The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Gorrath:

Cyberstrike:

Traun:

Seriously, it was extremely satisfying seeing Bob cram Palin in there, his sheer butthurt was the sole reason I watched this review.

If turning a lying racist into a hero is your idea of good time.

One can be a lying racist and a hero. Personally, I couldn't stand Chris Kyle but that doesn't mean he wasn't valorous.

No, it's the hiding on roofs and shooting people in the back that would disqualify him from being valorous.

Ihateregistering1:
Bob's biggest anger towards the film seems to be that it DOESN'T try and have a political point. It just presents Kyle as a Soldier doing his job, but doesn't really delve into whether the job he's doing is part of a justified or unjustified action by the Government he serves.

This is, of course, completely disingenuous on Bob's part. What he's really saying is that he just wants it to have a point...so long as it's a point he agrees with, otherwise it's just jingoistic Military propaganda for Hillbillies and right-wing nutjobs and is terrible.

The film is presented as being true, a recreation of actual events as recounted by Kyle. It IS being interpreted as such by the droves of people going to see it. The fact that the film has been the top movie at the box office for two weeks makes the film significant, and the reason for the film's success relevant.

The issue that Bob is addressing in this video is that the film is NOT an genuine representation of the war while being treated by its fans (and pundits) as such and that the interpretation that viewing this film is an act of patriotism is disingenuous. It's also relevant to Bob's discussion that his expressed distaste for the film has led to him being called (both directly and indirectly) unpatriotic and/or an oppenent of the ideals of freedom by proponents of the film. I've been accused of liking and not linking films for the wrong reasons, but nobody has ever accused me of hurting my country for doing/saying so.

Macsen Wledig:

Gorrath:

Cyberstrike:

If turning a lying racist into a hero is your idea of good time.

One can be a lying racist and a hero. Personally, I couldn't stand Chris Kyle but that doesn't mean he wasn't valorous.

No, it's the hiding on roofs and shooting people in the back that would disqualify him from being valorous.

I don't have much appreciation for much of what Kyle had to say about the overall war upon his return, but I wouldn't discredit a sniper for being unsportsmanlike on a battlefield. Valorous isn't the best word to describe every person who volunteers to put themselves in a country where his/her uniform effectively puts a target on his/her back, but its not cowardly either.

Macsen Wledig:

Gorrath:

Cyberstrike:

If turning a lying racist into a hero is your idea of good time.

One can be a lying racist and a hero. Personally, I couldn't stand Chris Kyle but that doesn't mean he wasn't valorous.

No, it's the hiding on roofs and shooting people in the back that would disqualify him from being valorous.

You and I will have to disagree on what constitutes valor then since your definition would disqualify people like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Roza Shanina, Gary Gordon, Vasily Zaytsev, and Ben Roberts-Smith. I'm not sure what your definition would be but I've a feeling I would find it absurd.

XDSkyFreak:
Wow ... just wow. How in the seven hells did this end up happening? I mean ... I'm not american, but I just fail to see how people can take a movie (especially one that was so ... bland and poorly done as American Sniper) and turn it into some cultural icon. Go back and watch Inglorious Bastards, because the parts about that nazi propaganda flick with the sniper is exactly what te sheep worshiping this brain-dead movie remind me of.

Comparisons between the nazi film in Inglorious Basterds because they saw it on twitter and thought it was smart: 2

McElroy:

Storm Dragon:
I'd much rather see a movie about the deadliest sniper in all history: Simo Hayha. He was a Finnish farmer who enlisted during the Winter War and made at least 505 confirmed sniper kills over less than 100 days, all using an old bolt-action hunting rifle without a scope. The Soviet Union nicknamed him "The White Death" and launched entire missions just to kill this one man, up to and including artillery bombardments of areas where they thought he might be. Eventually, a Soviet sniper shot him in the lower jaw and took off half of his face. Simo responded by giving the Soviet sniper a first-hand demonstration of proper headshot technique. He then managed to return to base before succumbing to unconsciousness. Simo recovered and woke up a few days later, and the Soviets surrendered on that same day.

Seriously, this already sounds more like an action movie than real life.

While I agree with you and would like to see a movie about Häyhä (whether or not his kill count has been padded a bit), I must correct you on one thing: nobody surrendered at the end of Winter War. Häyhä woke up on the day the truce was declared.

