North Africa largely remained colonial territories into the late forties and fifties. Yep. We sure spread that Freedom (and by that, we liberated France and sent it into 12 years of might as well not have had a government while Russia bent most of the rest of Europe under it's thumb). WWII was the last vestige of the Imperial era of Western Europe. We can paint as being about 'Freedom' all we want. But it wasn't and the results really do speak for themselves. All we got was 'better than Nazi Germany and at least we stopped Russia from going all the way to Spain.'
About the only liberating we really did was transitioning Imperial Japan to a constitutional system and freeing Korea and Manchuria. Compared to Europe, the scuffle in Asia actually went somewhat okay on the Freedom front until we got obsessed with that whole domino theory thing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, I was speaking generally. As in "soldiers fight for their country to protect the rights that allow people to denigrate them"
I think the men and women on the ground have the best intentions, and no doubt do a dangerous job, but the fact is I didn't ask anyone to go fight wars for my freedom, and I certainly didn't ask them to feth everything up and make it worse. Now there are more insurgents and radicals than there ever were before the wars, millions dead, and less stability than ever. "Gee, thanks guys!".
This was all entirely predictable, which is why many individuals protested, and nations (including UN members) opposed the wars, and why many still do. So don't try telling me they did me any favours, because they didn't.
Now there are more insurgents and radicals than there ever were before the wars, millions dead, and less stability than ever. "Gee, thanks guys!".
Let me fix this for you;
Now insurgents and radicals are bigger news than than they ever were before the wars. I'm just now hearing about the millions dead, and lack of stability outside my own back yard "Gee, thanks guys!".
Its a bit unfair to blame all the stuff going down in the Middle East on the War on Terror or the War in Iraq. Certainly, things have been shaken in the region since we started waltzing about. I think the Arab Spring, ISIS, and the Syrian civil war however were ultimately inevitable. Sooner or later, something was going to trigger these events. It just turns out that we played a hand in making them happen now, but all those things have been building up for decades. But to act like insurgents weren't running around or everything over there was hunky dorry before we rolled a gak ton of guns in is at least incredibly ill informed.
LordofHats wrote: Now insurgents and radicals are bigger news than than they ever were before the wars.
Wrong on all counts. In the wake of 9/11 radical islam was much bigger news than it generally is today (even though we are in the wake of the French terror attacks). And there are more radical groups and fighters now as a reaction to the wars than there were before. It has nothing to do with how much is being reported.
I'm just now hearing about the millions dead, and lack of stability outside my own back yard "
Over a million people died as a direct result of us destabilizing the region. Again nothing to do with what I'm hearing now. This has been public knowledge for years. So again, lord of hats is just talking out of his 'hat' as usual.
But to act like insurgents weren't running around or everything over there was hunky dorry before we rolled a gak ton of guns in is at least incredibly ill informed.
Which is probably why no one was ever arguing that.
My argument is that rolling troops into the middle-east has done feth-all to increase our freedom or safety, and may actually have provoked more attacks and hatred towards westerners. All while our governments erode our freedoms from within with anti-terror laws. Which is the real threat.
I am not sure why the comments are controversial. It is part of the American psyche that attacking someone from an ambush, shooting someone in the back, or a group ganging up on a weaker opponent are the tactics of a coward.
However, I would expect our military to use those tactics. I would rather they win the fight and come back home. I am under no illusion that those tactics are honorable or fair.
As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.
As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.
Ouze wrote: I don't think pointing out that the US fight in Iraq wasn't actually protecting American freedoms is exactly "American bashing", and I think that kind of simplistic thinking is what has lead to exactly the situation that other thread is about.
When has the US ever needed to wage war in order to protect American freedom? What is the last time the US was invaded by an enemy with the intent to conquer? Since the Revolutionary War, the US has never had to protect its freedom from foreign agression. "Protecting American freedom" is just government propaganda. The US wages war in order to defend its international interests, not to defend its people and their values.
war of 1812?
Doesn't count. The US was the agressor there. Also, the British were too busy in Europe with a certain little corporal to be thinking about a reconquest of the US. Besides, a British re-conquest would only have been an improvement.
Grey Templar wrote: Right, because kidnapping US citizens to force them into service in the Royal navy and restrictive trade embargos wasn't aggressive provocation.
There was a lot of kidnapping and forcing into servitude going around back then.
As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.
My aren't you a fountain of wisdom. That there line is one golden nugget of insight. Sniper = Suicide Bomber. Watched a lot of WWII movies where the Marines shoot the palm tree's and the Japanese soldier falls out dangling on a rope eh?
Grey Templar wrote: Right, because kidnapping US citizens to force them into service in the Royal navy and restrictive trade embargos wasn't aggressive provocation.
There was a lot of kidnapping and forcing into servitude going around back then.
Yes, but usually it was limited to your own citizens. Kidnapping another countries citizens is definitely an act of war.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but usually it was limited to your own citizens. Kidnapping another countries citizens is definitely an act of war.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of slavery, but we way off on a tangent here.
The point as I see it is that American (or should I say western) "freedom" isn't really under threat, and hasn't been for some time. The idea that military forces are abroad "defending freedom" is largely propaganda to put a PC spin on what they are really doing, which largely amounts to: flailing blindly at the behest of almost random political and corporate pressure, and doing a lot of collateral damage in the process.
*9/11 wasn't random *Iraq's invasion of Kuwait wasn't random *Cold War wasn't random.
Other drivers in the last 50 years: Bosnia-journalism Serbia-journalism Somalia-journalism Libya-? ok you got me.
EDIT: a more mercenary person would say wow the US deployed thousands of troops and and/or fought wars four times to save innocents of a certain faith, and then received multiple terror attacks. US then aided in another war to save innocents of a certain faith, and ended up with a dead ambassador. makes you think maybe we shouldn't be helping people any more.
I wouldn't describe it as cowardly, but it doesn't seem a particularly honourable profession. It's something that a lot of people's personality probably isn't compatible with. Cowardly doesn't seem right because being a sniper can be quite dangerous. You're often left without support and are left behind when others pull back, or a pushed forward ahead of others. If you're caught, you're most likely to be executed. A lot of people don't like taking snipers prisoner.
9/11 was orchestrated by mostly Saudi nationals, and one of their main beefs was the continued American presence in Saudi Arabia (which contains, many of Islams holiest sites). So what was the response? Invade Iraq! That's pretty fething random. And probably had more to do with Bush mk2 needing a target to right his political career, then because it posed any real threat. Do you think Al Gore would have seen the need to invade Iraq? If it's not random, it's at least chaotic.
9/11 was orchestrated by mostly Saudi nationals, and one of their main beefs was the continued American presence in Saudi Arabia (which contains, many of Islams holiest sites). So what was the response? Invade Iraq! That's pretty fething random. And probably had more to do with Bush mk2 needing a target to right his political career, then because it posed any real threat. Do you think Al Gore would have seen the need to invade Iraq? If it's not random, it's at least chaotic.
Al Gore would have invaded Manbearpig. edit- oy beaten to the punch!
Always Iraq with you people.
Iraq was the domino theory in reverse. Tribalism overcame democracy. But it would not have happened had 9/11 not happened.
He was providing Over Watch to the troops. Not the type of Over Watch in 40K.
Assigned to SEAL Team 3, Sniper Element Charlie, later Cadillac,[9] platoon within the Naval Special Warfare Command, and with four tours of duty, Kyle served in many major battles of the Iraq War.[3] His first long-range kill shot was taken during the initial invasion when he shot a woman approaching a group of Marines with a hand grenade in her hand. An article by CNN reported that the woman was cradling a toddler in her other hand.[15] As ordered, he opened fire, killing the woman before she could attack.[11] He later stated, "the woman was already dead. I was just making sure she didn't take any Marines with her."[9]
Because of his track record as a marksman during his deployment to Ramadi, the insurgents named him Shaitan Ar-Ramadi (English: 'The Devil of Ramadi'), and put a $21,000 bounty on his head that was later increased to $80,000. They posted signs highlighting the cross on his arm as a means of identifying him.[3][11]
In 2008, outside Sadr City, Kyle claimed his longest successful shot, after he spotted an insurgent with a rocket launcher near a U.S. Army convoy at a range of 2,100 yards (1,920 m). As recounted in his book American Sniper, Kyle fired a shot from his .338 Lapua Magnum-chambered McMillan TAC-338 sniper rifle, killing the insurgent from about 2,100 yards away. The fighter was about to launch a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Army convoy.[16]
During four tours of duty in Iraq, Kyle was shot twice and caught up in six separate IED explosions.[11] His other weapons included the Mk 11 7.62×51mm NATO semi-automatic sniper rifle, the Mk 12 5.56×45mm NATO Designated Marksman Rifle, Sig Sauer P220 Pistol, M4 carbine and a .300 Winchester Magnum-chambered sniper rifle.[17]
Being I have not read his book or seen the movie. From what I understand he was Over Watching units and not going out solo.
