Quote: (01-22-2015 07:12 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

This photo capture is an attempt at propaganda in itself and I'll explain why.

Quote: (01-22-2015 05:24 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

You underestimate how ignorant so many people in this country are.
You open up the scene with him killing a muslim woman and child.. and its instant justifcation for people to do stuff like this

I decided to pay attention to the twitter respondents on the tag as it poured in to see what the majority sentiment and commentary was. Most people simply said it was good, the second largest sentiment unfortunately stated that it was the best movie ever made. Clearly this people know not of better cinematography. What seemed to be the third most stated opinion was that people left the theater quietly, as if awe struck. That's quite a statement, but can't be verified and I doubt that will actually translate to the public's behaviors being more insightful and responsible on contemplating issues around war. Nothing ever seems to do that.

Then there was this picture that was spread around by Rania Khalek, an Arabic and feminist reporter who's page states, "fuck objectivity, it's bullshit". I looked through all the 'microblogs' to guess and estimate of the total percentage of people making those kind of opinions.

I found small amount of people with this sentiment by search using the keywords to pinpoint them. Based on the overall size of twitter users, how many people it takes to 'trend' a tag, the amount of bigotry was minimal, a hand full in terms of numbers.

This is why I'm against seeing race or racism in everything. If you look at Rania Khalek's page you'll see her vitriol in plain view. She's a pretty bigoted person herself and toes the line on most typical feminists views. If you believe this picture is an accurate representation of the public, you're allowing a hateful purpose like Khalek to make the truth for you.

Quote: (01-22-2015 05:54 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

I get what you're saying...but there is also a big difference between World War 2 and the Iraq War.

I don't like how the constant moral superiority of WW2 is flaunted by anti-war people on a regular basis and how it's permeates everything when discussing the Iraq war. I tend to see this as an obvious attack on the character of military people instead of the crony politicians when it's combined with questioning the character of a particular military persons. That's what your retort was, so I have to believe that this is your point and that's pretty uncalled for.

Would anyone guess that WW2 veterans have gave me the 'thank you for serving' talk before? They see the same thing that I know that the general public seems to miss.

Quote:Quote:

Tillman gave up millions (and eventually his life) fighting in a conflict that he first supported and after careful thought came to disagree with...yet he fought for and with his men.

That's actually most military sentiment, but the military can't throw down arms because they disagree with something or let wars be fought where only people with bad motives are the participants.

-----------

Anyway, I thought it was good. It was one of the more accurate Iraq war movies to come out and gave a good idea of what that was like for Chris Kyle. Hurt locker was another good one, but it edged on ridiculous many times with him leaving the FOB casually, doing patrols practically by themselves, every dramatic scene you hear jet sounds over head.

I have a hard time believing that Kyle was some psychopath. People did the same to the "lone survivor" guy because his politics weren't self-loathing apologetic crap.

We'll be plagued by the same politics surrounding war that are similar to the kind that lost the Vietnam war when the public succumbed to propaganda while the Viet Cong were numerically and strategically defeated. After that, the Chinese reinforced them and they restructured, Just as AQ is making final push in both Iraq and Afghanistan now.

Al Qaeda=ISIS=Mahdi Army=Tamil Tigers=etc.

Only politicians make distinctions between groups of people that all want to accomplish the same thing; murder swathes of ideological enemies, tyrannically impose their religious dogma on an entire population and force conversion to their way of life or die.

Thank you for this Tony.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess:

Sweating in his cell in the evening, Goering was defensive and deflated and not very happy over the turn the trial was taking. He said that he had no control over the actions or the defense of the others, and that he had never been anti-Semitic himself, had not believed these atrocities, and that several Jews had offered to testify in his behalf. If [Hans] Frank [Governor-General of occupied Poland] had known about atrocities in 1943, he should have come to him and he would have tried to do something about it. He might not have had enough power to change things in 1943, but if somebody had come to him in 1941 or 1942 he could have forced a showdown. (I still did not have the desire at this point to tell him what [SS General Otto] Ohlendorf had said to this: that Goering had been written off as an effective "moderating" influence, because of his drug addiction and corruption.) I pointed out that with his "temperamental utterances," such as preferring the killing of 200 Jews to the destruction of property, he had hardly set himself up as champion of minority rights. Goering protested that too much weight was being put on these temperamental utterances. Furthermore, he made it clear that he was not defending or glorifying Hitler.
Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

Quote:Quote:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Quote:Quote:

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Quote:Quote:

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Just seen the movie today.

