CDZ I Recently Watched American Sniper

[sealybobo]

Frankly, it isn't that good a movie to warrant all the attention it is getting. Chris Kyle was no more of a hero sniping from a rooftop than were the guys who were kicking in doors to search for terrorists. Like many others he came home with PTSD, but volunteering for four tours didn't help that condition or his family life, either. For me, the main lesson of the movie is that we squandered the sacrifices of these soldiers to make Iraq safe for its citizens.

Imagine if we invaded Canada to free it from england but after we liberated it they never took over and we had to stay and fight forever.

We should have never invaded Iraq. We were fighting a war in Afghanistan and from what happened to the russians there we should have known better. I believe haloburton shell or Chaney bush likes perpetual war.

 

[candycorn]

Is that what you believe our soldiers were doing in Iraq? Conquering for the sake of conquest? I disagree with you, Candy.

That is not what I believe. Although it's hard to find another reason to have gone in there.

I was pointing out that Captain Miller was not randomly murdering Germans in Saving Private Ryan anymore than Chris Kyle was randomly murdering Iraqis....while trying to figure out why you see this large disparity between the two movies. I do point out that the citizen/soldier called upon to defend liberty in the best traditions of our founding fathers is better embodied by Miller than Kyle however.

I believe it was a mistake to go in there - but once in there? Kyle wasn't randomly murdering Iraqis. He was a sniper that was watching from a distance Iraqi's posing as citizens but with deadly weapons / bombs / in their possession in the process of attempting the murder of our guys, Candy. He stopped them dead in their tracks. That is why I call Kyle a hero. A true American hero.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out why you think it was better than Saving Private Ryan which set the standard for realism moving forward from that iconic opening 30 minutes.

 

[Bfgrn]

Any movie that pisses the pansy left off this bad has got to be a world-class winner.

We will accept the "pansy" label. Now YOU folks on the right need to accept the killer label, the terrorist label, the Nazi label and the EVIL label...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Frankly, it isn't that good a movie to warrant all the attention it is getting.

Based on... what?

It didn't have much of a plot.

You must not have seen the same movie, then.
The plot was clear, present and pretty much in for face the entire time -- and, most of all, of you didn't already know how it would end, then you had no idea how oit would end.

Seriously, what was the plot?

You must not have watched the movie -- either that, or your ignorance is willful.
Either way, you're wasting my time.

 

[MikeK]

Is that what you believe our soldiers were doing in Iraq? Conquering for the sake of conquest? I disagree with you, Candy.

Then what exactly were we doing there?

The ostensible reason the American People were given for invading a non-aggressive nation was a devious fabrication concocted with the aid of George W. Bush's house n!gger, Colin Powell, a reprehensible disgrace to the uniform he once wore and a lying scoundrel who deserves to be stripped of all honors and shot for the self-serving betrayal of those who once trusted him and who died because of his calculated lies.

Iraq was not a war in the accepted sense of the word. It was an unlawful, unnecessary, and wholly aggressive invasion -- with no more justifiable cause than Hitler's invasion of Poland.

World War Two was wholly defensive and absolutely justifiable. There is no valid comparison with Iraq.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Is that what you believe our soldiers were doing in Iraq? Conquering for the sake of conquest? I disagree with you, Candy.

Then what exactly were we doing there?

The ostensible reason the American People were given for invading a non-aggressive nation was a devious fabrication concocted with the aid of George W. Bush's house n!gger, Colin Powell, a reprehensible disgrace to the uniform he once wore and a lying scoundrel who deserves to be stripped of all honors and shot for the self-serving betrayal of those who once trusted him and who died because of his calculated lies.

Iraq was not a war in the accepted sense of the word. It was an unlawful, unnecessary, and wholly aggressive invasion -- with no more justifiable cause than Hitler's invasion of Poland.

World War Two was wholly defensive and absolutely justifiable. There is no valid comparison with Iraq.

According to the lead democrats, Hillary, Bill and Al Gore (and many others) there were WMD's in Iraq. They went on record stating this and later this was found to be true.