9/11 was orchestrated by mostly Saudi nationals, and one of their main beefs was the continued American presence in Saudi Arabia (which contains, many of Islams holiest sites). So what was the response? Invade Iraq! That's pretty fething random. And probably had more to do with Bush mk2 needing a target to right his political career, then because it posed any real threat. Do you think Al Gore would have seen the need to invade Iraq? If it's not random, it's at least chaotic.
Al Gore would have invaded Manbearpig. edit- oy beaten to the punch!
Always Iraq with you people.
Iraq was the domino theory in reverse. Tribalism overcame democracy. But it would not have happened had 9/11 not happened.
After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.
But Iraq. I've been scratching my head about that one for so long, it's probably the reason why I'm going bald. Attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense than invading Iraq, bou of course, the Saudis are a valuable American ally, just like Pakistan, and let's not go there.
Not attacking you, Frazz, just making a general point.
skyth wrote: I am not sure why the comments are controversial. It is part of the American psyche that attacking someone from an ambush, shooting someone in the back, or a group ganging up on a weaker opponent are the tactics of a coward.
However, I would expect our military to use those tactics. I would rather they win the fight and come back home. I am under no illusion that those tactics are honorable or fair.
As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.
Labeling snipers as people who shoot people in the back from comparative safety completely smacks of ignorance of the way that snipers actually work. It takes a huge pair of balls to operate in a very small team, far from friendly support, deep in enemy territory carrying with you only what you can carry on your back, knowing that if you're captured you'll likely be tortured and killed for being a sniper.
Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.
There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission
Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.
skyth wrote: I am not sure why the comments are controversial. It is part of the American psyche that attacking someone from an ambush, shooting someone in the back, or a group ganging up on a weaker opponent are the tactics of a coward.
However, I would expect our military to use those tactics. I would rather they win the fight and come back home. I am under no illusion that those tactics are honorable or fair.
As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.
Labeling snipers as people who shoot people in the back from comparative safety completely smacks of ignorance of the way that snipers actually work.
Yeah, you've got to be brave to be a suicide bomber surely? Brave enough to die for your beliefs. It's also pretty scummy, sure, and they kill people, and I don't approve of that. But I don't see how it's morally so much worse than other kinds of bombing. It's more about who you bomb than the method of delivery.
Of course, coercing someone into delivering a suicide bomb, or tricking them into doing it, is a terrible act.
I don't see why comparisons between methods of waging war can't be made, but I guess I'm not as emotional about this topic as other people.
As for the "always with Iraq", we'll stop talking about it when it a) stops being relevant, which it obviously hasn't and b) it's cheerleaders and apologists can finally admit they were dead fething wrong.
And Huggz: It surely also takes a huge amount of balls to attack a superior force, knowing your chance of survival is extremely low. I don't get why "balls" are valued so highly.
The sniper is a valuable asset in a war, I can see that. Nobility or cowardice doesn't really come into it.
After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.
But Iraq. I've been scratching my head about that one for so long, it's probably the reason why I'm going bald. Attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense than invading Iraq, bou of course, the Saudis are a valuable American ally, just like Pakistan, and let's not go there.
Not attacking you, Frazz, just making a general point.
100% this...I've always been opposed to military intervention in Iraq. Which says a lot, given that Saddam is actually the most recent Arab dictator who attacked Israelis at home.
He was a secular Arab dictator depending on nationalism rather than religious motivations to keep his gak together. Arab Nationalist militaries are notoriously inept. While Saddam was a complete scumbag, he could (and should) have been OUR scumbag keeping militant Islam at bay. All he wanted was golden toilet seats. Small price to pay for a leash on one of the largest armies in the world (GW I, Iraq's military was massive).
skyth wrote: Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.
There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission
Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.
The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:
A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.
Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.
Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.
Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.
9/11 was orchestrated by mostly Saudi nationals, and one of their main beefs was the continued American presence in Saudi Arabia (which contains, many of Islams holiest sites). So what was the response? Invade Iraq! That's pretty fething random. And probably had more to do with Bush mk2 needing a target to right his political career, then because it posed any real threat. Do you think Al Gore would have seen the need to invade Iraq? If it's not random, it's at least chaotic.
Al Gore would have invaded Manbearpig. edit- oy beaten to the punch!
Always Iraq with you people.
Iraq was the domino theory in reverse. Tribalism overcame democracy. But it would not have happened had 9/11 not happened.
After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.
But Iraq. I've been scratching my head about that one for so long, it's probably the reason why I'm going bald. Attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense than invading Iraq, bou of course, the Saudis are a valuable American ally, just like Pakistan, and let's not go there.
Not attacking you, Frazz, just making a general point.
Attacking none of those would have been better. Again, I think it was a reverse domino play to knock down multiple dictatorships. For a short period of time it worked. Libya got in line, Lebanon, Iraq. Then it went bad. Thats really the only thing I can figure. Of course Hussein refuses to let inspectors do their jobs and shooting at our planes were constant causus belli.
But again none of that would have occurred had 9/11 not. Bad move - sure like Africa in WWII.
Its strange that the AQ was never questioned - wait you don't want US troops in SA - are you ok with Hussein invading? After all freaking SA invited us in to protect them. And why was AQ performing terrorist attacks on US forces in Somalia trying to feed starving people, embassies in Kenya etc? What exactly was the point and why were they getting support? Heck why is ISIS getting support now?
As far as I can tell from OT threads, who is right and who is wrong does not depend on the persons actions, motivations or the outcomes of their actions, but mostly just on which side you've chosen to cheerlead.
Nuggz, sorry I misspelled your name as Huggz. Also refreshing to see that POV on Saddam, which is the view I also hold.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.
There are also a lot of training camps in northern Pakistan, but "oh woops!" Pakistan is nuclear power! So they got left alone. Which just shows how much of it is just flexing for political effect without any real purpose.
After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.
But Iraq. I've been scratching my head about that one for so long, it's probably the reason why I'm going bald. Attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense than invading Iraq, bou of course, the Saudis are a valuable American ally, just like Pakistan, and let's not go there.
Not attacking you, Frazz, just making a general point.
100% this...I've always been opposed to military intervention in Iraq. Which says a lot, given that Saddam is actually the most recent Arab dictator who attacked Israelis at home.
He was a secular Arab dictator depending on nationalism rather than religious motivations to keep his gak together. Arab Nationalist militaries are notoriously inept. While Saddam was a complete scumbag, he could (and should) have been OUR scumbag keeping militant Islam at bay. All he wanted was golden toilet seats. Small price to pay for a leash on one of the largest armies in the world (GW I, Iraq's military was massive).
It does turn out to have been a bad idea. I admit it, Iraq, Libya et al have taught me that the US should never ever intervene to get a dictator out. Ever ever ever. Have at it Isis. Go to town Putin. Live the dream Ronald McDonald.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.
There are also a lot of training camps in northern Pakistan, but "oh woops!" Pakistan is nuclear power! So they got left alone. Which just shows how much of it is just flexing for political effect without any real purpose.
Er...no they supposedly were helping us. Its not our fault we were betrayed. But I think my opinions on what we should have done are pretty clear and I don't feel like being BANED again. I really hate that guy.
Frazz, if there's one thing I've learned in all my years on this Earth, it's this: America can do no right in the Middle East. If it attacks somebody, whatever the reason, it's the bad guy. If it helps somebody, they resent you for it, and you're still the bad guy. You guys can never win. If you gave the Middle East the cure for cancer, they'd complain it was too expensive. America is the dominant power on this planet, and rightly or wrongly, they get the blame for a lot of things (sometimes justified in my view).
And the most tragic thing of all, is this: America doesn't need to lose soldiers or money in the Middle east. All they had to do was look at any history book about the British in the Middle east and avoid making those same mistakes. Did the USA do that? I think we know the answer to that one.
Frazzled wrote: Er...no they supposedly were helping us. Its not our fault we were betrayed.
BS! The west has other enemies, such as Iran and North Korea, both have real WMDs and nuclear programs, why no regime change there? Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked because they were soft targets, no airforce, no nukes, no missiles, and no powerful allies. How convenient that the bad guys are holding up there -- oh wait where was Bin Laden hiding again?
Well, there was a great war against this mad guy with a moustache and dodgy fringe. Britain was on the winning side, but bankrupted itself in the process. Britain then tried to re-assert itself in the Middle east by grabbing the Suez canal from the Egyptians, but some pesky colonists from across the great Atlantic pond, who had loads of money, a bigger army, wiener dogs, prestzels and a President with a German name (which really confused us ) said get the hell out of there!
Frazzled wrote: Er...no they supposedly were helping us. Its not our fault we were betrayed.
BS! The west has other enemies, such as Iran and North Korea, both have real WMDs and nuclear programs, why no regime change there? Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked because they were soft targets, no airforce, no nukes, no missiles, and no powerful allies. How convenient that the bad guys are holding up there -- oh wait where was Bin Laden hiding again?