- blatant war propaganda
- Ridley Scott is 10x better than Clint Eastwood at showing war - Ridley Scott's "Black Hawk Down" was a masterpiece, but at the same time it showed some alternative viewpoints about the conflict without being so "preachy" - sheepdog my ass - if you believe 100% in the US media propaganda you are sheep in mind
- portrayal of an excellent soldier
- I had no problems with his killings, though how that makes anyone hate Muslims more or love the military more eludes me
- of course Chris Kyle and others there in the movie were excellent soldiers and heroes from a certain viewpoint, but a wiser man should rather ask: "Was it right for them to be in Iraq at all?" But again - if you wage a war you want guys like him to be there.

Personally I think if Chris Kyle knew about the real reasons for a war like Iraq and also had his family killed by the same people he would be aiming for the real perpetrators of the entire shit-storm by now.

I guess that is why the government classifies veterans who don't join the police force or another agency as potential terrorists - because those men could actually fight back.


Also - one of the noteworthy things in the movie is the transformation of Bradley Cooper - his acting is spot on, but what an amazing change can 40 pounds can effect on a man:

From this:

to this:



And that is not even the usual physique of a man of Cooper's age in our times.

It's playing here in Cairo, so I'll be an American seeing it in a theater full of Arabs.

I don't think the movie was out and out propaganda. Sure the Iraq War shouldn't have happened but the movie basically traced the service of this guy. Could there have been jingoistic messages in it? Probably, but I don't see that as the movie's main impetus. Furthermore a work shouldn't be judged based on its intent.

It was decent. That's all I can really say about it. It didn't resonate with me the way Lone Survivor did. That one showed true grit and heart.

Kyle was also a shady character so there's that.

However, I will say that it's pretty telling that the left is currently denigrating the movie. Chris Kyle whether you like him or not at least stood for something. He's the kind of guy you would want to be around you when everything falls apart. The people denigrating this movie typically are certainly not.

The same thing happened with Lone Survivor last year. The social justice left was denigrating the movie, calling it racist, etc. Meanwhile the same people were gawking over the Wolf of Wall Street which was a movie about a conman that swindled innocent people out of millions.

I can respect a good hustler of course but it is telling what these people tend to prioritize.

I still respectfully disagree that anything about American Sniper is war propaganda. In a recent interview Bradley Cooper said that this was a character study and I believe that to be true. It's the point of view of one man, his decisions, and his life. Chris Kyle the man may have been jingoistic and may have joined for reasons that will forever sit in the political/moral grey area but we're still seeing the actions and thought processes of the individual.

The ultra patriotism and outrage after 9/11 was an accurate reflection of public sentiment though. This really doesn't try to factually justify the Iraq invasion or connect it with 9/11 either. What Kyle thought at the time is what many people thought, a lot of people did enlist shortly after that. It was based on false information but the popular sentiment was really how things were at the time.

The movie is still lacking a major component to be called war propaganda.. it doesn't attempt to glorify the cause. If you want to see actual glorification and bonafide war propaganda then watch John Wayne's Green Berets or Leni Riefenstahl's classic propaganda piece Triumph of the Will.

There's nothing glorifying about seeing a kid get his head power drilled because of a series of U.S. military fuckups and miscommunication. Even the "revenge" of shooting the men responsible is not really a moment where you cheer. Everything is shown as being a big messy clusterfuck with lots of needless deaths. The human aftermath and toll it takes is clearly visible with Kyle too. It's not like there's this grand epiphany at the end either where things wrap it nicely. It's ends mostly about a man finally coming to terms with his own life before getting killed in a rather pointless manner. That's it really.

Quote: (01-25-2015 06:46 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

However, I will say that it's pretty telling that the left is currently denigrating the movie. Chris Kyle whether you like him or not at least stood for something. He's the kind of guy you would want to be around you when everything falls apart. The people denigrating this movie typically are certainly not.

Currently almost all movies or TV series have some kind of propaganda embedded in them - almost nothing is agenda free.

Of course we likely don't know the whole story about Chris Kyle, but the thing is that the people who denigrate guys like Kyle are SJW morons. It is similar to blaming the sword for being so sharp and deadly. It was his job, he did it well. Yes - he believed in the cause and snipers potentially can hit in the most surgical manner - in comparison to 98% of collateral damage of drone strikes then those guys are virtual saints.

In the end the elite does not give two shits about the American people - their current main army for geo-political gain just like the British were in the 19th century. It looks like their next superpower will be the Chinese and they will be the next boots on the ground to kick in doors in Iran, North Korea and Africa. Business as usual in our world.

Even if Chris Kyle was a braggart and may have a simplistic worldview, his heart is in the right place. God, family, country. We need soldiers like this rather than amoral sociopathic thrill killers (or wolves, according to the metaphor in the movie). Tragically, often these good men, or sheepdogs, are slaughtered in useless wars like Iraq. I'd rather have a country full of Chris Kyle's than a bunch of neurotic twinky faggots who agreed with me on every political issue.