Oops, fixed the ending bit. As for his kill count, 505 was actually the lowest estimate I found. Other sources credit him with as many as 542 sniper kills; and that's still not counting his approximately 150-200 kills with a submachine gun. Simo Häyhä wasn't just the deadliest sniper ever, he was the deadliest single human being in recorded history.

Wasn't going to post because I felt my comment was asinine but it looks like this entire thread is asinine so my two cents: gotta rein in the accent, Bob. When it starts slipping in, you just sound like someone yelling about the Patriots and I completely tune out.

ryukage_sama:

The issue that Bob is addressing in this video is that the film is NOT an genuine representation of the war while being treated by its fans (and pundits) as such and that the interpretation that viewing this film is an act of patriotism is disingenuous.

Several things here:
1: How would Bob know what was a "genuine representation" of the Iraq War? Was he there? Methinks that Bob will only accept something as a "genuine representation" if it satisfies his political beliefs, but maybe I'm just being cynical.

2: To call anything that follows one man (or even a small group) a "genuine representation" of a war is, in fact, disingenuous by itself. Wars have multiple battlefields, with lots of people doing lots of different things. No one's experience is exactly alike. I could make a war film in which we do nothing but follow the Battle Captain (google it if need be) for his/her entire deployment to Iraq. They never leave the wire, never get shot at, and never shoot at the enemy. Is that a "genuine representation"? For that individual, yes. But you show that to a group of Infantrymen who went on patrol every day and ask them if this is a "genuine representation" of the Iraq War, and they'd say hell no. If someone looks at the experience of one person and declares that it's supposed to represent the entirety of the conflict, that's their problem, not the film's.

3: I've yet to see anyone declare that watching (and liking) this movie instantly makes you a Patriot. Likewise, I've yet to see anyone declare you're un-American for disliking the film. Note that there's an important distinction between just saying "I didn't like the movie", and "I hate Chris Kyle the person", or "anyone who likes this movie is racist", which I have seen.

Charcharo:
I do not understand how in the f*$king hell, you Bob can basically take SUCH a certain and concrete position about something as subjective as the quality and messages in a work of art?
That was just PLAIN UGLY as all hell.

Are you... completely there...? He can take that kind of position because -get this- HE'S A FUCKING MOVIE CRITIC! Analysing a movie and then telling you whether it's good or bad (the "I think" part should be kind of obviously inferred automatically) is kind of HIS JOB. What kind of critic would he be if he said "I think this movie SUCKS... but that's just my opinion, you should go see it anyway and make up your own mind"? About as much use as a hessian condom.

Hindkjaer:
A movie about domination and submissiveness (fifty shades of gray)is forcing MovieBob to watch and work with it for months.. I find that to be irony on a entire different level!

Haaaaaaaaaah! Now thats downright juicy.

OT: I dont think Clint will ever outdo Gran Torino. At least not for me.

Arcane Azmadi:

Charcharo:
I do not understand how in the f*$king hell, you Bob can basically take SUCH a certain and concrete position about something as subjective as the quality and messages in a work of art?
That was just PLAIN UGLY as all hell.

Are you... completely there...? He can take that kind of position because -get this- HE'S A FUCKING MOVIE CRITIC! Analyzing a movie and then telling you whether it's good or bad (the "I think" part should be kind of obviously inferred automatically) is kind of HIS JOB. What kind of critic would he be if he said "I think this movie SUCKS... but that's just my opinion, you should go see it anyway and make up your own mind"? About as much use as a hessian condom.

You do realize that there is more then one movie critic on this planet.
It has a metascore of 72. So saying it is MOSTLY taken negatively by critics... is a lie. Technically. 72 for movies is VERY high.

Not that all of that matters. His opinion is above no one elses. ANd it should not be presented as if it were.

Haerthan:

Dude Saddam was an angel compared to what the ISIS is right now. Also I would leave him in power cause he was a counter-balance to Iran. A majority of Iraqis want him back cause guess what: there was order, there was an economy, there was food. Funny how that works. Was he bad? Yea. But there will always be someone worse.

The same way Stalin is an angel compared to hitler?

You know who likes getting rid of Saddam? the Kurds, for example. But if the majority enjoys the tyranny why should anyone stop them?

inu-kun:

Haerthan:

Dude Saddam was an angel compared to what the ISIS is right now. Also I would leave him in power cause he was a counter-balance to Iran. A majority of Iraqis want him back cause guess what: there was order, there was an economy, there was food. Funny how that works. Was he bad? Yea. But there will always be someone worse.

