Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "American Sniper"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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/ [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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). [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics