entertainment

'American Sniper' triggers angry debate

135 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Â 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

135 Comments
Login to comment

I don't consider snipers as either heroes or cowards. Not just for being snipers anyway.

Shooting somebody far away <> hero.

Getting in and out of position <> coward.

They've got some skills and brass ones, I'll agree with that. And their field-craft seems very, very good.

They're exist to perform a "disagreeable to most" job. I don't envy them, even without the pretty scary risks they make.

I don't care so much about how good they are, but if they take down somebody who really deserves it, I guess that's a good thing.

5 ( +15 / -10 )

Hollywood films have long been used as a form of corporate propaganda. For example now there are lots of placement ads in films. Since the Iraq war was a corporate endeavour mainly fought for the defence and oil industries, we shouldn't be surprised that someone would make a film that veils the truth of an illegal and ruthless invasion and occupation.

5 ( +20 / -15 )

Spoiler alert...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I prefer being in close and using cold steel across the throat. Now that is a thrill! Especially the smell and the feel of the hot wet blood as it pulsates squirting out of your hands. The gurgling sounds are awesome too. In defense of the method, I prefer sniping over NBC. That is so nasty~. Ugh. Calling the guys "cowards" seems illogical. They still get shot at. And Kyle got down in the streets and in close too. That Fat turd of Moore is just bucking for attention. Love that 1st Ammendment~.

-21 ( +5 / -26 )

I guess people like Michael Moore would also call bomber pilots and drone operators cowards also, since they are normally far off from their targets. What those who have issues with the character's role don't understand is that the sniper still has to get into position, which normally means being in a war zone also. They may have found a better place to hide, but they are still in a war zone.

I think what More and others don't like is that the main character, Chris Kyle thought of the Iraqi's as savages and didn't care for them. I once heard him say that on the O'Reilly show and Bill tried to help him "walk that statement back" and he didn't. The things he saw there, with them using women and children as shields to cover the insurgent activities left a mark on him as well as what he had to do for his job. So he was bitter about the Iraqi's, but he wasn't going around saying what one would expect as a bigoted person. In other words, he had an opinion, which didn't really sit well with some, but he wasn't going out trying to force that opinion on others. Something that the left really doesn't get sometime.

Surprisingly, Whoopie Goldberg spoke out against the likes of Moore and Seth Rogen on "The View" when she said people all stood behind the movie "The Interview" when it was going to be pulled on the grounds of artistic freedom, so those people should also respect the rights of Clint Eastwood to make the films the way he wants.

9 ( +17 / -8 )

Hmmm should I go Left or should I go Right?

I recently watched a movie called "Inglorious Bastards". Great movie if you like QT. In that movie, the Nazi's also made a movie about one of their revered snipers. We called that Propaganda. Hmmm...most people consider the Nazi as evil.

So what's the difference? During wartime? After wartime?

I haven't seen this movie yet so I can't complete my thoughts. However, given Eastwoods track record with wartime flicks I'll have a look at it. Flags and Iwo Jima told both sides of the story. We just have to watch this new one and judge for ourselves.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I suppose drone strikes require more bravery? I think all war movies end up being propaganda anyways. Al Qaeda should make a film they can show in their caves.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

You can go with mainstream media/Hollywood crap to get your definition of "hero" or you can have a look and listen to these guys:

Iraq Veterans Against the War Speak Out

http://youtu.be/ABx4fG1ZJL4

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Americans getting distracted by a movie when their country is sinking into oblivion. Now we see why it is sinking into oblivion.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

San_Diegan, have you done that yourself? Signed: Combat Veteran, Vietnam (US Army), Beirut (USMC) Desert Storm (USMC), Timor (USMC), Iraq (Contractor), Afghanistan x2 (Contractor)

7 ( +9 / -2 )

'American Sniper' triggers angry debate'

Debate that needs to be had.

Because front and centre is U.S. Foreign Policy we know was driven by ignorance of local sensitivities, and the need to dominate the Iraqi political power bases accent toward *modernisation, as imperfect as it was.

All due to an irrational fear of a carbon energy shortage that was predicted by the Carter Administration. Who put in place public and foreign policies as strategic foresight which were subsequently wound back by reactionary thinkers in denial of political or environmental change on the planet.

Little has changed in 2015, the reactionaries in the North American elite are still just as recalcitrant.