I was referring to Pakistan.
Afghanistan was attacked because AQ was there and they wouldn't give them up.
I think we'd love regime change in Iran and NK. Not sure what you're saying. DO you want us to attack NK? I thought we were bad. We're not bad now?
Well, there was a great war against this mad guy with a moustache and dodgy fringe. Britain was on the winning side, but bankrupted itself in the process. Britain then tried to re-assert itself in the Middle east by grabbing the Suez canal from the Egyptians, but some pesky colonists from across the great Atlantic pond, who had loads of money, a bigger army, wiener dogs, prestzels and a President with a German name (which really confused us ) said get the hell out of there!
skyth wrote: Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.
There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission
Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.
The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:
A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.
Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.
Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.
Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.
Yep. Thus my comparison of the two.
Also, there's a pretty simple argument...
1) Attacking from ambush is a cowardly tactic.
2) Snipers attack from ambush.
Therefore, snipers use cowardly tactics.
And I appreciate that we use cowardly tactics. I want us to win and our people to come back home intact. I appreciate that we have soldiers not warriors.
Grey Templar wrote: People with Nukes are actually slightly less of a threat because we also have nukes. If they use a nuke, we will obliterate them in Nuclear fire.
If you don't have nukes you can actually attack a nuclear power and not need to fear nuclear retaliation.
N. Korea and (maybe Iran) are actually more likely to use that option. To deal with them, we wouldn't need to use that option, and we would win. They'd be more likely to push that button as a last resort type of thing. Put some Taepo Dong's into Tokyo and Seoul. Sure we may be going down, but we're going to take as many with us.
That's the problem with isolated states like that. When they have no friends, they're more likely to want to burn it all down.
skyth wrote: Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.
There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission
Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.
The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:
A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.
Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.
Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.
Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.
Yep. Thus my comparison of the two.
Also, there's a pretty simple argument...
1) Attacking from ambush is a cowardly tactic.
2) Snipers attack from ambush.
Therefore, snipers use cowardly tactics.
And I appreciate that we use cowardly tactics. I want us to win and our people to come back home intact. I appreciate that we have soldiers not warriors.
No. Attacking other armed forces is never "cowardly". A sniper may not be presenting a clear target to fire back at, but the simple fact of the matter is that those they are attacking can still fire back.
What is cowardly is attacking the unarmed, ie civilian population and the like.
skyth wrote: Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.
There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission
Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.
The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:
A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.
Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.
Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.
Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.
Yep. Thus my comparison of the two.
Also, there's a pretty simple argument...
1) Attacking from ambush is a cowardly tactic.
2) Snipers attack from ambush.
Therefore, snipers use cowardly tactics.
And I appreciate that we use cowardly tactics. I want us to win and our people to come back home intact. I appreciate that we have soldiers not warriors.
Do you really wanna know why it's not cowardly?
Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible... and keep on killing them until there's none left.
No. Attacking other armed forces is never "cowardly". A sniper may not be presenting a clear target to fire back at, but the simple fact of the matter is that those they are attacking can still fire back.
What is cowardly is attacking the unarmed, ie civilian population and the like.
Grey Templar wrote: People with Nukes are actually slightly less of a threat because we also have nukes. If they use a nuke, we will obliterate them in Nuclear fire.
If you don't have nukes you can actually attack a nuclear power and not need to fear nuclear retaliation.
N. Korea and (maybe Iran) are actually more likely to use that option. To deal with them, we wouldn't need to use that option, and we would win. They'd be more likely to push that button as a last resort type of thing. Put some Taepo Dong's into Tokyo and Seoul. Sure we may be going down, but we're going to take as many with us.
That's the problem with isolated states like that. When they have no friends, they're more likely to want to burn it all down.
True, they are wild cards. Although I would be more worried about them giving bombs to terrorists than using it themselves directly. At least with Iran the bigger threat is them giving terrorists the materials to make a dirty bomb.
Frazzled wrote: I think we'd love regime change in Iran and NK. Not sure what you're saying. DO you want us to attack NK? I thought we were bad. We're not bad now?
I'm just pointing out what nonsense "fighting for freedom" is, since we only seem to be attacking people that aren't enough of a threat to fight back. All things considered I think invading NK would be an even worse idea than invading Iraq.
whembly wrote: Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible.
Which would imply that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic. I don't know why it is such a sore point for comparisons on here, is it just the terrorist connotations? Everyone thought it heroic at the end of Independence Day when an American flies his plane into the enemy HQ. I guess it's all about perspective.
Suicide missions are a legitimate tactic. As I said a few posts up, what makes it a cowardly one or not, is the method in which it is enacted.
Lets look at 9/11.
Where do you think all of the furor over the attack took place? New York, or DC?
New York of course. Because they attacked civilian targets there. The Pentagon, while tragic, was less so because the targets were uniformed personnel who even though were not serving on the front line at that time, were still people who lived a life of that risk.
How you differentiate your targets determines who you are.
Frazzled wrote: I think we'd love regime change in Iran and NK. Not sure what you're saying. DO you want us to attack NK? I thought we were bad. We're not bad now?
I'm just pointing out what nonsense "fighting for freedom" is, since we only seem to be attacking people that aren't enough of a threat to fight back. All things considered I think invading NK would be an even worse idea than invading Iraq.
whembly wrote: Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible.
Which would imply that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic. I don't know why it is such a sore point for comparisons on here, is it just the terrorist connotations? Everyone thought it heroic at the end of Independence Day when an American flies his plane into the enemy HQ. I guess it's all about perspective.
I've never said we're fighting for freedom. I don't give a flying feth for your freedom.
djones520 wrote: Suicide missions are a legitimate tactic. As I said a few posts up, what makes it a cowardly one or not, is the method in which it is enacted.
Lets look at 9/11.
Where do you think all of the furor over the attack took place? New York, or DC?
New York of course. Because they attacked civilian targets there. The Pentagon, while tragic, was less so because the targets were uniformed personnel who even though were not serving on the front line at that time, were still people who lived a life of that risk.
How you differentiate your targets determines who you are.
Well put.
I'd like to add that it also depends on just how much the bomber knows about his mission. Muslims often turn women, children, and male civilians into unwilling suicide bombers by telling them to drive a car or carry a package to a specific area. They are never told that the "package" will be remotely detonated. A while back, terrorists in Gaza strapped a bomb to a slowed kid and sent him to die. Really sick stuff.
skyth wrote: Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.
There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission
Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.
The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:
A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.
Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.
Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.
Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.
Yep. Thus my comparison of the two.
Also, there's a pretty simple argument...
1) Attacking from ambush is a cowardly tactic.
2) Snipers attack from ambush.
Therefore, snipers use cowardly tactics.
And I appreciate that we use cowardly tactics. I want us to win and our people to come back home intact. I appreciate that we have soldiers not warriors.
Do you really wanna know why it's not cowardly?
Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible... and keep on killing them until there's none left.
Non sequitor. That a tactic is useful has no bearing as to whether it is a cowardly tactic or not. I think those tactics should be used. I am, however, under no illusion that they are honorable tactics.
And you're wrong... soliders ARE warriors.
There is a differentiation between the two. Soldiers are part of a unit and fight for a team. A warrior fights more for personal glory.
No, H.B.M.C. brought it up with the often posed "solders are away defending the freedom of the people who criticize them", some people disagree, that is what we have been talking about in this thread. What are you talking about?
Frazzled wrote: I don't give a flying feth for your freedom.
That's a bit hostile! I thought we were buddies? I even came round to shoot beer cans and stroke your wiener dog
skyth wrote: Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.
There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission
Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.
No, H.B.M.C. brought it up with the often posed "solders are away defending the freedom of the people who criticize them", some people disagree, that is what we have been talking about in this thread. What are you talking about?
Thats your problem right there. He's Aussie. When an Aussie says freedom they mean "I'd like just one day of not worrying that some killer spider is going to bite me in the manbits while on the crapper."
Frazzled wrote: I don't give a flying feth for your freedom.
That's a bit hostile! I thought we were buddies? I even came round to shoot beer cans and stroke your wiener dog
That was hostile. I apologize. Its been a bad day but thats no call to get nasty. My bad.
*shrug*
I can see the comparison between a sniper and a suicide bomber. Not sure why you can't, it's an obvious one.
If a sniper targets unarmed civillians, he's scum. If a suicide bomber targets unarmed civillians he's also scum. The method of killing isn't what makes it wrong, it's who they kill.
FWIW I'm sure snipers cause far less collateral damage, which generally means they are "better". And I know my brother has told me that several times his position and vantage was able to avert violence before it happened- warning that what was thought to be some insurgents setting up a mortar was actually some locals digging a well, for example. But my brother also said he was never really that worried when he was in Afghanistan because the Taliban were poorly trained and equipped, so he was confident they weren't a serious threat to him and his unit- outranged, out trained and out gunned.
Of course that's not to say going to war isn't more dangerous than the average job. And his experience might not be representative. He also didn't work alone but in a small team- I think from what he said working alone is unlikely.