First off, I'd like to say that I never appreciated any John Wayne war film of his. If anything is jingoistic and portrays a false narrative, it's a boyscoutish John Wayne war film.


My following points are not directed at the posters, but at the ideas present in the posts themselves.

Quote: (01-25-2015 03:37 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Quote:Quote:

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. and That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attackeddenounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Is the military at fault for the general populous' inclination to be easily sold fear? I know this isn't your point, but this is what's necessary to discuss pertaining to this topic in my opinion. Colin Powell was utterly against the Iraq war on a factual basis, but backed the fear mongering after concluding he couldn't stop the wave that was post 9/11 vengeance and scare tactics politics. Why? To ensure the best results of a terrible situation.

I was in high school and college during the first half of the Iraq War. I was furiously against it from the start, but enlisted on the basis of good benefits and the need of the presence of good character among the participants of this war's implementation.

Quote: (01-25-2015 03:54 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Personally I think if Chris Kyle knew about the real reasons for a war like Iraq and also had his family killed by the same people he would be aiming for the real perpetrators of the entire shit-storm by now.

I guess that is why the government classifies veterans who don't join the police force or another agency as potential terrorists - because those men could actually fight back.

If myself and others are aware of this, I'm sure Kyle was. Most of us are also aware of the futility of pursuing such an endeavor in the first place. Some try to educate the public, more apathetic ones fall into drug addiction, others protect their minds with willful rationalization and avoidance, most attempt to find peace of mind and acceptance.

Quote: (01-25-2015 06:46 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

However, I will say that it's pretty telling that the left is currently denigrating the movie. Chris Kyle whether you like him or not at least stood for something. He's the kind of guy you would want to be around you when everything falls apart. The people denigrating this movie typically are certainly not.

The same thing happened with Lone Survivor last year. The social justice left was denigrating the movie, calling it racist, etc. Meanwhile the same people were gawking over the Wolf of Wall Street which was a movie about a conman that swindled innocent people out of millions.

I can respect a good hustler of course but it is telling what these people tend to prioritize.

The racism accusations are rapidly becoming a shaming tactic in primary attack method of any portrayal of white culture or positive nationalism by the undercurrents of counterculture in society. Because of this, it's hard for me to take any single cry of racism seriously at all.

Remember that Luttrel had the Afghan family rescued that helped him when he was running. That's an incredibly racist thing to do. If the common person is unable to see this as an attack on the humanity for white males and patriotism, they're falling for the trap. This isn't a sob story on white "genocide", it's a realistic claim against an increasingly venomous campaign against as that is white by other emotional damaged ethic groups being brainwashed with counter0culture narratives.

It shouldn't have to spelled out in clear anecdotal example that Kyle wasn't a racist just because the film didn't make a blaring point in showing that.

As a final point, I'd like to state that the condition of wars we are subjected to will never change until the public is ready to unilaterally attack the political establishment with the same fervor and vitriol that they use in blaming the warrior for the war. No matter how emotionally cutting or tugging a supposed cause is, the American people have to realistically weigh intervention and the necessary sacrifices needed to succeed if action is taken, such as numbers and strategy.

You have those that openly seek to remove funding or support from military individuals, but implicitly support their dogmatic party line as an messianic solution to national problems.

It's not a perfect movie, but I'm glad I saw it.

Like most people that watched it, I'm far from Chris Kyle's military accomplishments, but a lot of the film's emotional moments still hit home for me. So I'll Slumdog Millionaire this write up with my personal anecdotes. The order might not be chronological, since I'm going from memory.

First time was when he got his first kill and the male cheerleader starts the ingratiation mouthing, and Chris yells, "Man, Fuck Off!" Seeing it in film crystalized why I used to hate that shit so much when I got in fights in as a kid. It's just some dipshit that can't do what you do trying to get you to be a man for him, and to make enough noise to draw in more people to fight you. Because if you lose, he'll get first dibs on your stuff.

Next, was when he saw his brother leaving Iraq and his bro is all depressed and said, "Fuck this country!" And Chris was looking at him confused and concerned. Because he knows that for a man to let his emotions come out like that, especially during deployments, it's really bad news. I've had too many of my brothers kill themselves, and did my part to keep others from doing the same where that shit gets to me, even in a movie.

And the part where the guy thanks him at the mechanics reminded me when random people come up and say, "Thank you for your service." I know it's not to that same level, but I'm still like him and don't really know what to say, and get uncomfortable all the same. I volunteered, I don't need thanks, just don't be a Vietnam era level asshole and we're cool.

