Kevin's Watch

Wow. I am sorry I contributed to this by asking WF to reconsider the movie as a piece of cinematic art.



Sarge or dAN would have my support if they were to split some of this into a Tank thread. I assume Hashi would consent, given the confusion he expressed that this was taking place outside that forum.

I hope listing some facts about the subject of the film (Chris Kyle) isn't considered too off-topic, even if it relates to some of the popular criticisms raised in the film's political aftermath (Michael Moore, etc.). Hopefully, a little background might counter some of the negative impressions created by the political opposition to what might otherwise be treated simply as a film, and thus prevent others from also choosing not to watch it.

Christopher Scott "Chris" Kyle (April 8, 1974 − February 2, 2013) was a United States Navy SEAL and the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history with over 160 confirmed kills. Kyle served four tours in the Iraq War and was awarded several commendations for acts of heroism and meritorious service in combat. He received two Silver Star Medals, five Bronze Star Medals, one Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals[7] and numerous other unit and personal awards.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle

The Silver Star, officially the Silver Star Medal, is the third-highest military decoration for valor awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces. Any uniformed servicemember may receive the medal, which is awarded for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Star

The Bronze Star Medal, unofficially the Bronze Star, is a United States decoration awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Star_Medal

The Commendation Medal is a mid-level United States military decoration which is presented for sustained acts of heroism or meritorious service

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal

A list of famous snipers in our history also shows several who were awarded our military's highest honor, the Medal of Honor, awarded for "for personal acts of valor above and beyond the call of duty." ... If anyone is interested in the subject.

Savor Dam wrote:

Sarge or dAN would have my support if they were to split some of this into a Tank thread. I assume Hashi would consent, given the confusion he expressed that this was taking place outside that forum.

I don't see why I should do that; everybody has a right to their opinion, and there's no name calling. Of course, as usual, I think we should ban Avatar for his meddling ways......MEDDLER!

Fist and Faith wrote:Can you be a pacifist if you think the solution to any problem is to drop a tactical nuke on a city?

I'm not aware of anyone who holds those two views. You'd have to ask them (if you ever come across that person).

I was thinking of you, Cail. Here:

Cail wrote:I'm an anti-war pacifist...

and here:

Cail wrote:My solution? Make a simple, definitive statement at the UN making it clear that we're not to be screwed with. If/when ISIS screws with us, we drop a tactical nuke on their capital city.

Screw this "boots on the ground" crap.

I would have thought those two positions were contradictory. Or mutually exclusive. But I'm not a pacifist, and haven't much examined the philosophy. But a quick search shows that it's not an absolute, defined along the lines of: It is wrong for me to commit violence, and there's nothing you can do that will make it right for me to commit violence.

That's a fair bit different that your incorrect baiting statement.

"Can you be a pacifist if you think the solution to any problem is to drop a tactical nuke on a city?"

I'm not an absolutist (they're usually unthinking, dogmatic, naive fools). I'm also a realist, in that some people simply cannot be dealt with, no matter how hard you try. In the example that you'e selectively misquoted, I made it quite clear that we should leave the rest of the world alone and not meddle with their affairs, and we should demand that they do the same regarding us. We should also make it clear that if the rest of the world chooses to ignore that, that there will be serious repercussions.

What I emphatically did not say was that we should solve any problem we have by killing people.

I think most people want peace and would prefer a world without war. And I think most people recognize that violence is necessary sometimes. I don't see a contradiction there. Sometimes the best way to attain peace is through war. Life is a paradox.

I did, indeed, word it badly. It was entirely unintentional. What I should have written is:

Can you be a pacifist if there is any problem to which the solution is to drop a tactical nuke on a city?

What I wrote can be taken that way, but not as easily as the way you took it. My apologies for writing it in a way that depended so much on vocal inflection, etc.

Anyway, I agree that, in many cases, peace can best be achieved through war. Hrch, in some cases, it's probably the only way peace can be achieved.

dANdeLION wrote:I don't see why I should do that; everybody has a right to their opinion and there's no name calling.

Thank goodness you can post lies about what posters have done and then talk about what an ass they are for having done it -- without calling them names! And thank goodness that allowing this doesn't discourage people from posting their opinion, because no one ever gets tired of responses about why they are an ass every time they post! In fact, it encourages posting opinions ... about why I am an ass! (Fortunately, by the exact same logic, I am clearly not complaining about the moderation around here!)