Da Boss wrote: *shrug*
I can see the comparison between a sniper and a suicide bomber. Not sure why you can't, it's an obvious one.
If a sniper targets unarmed civillians, he's scum. If a suicide bomber targets unarmed civillians he's also scum. The method of killing isn't what makes it wrong, it's who they kill.
FWIW I'm sure snipers cause far less collateral damage, which generally means they are "better". And I know my brother has told me that several times his position and vantage was able to avert violence before it happened- warning that what was thought to be some insurgents setting up a mortar was actually some locals digging a well, for example. But my brother also said he was never really that worried when he was in Afghanistan because the Taliban were poorly trained and equipped, so he was confident they weren't a serious threat to him and his unit- outranged, out trained and out gunned.
Of course that's not to say going to war isn't more dangerous than the average job. And his experience might not be representative. He also didn't work alone but in a small team- I think from what he said working alone is unlikely.
Smacks wrote: And there are more radical groups and fighters now as a reaction to the wars than there were before.
Except there aren't. The only way to even think there are is to have not watched any of the news from the region prior to 9/11. Al-Qaeda already existed. The Taliban already existed. Kurdish insurgents already existed. Hezbollah. Hamas. Muslim Brotherhood. PLO/PNA/Fatah. Armenian insurgents. All existed long before the war on terror. Everyone who is now ISIS already existed as members of other organizations. The thing that changed is we stirred the pot. We broke Al-Qaeda when we killed the man holding it together, forced the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and created an opening for ISIS to form, but all those insurgents and radicals didn't spring up from the wood work in 2001 as if they never existed prior.
Over a million people died as a direct result of us destabilizing the region.
Yes. What with Iran and Iraq staring at each other down the ends of gun barrels, tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees flooding surrounding states from the P/I conflict, the P/I conflict itself, increasing costs of food, brutal dictatorships, and radical terrorist organizations with political offices, the Middle East was a picture of stability and nothing was ever going to blow that powder keg up. Nope. Nothing at all.
The region was already unstable. We didn't suddenly make it unstable we just disrupted the very pin hair balance that was going to break eventually even if we did nothing.
So again, lord of hats is just talking out of his 'hat' as usual.
And you're talking out of hindsight (the hero of the modern age) and ignorance. If it makes you feel better to pretend the world is run by farseers who can always know exactly how things will turn out before hand, go ahead, but you're due for lots of disappointment.
My argument is that rolling troops into the middle-east has done feth-all to increase our freedom or safety,
That's naive. Removal of the Taliban from control in Afghanistan most certainly increased our security. Iraq did not, though at the time it certainly looked like it would improve the stability of the region because everyone was terrified of another Iran-Iraq war and boy did Iran and Iraq want to have another war. Of the two, Iraq was the easier to neutralize and most of the Mid-East was pretty happy about that (especially the Saudis) cause nobody in the Mid East liked having Saddam as a neighbor.
There was already widespread anti-West sentiment in the Mid East. Governments in that region run themselves by stoking anti-West sentiment (they like taking our money in the back door though). Saying we made it worse is like saying we took a poo in a portapotty. It's already full of poo, adding more ain't making much difference. Our continued aggressive relationship with Iran over it's nuclear program and the inability to resolve the Palestine/Israel conflict have by far done more damage to relations between the Mid-East and west than any wars we've fought in the last 10 years. 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran probably played a bigger role in increasing radicalization in the Mid East than us.
and may actually have [url=http://www.alternet.org/story/48620/the_war_on_terror_is_the_leading_cause_of_terrorism]
So the war on terror is so disastrous that it caused a time paradox and created all the terrorist attacksthathappenedbeforethewaronterrorgotstarted*. Most of the organizations we see today have been around for a long time (many have changed their names naturally). ISIS isn't even new. ISIS is just one end of Al-Qaeda that's gone balls to the walls now that Al-Qaeda has gone the way of the Beatles.
Your ignorance is showing.
*And that's just the Mid East and Europe. Go check out Chechnya, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia sometime. Here's a convenient list, and look! Every year after 1970 has it's own damn page! But don't let that mislead you. Terrorism has been a staple of Middle Eastern politics and governance since the Crusades. What else happened in the 1970s? Oh right! The 24/7 news cycle! Well ain't that just convenient! Now what makes more sense. That terrorism starts rising dramatically because of the war on terror, or that news reports about terrorism start rising dramatically because there is a war on terror and war is news?
All while our governments erode our freedoms from within with anti-terror laws. Which is the real threat.
LordofHats wrote: Everyone who is now ISIS already existed as members of other organizations.
That's obviously not true. Jihadi John is thought to be in his mid 20s, in 2001 he would have been about 10. New people are being radicalized and recruited all the time. To say that it is all the same people for the last 15 years is actually stupid.
Michael Adebowale one of the terrorists who killed Lee Rigby in London last year was 22. Are you going to tell me he was an insurgent during the 90s?
After the killing, here are some of the statements they made about the attack:
The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers ... by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? … when you drop a bomb do you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? … Through many passages in the Koran we must fight them as they fight us … I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same ...Tell them to bring your troops back … leave our lands and you will live in peace."
This attack was clearly motivated as revenge for western military operations in the middle east. The wars are a rallying cry for extremists to recruit more young people, and recruitment is on the rise.
LordofHats wrote: The region was already unstable. We didn't suddenly make it unstable we just disrupted the very pin hair balance that was going to break eventually even if we did nothing.
Thus provoking even more hate from extremists, and making ourselves a target for the kind of revenge attacks I mentioned above.
LordofHats wrote: And you're talking out of hindsight (the hero of the modern age) and ignorance.
Actually I'm not. I opposed the war back in 2002 when it was winding up. And I distinctly recall a conversation at university where I fairly accurately predicted that we would depose Saddam, destabilize the country, get bogged down in peacekeeping, which would eventually lead to the usual "why are our troops over there getting killed?", at which point we would pull-out and leave the country on the brink of civil war.
I suppose it was kind of hindsight since I had Vietnam, Korea, Somalia and every other place where we've intervened and then left the place fethed, from which to draw inspiration, but I definitely thought of it before it happened. A lot of other people disagreed with the war too, there were protests, it was a very unpopular invasion. So I'm afraid you're wrong, not hindsight at all.
There was already widespread anti-West sentiment in the Mid East.
And you're arguing that the wars have made that better? Because I think they have clearly exasperated that particular problem.
Smacks wrote: Michael Adebowale one of the terrorists who killed Lee Rigby in London last year was 22. Are you going to tell me he was an insurgent during the 90s?
I'm saying insurgents don't pop up out of thin air. The current War on Terror is just the latest in centuries of western influence in the Middle East. The organizations and groups (what I mean by terrorists in my post) we face today already existed in some way long before the War on Terror started.
This attack was clearly motivated as revenge for western military operations in the middle east.
And before that it was Colonialism. Basically the only way to avoid their ire is to be isolationist (which in this modern age of globalism is suicidal) and even then, it's really easy for some dictator to stand up to the local mob and say "It's not my fault your life sucks. Blame those westerns for sabotaging us because they're afraid of our awesomeness and hate our religion!"
Thus provoking even more hate from extremists, and making ourselves a target for the kind of revenge attacks I mentioned above.
We were already targets for attack. I see you didn't even glimpse half the links I gave. If you look back the US was on the receiving end of some serious terrorist action from the Mid East once every five or six years since 1980 up to 2001. Terrorists there have been terrorizing each other on a weekly basis for ages. We didn't create them so much as got more of their attention and started paying much more attention to them.
I distinctly recall a conversation at university where I accurately predicted that we would dispose Saddam, destabilize the country, get bogged down in peacekeeping, which would eventually lead to the usual "why are our troops over there getting killed?", at which point we would pull-out and leave the country on the brink of civil war.
Except we didn't. We masterfully managed to avoid Iraq spiraling into a serious civil war. ISIS isn't a civil war in any classic sense. It's an invasion by an force that goes beyond Iraq's borders and nobody saw it coming. You're twisting the very valid and predictable concerns that were held at the onset of everything to pretend that ISIS was somehow a forseable outcome. It wasn't. That's why I call it hindsight.
I suppose it was kind of hindsight since I had Vietnam, Korea, Somalia and every other place where we've intervened and then left the place fethed, from which to draw inspiration
We are pretty good at it (I wouldn't include Somalia though, we left that one in pretty much the same state we found it) I fully expected Iraq (and Afghanistan) to become cluster feths because of course we'd just cop out in the end, but I didn't expect it to turn out this way. Arab Spring was a serious wild card that through a wrench in everything. Popular uprisings have a tendency of popping up when people least expect them.
And you're arguing that the wars have made that better?
I'm arguing its so bad it can't really be made worse. When someone hates you so much they go across a 3000 mile ocean to crash planes into buildings, there's not really anyway for it to get worse. That's pretty much maximum worseness.
