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