When he got back, and is just sitting in a bar, I started to tear up. That shit sucks. Both my deployments I came in off set from the guys I left with, and it's fucking hard adjusting to talking to normal people again. This last year we had one guy get killed right before I left and a guy that was supposed to my soldier killed himself the day after I got back. Mainly because of toxic leadership. So, I'm spending every night just talking to the guys that worked in the shop trying to let them know that at least one of their leaders actually gives a shit about them. And when I was done I'd just grab a beer and sit in my room, doing nothing. After a couple months I went to visit family, and they're all excited and like, "What do you want to do today?" And I'd just say, "Nothing. I need some more time to just do nothing." All of those feelings hit me when he was at that bar, because I can only imagine that it was even worse for him.

When he was working with the wounded veterans and amputees hit me too. One of the places I eat on base has had a lot of those guys roll through. One time, a dude was coming up slowly, seeing as he only had one leg, so I did the absurdly long wait and hold the door. Dude said, "I got this, man. You don't need to hold nothing for me!" I just told him, "Hey man, you just get it the next time." And he gave me that look, that only men that have lost what he had, and want anything BUT sympathy for it, give.

And the final scene, with all the news footage after Chris Kyle died. I remember the day he died. It was shortly after we did a field exercise in Korea, where all we did in our little spare time was read military books, American Sniper being one of them. Me and my buddy just looked at each other, and both of us said the same thing, "It's like Superman died."

Because regardless of whether his kill count was plus or minus fifty from the official total, that's still a lot of damn people. And while he may have had some issues with his stories, the Soldiers and Marines I've spoken with that were in Fallujah have the utmost respect for him, and all agree that he helped a lot of them come back.

Moving on from the emotional side, is the vehicle and technology improvements with each deployment. From the shitty no top Humvees to the gargantuan fucking MRAPS and UAV's, it shows the difference in the US and every other country in the world. Russia is having issues projecting military power into a land neighbor, and China can't even project 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait. Yet, the US invaded two countries, on the other side of the world, at the same time (three if you count Libya). And, the US completely changed over the equipment in it's Army and Marines in roughly 6 years. That might just be the most incredible display of industrial, logistical, and technological might the world has ever seen.

But, the movie did have same major flaws. The extra's sucked. Horribly. Bad military, and bad actors. Flagged each other all the time, cleared rooms like they were having tea, etc. Many of the military guys, other than Bradley Cooper, come off as people just acting military, with no real understanding of what it means. I thought the sniper chase was stupid, and there's no way in hell he's getting shot and lost in a sandstorm and magically catching the MRAP.

Overall, still good. I give it four out of five stars.

It's a good movie. Action, Adventure, romance, family, tragic ending so as not to be syrupy. Great "theater"

But the truth behind it, the message, the themes - it's basically a super hero story.

They even put in a # of fan boy scenes throughout the movie to convince you.

He shirks his duty as sniper to become one of the guys kicking in doors
Then he happens to be the one hard ass who can get intel out of somebody through an interpreter.
He even goes out like a hero.

Without bringing in the fake baby or all of the stuff that he said he did that got left out of the movie - you basically have a one man bad ass bringing hell to the enemy.

Compare the soldiers going into an urban landscape in this film with Generation Kill. (another book loved by marines and hated by the Right)

Those guys roll into a city and are basically just sitting ducks. Pointless shit to do, stupid details, no sense of direction. There were plenty of villains on both sides, but there were plenty of heroes on the American side. Just guys trying to do their jobs AND do the right thing.

Which seems more true? Guys trying to make the best of a bad set of cards, or one where you've got the Punisher in the flesh?

Which would sell more tickets? The one where the war seems pointless and people get injured for no reason, or the one with a sniper nemesis and faceless and bloodless "hajis" getting blown away like Stallone and Schwarzenegger were still in business?

WIA

I greatly appreciate the work that Sebastian Junger(perfect storm) and Evan Wright did in being one of the few to truly "embed" in combat units to tell an accurate story. The Generation Kill TV series is terrible and short sighted, but the book should be read by future generations to get a good idea of the entire war from. It's funny that both Wright and Junger are self-described liberals. The liberal press doesn't give them much play still. Wright also wrote a novel about the porn industry that may be worth looking into.

It may seem like superhero'ing around with the implausible enemy sniper drama, but the rest is highly possible. Special forces guys are very dedicated to the job and generally selfless people. I wouldn't be surprised if Kyle really went onto the ground to kick in doors. There is yet to be an accurate depiction of house clearing still. It'll probably remain hard to swallow for the layperson that modern military made selfless or "brave" acts on the level of past wars. Many people are still unaware of the details of Fallujah 1&2.

I knew a marine guy who was in the second Fallujah attack. When I asked him what it was like he said, "I got a silver star for leveling a city while being shot at the whole time".

Quote: (01-26-2015 12:29 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Special forces guys are very dedicated to the job and generally selfless people. I wouldn't be surprised if Kyle really went onto the ground to kick in doors.