In fact, you seemed at one time--before it was popular for Libs to bash a successful movie by a conservative moviemaker--to have exactly the opposite positions.

I've noticed this before. Seriously, you should consider using the search feature to check your positions on political issues before you post. You seem to have a hard time remembering what they are.

It's a lie! But no name calling. Phew!

It seems that's what WF wants to discuss, the political implications-

Another lie! But no name calling. So this is a-ok.

He's proven time and time again that he's incapable of dealing with anything that challenges his beliefs (whether the challenge is real or not).

What an insult! What a lie! But no name calling here! Let's encourage more of this!

It was your ignorant "snipers aren't heroes" comment, and your prejudgement of the movie

I am ignorant! But that's not a name! Encourage more opinions like these!

Insulting our soldiers and questioning the value of their service--especially when they excel at it--is extremely poor taste.

So what if it's a lie? It's a nice opinion about what an ass I am.

WF, if I misunderstood your, "snipers aren't heroes" comment, then I apologize. But not until you explain what you meant by it, thus proving my misunderstanding. Barring that, I'll just let the evidence here speak for itself. Nice talking with you again. It's been a while.

Saying snipers - or any particular roles in a war - aren't heroes is not the same as questioning the value of their service. Hero is a pretty strong word for what military personnel in general do, but people with a vested interest in promoting the military's activities like to throw it around a lot.

Murrin, saying that a decorated war vet--honored multiple times for heroism--isn't hero, is not questioning the value of his service? The value of his service was measured in his heroism by those medals! I don't see how your claim make sense. But even if one wants to play those semantic games, it doesn't make my comment a lie. It makes it (at worst) a misunderstanding.

However, WF's objection to watching this movie was compared to his willingness to watch Dexter, on the basis of, "... that show never assumed that being a mass murderer was a good thing, and so I never had to implicitly accept such a position to enjoy the story. " I understand that WF wasn't saying Kyle is a mass murderer, but he was clearly implying that his reason for not watching the movie was that it assumed sniping was a good thing, which necessitated that viewers accept it to enjoy the story. [An argument itself which is debatable--especially given that WF hasn't seen the movie and doesn't know if accepting snipers as a hero was indeed necessary to enjoy it.]

So, without a doubt, refusing to accept the assumption that what snipers do is *good* is questioning the value of what they do, i.e. their service. Hell, it's even worse, it's flat out rejecting it. I don't see how my characterization was inaccurate, much less a lie.

Fist and Faith wrote:I did, indeed, word it badly. It was entirely unintentional. What I should have written is:

Can you be a pacifist if there is any problem to which the solution is to drop a tactical nuke on a city?

What I wrote can be taken that way, but not as easily as the way you took it. My apologies for writing it in a way that depended so much on vocal inflection, etc.

Anyway, I agree that, in many cases, peace can best be achieved through war. Hrch, in some cases, it's probably the only way peace can be achieved.

Resorting to violence is an admission of failure, which is sometimes necessary.

It is impossible to reach consensus or agreement with a party, group, or nation which refuses to negotiate or accept that there is another way other than their own. As this thread has ironically shown.

I saw this movie the night before last and my first reaction was that it wasn't that great. I thought that it was a bit simplistic in its portrayal of the situation in Iraq, and I thought that it was a bit too gung-ho in its portrayal of Kyle as the 'good' guy, fighting a 'righteous' war. I was disappointed because I generally like the films that Eastwood directs. However, I've been reading some of the reviews and I am coming to realise that there were certain things that I may missed. (I found this article especially good. And also this one.)

On reflection, my initial impression that this is a jingoistic movie, was mistaken. As I have thought about it more it has become clearer to me that this it is actually a quite subtle portrayal of the effects of war. I was struck by two moments which I subsequently realised are linked. The first is when Kyle meets his brother in Iraq, who says, 'fuck this place'. The second is when (at the end) Kyle goes out to meet the vet that he is helping. Initially I thought that the vet was Kyle's brother, and it's this link that is the most important for me, because it shows the effect the war has had on the people who fought in it (Kyle included). It shows that it isn't possible to contain the damage done in Iraq, it has infected/affected the US, and the death of Kyle at the hands of a veteran of the Iraq war is not ironic but tragic.