Da Boss wrote: *shrug*
I can see the comparison between a sniper and a suicide bomber. Not sure why you can't, it's an obvious one.
You are equating someone who uses a precision weapon to eliminate a target to someone who uses explosives in an indiscriminate manner (and often civilian filled area).
Da Boss wrote: *shrug*
I can see the comparison between a sniper and a suicide bomber. Not sure why you can't, it's an obvious one.
You are equating someone who uses a precision weapon to eliminate a target to someone who uses explosives in an indiscriminate manner (and often civilian filled area).
By definition either one can do both.
A sniper could easily be someone who indiscriminately kills civilians and a suicide bomber could use precision to eliminate a specific target.
"Sniper" and "suicide bomber" is just a role, neither of which is inherently good or bad. A sniper could be the soldier doing what a soldier does, or it can be the bad guy just randomly killing people for the heck of it. A suicide bomber can be the terrorist blowing up innocent people at the market, or it could be the wounded US service member that tells his buddies to go on and holds on to all the grenades ready to pull the pin as soon as the bad guys come by to blow himself up as well as them.
How each term is perceived will depend on personal experiences.
LordofHats wrote: And before that it was Colonialism. Basically the only way to avoid their ire is to be isolationist (which in this modern age of globalism is suicidal) and even then, it's really easy for some dictator to stand up to the local mob and say "It's not my fault your life sucks. Blame those westerns for sabotaging us because they're afraid of our awesomeness and hate our religion!"
Yeah, that pretty much describes NK.
We had long wars with Vietnam and Japan which didn't really go anywhere good, then eventually ended up winning them over passively with capitalism. I don't think war was ever the best tool in our box. Groups like AQ know this which is why they are so against capitalism and western culture. I read the leader of Boko Haram even refuses to believe the Earth is a sphere, western ideas are so repulsive to him. I think it's an almost Darwinian response to cultural invasion. Extremism endures and spreads because it is the only thing crazy enough to resist.
We were already targets for attack. I see you didn't even glimpse half the links I gave. If you look back the US was on the receiving end of some serious terrorist action from the Mid East once every five or six years since 1980 up to 2001. Terrorists there have been terrorizing each other on a weekly basis for ages. We didn't create them so much as got more of their attention and started paying much more attention to them.
I don't deny that there were radicals and attacks prior to the wars,
I'm arguing its so bad it can't really be made worse. When someone hates you so much they go across a 3000 mile ocean to crash planes into buildings, there's not really anyway for it to get worse. That's pretty much maximum worseness.
I think it can get a lot worse for us, and I think it probably will before long. I feel something very bad is about to happen.
Smacks wrote: We had long wars with Vietnam and Japan which didn't really go anywhere good, then eventually ended up winning them over passively with capitalism.
I'm not sure how we passively won against Japan XD
I don't think war was ever the best tool in our box.
As I continually try to explain to people, what is best is rarely what happens. All the powers that be don't care about what is best. They care about what is best for them, which means that what is best for us, others, the world, etc is rarely (if ever) what we will get. Imperfect worlds produce, nay require, imperfect solutions. Sad fact of life. We're stuck with war, like cats are stuck with hairballs.
I read the leader of Boko Haram even refuses to believe the Earth is a sphere, western ideas are so repulsive to him..
Oh yes. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of the most read books throughout the Middle East, despite continually being proven time and time again to be a hoax, and probably half the world's Holocaust deinalists live in the Mid East these days XD. If they weren't violent radicals, we could lump them in with the young earth creationists and have a laugh
I feel something very bad is about to happen.
In the real world something bad is always about to happen (imo). No point constantly trying to avoid it. It's going to come kick your ass no matter what you do.
Jihadin wrote: They made an attempt to blow up twin Towers in 1993
Edit
Twin Towers.
They decided they needed a bigger boom (too soon?)
Negative. Your good. Just shows how far out they can plan and the creativity they can come up with to accomplish their goals. War/No War it wouldn't matter if one's country gets attacked by these Organizations/Individuals motivated to perform a attack of some nature (Lone Wolf title I would rather not tarnish for the Space Wolves) Crap going to happen regardless because of one's country action, commitment, view point, support, whatever have you because your against "Them" and what they stand for.
d-usa wrote: By definition either one can do both.
A sniper could easily be someone who indiscriminately kills civilians and a suicide bomber could use precision to eliminate a specific target.
"Sniper" and "suicide bomber" is just a role, neither of which is inherently good or bad. A sniper could be the soldier doing what a soldier does, or it can be the bad guy just randomly killing people for the heck of it. A suicide bomber can be the terrorist blowing up innocent people at the market, or it could be the wounded US service member that tells his buddies to go on and holds on to all the grenades ready to pull the pin as soon as the bad guys come by to blow himself up as well as them.
How each term is perceived will depend on personal experiences.
I'm uncertain as to which "definition" you are working off. If it is the line that follows the underlined then your definitions seem at odds with the traditional role of a sniper, and your assertion that a suicide bomber "could use precision to eliminate a specific target" seems factually incorrect.
A sniper's traditional role is infiltrating, intelligence gathering, engaging high value targets, and/or providing overwatch for friendly forces. "[R]andomly killing people" is a waste of a strategic resource, and if civilians are being shot at then that's a war crime. Also I don't recall there being (m)any reports of suicide bombers only killing a single individual as their objective and causing absolutely no collateral damage.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Also I don't recall there being (m)any reports of suicide bombers only killing a single individual as their objective and causing absolutely no collateral damage.
Frazzled wrote: I think we'd love regime change in Iran and NK. Not sure what you're saying. DO you want us to attack NK? I thought we were bad. We're not bad now?
I'm just pointing out what nonsense "fighting for freedom" is, since we only seem to be attacking people that aren't enough of a threat to fight back. All things considered I think invading NK would be an even worse idea than invading Iraq.
whembly wrote: Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible.
Which would imply that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic. I don't know why it is such a sore point for comparisons on here, is it just the terrorist connotations? Everyone thought it heroic at the end of Independence Day when an American flies his plane into the enemy HQ. I guess it's all about perspective.
Strapping bombs to kids and sending them to kill civilians, as often happens over there is legitimate?
Smacks wrote: We had long wars with Vietnam and Japan which didn't really go anywhere good, then eventually ended up winning them over passively with capitalism.
I'm not sure how we passively won against Japan XD
I think a lot of us are trying to figure the logic behind Smack's statement on that one, especially the ones who had family in that theatre of war.
Jihadin wrote: Still trying to wrap my head around that a sniper is the same as suicide bomber. He's "Clueless" keeps popping up.
No one said they're exactly the same, just that there are similarities. Both use a cowardly tactic (Attacking through stealth/deception).
hmm so any kind of stealth or deception is cowardly? So its just frontal assaults against prepared positions that are legit - presumably at a pre-arranged tome so everyone is awake and ready? I really hope you never have to have any kind of military command.
Using children as indiscriminate weapons is the same as using a rifle?
Using children as weapons is the same as attacking at night or from a direction that is unexpected?
My opinion is this - States and individuals are not bound by the same rules. They are actually opposed. Honor; Fairness, what have you are noble traits for the individual, but selfish and bankrupt when you are the agent of an entire state. If you are engaging in a duel or some kind of sport in which rules and such are enforced, cheating is abhorrent. If you are engaged in warfare; in which either way people will die and the only difference is how you prosecute that war which determines how many people will die on either side you are morally charged with lessening the impact on your own unless your culture holds some sort of value in self sacrifice or is bound by outside rules which hopefully hold some sort of actual value.
To whit - if someone calls you a name in a drinking establishment and you slink out the back, sneak up behind him in the alley outside as he is relieving himself and crack him in the head with a pipe, you would probably be considered a douche; and rightly. That was done for your own benefit.
If your country did the moral equivalent in a war, they would not be wrong or evil; maybe dickish, but that only matters after the winner and loser have been decided.
Anything other than a engagment from the front with equal weapons and equal numbers is a cowardly tactic.
I'm also glad that that is how our military fights. I am just under no illusion that it is honorable or fair.
And not all suicide bombers are children or go after civilian targets. The Kamakazi attacks in World War 2 were suicide bombers. The soldier who pulls the pins on all his grenades when he is captured is a suicide bomber.
The DC sniper was a child targetting civilian targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: My opinion is this - States and individuals are not bound by the same rules. They are actually opposed. Honor; Fairness, what have you are noble traits for the individual, but selfish and bankrupt when you are the agent of an entire state. If you are engaging in a duel or some kind of sport in which rules and such are enforced, cheating is abhorrent. If you are engaged in warfare; in which either way people will die and the only difference is how you prosecute that war which determines how many people will die on either side you are morally charged with lessening the impact on your own unless your culture holds some sort of value in self sacrifice or is bound by outside rules which hopefully hold some sort of actual value.
To whit - if someone calls you a name in a drinking establishment and you slink out the back, sneak up behind him in the alley outside as he is relieving himself and crack him in the head with a pipe, you would probably be considered a douche; and rightly. That was done for your own benefit.