The same way Stalin is an angel compared to hitler?

You know who likes getting rid of Saddam? the Kurds, for example. But if the majority enjoys the tyranny why should anyone stop them?

Sure for the Kurds Saddam was a tyrant. But guess what: ISIS is worse than Saddam for both the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis. ISIS is actively engaged in a war with the Kurds of Iraq and Syria. And if they get the power in Iraq they will do worse than the Halabja chemical attack, just ask the Yazidis and Christians there. So yea Saddam was a tyrant, not doubt about it, a bad person through and through. But at least Iraq didn't have to deal with the shit under his regime that they deal with nowadays.

Stalin was worse than Hitler. Everybody with a knowledge of Eastern European history knows that. Saddam is nowhere near Stalin, so please stop bringing that analogy in the conversation because it doesn't work. A thief, a murderer, a genocidal maniac, manipulator and Christ knows what else.

Also funny how nobody asks the people of what they want, no matter where they are from. Nobody asked the Iraqis what they wanted when the US rolled into their country.

Stalin was significantly worse than Hitler.

Godwin count's up to about 5 by the way.

Storm Dragon:

McElroy:

Storm Dragon:
I'd much rather see a movie about the deadliest sniper in all history: Simo Hayha. He was a Finnish farmer who enlisted during the Winter War and made at least 505 confirmed sniper kills over less than 100 days, all using an old bolt-action hunting rifle without a scope. The Soviet Union nicknamed him "The White Death" and launched entire missions just to kill this one man, up to and including artillery bombardments of areas where they thought he might be. Eventually, a Soviet sniper shot him in the lower jaw and took off half of his face. Simo responded by giving the Soviet sniper a first-hand demonstration of proper headshot technique. He then managed to return to base before succumbing to unconsciousness. Simo recovered and woke up a few days later, and the Soviets surrendered on that same day.

Seriously, this already sounds more like an action movie than real life.

While I agree with you and would like to see a movie about Häyhä (whether or not his kill count has been padded a bit), I must correct you on one thing: nobody surrendered at the end of Winter War. Häyhä woke up on the day the truce was declared.

Oops, fixed the ending bit. As for his kill count, 505 was actually the lowest estimate I found. Other sources credit him with as many as 542 sniper kills; and that's still not counting his approximately 150-200 kills with a submachine gun. Simo Häyhä wasn't just the deadliest sniper ever, he was the deadliest single human being in recorded history.

Well, people who actually dug into the original sources (or at least the closest alternatives they could find) have calculated his sniper kills to about 250-300. As seen here (prepare to be able to read Finnish): http://agricola.utu.fi/keskustelu/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4868 One of the main figures used is 219 + about the same with an smg, that got mentioned in an award ceremony for Häyhä's accomplishments some four weeks before he got shot. The figure got bloated with the legend as well as the Soviets' tactics being rushing with the numbers advantage, and during such rushes Häyhä's war buddies "confirmed" loads of kills which all fell behind the enemy line where they couldn't actually be counted.

Truglington:
It's stupid shit like this that makes me come out of lurking...
As a veteran of the Iraq War (affording me infinite film criticism cred) I still think it's a bad film for some of its messages, but mostly because of the absurdly gung-ho reception it garnered. Clearly, something is wrong. On the other hand, I believe the bulk of other critics are correct in thinking it's a technically good movie.
I think Fury, aside from letting the wet blanket live at the end, did a better job.

I cant agree.

Fury is a movie that claimed that American tanks are inferior and/or shit.

That... is a myth that must DIE.

inu-kun:

Haerthan:

Dude Saddam was an angel compared to what the ISIS is right now. Also I would leave him in power cause he was a counter-balance to Iran. A majority of Iraqis want him back cause guess what: there was order, there was an economy, there was food. Funny how that works. Was he bad? Yea. But there will always be someone worse.

The same way Stalin is an angel compared to hitler?

You know who likes getting rid of Saddam? the Kurds, for example. But if the majority enjoys the tyranny why should anyone stop them?

Stalin is not better then Hitler. In fact... he is probably WORSE.

Hitler is a monster. Stalin... is something even more... I honestly cant say.

