American Sniper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some folks all pissed that American Sniper cleaned up at the box office this weekend and that we didn't all dutifully troop into the theatres to watch Selma like we were supposed to.

$107 million for American Sniper. I bet more blacks saw it than Selma. Oprah is on a downward trajectory and has lost the pulse of the people she once enthralled

Uh, action film vs. docudrama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some folks all pissed that American Sniper cleaned up at the box office this weekend and that we didn't all dutifully troop into the theatres to watch Selma like we were supposed to.

$107 million for American Sniper. I bet more blacks saw it than Selma. Oprah is on a downward trajectory and has lost the pulse of the people she once enthralled

Uh, action film vs. docudrama.

Exactly. I went to see it Friday, but DH and I had no idea who it was about. Didn't click until the last few minutes actually. We chose it because we like Bradley Cooper and wanted to see an Oscar nom. If you don't watch Fox News, Chris Kyle isn't really a household name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some folks all pissed that American Sniper cleaned up at the box office this weekend and that we didn't all dutifully troop into the theatres to watch Selma like we were supposed to.

$107 million for American Sniper. I bet more blacks saw it than Selma. Oprah is on a downward trajectory and has lost the pulse of the people she once enthralled

I said the same thing to my husband. No one was buying tickets for Selma.

And this seemed like a victory to you? That's weird. What do you have against MLK?

[Anonymous]

Liberalism is deflating and miserable. Why would anybody want to spend money on a liberal lecture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw the movie and thought it was excellent. It was very true to the changing face of 'the war'. When u send someone to interact with peoole who use drills on children and behead enemies, its fine for me if a reduction to good/evil makes sense to them, makes sense to me .

The Burmtcher was a fictional character...

Because there were no people doing things like that? I'd call him a composite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am married to a warrior. If you aren't one or don't love one, you will never understand. You are sheep! They are shepherds. Then there is the wolf! I don't want the wolf in my woods. I thank God for the shepherds. You should too! If it were not for them, we would have beheadings right here in the good ol USA! If it were not for them, you would not be able to voice your very ignorant opinion on this forum. BAAAAA

A warrior? Give me a break.

I agree. Liberals hate that they are dependent . Bringing it up hits a nerve of cowardice.

warriors "give you a break" daily. You are a jerk. And utterly clueless!

The men and women in our.military who are trained to defend, fight, kill are warriors. How would u have it be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's more for you:

The money quote from the New Republic article is just as deceptive:

But anyone who has read Kyle’s autobiography of the same title knows that his bravado left no room for doubt. For him, the enemy are savages and despicably evil. His only regret is that he didn’t kill more. He laments that there were rules of engagement, or ROE, which he describes as being drafted by lawyers to protect generals from politicians. He argues instead for letting warriors loose to fight wars without their hands tied behind their backs. At another point, he boasts that the unofficial ROE were pretty simple: “If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see.”

This fact about killing every adult male you see is also in the film. Unlike The New Republic, though, Eastwood puts the quote in the correct context. Kyle is talking about no-go zones; areas that were officially evacuated. The legitimate strategy behind this was that only the enemy (evil savage terrorists) would remain in officially evacuated areas.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/01/19/american-sniper-same-leftists-defaming-chris-kyle-as-killer-wanted-every-iraqi-dead/

There is a documented complaint in the military about fighting with one hand behind your back. It goes back to Vietnam when we didn't have the political will, and became a meme in this long engagement with the emphasis on winning hearts and minds. There was a sense that some of the rules, strategies, reluctance to take risks cost us the advantage or cost American lives. American warriors obliged, but they have every right to question the rules of engagement they fight under in books reflecting on their contributions. I see nothing in his words that makes.me think poorly of him. Thank you for sharing thus. Op really distorted his words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's more for you:

The money quote from the New Republic article is just as deceptive:

But anyone who has read Kyle’s autobiography of the same title knows that his bravado left no room for doubt. For him, the enemy are savages and despicably evil. His only regret is that he didn’t kill more. He laments that there were rules of engagement, or ROE, which he describes as being drafted by lawyers to protect generals from politicians. He argues instead for letting warriors loose to fight wars without their hands tied behind their backs. At another point, he boasts that the unofficial ROE were pretty simple: “If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see.”

This fact about killing every adult male you see is also in the film. Unlike The New Republic, though, Eastwood puts the quote in the correct context. Kyle is talking about no-go zones; areas that were officially evacuated. The legitimate strategy behind this was that only the enemy (evil savage terrorists) would remain in officially evacuated areas.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/01/19/american-sniper-same-leftists-defaming-chris-kyle-as-killer-wanted-every-iraqi-dead/

There is a documented complaint in the military about fighting with one hand behind your back. It goes back to Vietnam when we didn't have the political will, and became a meme in this long engagement with the emphasis on winning hearts and minds. There was a sense that some of the rules, strategies, reluctance to take risks cost us the advantage or cost American lives. American warriors obliged, but they have every right to question the rules of engagement they fight under in books reflecting on their contributions. I see nothing in his words that makes.me think poorly of him. Thank you for sharing thus. Op really distorted his words.

Indeed. OP is repeating the attacks by the left, without understanding the fully researched context. Your point regarding Vietnam/rules of engagement are bang-on. Thank you for saying that so eloquently.

As for Ventura, Anderson Cooper made some great statements about Ventura's 'win'. When asked if he felt Kyle had defamed Ventura's name, Cooper replied that Ventura had already done a great job with that already, with his conspiracy theories. I'm not a huge Cooper fan, but I respect his direct nature.