There is yet to be an accurate depiction of house clearing still. It'll probably remain hard to swallow for the layperson that modern military made selfless or "brave" acts on the level of past wars. Many people are still unaware of the details of Fallujah 1&2.

Some see shirking his duty and leaving his fellow soldiers with out sniper support as selfless, and I see it as selfish and foolhardy.

I find that his ability to interrogate through an interpreter to be hilarious, and his Sherlock Holmesian detective skills to be just as preposterous. I'm sure Clint and the screenwriters took it straight from the book, as it's too unbelievable even for a Hollywood writer.

But it's not meant to be real life. It's not a documentary. I'm certainly not going to fact check it.

The film doesn't need to reflect the reality of war or the politics of war. It's merely a character study. Not of a super hero, but of the American Icon, the Cowboy.

Trying to defend the film as something other than what the director and actor make it out to be is like leaving one's post to kick in doors

WIA

John T. Reed recently posted his thoughts on the movie on his website. He's a former Ranger and Vietnam Vet, and I think has interesting perspectives on some of the things that occurred in it.

http://www.johntreed.com/Comments-on-the...niper.html

Quote:Quote:

One big point about this movie. It is based on an autobiography written by Chris Kyle, a SEAL sniper. And the movie hero is Chris Kyle. So it is supposed to be an accurate depiction of his life.

I did not know him, but I think there are now two Chris Kyles: the one on the movie screen and the actual one. The movie guy was sort of a foul-mouthed patriot, superman soldier, and great family man.

Quote:Quote:

My classmate and I were both struck as I have been before by movies about Iraq and Afghanistan by the lack of support available to troops in combat. In Vietnam, I think the enemy had a rule along the lines of after you hit the Americans, you’ve got about ten minutes of firing before you have to haul ass out of there.

Why? Because the American had radios. They would, upon being attacked, instantly start calling for artillery and/or air support (armed helicopters and/or jets or other fixed-wing aircraft). Within about ten minutes, napalm and bombs and artillery and mortar shells and rockets and aircraft bullets would be hitting the enemy.

Why does that not happen in Iraq and Afghanistan? We had 553,000 American troops including lots of artillery and air support in South Vietnam. Afghanistan is for times as large as South Vietnam. For similar support, you would need about 2,000,000 troops in country. Iraq being about half the size of Afghanistan, you would need about 1,000,000 troops to have the same number of American troops per square mile as we had is South Vietnam. The max we ever had in Iraq—the scene of American Sniper—was 112,000!

If you brought a platoon of Vietnam vets to Iraq to fight, the pre-patrol meeting would go something like this.

Looking at the map of the patrol area. “Where’s our artillery support?”

“You don’t have any.”

“What!? Don’t have any!? Are you nut?. There could be a battalion or a brigade of enemy in there! What air support we got?”

“Nearest is about 50 miles away, and they’re spread thin. They may not be able to come immediately.”

“What the fuck is going on here? Did higher decide to get this whole platoon killed for some reason? Tell you what, colonel. This patrol will consist of you and any volunteers you can find. Nobody that I know is going on this patrol.”

“That’s mutiny!”

“Wouldn’t be the first time. And your patrol is suicide. You take it out. We’re not going.”

Vietnam era soldiers probably would refuse to go on such a platoon, and think the battalion commander had lost his mind.

Quote: (01-26-2015 11:19 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Vietnam era soldiers probably would refuse to go on such a platoon, and think the battalion commander had lost his mind.

[/quote]

Yeah - the problem with that strategy is that it is not applicable in most instances in urban warfare against an enemy that uses basically guerilla warfare in a populated environment. In some instances that may have been the case and especially in Afghanistan, but not in most places in Iraq. You would literally kill thousands of children and women in many attacks - sure US soldiers would not die and you would blast the enemy, but the collateral damage would be tremendous.

The Russians did that in Chechnya in some cases leveling entire city-blocks with artillery. Such a strategy only creates a back-lash in the population and pretty soon you have guerilla fighters rising up against you non-stop. A country like that is simply untenable - you would have to kill everyone incl. women and children and settle your people to have peace.

The US might have ramped up troop support to 2 mio. or more and yes, less soldiers in aggregate would have died, but they still would not be able to control Iraq as terrorists would crop up everywhere.

The US has won the Iraq war, but ruling over a country like Iraq is another matter - you would have needed the overwhelming support of the people and that was simply lacking. There is no way to win this in that manner - 1 million Chris Kyles would not make the land much safer - I would not even call that war later on.

I haven't seen the movie or read the book (I want to read the book first) so take this for what it's worth.

Quote: (01-26-2015 11:19 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

John T. Reed recently posted his thoughts on the movie on his website. He's a former Ranger and Vietnam Vet, and I think has interesting perspectives on some of the things that occurred in it.