JarinArenos:
Why do people insist on feeding obvious sockpuppets? I've never understood that.

Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.

The Bridges of Madison County, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Invictus and Letters From Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers would like a word with you.

As for American Sniper, it seems that almost everyone who reviews it is projecting their political views onto it, whether they're left or right wing. I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD and make up my own mind.

I like how people keep trying to say this movie is such an accurate representation of a soldier's life when it's not even an accurate representation of Kyle's life. Others have brought up the "don't speak ill of the dead" reasoning behind leaving out some of the more controversial aspects of the man's life, but if Eastwood wanted to make a movie fully recounting a sniper's career without worrying about insulting his family, he could have gone for the less-polarizing figure of Nicholas Irving, still alive and able to respond to his own critics, and holder of the undeniably-awesome nickname "The Reaper" (also the title of his autobiography). I was disappointed to not hear more from him during his guest spot on The Nightly Show that discussed the movie.

Basically, given Kyle's career-kill-record and then sudden death, I can understand why Eastwood was enamored with telling his story, but I feel like in tip-toeing around the family's feelings, he may have done the story a disservice. It feels like it wants to say more but doesn't want to offend anyone, liberal or conservative, and so carefully avoids the main thrust of it's own argument- making its argument impossible to guess. Why is this movie, basically?

As someone who has never been to war, I went to see the movie with the hope that it would give me some insight into a man who did serve. However, Eastwood's hesitation made me feel like I was only getting half the story. I know some people say that I would hope the other half of the story would be something that spoke to my liberalism, but honestly I'd just like to see the other half of the story, period. Not "the other side" but just the parts that Eastwood felt would be too complicated to deal with while also being respectful of the recently dead. When I think about those things, it's impossible for the movie to not feel incomplete to me.

Shamanic Rhythm:

JarinArenos:
Why do people insist on feeding obvious sockpuppets? I've never understood that.

Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.

The Bridges of Madison County, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Invictus and Letters From Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers would like a word with you.

As for American Sniper, it seems that almost everyone who reviews it is projecting their political views onto it, whether they're left or right wing. I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD and make up my own mind.

Huh, I had no idea Invictus was one of Eastwood's, didn't seem his speed. Well live and learn.

OT: I'm thinking of buying the guy's book; I hear a good chunk of the change goes to Veteran's Benefits/Charities so it won't be a total waste if I don't like it, and then watching the movie and see how they stack up. Can't offer a fairer chance than that to try and get my head around the guy.

Shamanic Rhythm:

JarinArenos:
Why do people insist on feeding obvious sockpuppets? I've never understood that.

Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.

The Bridges of Madison County, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Invictus and Letters From Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers would like a word with you.

As for American Sniper, it seems that almost everyone who reviews it is projecting their political views onto it, whether they're left or right wing. I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD and make up my own mind.

Don't leave out Changeling which features Angelina Jolie's best performance(and a claustrophobic execution scene, I was hyperventilating through that whole thing), Space Cowboys(which kind of kickstarted the "old guys kick ass" trend) and Hereafter(which while not great was very interesting visually, and featured great acting from Matt Damon and Cecile de France). I might be the only guy who liked J. Edgar for that very last bit, where the shadow of doubt is cast on the whole affair by Armie Hammer's character calling Hoover a liar.

Also, is the tone of condescension really necessary Bob? "Hey, I told you not to pay to watch this film because I think it sucks, good for me, I am sooooo col, thank me!!!"

jacobbanks:

hermes200:

jacobbanks:
I actually did... And oh no, you misunderstand. When it comes to things that are about the effects of coming back from war and the effects of war. Non war veterans and their opinion of said portrayals don't matter. I'm sure if we we're talking about fixing a car or preforming lab research you wouldn't care about the opinion of a non mechanic or non scientist.

Your point is a fallacy for the same reason your other examples are fallacies. It is the same as saying only someone with experience with developing games can have an opinion on games, or only a movie director can have an opinion on movies and/or directing.

But let me put it this way, since I can find testimonials and opinions of veterans that disagree with the narrative you built on the movie, I guess your opinion is just as unimportant...

I would love to discuss this with other veterans... So with that... I guess I will have to get out of this forum hahaha.

