American Sniper

[Anonymous]

For the same reason anyone questioning MLK or Obama is considered racist? Human beings like order and categories and you throw in the complexities and dark side of war and people uncomfortable with anyone different or who disagrees and there you have it!

I for one am glad that rough men stand ready... and all that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we have nicer kinder snipers that appreciate art.

So snipers get to come home and kill people, beat people, and accuse the federal government of killing dozens of Americans without due process?

We ask them to do atrocious thinks to protect our county, lack the ability to manage mental illness when they return, then you sit iny our warm homes with your high speed internet and degrees you don't use judging them.

Exactly

Of course Kyle had the right to write the book. He chose to put it out there for whatever fame, glory , praise, criticism, discussion, and judgement that would bring. Thousands of other vets chose not to do so.

But yet all the vets are praising him for bringing light to a subject they don't feel feel sure about only because of public feeling. Veterans are treated like garbage here in the US. They are expected to come back and never mention a word and have a normal life. PTSD, anxiety, depression, night terrors, shadow limbs, suicides. That is not normal. The only ones that are making a big deal about it are non-military liberals who think that combat is never the answer.

And other vets do write books, this is just the biggest current one out there right now.

I never said other vets don't write books only that thousands don't. Every vet like every other author is making the choice to put him or her self out there and they have every right to. Just because they have the right and freedom to put it out there does not mean they are free from criticism.

It's fine if you think he is a hero. It's fine if someone else reads the book and decides he is not. Just because they believe this about one individual does mean they are unpatriotic/"liberal"/"always against combat"/support veterans any less than you do.

But yet everyone here is saying that if you don't think MLK is a hero, you are racist.

[Anonymous]

No one actually said that. The question is whether someone who holds MLK in less regard than a soldier with 160 kills is a racist. I have yet to hear one of those posters actually express a non-racist logic to explain this point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one actually said that. The question is whether someone who holds MLK in less regard than a soldier with 160 kills is a racist. I have yet to hear one of those posters actually express a non-racist logic to explain this point of view.

The interesting part of your question is your lack of acknowledgement of what those kills acomplished. Are you happy Obama 'got' Bin Laden? Thank a sniper

[Anonymous]

So I'm just curious, how much do you think the family gets of the movie profits?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/24/media/american-sniper-box-office/index.html

Really just curious.

[Anonymous]

Here's the issue: famous or quasi famous people can't say anything about this or any other issue without having some "news" outlet or asshat pundit take issue with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one actually said that. The question is whether someone who holds MLK in less regard than a soldier with 160 kills is a racist. I have yet to hear one of those posters actually express a non-racist logic to explain this point of view.

(New PP) But the real comparison is not MLK vs. Chris Kyle. If anything, it would be Sharpton vs. Kyle. And I'd choose Kyle as a better American every day of the week.

[Anonymous]

Kyle wasn't a good American. He was a pyscho that the Government sanctioned.

[Anonymous]

So I guess we don't have a good government. Or good citizens who participate in our democracy. Like .... you....

[Anonymous]

If he had counted the number of lives saved instead of number of kills then I would admire him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one actually said that. The question is whether someone who holds MLK in less regard than a soldier with 160 kills is a racist. I have yet to hear one of those posters actually express a non-racist logic to explain this point of view.

(New PP) But the real comparison is not MLK vs. Chris Kyle. If anything, it would be Sharpton vs. Kyle. And I'd choose Kyle as a better American every day of the week.

Why the hell would it be Sharpton vs. Chris Kyle? Is there a biopic about Sharpton out right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he had counted the number of lives saved instead of number of kills then I would admire him.

Well then, you'd better start admiring, because clearly you are shooting your mouth off without doing any research. He had never counted up the lives he took; the military did that. He always looked at the lives he saved. He got into helping vets because he couldn't deal with another tour, and he was distraught over how many American lives he wasn't saving. So he was re-directed into trying to save soldiers in another way, by spending time with wounded veterans and teaching them to be a little more competent in an area that he was qualified to teach in.

Not saying this was the safest idea or even a smart one, but you can see his motivation and it's not coming from counting kills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he had counted the number of lives saved instead of number of kills then I would admire him.

Well then, you'd better start admiring, because clearly you are shooting your mouth off without doing any research. He had never counted up the lives he took; the military did that. He always looked at the lives he saved. He got into helping vets because he couldn't deal with another tour, and he was distraught over how many American lives he wasn't saving. So he was re-directed into trying to save soldiers in another way, by spending time with wounded veterans and teaching them to be a little more competent in an area that he was qualified to teach in.

Not saying this was the safest idea or even a smart one, but you can see his motivation and it's not coming from counting kills.

Hmmmm... you are apparently unaware that he published an autobiography in his own name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one actually said that. The question is whether someone who holds MLK in less regard than a soldier with 160 kills is a racist. I have yet to hear one of those posters actually express a non-racist logic to explain this point of view.

The interesting part of your question is your lack of acknowledgement of what those kills acomplished. Are you happy Obama 'got' Bin Laden? Thank a sniper

You have no idea what I do or do not know about Chris Kyle. But I have repeatedly asked for a reasoning which justifies the poster's comparison of Kyle to MLK. If you would like to offer one, please do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he had counted the number of lives saved instead of number of kills then I would admire him.

Well then, you'd better start admiring, because clearly you are shooting your mouth off without doing any research. He had never counted up the lives he took; the military did that. He always looked at the lives he saved. He got into helping vets because he couldn't deal with another tour, and he was distraught over how many American lives he wasn't saving. So he was re-directed into trying to save soldiers in another way, by spending time with wounded veterans and teaching them to be a little more competent in an area that he was qualified to teach in.

Not saying this was the safest idea or even a smart one, but you can see his motivation and it's not coming from counting kills.

Hmmmm... you are apparently unaware that he published an autobiography in his own name.

You seem like someone who may have problems with yourself, and like to diminish others.... classic projection...