Quote:Quote:

I did not know him, but I think there are now two Chris Kyles: the one on the movie screen and the actual one. The movie guy was sort of a foul-mouthed patriot, superman soldier, and great family man.

That's inevitable. Pappy Boyington wrote in "Baa Baa Black Sheep" "Show me a hero and I'll prove he's a bum". There are very few perfect people with no dirt to be dug up.

Look at Anthony Swofford, who wrote "Jarhead". The same criticisms came from him. The problem with an autobiography is that the narrator is biased. The problem with a biography is that the narrator wasn't there.

Quote:Quote:

Why does that not happen in Iraq and Afghanistan? We had 553,000 American troops including lots of artillery and air support in South Vietnam. Afghanistan is for times as large as South Vietnam. For similar support, you would need about 2,000,000 troops in country. Iraq being about half the size of Afghanistan, you would need about 1,000,000 troops to have the same number of American troops per square mile as we had is South Vietnam. The max we ever had in Iraq—the scene of American Sniper—was 112,000!

But this was the entire Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney NeoCon strategy: their theory was that with all our advanced technology, one could create a small, agile fighting force and you wouldn't need 2 million soldiers. Colin Powell disagreed and insisted that we'd need a much larger force, but he lost the argument. I'm no soldier but it looks very much to me like Powell was right and Rumsfeld & co. were wrong. But is that a surprise? Powell was a professional soldier, Rumsfeld et. al. were armchair warriors.

That's a nice piece of fantasy he contrives there, but let's be real: these are soldiers who do what they're ordered to do. Soldiers were complaining about the lack of support, bad equipment, lack of body armor, etc. But they still carried out their missions for the most part. When a Colonel can't order a regiment into combat and get a "yes sir!", then we don't have an army.


I was really struck by a line early in Generation Kill (the book):

Quote:Quote:

Yet if the dominant mythology [Vietnam] turns on a generation’s loss of innocence—young men reared on Davy Crockett waking up to their government’s deceits while fighting in Southeast Asian jungles; the nation falling from the grace of Camelot to the shame of Watergate—these young men entered Iraq predisposed toward the idea that the Big Lie is as central to American governance as taxation. This is, after all, the generation that first learned of the significance of the presidency not through an inspiring speech at the Berlin Wall but through a national obsession with semen stains and a White House blow job. Even though their Commander in Chief tells them they are fighting today in Iraq to protect American freedom, few would be shaken to discover that they might actually be leading a grab for oil. In a way, they almost expect to be lied to.

That fucking floored me when I read it. To go to war knowing that your government was lying to you?

Quote: (01-26-2015 11:48 AM)RockHard Wrote:  

That's a nice piece of fantasy he contrives there, but let's be real: these are soldiers who do what they're ordered to do. Soldiers were complaining about the lack of support, bad equipment, lack of body armor, etc. But they still carried out their missions for the most part. When a Colonel can't order a regiment into combat and get a "yes sir!", then we don't have an army.

There's are major cultural differences between the two militaries due to the different eras, what was going on, the environment, etc.

In Vietnam, the military had plenty of draftees who didn't join up willingly and didn't want to get their asses shot off. As the war progressed they'd often frag NCOs and officers who they thought were recklessly exposing them to risk. This also happened in WWII to a limited extent (because doing such a thing could get you executed if you were caught) and probably Korea as well.

My father was a draftee and not only told me about his attitude, but also the attitudes of the volunteers. The volunteers were, in his experience, more unquestioningly patriotic and more willing to go along to get along. He was a pretty average soldier who got into trouble occasionally for not keeping his mouth shut when higher-ranking soldiers said or did stupid shit.

But honestly the threat of a brig sounds better than getting blown apart or shot because of someone's shitty ideas.

Then there's also the fact that by the time that most of the guys who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq joined, the military was pretty much already wed to the misguided "hearts and minds" mentality and nation-building. They'd seen it all throughout the nineties with the disastrous, limited military interventions Clinton engaged in.

Vietnam vets, on the other hand, were raised by men who joined or got drafted into the army when soldiers fought from day one through a whole campaign. They either came home in a box or to a victory parade. They expected a total war that was quick and were instead told to fight a war of attrition with one hand tied behind their back despite having the power at their disposal to annihilate the communist enemy. So you can imagine that plenty of them would be disillusioned and a little pissed off.

Anyway, not trying to derail but I thought your point deserved a reply.

OK, I saw it in an upscale mall movie theater in Cairo.



Theater was not crowded, about 30 people in a 200 seat theater for a 330 pm show. I was the only westerner, everyone else appeared Egyptian or Sudanese.

I've said this before, when you see Hollywood movies abroad you fully appreciate their propagandistic qualities, because you can't help but wonder how the other people in the theater are seeing it.