If your country did the moral equivalent in a war, they would not be wrong or evil; maybe dickish, but that only matters after the winner and loser have been decided.
Anything other than a engagment from the front with equal weapons and equal numbers is a cowardly tactic.
I'm impressed. You just called Alexander, Hannibal, Runstedt, Patton, Eisenhower, Gavin, Zhukov, Lee, Jackson, Thomas, Schwarzkopf, Yamamoto, Yamashita, and Custer all cowards in one handy little sentence.
Anything other than a engagment from the front with equal weapons and equal numbers is a cowardly tactic.
I'm impressed. You just called Alexander, Hannibal, Runstedt, Patton, Eisenhower, Gavin, Zhukov, Lee, Jackson, Thomas, Schwarzkopf, Yamamoto, Yamashita, and Custer all cowards in one handy little sentence.
My hat is off to you sir.
I think he just called everyone who was any good at war a coward.
skyth wrote: Anything other than a engagment from the front with equal weapons and equal numbers is a cowardly tactic.Kind of my point.
Does each side have to be equally skilled or may that vary?
What do you mean by "equal weapons". Is that equal number of weapons, equal type of weapons, each side has equivalent/identical weapons, or another definition?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Also I don't recall there being (m)any reports of suicide bombers only killing a single individual as their objective and causing absolutely no collateral damage.
Jihadin wrote: Always play to win. Applies to both side.
Do you mean to tell me after doing your recon, setting flank/rear security, setting your guys into ambush position and patiently waiting for the bad guys to enter the kill zone, you did not initiate the ambush with a 'Hey, we're here and about to open fire" while having every one break chem lights or turn on flash lights and stand up and wave?
You probably didn't mark your kill zones with PT belts either.
Oh man. This reminds me of this guy back when I played Chrome Hounds. He was always spewing off about this "Art of Combat" stuff where he demanded players duel 1v1 and announce themselves Battletech Clans style or you were a coward. He'd go onto the forums and whine and complain for hours about how everyone was fighting unfair
I got to play against him once. Feed him a couple volleys of howitzer and "announced myself" after he exploded
Anything other than a engagment from the front with equal weapons and equal numbers is a cowardly tactic.
I'm impressed. You just called Alexander, Hannibal, Runstedt, Patton, Eisenhower, Gavin, Zhukov, Lee, Jackson, Thomas, Schwarzkopf, Yamamoto, Yamashita, and Custer all cowards in one handy little sentence.
My hat is off to you sir.
I think he just called everyone who was any good at war a coward.
It's so absurd it's amazing.
Not really absurd. They did what was right and what was smart to win the war. Doesn't change the fact that they used cowardly tactics.
whembly wrote: Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible.
Which would imply that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic. I don't know why it is such a sore point for comparisons on here, is it just the terrorist connotations? Everyone thought it heroic at the end of Independence Day when an American flies his plane into the enemy HQ. I guess it's all about perspective.
Strapping bombs to kids and sending them to kill civilians, as often happens over there is legitimate?
I wasn't the one who said the only way to win a war is to kill the enemy by any measure. And you are trying to conflate suicide bombing with forcing children to their death. In Africa warlords give guns to kids too and get them addicted to hard drugs to make them fight. Does that mean guns aren't a legitimate means of war? Or is it actually the forcing kids to use them bit that's wrong?
Personally, I don't like guns, suicide bombs, or war. I think they are all fairly illegitimate and stupid. (I'm not really that keen on kids either).
Smacks wrote: We had long wars with Vietnam and Japan which didn't really go anywhere good, then eventually ended up winning them over passively with capitalism.
I'm not sure how we passively won against Japan XD
I think a lot of us are trying to figure the logic behind Smack's statement on that one, especially the ones who had family in that theatre of war.
I'm not really sure what is hard to understand. Unless you can't tell see the difference between nuking someone into submission, and winning them over culturally. Is "winning someone over" not a term in the US? It means getting someone to like and accept you. Sorry if that was being confused with "winning a war", sometimes I forget that not everyone here speaks the same language.
Smack could be referring to the gradual collapse of Japanese Isolationism in the 19th century, but I'm not sure XD
It was just kind of unclear what you meant XD Imperial Japan already was capitalist in any meaningful sense. Granted even Isolationism wasn't just 'won over' unless we ignore Mathew Perry and good old gun boat diplomacy XD
LordofHats wrote: It was just kind of unclear what you meant XD Imperial Japan already was capitalist in any meaningful sense. Granted even Isolationism wasn't just 'won over' unless we ignore Mathew Perry and good old gun boat diplomacy XD
Oh wait! Sorry. no I wasn't talking about the 19th century. I meant the 20th century shift from Japan in the 1940s to being a modern economic powerhouse in the 1970s. A war with Japan seems unthinkable now, while other countries in the region are still suspicious of the west.
Anything other than a engagment from the front with equal weapons and equal numbers is a cowardly tactic.
I'm impressed. You just called Alexander, Hannibal, Runstedt, Patton, Eisenhower, Gavin, Zhukov, Lee, Jackson, Thomas, Schwarzkopf, Yamamoto, Yamashita, and Custer all cowards in one handy little sentence.
My hat is off to you sir.
I think he just called everyone who was any good at war a coward.
It's so absurd it's amazing.
Its strange logic - and I doubt there was ever an occasion when the parity between opposing sides was like this?
You can argue whether specific ways of fighting war, weapons etc are likely to cause collateral damage and / or target civilians but to use the term cowardly just seems overly emotive and provocative which maybe was the point............
But just to be sure you are saying these two are exactly the same:
You are a soldier during a war, targeting combatants with a rifle, from range.
Strapping explosives to a child and getting her to detonate in the middle of a shopping mall whilst you watch from safety.
I meant the 20th century shift from Japan in the 1940s to being a modern economic powerhouse in the 1970s
Japan did the same in the early parts of the 20th century as it became a major economic and military power in the region- there is also some disquiet in the region about their continued rebuilding of their military. Many are looking at China as much more of a threat but some are also not happy about Japan.
I think the post war situation with Japan and Germany was very unique
Tsk... All this talk about honourable combat and people still don't get it. All ranged weapons are cowardly, because it allows an untrained, weak coward to kill highly trained, strong honourable warriors with ease. The only honourable combat is between two skilled warriors, man to man, with nothing but their fists or simple weapons. Anyone using ranged weapons is a coward not manly enough to run up to his enemy and kick him in the face.
What saddens me is that he allegedly is the fact that he had to build himself up with stuff that never happened. The fact that he was a sniper doing a difficult job is enough for me to respect him. Adding BS into the mix (allegedly) turns him in to some sort of Steven Seagal clone.
LordofHats wrote: Oh man. This reminds me of this guy back when I played Chrome Hounds. He was always spewing off about this "Art of Combat" stuff where he demanded players duel 1v1 and announce themselves Battletech Clans style or you were a coward. He'd go onto the forums and whine and complain for hours about how everyone was fighting unfair
I got to play against him once. Feed him a couple volleys of howitzer and "announced myself" after he exploded
I hope the announcement was something to the effect "I am Lord of Hats, owner of your very dead posterior!"
Iron_Captain wrote: Tsk... All this talk about honourable combat and people still don't get it. All ranged weapons are cowardly, because it allows an untrained, weak coward to kill highly trained, strong honourable warriors with ease. The only honourable combat is between two skilled warriors, man to man, with nothing but their fists or simple weapons.
Anyone using ranged weapons is a coward not manly enough to run up to his enemy and kick him in the face.
LordofHats wrote: Oh man. This reminds me of this guy back when I played Chrome Hounds. He was always spewing off about this "Art of Combat" stuff where he demanded players duel 1v1 and announce themselves Battletech Clans style or you were a coward. He'd go onto the forums and whine and complain for hours about how everyone was fighting unfair
I got to play against him once. Feed him a couple volleys of howitzer and "announced myself" after he exploded
I hope the announcement was something to the effect "I am Lord of Hats, owner of your very dead posterior!"
I've done the same as Hats being that Safcon was not offered from either side. Sounds like Natasha Kerensky was leading Hats forces
I am actually a bit more than normally annoyed by the lack of reading comprehension here. I mean, I shouldn't be, I know whatever I post is being read through an emotional filter that makes you take it as badly as possible, but good god.
If I say "A comparison can be made" between two things, I am not saying they are "exactly the same". What a total lack of intellectual honesty. At least, I hope that is what it is, because if it isn't, it's sheer stupidity.
I don't think they compare at all, except on a very very generic and broad level. But then you might as well compare a Suicide Bomber with a bunch of other things, like a demolition derby driver.
At a point where the points of comparison are too broad then the comparison just falls apart.
Both are methods of attack which are considered by some (or even many) to be morally dubious. Both are effective, both cause a large amount of fear, and both require bravery.