I can easily see how this film could be politicised as a pro-war movie by both sides. Its success could be used by the Right to push its pro-war positions, it's fictionalisation of history and portrayal of the Iraqi people as 'savages' (see this article for a really interesting take on the use of this specific word) could be used by the Left to support its positions. Both of these would be wrong in terms of what the film is actually about. But, when it comes to politics why let truth prevent the use of good material for your own purposes

u.

P.S. I can understand someone objecting to the very premise of the movie (i.e. the glamourisation of a particularly personalised form of killing).* I may be missing something about how the reception of this movie has been politicised in the US, but objecting to the premise of the movie seems a fairly harmless aesthetic/moral choice rather than a political one. And, depending on how you define the word 'hero', I think that it is quite reasonable to state that snipers are not heroes. If you believe that killing someone in cold blood is morally wrong (no matter what the circumstances are) then they can never be a hero in the sense of being noble.

hero: a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.[link]

There is no doubt that Kyle was a war hero, as his military actions and decorations attest, whether the fictional character in the film is a hero in relation to 'noble qualities' is probably a matter of opinion. IMO, some of his actions, especially his failure to protect the Iraqi people who were providing him with information, were less than noble.

* I know some people who won't watch any sort of gangster movies (not even the Godfather series ) because of the implied glamourisation of criminal behaviour. From their point of view no matter how the subject matter is presented the very fact of its being the subject of a movie is problematic.

Zarathustra wrote:So, without a doubt, refusing to accept the assumption that what snipers do is *good* is questioning the value of what they do, i.e. their service. Hell, it's even worse, it's flat out rejecting it. I don't see how my characterization was inaccurate, much less a lie.

It's possible to consider something a necessary evil and therefore still value it for what it does, without calling it good.

Good finds u. This is definitely not a pro war movie, but it does put Chris Kyle's sentiments out there on display, and it does take them seriously without necessarily endorsing them. I thought Eastwood displayed a deft touch. I think most of the visceral reactions against the movie are rooted in outrage that a warrior ethos like Chris Kyle's is considered respectfully rather than reflexively condemned. Unfortunately violence is still a socially necessary expedient at this time and date on the planet earth, and until that is no longer so we will need men like Kyle to take up the burden for us.

ussusimiel wrote:P.S. I can understand someone objecting to the very premise of the movie (i.e. the glamourisation of a particularly personalised form of killing).* I may be missing something about how the reception of this movie has been politicised in the US, but objecting to the premise of the movie seems a fairly harmless aesthetic/moral choice rather than a political one. And, depending on how you define the word 'hero', I think that it is quite reasonable to state that snipers are not heroes. If you believe that killing someone in cold blood is morally wrong (no matter what the circumstances are) then they can never be a hero in the sense of being noble.

It's understandable if that's a person's position all the time, in all circumstances, no matter who is President, and if that person isn't on record supporting snipers when the President is a member of his own party. It's not reasonable when this a manufactured position to attack a successful movie by a director who speaks at Republican conventions.

One definition of 'hero' is people who risk their lives to save others. Snipers in a war zone qualify.

As I said earlier, the snipers who rescued hostages from Somali pirates were universally praised. Obama was President. No conservative director was involved. The reaction was exactly the opposite.

If you don't see politics in all this, I think you're missing the point. The 'snipers aren't heroes' meme was started by Michael Moore. Then others just parroted the idiotic, dishonest documentarian.

I think people generally root for The Bride, although she's an assassin who, if anyone does, deserved to be savagely beaten and shot in the head. I've never heard of anyone watching the movie hoping to see her fail. Do we call her the hero of the movie?

Z., is that the best definition of hero you can muster?

Fist and Faith wrote:I think people generally root for The Bride, although she's an assassin who, if anyone does, deserved to be savagely beaten and shot in the head. I've never heard of anyone watching the movie hoping to see her fail. Do we call her the hero of the movie?

We root for her because she was pregnant at the time then abused while in a coma. The expectation is that we are supposed to believe that what was done to her is worse than what she did to others when, in reality, it isn't. Similarly, in Inglorious Basterds we root for Lt. Ray's group (by the way, Aldo Ray is the name of a real actor from the 40s and 50s) even though they commit war crimes--torture and mutilation of captured enemy forces.