 

[MikeK]

I believe it was a mistake to go in there - but once in there? Kyle wasn't randomly murdering Iraqis. He was a sniper that was watching from a distance Iraqi's posing as citizens but with deadly weapons / bombs / in their possession in the process of attempting the murder of our guys, Candy. He stopped them dead in their tracks. That is why I call Kyle a hero. A true American hero.

It was more than a "mistake" to invade Iraq. It was a massive war crime.

Try reversing the situation in your mind. Suppose the Iraqi army invaded the U.S. If you chose to defend your country by shooting at the invaders or planting bombs to resist them, would you call it murder?

If the Iraqi air force aggressively bombed New York City with absolutely no provocation, killing tens of thousands, including women and babies in their cribs, would you call that murder?

Some would. And many have.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'm merely telling you why the UN and the Democrats were giving the green light to invade Iraq. It is up to you to decide - Bush Jr. wasn't the only one approving the invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were for it before they were "against it".

 

[MikeK]

According to the lead democrats, Hillary, Bill and Al Gore (and many others) there were WMD's in Iraq. They went on record stating this and later this was found to be true.

Those who approved the Iraq invasion did so on the basis of the lies fabricated by the Bush conspirators and proffered by Colin Powell and George Tenet.

And no so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq -- regardless of what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have told you. If you doubt that, ask yourself if Hussein had such weaponry why he didn't use it against the invaders rather than hide in a gopher hole?

The only WMDs Hussein ever had were those he got from us during our common hostility with Iran. And the remaining few of those had long decayed beyond being useful. They were no longer classifiable as useful weapons.

Iraq was a virtually defenseless nation.

 

[MikeK]

I'm merely telling you why the UN and the Democrats were giving the green light to invade Iraq. It is up to you to decide - Bush Jr. wasn't the only one approving the invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were for it before they were "against it".

Again. Those who approved the invasion did so on the basis of lies fed to them by Bush & Co.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'm merely telling you why the UN and the Democrats were giving the green light to invade Iraq. It is up to you to decide - Bush Jr. wasn't the only one approving the invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were for it before they were "against it".

Again. Those who approved the invasion did so on the basis of lies fed to them by Bush & Co.

That is where you are mistaken, Mike. The Clintons, Al Gore, many Democrats said there were WMD's in Iraq prior to the invasion. They went on record stating this.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Is it worth watching?

Better question's is is it worth $5 when it gets onto on-demand? Or should I wait until HBO or whatever.

It's worth going to the movie theatre and paying full price. It's a great film!

Yes well worth the money. There is very little "hollywood drama" in this movie. The sniper footage looks so real that its hard to tell it from the actual real thing that you can see on Liveleak, etc. It's badass. And the best movie I've seen since Blackhawk Down.

 

[MikeK]

That is where you are mistaken, Mike. The Clintons, Al Gore, many Democrats said there were WMD's in Iraq prior to the invasion. They went on record stating this.

They were lied to about those non-existent WMDs. There were no WMDs.

Why can't you accept that? Bush and Cheney concocted that WMD nonsense, Powell and Tenet spoon fed it to the American People and the UN.

There Were No Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq! None! The Iraqis resisted our invasion with IEDs made from surplus artillery shells. That was the best they could do. We successfully invaded and occupied that nation within three weeks with relatively minimal losses.

Please try to get past the lies. There were no WMDs.

 

[candycorn]

Is that what you believe our soldiers were doing in Iraq? Conquering for the sake of conquest? I disagree with you, Candy.

Then what exactly were we doing there?

The ostensible reason the American People were given for invading a non-aggressive nation was a devious fabrication concocted with the aid of George W. Bush's house n!gger, Colin Powell, a reprehensible disgrace to the uniform he once wore and a lying scoundrel who deserves to be stripped of all honors and shot for the self-serving betrayal of those who once trusted him and who died because of his calculated lies.

Iraq was not a war in the accepted sense of the word. It was an unlawful, unnecessary, and wholly aggressive invasion -- with no more justifiable cause than Hitler's invasion of Poland.

World War Two was wholly defensive and absolutely justifiable. There is no valid comparison with Iraq.