The film's opening of the adhan or Muslim call to prayer "Allahu akhbar, Allahu akhbar" over a black screen dissolving to American tanks rolling through ruins made me cringe, and not just because it's a movie cliche now.

The other thing I noticed was the recurrent use of Bibles and crosses through the movie, even Kyle's saying "a Crusader cross, cool" when shown a leaflet.

When you're in the hearts-and-minds business, you see these things as maybe hurting the American cause.

On the other hand, the film's portrayal of Kyle and other Americans as near-Supermen is good for the intimidation factor.

The film's ripoff of Enemy at the Gates with the "Mustafa" sniper reminded me of "Juba," the feared insurgent sniper of the earlier days in Iraq. There was a satellite TV channel, the Rafidain channel that used to show videos of "Juba's" kills, along with roadside bombs and a lot of rabble-rousing anti-US propaganda.

Bradley Cooper was excellent. He hit the right tones for guys like that, although from what I've read he made Kyle a little more sensitive than he was in real life. In the movie, Kyle was unconscious of what his subconscious was doing to him, because he's so straightforward and not introspective. It's a good portrayal of PTSD and Clint also gave roles to some maimed vets which might be the first exposure of many Americans to that cost of war. When one vet says, "That made me feel I've got my balls back," you don't think he's speaking figuratively.

Maybe Clint was being too subtle, believed in the Iraq war more than I thought, or a lot of stuff ended up on the cutting room floor. I'd like to see the Director's Cut, or maybe he's losing his fastball.

For example without too much of a spoiler, there is one Iraqi man who invites the Americans to dinner who turns out to be an insurgent. Is he really a bad guy? After all, we invaded his country.

The movie becomes propagandistic because Clint ramps up the badness of the insurgents (yes, they often were bad in those ways, but not always) and forgets the basic situation of a country being invaded by foreign troops. The only exception is his sniper Mostafa, who is shown as diligent, brave and in one scene, with a wife and baby paralleling Kyle's.

After the movie, I asked an Egyptian couple what they thought, woman in a hijab, they both liked it. A couple of people even applauded at the end of the film. Of course, people who would go see American Sniper are a self-selected group.

Quote: (01-26-2015 11:19 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Why does that not happen in Iraq and Afghanistan? We had 553,000 American troops including lots of artillery and air support in South Vietnam. Afghanistan is for times as large as South Vietnam. For similar support, you would need about 2,000,000 troops in country. Iraq being about half the size of Afghanistan, you would need about 1,000,000 troops to have the same number of American troops per square mile as we had is South Vietnam. The max we ever had in Iraq—the scene of American Sniper—was 112,000!

If he thinks that's bad he would've really hated red air. "red air" is when particulate in the air is so high due to sand or dust that the medical helicopters can't fly in the low visibility. Under red air, people who get injured are in the care of the platoons medics and ground team that's expected to come to take you to the CASH. You get quick reaction force protection for medevac while you're still close to city limits, but after that you're basically at the will of the medic to keep you alive no matter how bad someone gets injured. Help is as close as the nearest city is. I agree that wide artillery and air support would be bad for collateral. Middle easterners live very clustered, even more than what you'd expect watching media on the M.E.


Now on to the numbers and support aspect, this is what I mean when I speak against the politicians getting us in this mess. I'm on the fence on if it would've helped in Afghanistan, but Iraq would've benefited from an actual surge rather than a relative one. Years, infrastructure and Iraqi lives could've been saved with true permeation of force. Iraq may have been "won", but it definitely could've been won better. I asked the locals what their thoughts were on the pullout in the next few years and the response was always an ominous look or "civil war". It make me sick and angry like nothing else when the ISIS fiasco started because it was so obvious to the people on the ground.

Quote: (01-26-2015 03:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

For example without too much of a spoiler, there is one Iraqi man who invites the Americans to dinner who turns out to be an insurgent. Is he really a bad guy? After all, we invaded his country.

This is a recurring theme throughout any type of conflict with guerrilla soldiers, especially when it comes to Americans invading foreign countries in recent memory. There are the "good" guys (Americans) and "bad" guys (terrorists) and then a bunch of people caught in between of those two extremes.

Then those normal citizens are put in an incredibly difficult spot when the Americans come through, asking questions about where insurgent leaders are. Many face retaliation from the insurgents if they help out the Americans, but at the same time they are often convinced to give up information through other means.

The guy you mentioned may not be a full fledged "bad" guy, but he gets lumped into the group of the other insurgents when the weapons are discovered. It's not right, but it's the world we live in where one second a kid is playing with toys and the next some extremist hands him an AK-47 and has him use it on American soldiers.