Right here Chum. Former CTM/NO.IT, Chief USN. I can see you've got quite the opinion on you so I'll keep this as brief as I can.
You're comporting yourself like an idiot and you are shaming your service by belitteling the civilians that you served here. You do not ask for thanks, you do not say that they have no opinion or one that does not matter. They were your employer, your charge, your duty. They can kick us, beat us, scream and spit at us. The second you strike back or otherwise decide to throw that 'I'm a vet, bruh' demeanor around, you destroy the spirit of the service you did. Carry on with your civilian existence with some dignity man, instead of being another pup with more balls than brains.

Gorrath:

Macsen Wledig:

Gorrath:

One can be a lying racist and a hero. Personally, I couldn't stand Chris Kyle but that doesn't mean he wasn't valorous.

No, it's the hiding on roofs and shooting people in the back that would disqualify him from being valorous.

You and I will have to disagree on what constitutes valor then since your definition would disqualify people like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Roza Shanina, Gary Gordon, Vasily Zaytsev, and Ben Roberts-Smith. I'm not sure what your definition would be but I've a feeling I would find it absurd.

I think it's pretty disgusting that you compare the likes of Vasily Zaytsev & Lyudmila Pavlichenko with Chris Kyle. They were defending their country from invasion not invading anthers to shoot women and children.

Macsen Wledig:

Gorrath:

Macsen Wledig:

No, it's the hiding on roofs and shooting people in the back that would disqualify him from being valorous.

You and I will have to disagree on what constitutes valor then since your definition would disqualify people like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Roza Shanina, Gary Gordon, Vasily Zaytsev, and Ben Roberts-Smith. I'm not sure what your definition would be but I've a feeling I would find it absurd.

I think it's pretty disgusting that you compare the likes of Vasily Zaytsev & Lyudmila Pavlichenko with Chris Kyle. They were defending their country from invasion not invading anthers to shoot women and children.

okay i have to ask, do you actually believe what you just wrote? That chris kyle went down there to shoot women and children? Do you believe anyone at all went to war at any point, simply to shoot women and children? I mean i can't understand how someone with that kind of reasoning can exist. i mean i don't even care that much about american sniper, but this is just amazing.

Charcharo:

inu-kun:

Haerthan:

Dude Saddam was an angel compared to what the ISIS is right now. Also I would leave him in power cause he was a counter-balance to Iran. A majority of Iraqis want him back cause guess what: there was order, there was an economy, there was food. Funny how that works. Was he bad? Yea. But there will always be someone worse.

The same way Stalin is an angel compared to hitler?

You know who likes getting rid of Saddam? the Kurds, for example. But if the majority enjoys the tyranny why should anyone stop them?

Stalin is not better then Hitler. In fact... he is probably WORSE.

Hitler is a monster. Stalin... is something even more... I honestly cant say.

That's actually my point, both are evil, you can't quantify evil and say "THAT ONE IS EVILER SO THE OTHER, SO THE OTHER ONE IS GOOD".

You can't honestly say that Saddam is preferable to ISIS, not to mention that it's impossible to know if acting any differently might have prevented ISIS from existing.

Abyss:
There a few users here and there who complain about leftist-propaganda, but what difference does Bob's views make? Don't some of you dislike it when shows or movies you like are accused of being rightist-propaganda? This video barely even constitutes as propaganda: propaganda usually doesn't isn't concerned with painting the big picture of an issue.

Anyway, even though Bob is opposed to the wars and recent Republican-Conservative politics, that's not his complaint. From Bob's point of view, the film would have benefited by being more daring and insightful about the subject on which it is about. Personally, I think that after all these years, there hasn't been a definitive film or movie which stands as an effective commentary upon the post-9/11 period and the two wars. When are we going to see our modern equivalent of Paths of Glory or Dr. Strangelove?

I want to see a film which gets right into the heart of darkness of the period we live in, but not a strictly serious and idealized melodrama. I want to see everyone covered: the nationalists, the soldiers, the innocent bystanders, the not-so innocent bystanders, the demagogues, the fanatics, the practitioners of total warfare, the leaders, and the few people who try to make things better. I want to see Full Metal Jacket crossed with the morality fables of Arabian Nights and Kipling, and combined with the archetypes of Gilgamesh. An existentialist and naturalist response to Lawrence of Arabia whose goals or ethics or not clear.

I want to something based on the wars that unlike any other before, and it still has yet to be made

P.S. I'm rather confused why Bob thinks that the King's Speech is a bad movie. It came out of nowhere, but I guess this goes to show that I can get confused by some of Bob's opinions too.