I feel you're confusing organizational goals with warrior conduct. That in and of itself--when any sober observer can make such a distinction--is ample ground to question the organizational motive.

I do not think our combat women and men were there to maim and sew slaughter. Except for the exceedingly dense or the exceedingly gung-ho, the average soldier knew this was a war of choice and that the Iraqi people were not our enemy by and large. I would wager that Mr. Kyle knew the same thing. Orders were orders and if it meant that person over there was to be taken out, they got taken out. For that I cannot blame them.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I do not think our combat women and men were there to maim and sew slaughter. Except for the exceedingly dense or the exceedingly gung-ho, the average soldier knew this was a war of choice and that the Iraqi people were not our enemy by and large.

And I wonder how much that awareness contributed to the inordinately large number of PTSD diagnoses ascribed to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans compared with the relatively low number of "shell-shock" and battle fatigue cases deriving from World War Two -- in spite of the relatively more severe and punishing conditions endured by the WW-II veterans.

Imagine you are placed in a position to kill someone who never did a thing to you and was opposing you in the righteous act of defending his homeland and family. If you have no choice but to do it or go to prison, you do it.

Now imagine you kill someone who has invaded your homeland and is oppressing you and yours. Do you believe the difference in those two circumstances would affect your psyche differently?

I would wager that Mr. Kyle knew the same thing. Orders were orders and if it meant that person over there was to be taken out, they got taken out. For that I cannot blame them.

Of course we can't blame them. But blame is not the issue. Understanding the effect of guilt is -- as Dostoevsky has succinctly pointed out.

 

[jwoodie]

[...]

I do not think our combat women and men were there to maim and sew slaughter. Except for the exceedingly dense or the exceedingly gung-ho, the average soldier knew this was a war of choice and that the Iraqi people were not our enemy by and large.

And I wonder how much that awareness contributed to the inordinately large number of PTSD diagnoses ascribed to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans compared with the relatively low number of "shell-shock" and battle fatigue cases deriving from World War Two -- in spite of the relatively more severe and punishing conditions endured by the WW-II veterans.

Imagine you are placed in a position to kill someone who never did a thing to you and was opposing you in the righteous act of defending his homeland and family. If you have no choice but to do it or go to prison, you do it.

Now imagine you kill someone who has invaded your homeland and is oppressing you and yours. Do you believe the difference in those two circumstances would affect your psyche differently?

I would wager that Mr. Kyle knew the same thing. Orders were orders and if it meant that person over there was to be taken out, they got taken out. For that I cannot blame them.

Of course we can't blame them. But blame is not the issue. Understanding the effect of guilt is -- as Dostoevsky has succinctly pointed out.

You are now IGNORED for trying to hijack this thread.

 

[jwoodie]

Biopics, by definition, do not have a "plot". They are episodic in their point of view; A happens then B happens then C happens if the director is true to the life he is depicting.

Explain that to M14.

 

[Picaro]

The US still thinks war is a John Wayne movie and this movie demeans and belittles what Kyle and others gave to their country.

Well, how many movies about PFC's doing motor pool maintenance on trucks or Admin clerks auditing supply lists would you pay to go see?

 

[MikeK]

The US still thinks war is a John Wayne movie and this movie demeans and belittles what Kyle and others gave to their country.

Well, how many movies about PFC's doing motor pool maintenance on trucks or Admin clerks auditing supply lists would you pay to go see?

That would depend on the plot, who wrote it, and who played in it. One very good current example is The Buffalo Soldiers. No Gung-Ho macho bs but an excellent movie with a uniquely honest glimpse of contemporary peacetime Army life.
But you're quite right and I apologize for the smart-ass response. Most military movies intend to stimulate the primal tribal-warrior impulse with no regard for reality and civilized morals. The typical theme is presumptive good guys vs the bad, whomever they may be. But I will say there has been a recent trend to reach beyond the, we are heroes, tripe.

 

[candycorn]

Biopics, by definition, do not have a "plot". They are episodic in their point of view; A happens then B happens then C happens if the director is true to the life he is depicting.

Explain that to M14.

I gave that up as soon as I realized he wasn't here for debate.