Quote: (01-22-2015 06:07 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

I didn't see anything politically unbalanced or terribly jingoistic with this film. The Iraq war was for bad reasons but this was about one man's journey through his service. He was shown making tough decisions with consequences in a war with questionable outcomes. Kyle definitely wasn't depicted as some kind of racist psychopath. Especially that one scene where he's literally trembling with horror and relief about not having to plug the kid with the rpg launcher.

Whether or not this was a good piece of film is another matter entirely. It's not Clint Eastwood's best but not his worst. Letters from Iwo Jima and Unforgiven are probably his best films. This is just OK.

Completely agree - it's ok. I saw it, doubt I'll ever watch it again. Out of the 38 films Clint Eastwood's directed, I wouldn't put it in the top 10.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:...t_Eastwood

I'm flabbergasted by anyone who doesn't think Letters from Iwo Jima was a great movie. The soldiers were portrayed as ideologically entrenched, but reflective, philosophical and humane. There's a lot of good undertones in that movie. I've seen nearly all of Clint Eastwood's newer films so I may be partial or inclined to catch those subtleties.

Quote: (01-22-2015 05:49 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Regardless of what Eastman's politics are, he is a fool and inept at the political game. His Obama chair speech was poorly thought out, poorly done, and did serious harm to Romney.
He carries over this same heavy handed ineptness to making his pro war film.

Mr. Eastwood just directed a hugely successful movie at 80 plus years of age.

The rest of his life has also been filled with achievement far above most folks.

The man is an American icon.

You may or may not like him, you may or may not like his chair speech, but the man is neither inept nor a fool.

The Real American Sniper: Why Chris Kyle Wasn’t A Hero

http://theantimedia.org/the-real-american-sniper/

I just saw the movie today and I have mixed feelings about it.

The movie itself I thought was ok. Not spectacular, but not bad either. It certainly didn't live up to the hype that it got.

The movie to me for its intent purposes is pretty much war propaganda, but even if it is, i'll admit that its no different than watching Windtalkers (which is one of my favorite war movies of all time) where Nicholas Cage is portrayed killing lots of Japanese during World War Two and even calling them "Japs" or "Nips". Or watching Mel Gibson in "We Were Soldiers".

America has always had a history of War propaganda in every single war, and as a matter of fact, hating the enemy was more lenient in those days than it is today. In WWI there was a phobia towards Germans, and a huge anti-German sentiment among the population. German Americans hated it and felt a little taken back, but many joined the military to prove that they were as American as anybody else.

Fast-forward to the Second World War and it was pretty much the same thing. There was a big disdain for the Japanese after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Americans at the time pretty much considered the Japanese as slimy, slick, evil savages as portrayed in this cartoon during the war:











^^^^This was very normal back then and people never made a big fuss over it. No one thought it was offensive to the Japanese or the Germans, that's how the populace saw them. Japanese Americans did get hit hard with the internment camps, which the government later confessed it was wrong when they were given reparations, but many Japanese Americans saw it as an opportunity to prove to a nation that they were not like the Japanese depicted in the cartoons and joined the U.S. military. Nazis were called "Krauts" and the Japanese were called "Japs". Just imagine if we had this politically correct stuff back in the day? Support for the war would have been non-existent. When Hitler committed suicide, people were cheering in the streets. When Yamamoto, the Admiral of the Japanese fleet was killed by the U.S. Air-Force, people back home were cheering saying "We Got Him". Contrast that 10 years ago when Saddam Hussein got hanged, there were people who were sensitive to the idea of being happy for someone being hanged. Hell you even have people who thought celebrating the killing of Osama Bin Laden was too harsh.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/george...-is-wrong/


My point is, I don't think its fair to criticize Chris Kelly for being "racist" as many people have, because in war you kind of have to be racist. I have brothers and cousins who are all Iraq and Afghanistan war vets, and they have some resentment towards Muslims based off of what they experienced during the war. I think troops should be given this pass, because in war you cannot have mercy or compassion for the enemy and you have to hate the enemy. You cannot look at the enemy and see him as an equal to you, but as an evil savage who is trying to destroy everything about you and kill you and your fellow people. You cannot be politically correct in war, just not possible.

Those tweets above about killing Muslims is no different than when young people were enlisting in the military to kill them some "japs" during World War II. Just something to think about. In fact if you said you wanted to join the military during World War Two and said that you joined because you want to kill you some Japs, everybody will give you a high-five and agree with you.

I'm usually one of the first people to point out racism when I see it, but I think we have become a little too sensitive nowadays as it pertains to war. You can disagree with the war in Iraq, but I think the vets have every right to say what they want.

Was the movie propaganda? I think it was, but its not the reason why I didn't like it. I think Clint Eastwood has made better movies like "Letters from Iwo Jima". I think people who are attacking the movie are doing so because they just don't agree with the Iraq War period.