Jesus Christ, if that movie ever gets made, that would be so amazing. But considering we are living in the Golden Age of Television, an HBO drama like Generation Kill might be more feasible and make more of an impact. This is based on seeing how Game of Thrones takes a similar approach in a fantasy environment and is a veritable pop culture juggernaut.

inu-kun:

Charcharo:

inu-kun:

The same way Stalin is an angel compared to hitler?

You know who likes getting rid of Saddam? the Kurds, for example. But if the majority enjoys the tyranny why should anyone stop them?

Stalin is not better then Hitler. In fact... he is probably WORSE.

Hitler is a monster. Stalin... is something even more... I honestly cant say.

That's actually my point, both are evil, you can't quantify evil and say "THAT ONE IS EVILER SO THE OTHER, SO THE OTHER ONE IS GOOD".

You can't honestly say that Saddam is preferable to ISIS, not to mention that it's impossible to know if acting any differently might have prevented ISIS from existing.

Comparing "evils" is quite silly. What can be said though is that the US invasion of Iraq directly led to the creation of ISIS and if the US never invaded Iraq then a lot more people would still be alive today and the region would be a lot more peaceful and secure.

Simply put, no US invasion equals no ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

Macsen Wledig:

Gorrath:

Macsen Wledig:

No, it's the hiding on roofs and shooting people in the back that would disqualify him from being valorous.

You and I will have to disagree on what constitutes valor then since your definition would disqualify people like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Roza Shanina, Gary Gordon, Vasily Zaytsev, and Ben Roberts-Smith. I'm not sure what your definition would be but I've a feeling I would find it absurd.

I think it's pretty disgusting that you compare the likes of Vasily Zaytsev & Lyudmila Pavlichenko with Chris Kyle. They were defending their country from invasion not invading anthers to shoot women and children.

If you're going to play games here, I don't want any part of it. Your initial complaint was that his hiding on rooftops and shooting people in the back is what made him lack valor. I merely pointed out that some very valorous people used those same tactics, so don't come back at me with some righteous indignation over the comparison when it directly addresses the flaw in your own point. I have no interest in engaging in conversation if you're going to be disingenuous.

That said, your new point is also vapid. Suggesting that Chris Kyle invaded another country so he could shoot women and children is naive, obnoxious or both. The man earned a lot of criticism through his post-war comments and apparent padding of his biography. That's why I dislike him even though I served in the same dirt with the guy. But to deny that he was valorous under fire and through extreme circumstances while painting him as a mere murderer of women and children demonstrates a total lack of understanding of war or valor. I don't find your opinion to be well informed or even sympathetic. If you've some compelling reasoning behind it, I'd be glad to hear it.

Gorrath:

If you're going to play games here, I don't want any part of it. Your initial complaint was that his hiding on rooftops and shooting people in the back is what made him lack valor. I merely pointed out that some very valorous people used those same tactics, so don't come back at me with some righteous indignation over the comparison when it directly addresses the flaw in your own point. I have no interest in engaging in conversation if you're going to be disingenuous.

That said, your new point is also vapid. Suggesting that Chris Kyle invaded another country so he could shoot women and children is naive, obnoxious or both. The man earned a lot of criticism through his post-war comments and apparent padding of his biography. That's why I dislike him even though I served in the same dirt with the guy. But to deny that he was valorous under fire and through extreme circumstances while painting him as a mere murderer of women and children demonstrates a total lack of understanding of war ore valor. I don't find your opinion to be well informed or even sympathetic. If you've some compelling reasoning behind it, I'd be glad to hear it.

I don't really care what you're here to do. The fact is Chris Kyle was part of an invasion force from a country which outspent it's victim by billions of dollars, there was nothing valorous about that war, not a single thing. Another fact: Chris Kyle did hide on rooftops, this is part of his role as a sniper. Another fact: Chris Kyle shot women and children, he might not have wanted to do this but that's what happened.

I don't have any "righteous indignation", I just think you are missing some context when you compare Chris Kyle to people who were defending their homes. Chris Kyle wasn't defending his home he was invading someone else's. A more apt analogy would be Chris Kyle is like Josef Allerberger.

