Kevin's Watch

Wow.

See this movie.

I've read Chris Kyle's first book (American Gun) and loved it; now I need to read American Sniper. Eastwood seamlessly directs a masterpiece narration on the wages of war, and it's stunning. It's a harrowing take on modern warfare that doesn't flinch at the realities of war. Bradley Cooper, who I've dismissed as a lightweight, delivers a powerful performance.

This is a great movie. One for the ages.

Cail wrote:Wow.

See this movie.

I've read Chris Kyle's first book (American Gun) and loved it; now I need to read American Sniper. Eastwood seamlessly directs a masterpiece narration on the wages of war, and it's stunning. It's a harrowing take on modern warfare that doesn't flinch at the realities of war. Bradley Cooper, who I've dismissed as a lightweight, delivers a powerful performance.

This is a great movie. One for the ages.

I just watched this the other day. Agree with all your points above. What a great movie!!!!

Also agree 100%.

I don't think I will ever watch this. Snipers aren't heroes. But that's me.

Way, even taking that position into account, might you consider viewing the film? Surely it would not be the only occasion where you did not take a positive view of a protagonist's profession?

See it for Eastwood's direction (for which he is deservedly known), for Cooper's acting (far better than he is otherwise credited), even if you are sure the story runs counter to your values. It is worth the time taken.

Savor Dam wrote:Way, even taking that position into account, might you consider viewing the film? Surely it would not be the only occasion where you did not take a positive view of a protagonist's profession?

I watched (and enjoyed) Dexter, for example. But 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. Which makes all the difference.

wayfriend wrote:

Savor Dam wrote:Way, even taking that position into account, might you consider viewing the film? Surely it would not be the only occasion where you did not take a positive view of a protagonist's profession?

I watched (and enjoyed) Dexter, for example. But 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. Which makes all the difference.

Mass protector is more like it. We wont agree on this topic and aren't even in the same universe when it comes to this. They pull the trigger, one enemy combatant dies, they don't, and many US and allied soldiers die.

However, in the Movie, they deal with how he didn't like having to shoot people in this manner and never gloried in it. In the movie, he did everything he could to NOT pull the trigger.

I can't imagine any American saying that any of our soldiers who perform their duty protecting our country and their fellow soldiers are not heroes.

I guess droning people from the Oval Office is more heroic?

At one time, Wayfriend wrote: And, once again, to all: it's not murder when it is done in self-defense in a war. And it it's not murder it's not assassination. Using a drone doesn't change the equation here - lethal force is lethal force.

When defending Obama, it didn't matter to you which form of lethal force was used. Isn't a drone just a way to "snipe" from even greater distances?

When asked point blank about snipers, you said this:

At one time, Wayfriend wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Obama is pursing the War on Terror covertly--drones and sniper teams.

I don't think "covert" means what you think it means. If it was covert, you wouldn't be here telling us how it's suddenly now wrong. I think the word you want is "surgically". E.g. without massive invasion forces and years of occupying other sovereign nations. Is that [suddenly] a bad idea? Or should the president have stopped defending the country like a good Democrat is expected to?

And this:

At one time, Wayfriend wrote:

SerScot wrote: So, you are cool with this committee determining that I am a threat and having a sniper take me out, or you out for that matter? You place a great deal of trust in the good nature of the people choosing to kill other's without trial.

What?!?! Your basically asking me if I have a problem with people defending our country and choosing how to go about it. Which, no one has yet, page after page after page, explained how it could be done in a way where we have a trial before killing each and every enemy that threatens us. And I predict no one ever will explain how. The opposition to this assassination has done nothing but try to make it sound scary, with no credible reason why it really is.

So when defending Obama's drone/assassination strategy, anyone questioning the idea of sniping to take out enemies was (to you) an outrageous affront to the idea of people defending our country and choosing how to go about it (choices which included sniping/assassination). You were incredulous that this is a bad idea, or that Obama should avoid the policy of "surgical" strikes that avoid massive invasion forces and occupying nations. Seems you once saw plenty of benefit in such "unheroic" tactics. 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.

This thread was about a movie until WF made an insulting judgment about our soldiers who happen to be snipers. It seems that's what WF wants to discuss, the political implications--especially since he admits no desire to see this movie. WF lately is taking his political discourse elsewhere ... Loresraat, Flicks ... I'm just responding. I wouldn't mind at all to continue the discussion in the Tank, if the mods want to move it.

So because you thought his judgement insulting (because he dared to suggest snipers aren't heroes) you decided to dig up stuff he said 5 years ago to demonstrate some inconsistency between his political/social opinions and the reason he doesn't want to watch this movie?