Da Boss wrote: Both are methods of attack which are considered by some (or even many) to be morally dubious. Both are effective, both cause a large amount of fear, and both require bravery.
nkelsch wrote: My problem with the movie is Chris Kyle lied. A lot. A lot of his lies have been proven. The problem is so much of the rest of it is based upon 'plausible deniability' that we really have no idea what else is lies. To assume everything he wrote that hasn't been proved a demonstrable lie is fully 'true' is naive and ignorant especially since he has shown himself to be a soulless liar and fraud for money when he was on his book tour.
The danger is people who want those lies to be true are eating this movie up, lies and all...
I understand that 6 year olds need to be shot in the face sometimes in unconventional war for the sake of peace. We shouldn't celebrate it, we shouldn't glamorize it and we shouldn't lie about the ugliness of war. If you are going to spotlight it then do it truthfully. This movie whitewashes Chris Kyle's psychopathic existence as heroism. He is not a hero, he is a psychopathic liar and everything in his book and this movie is suspect.
Which lie was it specifically?
If you're talking about the Jesse Ventura defamation case, that was very much in dispute.
He claimed he shot looters in Katrina, Claimed he killed carjackers in Texas, the Jesse Ventura case wasn't in dispute as much as you think. not a single one of the actual claimed witnesses saw jesse ventura there, or even saw the fight at all. The testimony was damning. Not only was Jesse Ventura not there, but mr scruff face didn't even exist. The altercation didn't exist, or if it did, no one witnessed it, which is back to the 'plausible deniability' aspect.
He is a fraud and an embarrassment to servicemen that I know. Serving in the military can't be used as a shield for boldface lies.
Supporting veterans was only one way that Kyle tried to establish a new identity off the battlefield; it was hard to let go of being a hero. In January, 2010, Kyle later told friends, he was once again put to the test: two men tried to carjack his truck. He was parked at a gas station, southwest of Dallas. “He told the robbers that he just needed to reach back into the truck to get the keys,” Michael J. Mooney wrote in a recent article about Kyle, in D Magazine. Mooney, who had worked on the piece with Kyle’s coöperation, wrote that Kyle “turned around and reached under his winter coat instead, into his waistband. With his right hand, he grabbed his Colt 1911”—a sidearm that is popular with military personnel. “He fired two shots under his left armpit, hitting the first man twice in the chest. Then he turned slightly and fired two more times, hitting the second man twice in the chest. Both men fell dead.”
Police officers arrived at the scene. When they ran Kyle’s license, Mooney wrote, something unusual occurred: “Instead of his name, address, and date of birth, what came up was a phone number at the Department of Defense. At the other end of the line was someone who explained that the police were in the presence of one of the most skilled fighters in U.S. military history.” According to Kyle, security cameras documented the episode.
Like Mooney, I also heard many of Kyle’s friends and associates tell this story. Details varied, but the ending was the same: Kyle drove away without being charged and, as Mooney put it in a related blog post, later received “e-mails from police officers all over the country, thanking him for ‘cleaning up the streets.’ ” Mooney never saw the security tape or found other corroborating evidence, such as police files or a coroner’s report for the dead carjackers. “Consider this story confirmed by the man himself,” he wrote in the blog post, in which he described Kyle as a “true American badass” and a “real-life action hero.”
There is cause to be skeptical. The counties of Erath, Somervell, and Johnson cover the stretch of highway where the incident supposedly happened. Tommy Bryant, the sheriff of Erath County, told me that he could “guar-an-damn-tee it didn’t happen here.” Greg Doyle, the sheriff of Somervell County, said that he had “never heard” the story, which he found “kinda shocking,” and added, “It did not occur here.” Bob Alford, the sheriff of Johnson County, told a local reporter, “If something like that happened here I would have heard of it, and I’m sure you all at the newspaper would have heard of it.” These denials do not automatically disprove the story, of course. And it’s true that certain operatives, from certain government offices and agencies, drive government-registered vehicles whose license plates prompt civilian authorities to contact a call center in the event of an accident or a traffic stop. But a SEAL with extensive experience in special-mission units told me that the notion of such a provision being in place for a former SEAL driving a private vehicle was “bs.”
It was events like this which got publishers interested in him writing a book in the first place... Basically his murders on the home front when he claimed to play punisher, and almost all of those stories are highly questionable. He could literally say anything and people take it as the truth simply because it came from him.
Look up where he claimed to have shot 30 men during Katrina as part of government sniper programs. It is based upon feeding crackpots who would say 'of course the government wouldn't admit it!' when it was confirmed no such thing happened.
I'm just about finished with the book and my research...
But do you have links that shows Kyle personally affirmed those stories? Because it seems like it's used by every anti-war, anti-American Sniper crowd to pile on a dead man.
I think the more relevant point is this:
1. Robbery incident - according to several sites I've seen, that incident was mentioned in Mark Luttrell's book, wherein Mark states that Chris told him that story. Some other guy wrote an article 5 days after Chris was murdered saying that Chris confirmed it.
Hearsay. And I'm not even trying to knock Luttrell. I haven't even read the book and so I don't know if it's even in there or not (it's downloaded on my kindle). Point is - it's hearsay.
2. Katrina - I have seen no direct evidence that Chris ever told this story. Only hearsay from some guy on http://sofrep.com/ who said Chris told him that story, which was roundly called out by other special forces folks as BS.
Without unbiased confirmation and direct evidence, there is no reason to believe that Chris told either story.
Unless you have a better source?
That said, he did like to tell tall tales and admitted as much in his book (bar stories). I think it's believable that he told these stories in a drunken bar shindig, than to actually seek out glory where ever he could.
I do have major issues with the Ventura case... and since Taya is appealing, I'd bet a sizable amount that it'll be overturned with prejudice.
Da Boss wrote: If I say "A comparison can be made" between two things, I am not saying they are "exactly the same". What a total lack of intellectual honesty.
You have been to the OT before right? I find it easier just to assume that everything I write here will be immediately taken out of context in the most mocking and derogatory fashion possible. A few pages ago it was insinuated that I might condone child murder. Yes, it's dishonest. A sympathetic reader would assume that (regardless of the subject) child murder is automatically outside the scope of what someone would condone, unless there is no other possible explanation. So there is never any need to interpret things that way. Even if the subject was criminal execution, it would be ridiculous to work under the assumption that proponents of execution would also be in favour of executing minors. But what can you do? People like picking holes in other people's arguments, and if they can't find a hole they'll just try to make one, otherwise there's nothing to argue about. Clarify and move on.
Da Boss wrote: I am actually a bit more than normally annoyed by the lack of reading comprehension here. I mean, I shouldn't be, I know whatever I post is being read through an emotional filter that makes you take it as badly as possible, but good god.
If I say "A comparison can be made" between two things, I am not saying they are "exactly the same". What a total lack of intellectual honesty. At least, I hope that is what it is, because if it isn't, it's sheer stupidity.
And if you make a claim others may rebut it, or point out the flaws in it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Personally the real threat to Western freedom is the remaining monarchies in the West. While crowns still rest on heads we are slaves.
Total Horlicks. How does my Queen make you, an American, a slave?
I'm British, and I am not a slave. For you to say that because we enjoy a Monarchy in the UK it some how removes your freedoms, as a member of a foreign nation, is just some ill conceived, sound bite, student rubbish.
Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.
CptJake wrote: Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.
Damn, we are bad. Guess we should just start fixing bayonets lol
CptJake wrote: Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.
(that was sarcasm by the way)
Tankers to.....being in a armored....well.....tank...
Apache pilots
Kiowa Warrior pilots
Wait everyone in the US military are cowards because we wear body armor
CptJake wrote: Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.
Damn, we are bad. Guess we should just start fixing bayonets lol
Leave the guns at home entirely. Why carry weapon of cowards when you can have glorious swords instead? US infantry would be much heroic with swords.
CptJake wrote: Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.
Damn, we are bad. Guess we should just start fixing bayonets lol
Leave the guns at home entirely. Why carry weapon of cowards when you can have glorious swords instead? US infantry would be much heroic with swords.
Pfftttt we're go even more ballsyer. We take 9mm Berreta's and throw them at you
I used to have one of the old white ones on a piece of paracord around my neck so when we field stripped our MREs to pack for a mission I always had a spoon (or an insulator when we had to rig an antenna to reach back to report).
I was a sniper and im not a coward. Ill go against anyone in anyway that makes them feel safe. I became a sniper because I'm a good shot and it was recommended that I should try out. Being a sniper isn't cowardly or brave. Its a tactic. A job. Just like artillery or tanks or a machine gunner(my primary MOS). a military is there to win while taking as little damage as possible
period.
First, Maher says Muslims are killers, then he gets butthurt because Kyle refers to Iraqis as savages. What is the term for his particular psychiatric condition?
conker249 wrote: I was a sniper as well, I would rather be called a psychopath than a coward.