One last fact for you to chew on. There is nothing valorous about killing people for money. To quote Herbert Spencer: "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don't care if they are shot themselves."

http://praxeology.net/HS-FC-20.htm

Macsen Wledig:
I don't really care what you're here to do.

You've already made this quite clear. Being disingenuous aptly demonstrates that.

The fact is Chris Kyle was part of an invasion force from a country which outspent it's victim by billions of dollars, there was nothing valorous about that war, not a single thing. Another fact: Chris Kyle did hide on rooftops, this is part of his role as a sniper. Another fact: Chris Kyle shot women and children, he might not have wanted to do this but that's what happened.

War is never valorous, people are. This is why I think your idea of valor is bizarre and absurd. Valor is demonstrated by the actions of individuals under extreme circumstances. How they ended up in those circumstances has little bearing on it and how much money their country spent has none whatsoever. No one said he didn't hide on rooftops or shoot women and children, but that wasn't merely what you asserted either. Chris Kyle didn't invade a country to shoot women and children, which is what you actually accused him of.

I don't have any "righteous indignation", I just think you are missing some context when you compare Chris Kyle to people who were defending their homes. Chris Kyle wasn't defending his home he was invading someone else's. A more apt analogy would be Chris Kyle is like Josef Allerberger.

Saying that a comparison disgusts you demonstrates righteous indignation. Righteous indignation is literally being justifiably annoyed or angered at unfair treatment, in this case the unfair treatment being the comparison that was made. You were obviously annoyed (or worse) at the comparison and you obviously think your reaction is justifiable, so how on Earth is that not righteous indignation?

And no, I am not missing any context. Again, you said that he lacked valor because he hid on rooftops and shot people in the back. The other people I compared him to also hid on rooftops and shot people in the back. So either hiding on rooftops and shooting people in the back makes one lack valor or it doesn't. Given that it appears you think Vasily was valorous, you appear to be engaged in special pleading fallacy or else you simply know that your first argument is flat out wrong. You provided no other context for this argument at the time you made it so don't tell me that I am missing context that you didn't provide for your own argument. I am not the one responsible for providing context for your arguments, you are.

One last fact for you to chew on. There is nothing valorous about killing people for money. To quote Herbert Spencer: "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don't care if they are shot themselves."

http://praxeology.net/HS-FC-20.htm

Are you kidding me? The guy was a Navy Seal, you don't become a Navy Seal for the money! Soldiers get paid like crap! If he was doing it for the money, he would have been over there as a mercenary, not a Seal. And if you think that soldiers don't ask about the justice of their cause, you are once again demonstrating that you've no idea what you're talking about.

Mezmer:
I sort of figured this is the kind of direction this movie would have to take, seeing as Chris Kyle, in real life, was a pathological liar and actually posthumously lost a huge defamation lawsuit against one of my home state's former governors. The dude wasn't a good man, and while I respect his service and contribution to the US Navy seals, he doesn't deserve the amount of attention, admiration, and fame being thrown at him because of this film. Whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Hello, fellow Minnesotan!

I can't agree enough. I actually got into an argument with a (now-former) Facebook friend over this sudden case of hero-worship sweeping the US due to this movie. People cannot accept that this is a movie and Chris Kyle the man was not the person Bradley Cooper portrayed in the movie. It's become your duty as an American to blindly support Chris Kyle and go see this movie. Oh, and apparently froth at the mouth any time the lawsuit is mentioned. Well, sorry, my brain still touches my spinal chord and I am able to think and opine for myself. Kyle fulfilled his duty to the Navy and his country and should be honored for that service. But he's not a god and I am not going to worship him as though he were. Particularly since I am an atheist (another strike against me, I suppose).

Macsen Wledig:

inu-kun:

Charcharo:

Stalin is not better then Hitler. In fact... he is probably WORSE.

Hitler is a monster. Stalin... is something even more... I honestly cant say.

That's actually my point, both are evil, you can't quantify evil and say "THAT ONE IS EVILER SO THE OTHER, SO THE OTHER ONE IS GOOD".

You can't honestly say that Saddam is preferable to ISIS, not to mention that it's impossible to know if acting any differently might have prevented ISIS from existing.

Comparing "evils" is quite silly. What can be said though is that the US invasion of Iraq directly led to the creation of ISIS and if the US never invaded Iraq then a lot more people would still be alive today and the region would be a lot more peaceful and secure.