[Anonymous]

Selma, like American Sniper, has a very important message.

FWIW, Glenn Beck was raving about Selma - he absolutely loved it and feels it's a must-see for all Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liberal and I do not hate the men and women in the military at all. I'm related to a Colonel in the US Army who is a highly intelligent and dedicated man, and I have tremendous respect for him.

But if the way Kyle is being portrayed is at all true, then I do not care for who that man was.

The 'if' is the problem. Any chance you plan to read his book, study up on the man, and make your own decision?

I'll give you that it's problematic. And I'll answer you honestly that I will probably never read the work of a man who told numerous stories that are likely not true.

I love words like "if" and "likely". Essentially, you won't read the book because you might learn something that goes against your liberal viewpoint. You might find out *gasp* terrorists are BAD PEOPLE!

Kyle's estate is on its second appeal of a $1.8M judgment against it for libel and slander. Multiple judges have ruled him a liar; there is nothing "likely" about it.

While he certainly was good a telling "sea stories" in interviews and to friends, his work in combat as a SEAL is not in question. The confirmed count of sniper kills is Pentagon confirmed. His own colleagues suggest the count his higher. He has multiple Bronze/Silver stars. How about you read the book or see the movie instead of passing judgement based on articles you've read?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am married to a warrior. If you aren't one or don't love one, you will never understand. You are sheep! They are shepherds. Then there is the wolf! I don't want the wolf in my woods. I thank God for the shepherds. You should too! If it were not for them, we would have beheadings right here in the good ol USA! If it were not for them, you would not be able to voice your very ignorant opinion on this forum. BAAAAA

A warrior? Give me a break.

I agree. Liberals hate that they are dependent . Bringing it up hits a nerve of cowardice.

warriors "give you a break" daily. You are a jerk. And utterly clueless!

The men and women in our.military who are trained to defend, fight, kill are warriors. How would u have it be?

These warriors are still public servants. We should respect and appreciate them, but they are not the shepherds. We the people run the country. Whenever a country puts its military on a pedestal, bad things happen.

Now I know that the fear mongers would like to say that the wolf is at our door. They have been saying it for generations. Every new threat is, we are told, more menacing than the last. But we are a large country, geographically isolated from most of the world by two oceans. Some bad things can happen to us, but the only existential threat I see is from within. If we give up our principles, we are no better than other nations. Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, soldiers hunting noncombatants for sport, shooting children in their sleep -- these things happened and they steal our good name. I do not blame all of the military for that, but it is nonetheless true that we were once perceived as a country that stood up for human rights, and now that message is questioned.

When Roosevelt said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", he said it amid a crisis of epic proportions, where millions upon millions of Americans were struggling to get enough food to eat. And now because some Jihadis can shoot up an office, now we are facing a threat greater than the Depression? We need perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberalism is deflating and miserable. Why would anybody want to spend money on a liberal lecture?

Wow. So you admit that conservatives see civil rights as a liberal agenda? Fine. You guys stop pretending to be for civil rights (nobody was buying it anyway) and we will stop pretending that the modern day military is defending our freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's more for you:

The money quote from the New Republic article is just as deceptive:

But anyone who has read Kyle’s autobiography of the same title knows that his bravado left no room for doubt. For him, the enemy are savages and despicably evil. His only regret is that he didn’t kill more. He laments that there were rules of engagement, or ROE, which he describes as being drafted by lawyers to protect generals from politicians. He argues instead for letting warriors loose to fight wars without their hands tied behind their backs. At another point, he boasts that the unofficial ROE were pretty simple: “If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see.”

This fact about killing every adult male you see is also in the film. Unlike The New Republic, though, Eastwood puts the quote in the correct context. Kyle is talking about no-go zones; areas that were officially evacuated. The legitimate strategy behind this was that only the enemy (evil savage terrorists) would remain in officially evacuated areas.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/01/19/american-sniper-same-leftists-defaming-chris-kyle-as-killer-wanted-every-iraqi-dead/

There is a documented complaint in the military about fighting with one hand behind your back. It goes back to Vietnam when we didn't have the political will, and became a meme in this long engagement with the emphasis on winning hearts and minds. There was a sense that some of the rules, strategies, reluctance to take risks cost us the advantage or cost American lives. American warriors obliged, but they have every right to question the rules of engagement they fight under in books reflecting on their contributions. I see nothing in his words that makes.me think poorly of him. Thank you for sharing thus. Op really distorted his words.

Op here. How exactly did I distort his words? I never even quoted him!

Did he not admit to pummeling people?

Did he not admit to killing 2 guys who tried to steal his truck?

Did he not claim to kill looters after Katrina?

I'm no Ventura fan, but I find it ironic that many soldiers brag about defending our freedom of speech, but nothing pisses them off more than when someone actually expresses their opinion (if it's not in line with theirs).

[Anonymous]

many of you justify his actions off the battlefield because of what he had to see/do on the battlefield. But you also think that Ventura deserved to be punched for expressing his views. Ventura is a vietnam-era vet of the Underwater Demolition Team. So, if being a vet gives Kyle the right to beat and kill off the battlefield, doesn't it give Ventura the right to make some snarky comments?

[Anonymous]

So for anyone who had a father, mother, uncle, aunt, son, daughter, nephew, niece, cousin, grandchild in the military. You know, the ones who actually walk the walk instead of talking the talk.

Would you want Kyle watching their back or no?