I'm starting to wonder if you might not be suffering from a slightly unhealthy obsession Z.

Looks to me like it was you who chose to make it political rather than leave it at the fact that he wouldn't be watching it.

(Oh, for what it's worth, I won't be watching it myself. Not really into war movies.)

--A

I haven't seen it. But I gather the sniper is largely in agreement with wf?

Given the source, I'm nt surprised at the comment. 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).

I'm an anti-war pacifist, and I found the movie to be fantastic. It's a treatise on the horrors of war, and it drives that point home countless times without seeming preachy. Chris Kyle was a fascinating man (and I suggest reading his books, they're a great insight into the man), and Bradley Cooper does a tremendous job of bringing him to the screen.

To not see this movie based on ridiculous talking points is simply ignorant. It glorifies neither war nor killing.

Holy crap. I don't know what I said to deserve a lie-filled tag-team smear campaign. But, for the record, my low opinion of snipers has nothing to do with politics, doesn't mean I believe their use is illegitimate, and I do not consider them to be murderers - as the bounteous evidence confirms. I said Dexter is a mass murderer. Dexter. As people seem more interested in inventing my position rather than learning it, I will leave it at that. I hope everyone else enjoys the movie -- as I said in my first post, I expected that my opinion would not be shared by anyone else.

wayfriend wrote:Holy crap. I don't know what I said..

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

Glad I could help.

It would be like clicking on a thread about the movie Selma and saying, "I'm not going to watch that movie. Black people aren't heroes." And then pretend that you don't know it was an incendiary, politically charged statement.

Insulting our soldiers and questioning the value of their service--especially when they excel at it--is extremely poor taste. (Actually, much worse, but no need to go there ... it's obvious.) Disliking a particular war is at least understandable. But snipers have fought with honor and distinction in every single war we've ever fought. Blanket statements about a certain kind of soldier not being a hero make about as much sense as criticizing Obama for using drones ... (which, as I've pointed out, was defended).

The Leftist groupthink reaction to this film is bizarre and ugly. 1000s of people who have never risked their lives or saved the lives of anyone else, questioning the heroism of someone who has. I wonder why Zero Dark Thirty (the movie about Bin Laden being killed) didn't receive this groupthink criticism? Could it be the party of the President in office at the time?

Seal Team 6 (the team which killed Bin Laden) has snipers, by the way. In fact, they were universally praised when they took out three of the pirates holding Maersk Alabama captain Richard Phillips hostage on a lifeboat off the Somali Coast. Were they not heroes for rescuing hostages from pirates? Yep, as long as Obama is in charge. If we get a Rep Pres, prepare for them to be denigrated once again.

Can you be a pacifist if you think the solution to any problem is to drop a tactical nuke on a city? I've never much looked into the stance, but I'd have thought that a pacifist would not resort to violence under any circumstances.

Regarding the movie, yeah, everything I've heard is that it's about the horrors of war and the sniper's very negative feelings about his own role. Pretty much your own feelings, wf? Not that you have to see it, obviously. I probably won't. I don't see many war movies. Wife won't go to them. Kids won't go to them.

Back on topic

It was good to see them show how much impact being in that kind of action day in and day out has on soldiers.

But even more, what it does to their families, even when they come home. It was interesting to me that the implication in the movie is that people that volunteer to be re-deployed do so mostly through a sense of loyalty to their friends that lost their lives there. Chris felt that he needed to ensure that their loss was not in vain, and he truly thought that by being at war there, he was keeping the terrorists from attacking America.

But then later, he discovers that there comes a time when even the strongest people, both mentally and physically cant do more. At first he was understanding of those that gave up mentally and ended their deployment but later he knew when mentally he had joined them.

"Im ready to come home" .... Man that tears me up just repeating that one line.

SoulBiter wrote:he truly thought that by being at war there, he was keeping the terrorists from attacking America.

Mr. Pyle had the same incorrect sentiment that many of our current politicians still have. Correlation does not imply causality--the fact that we are engaged in military activity in the Middle East (although we really can't call it "the Middle East" since the area from Iraq into Pakistan is actually pretty large; a more correct name would be "Southwestern Asia") is not preventing terror attacks here. Despite my own dislike of the measures, the increased screening and scrutiny at airports has had more to do with preventing attacks that military activity.

As I have noted elsewhere, though, it doesn't take airplanes and bombs to create a terror incident but I won't go into details about scenarios I have described before because I don't want to give anyone any nasty ideas.

Fist and Faith wrote:Regarding the movie, yeah, everything I've heard is that it's about the horrors of war and the sniper's very negative feelings about his own role. Pretty much your own feelings, wf?

No. I have no negative feelings about the role of snipers in a war.