Simply put, no US invasion equals no ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

1) The notion that americans are the sole cause for ISIS is just stupid, the organization came from multitude of policial, religeous and economical reasons, I find it pretty snobbish that the west can only think of itself as the cause of change, rather than the "peasents" who actually live in those places.

2) Unless you have a time machine there is no way to know if ISIS wouldn't be created, there might have been a coup several years after 9/11, if the americans would have just sanctioned the country, that would create the power vacuum that helped create ISIS.

3) The only way ISIS is worse than those tyrants is that they actually target the west, because mass executions and casual genocide are apperantly A-okay if the west doesn't have to suffer in any way.

4) It's pretty interesting that you have no problem blaming americans for creating ISIS, but not blame muslim bodies that donate to it's war efforts, that would be just RACIST.

jacobbanks:
If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

Ridiculous assertion. You don't have to be a soldier or veteran to watch a movie. And not liking a movie is not an attack on soldiers or veterans. You're looking for insults where none have been given. This knee-jerk reaction is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Also, freedom of speech isn't earned. It's a right granted to us through our Constitution.

I honor all the men and women in military service and appreciate the sacrifices they have made and continue to make. But that doesn't mean that each individual man and woman is a saint without flaws. Chris Kyle the man had flaws galore. Even if he was good with a head-shot. They aren't mutually exclusive.

xServer:

Mezmer:
I sort of figured this is the kind of direction this movie would have to take, seeing as Chris Kyle, in real life, was a pathological liar and actually posthumously lost a huge defamation lawsuit against one of my home state's former governors. The dude wasn't a good man, and while I respect his service and contribution to the US Navy seals, he doesn't deserve the amount of attention, admiration, and fame being thrown at him because of this film. Whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Hello, fellow Minnesotan!

I can't agree enough. I actually got into an argument with a (now-former) Facebook friend over this sudden case of hero-worship sweeping the US due to this movie. People cannot accept that this is a movie and Chris Kyle the man was not the person Bradley Cooper portrayed in the movie. It's become your duty as an American to blindly support Chris Kyle and go see this movie. Oh, and apparently froth at the mouth any time the lawsuit is mentioned. Well, sorry, my brain still touches my spinal chord and I am able to think and opine for myself. Kyle fulfilled his duty to the Navy and his country and should be honored for that service. But he's not a god and I am not going to worship him as though he were. Particularly since I am an atheist (another strike against me, I suppose).

I find your well reasoned remarks to be refreshing. The idea that we can respect the man's service while also disliking him as a person seems to be an idea that eludes a great deal of people who either want to enshrine him or make a monster of him. I think people are attracted to simple black and white idealism too much. We are wholly justified in accepting reality and responding accordingly; we need not and should not engage in the pretense that disliking Kyle means you're an unpatriotic leftist or that acknowledging his worthy virtues makes you a howling jingoist. I appreciate your point of view.

I haven't seen the movie, nor do I intend to (I've never liked war movies), but it seems like a lot of people are having a knee-jerk reaction an then hopping on the hate and hype trains for completely wrong reasons. Again, I could be wrong since I haven't seen the movie. However, going off of the trailer I saw, it seems to be painting the war in anything but a glorious tone while also showing that it's clearly had a terrible impact on this man's life. The shots don't have a "fuck ya" feel to them at all, and the overall tone seems very somber.

It seems to me that a lot of people have missed the point and jumped on the patriotism train while another group of people have missed the point and jumped on the "you must not glorify war" train. It also seems like the hate train is being reactionary towards the hype train. I wonder how many of the haters would have taken the movie the same way if it hadn't been hyped up by the masses as Patriotism and War: The Movie! People see what they want to see. It's the same reason a lot of people thought Birdman was pretentious (so many people throw this word around without having a clue what it means) for talking down on big budget blockbusters whereas I think they were missing the point entirely.

Anyway, I could be wrong. This is just my interpretation of the trailer and the mess that this thread seems to be debating.

Gordon_4:
OT: I'm thinking of buying the guy's book; I hear a good chunk of the change goes to Veteran's Benefits/Charities so it won't be a total waste if I don't like it, and then watching the movie and see how they stack up. Can't offer a fairer chance than that to try and get my head around the guy.

One of the things that has come out in the Ventura trial is how little money is actually donated to the charities listed. Something about paying taxes on the donations...it's actually a mess. You'd be better off just donating directly.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.