Well, I was never a sniper, but I deployed/employed them. I also had a lot of say as to who we sent to sniper training. It was ALWAYS the mature, calm guy with a ton of initiative who could endure whatever. He became my eyes forward and inevitably got the tough NAI/TAI to cover and report on. Their ability to infiltrate early and deep and get used as part of a 'reconnaissance pull' for the patrol/main force behind them and accurately report was what made them shine.
'Psychos' and 'cowards' were not who I would entrust with those missions.
d-usa wrote: While I wouldn't go as far as calling Chris Kyle a psychopath, it should be clear to anyone that he was suffering from some significant mental issues.
I do think that the help he gave to other veterans was as much a way to help them as it was to help himself.
I finished his book... that's exactly what he (and others) said.
conker249 wrote: I was a sniper as well, I would rather be called a psychopath than a coward.
Well, I was never a sniper, but I deployed/employed them. I also had a lot of say as to who we sent to sniper training. It was ALWAYS the mature, calm guy with a ton of initiative who could endure whatever. He became my eyes forward and inevitably got the tough NAI/TAI to cover and report on. Their ability to infiltrate early and deep and get used as part of a 'reconnaissance pull' for the patrol/main force behind them and accurately report was what made them shine.
'Psychos' and 'cowards' were not who I would entrust with those missions.
I was saying between coward or psychopath, though would rather not be called either. My major job was recon, observing, and relaying the information gathered.
This is one of my favorite answers that I have seen to Moore:
"Green Beret sniper Bryan Sikes took some time to pen a letter to Moore that absolutely destroyed him in an incredibly hilarious and fabulous way.
Mr. Moore-
Good afternoon there sweetheart, I hope this finds you alive and well. You can thank our men and women of the armed forces for that, by the way, and that also includes us cowardly snipers. It seems you’ve found time between licking the jelly off your fingers and releasing your grasp of a bear claw to tweet some junk about snipers being cowards.
My buddies and I got a good laugh over the tweet, so I thank you. For a guy worth $50 million dollars, you sure have quite a bit to bitch and cry about. I guess like a moth to flame, you too gravitate towards things that are popular and in the moment — in this case it’s snipers. Too bad for you that your attempt at being relevant via your 70+ year old family experience has failed. It has only made you look dumber than a bag of hammers. Next time you should try something more original than going after snipers for one reason or another…that was so last month.
It’s typical of “men” like you to criticize the intestinal fortitude, focus, discipline and patriotism of a sniper. It must stem from an inferiority complex or something. But hey, it’s okay cupcake. We snipers are thick skinned and the efforts of world class turds such as yourself to portray us in a negative light only makes us laugh. If you and I were in the same room, I’d throw you a smile and gently pat you on the head knowing you’re nothing more than a mouth breathing, Crisco sweating waste of space not even worthy of being in the presence of a sniper. It’s almost funny how people like you preach things like ‘acceptance’ and ‘not passing judgement’ or ‘labeling people’, but then are the first to do so when a person is in some way dissimilar from you.
So tenderfoot, I leave you with this final thought: what if you found yourself in some sort of hostage situation where you were held at knife-point by some crazed person and they were dead set on making an example of you by bleeding you out on Hollywood Blvd in front of the world, and the only way out was with the precision aimed fire of a sniper? Would you want that coward to take the shot? Because knowing how you feel about snipers such as myself and your hatred of firearms, I’d probably drop the mag, roll the bolt and go get a Jack & Coke before helping you out.
Any reply that basically consists of "you can say whatever you want because you are a [string of various childish insults] and we are so [string of various descriptions of how fething awesome said person is] with an optional invitation for Moore to [die in some sort of way, possibly with the help of the fething awesome guy being too fething awesome to save his life]" just makes be picture two chimps that are busy masturbating to how awesome they are while flinging crap at the other one.
Yeah, I'm sure you worry about your wife, your kids, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Michael Moore. You know, the important things.
It’s typical of “men” like you to criticize the intestinal fortitude, focus, discipline and patriotism of a sniper. It must stem from an inferiority complex or something.
Not a line of criticism I would take, as it is easily reversed.
So tenderfoot, I leave you with this final thought: what if you found yourself in some sort of hostage situation where you were held at knife-point by some crazed person and they were dead set on making an example of you by bleeding you out on Hollywood Blvd in front of the world, and the only way out was with the precision aimed fire of a sniper?
I don't believe the tenderfoot would be able to make that call.
Would you want that coward to take the shot? Because knowing how you feel about snipers such as myself and your hatred of firearms, I’d probably drop the mag, roll the bolt and go get a Jack & Coke before helping you out.
Moore's comments were silly, but Sikes' view that people who have fought in the American military are more of a 'patriot' than non-combatants, is equally as daft.
To the best of my knowledge, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al, never picked up a musket, but where would the USA be without them?
d-usa wrote: Any reply that basically consists of "you can say whatever you want because you are a [string of various childish insults] and we are so [string of various descriptions of how fething awesome said person is] with an optional invitation for Moore to [die in some sort of way, possibly with the help of the fething awesome guy being too fething awesome to save his life]" just makes be picture two chimps that are busy masturbating to how awesome they are while flinging crap at the other one.
I disagree...
The only proper response is to mock folks like Moore.
-thinks he is awesome
-can't make an argument without resorting to personal attacks
-seeks attention by posting stupid stuff online
Their respective fans look at this trash and go "Moore/military guy totally owned military guy/Moore", but the majority of people will see it for the crap slinging rest of stupidity that it really is.
So, that guy says that, because Micheal Moore is fat and wOrth 50mil, he can't comment on the military.
As I have said before, it passes me off how sacred the military is, that if a vet says he is a vet and fought for your freedoms, you can't criticize anything he does. How in some cases vets are considered saints and above you.
Sometimes it feels as if they are just a govt fraternity, thinking themselves better then you because they are a part of it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, that guy says that, because Micheal Moore is fat and wOrth 50mil, he can't comment on the military.
As I have said before, it passes me off how sacred the military is, that if a vet says he is a vet and fought for your freedoms, you can't criticize anything he does. How in some cases vets are considered saints and above you.
Sometimes it feels as if they are just a govt fraternity, thinking themselves better then you because they are a part of it.
He is of course free to criticize anyone and everyone. We are also free to point out that he is a complete arsehole and ignorant fethwhit.
-thinks he is awesome
-can't make an argument without resorting to personal attacks
-seeks attention by posting stupid stuff online
Their respective fans look at this trash and go "Moore/military guy totally owned military guy/Moore", but the majority of people will see it for the crap slinging rest of stupidity that it really is.
He's worse really. He makes a claim to high patriotism and discipline, while in same breath saying he'd intentionally neglect his duty based on the hostage's opinion of him, his tools and his profession. You could only neglect your duty in that way if you were purely motivated by your own ego, where the only thing that matters is that others think of you highly enough. There is no room for even a silver of the virtues he claims to have at the start of rant, in the actions he describes at the end.
Moore may be a dick who thinks he's awesome, but he doesn't seem to hold up that dickishness as proof of the virtue he holds over the common man.
I agree, but it's the opening line, the "you are safe because we made you safe, so you can't criticize me" kinda cap I hear too often. I have to be honest, I love the military, but I hate how they are treated as above approach in america.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree, but it's the opening line, the "you are safe because we made you safe, so you can't criticize me" kinda cap I hear too often. I have to be honest, I love the military, but I hate how they are treated as above approach in america.
I think thats more of frustration that military people get because a lot of civilians genuinely don't appreciate them and what they do. I'm sure most military people wouldn't actually do such an unprofessional thing in a hostage situation. I'm sure they'd be happy to make sure Moore lived through the irony and had to eat all that humble pie.
Well I can't speak for everyone of course but I didn't join the military for people's appreciation or to be treated better. Like I said he called snipers cowards and he has never done anything like that. I don't comment on policies in other countries because I don't live there. And I dont comment on things I haven't experienced.
The media participant like Mohyeldin are freaking the feth out about this... they keep pushing that patriotism redefined as jingoism, that any "service" redefined as colonial imperialism, and the notion that somehow we have an exceptional duty to bring and support freedom and liberty in the world is disparaged. Anyone who serves in the military is being oppressed by the patriarchy... I guess.
And recently, anyone who serves with distinction is an unhinged killer.
O.o
Am I missing something?
It's like they're terrified that this movie could capture the hearts and minds of Americans...
Kyle's exploits in his Military career isn't what's resonating with the public imo... it's the fact that our sheltered world views is being shattered when confronted with the harsh realities of war... and also the challenges our service men/women face back home.
whembly wrote: it's the fact that our sheltered world views is being shattered when confronted with the harsh realities of war... and also the challenges our service men/women face back home.
Well, all that's OK, so long as that forces us to "support the troops" the way we do currently: with twitter posts and facebook updates and empty slogans and watching movies, not with, like, reforming the VA or expanding pay and benefits to them or, god help me, not being so willing to send them abroad in the first place to participate in foreign adventures that accomplish nothing useful for the US.
), but then they didn't get to make any decisions past 1943.