The same level of ignorance to change is evident in the denial of the international scientific consensus on global warming and subsequent climate change. The North American right wing conservatives just keep using the same pig headed ignorant values over and over again. Righteously indignant if anyone has another perspective on their precious woldview.

There is no heroic way to kill others, it's just war.

The hero does extraordinary things like helping friends and enemies without thinking.

The sniper in this movie is just a metaphor for all the injustice and unfair advantages given by the technologically superior weapons in all wars during all of human history.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

When I went to the Gulf in the first war, I thought the people there were savages and were lucky we were there to save them. One can be brainwashed into thinking the other people on this planet are lesser than you and that you are doing a noble cause. Now, I feel just like Caputi. We get pulled into seeing things in black and white. You can't blame a lot of the people in that region for disliking us when all we've brought to them is war and pain which hd resulted in destruction for many and huge profits for a lot of Western companies.. I don't know if I can truly say Kyle is a hero but I understand how many view him that way, especially the ones who can gain something by waving his name on the American flag, if you get my meaning.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Recruitment propaganda. Scary thing is "89% liked it" on Rotten Tomatoes. I've heard some people in the US saying they wanted to walk out but were too scared as they might be seen to be un-American.

There were signs Clint Eastwood was losing it when he had an imaginary conversation with Obama at that Republican convention.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

Rather than trying to define the sniper consider defining his victims. They were patriots. That's right. Patriots. They were patriots defending their country from invaders, who, incidentally, had no just reason to invade. They did what any of us would likely do if our country was invaded. The personality of Kyle is a secondary issue. The reason he was there is the primary issue. Who or whatever Kyle was, his role as a killer of patriots was not an admirable one. Would any American call a British sniper in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 a hero? I think not.

5 ( +14 / -9 )

The guy himself sounds like a standard moron bigot, standard mold as the others, however I wouldn't ever call him a coward unless he was deliberately killing unarmed civilians, etc.

All I know is that Clint Eastwood is the man

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

(Kyle) expressed only pride about his war record and his targeting of what he called “savages.”

Objectifying victims rationalizes killing, maiming, raping. He's a savage - he deserved it. She's a slut - she was asking for it.

"this sickness of the soul might well be called the 'Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.' Its more conventional name, of course, is dehumanization."

Montagu, A., and Matson, F. (1983) The dehumanization of man. McGraw-Hill

12 ( +16 / -4 )

The guy himself sounds like a standard moron bigot

It seems to me he was a remarkable man, but that's not the problem with the film.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

There are 3 topics you don't talk about in the US: religion, politics, and war. It is such a sensitive topic and so much brainwashing over these past 15 years,,, Much safer to talk about sex and sports.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Whatever Kyle was in Iraq, he certainly tried to help his military brothers afterward. Like it or not he did his job as a soldier. Hero, I say yes. He became very good at what he did and if not for many of his actions body counts may have been quite a bit higher. As for attitude, I think one would need to develope some degree of bitterness otherwise, your mental and or physical condition would be compromised.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I voted for Obama, twice, and saw this film on its first day in wide release, and wanted to stand up and cheer at the end. As any vet will tell you, you do not fight necessarily for the "cause", you fight for the guys you serve with. OK, Iraq, was a mess, It was ugly, and faught for illegitimate reasons. But does that make what Chris Kyle did -- which was save the lives of many of his fellow soldiers any less "heroic"? That sounds like an argument that I am all too familiar with, since I served during Nam. Which is maybe why I could relate so well to the movie and the theme, although could in no way relate to Chris' personal heroism. Politics and political-correctness should not define what constitutes a hero. Doesn't Japan rightfully revere and honor its heroes from WWII, even though they "lost"?

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

America's FALSE Pride Propoganda !

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I think calling snipers "cowards" is wrong, as is some of the other commentary criticizing the movie, but you canNOT deny that it also serves as propaganda to glorify the invasion of and aw in Iraq, as well as war in general, and to justify the American military's actions specifically. I mean, come on!:

"“The movie gives America something it’s lacked since the start of the war—a war hero on a truly national, cultural scale,” David French wrote."

tHAT is disgusting!

6 ( +14 / -8 )

The only cure for guilt is denial.

Denying the context of 'Sniper' seems the complaint. When falsified documents were created to make the case for 'yellow cake' and a CIA operative was betrayed because her husband revealed that falsehood and Iraq was invaded because of talcum powder in Powell's anthrax proof the context of 'Sniper' is best forgotten. It's far too complex for a Clint Eastwood production.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

He became very good at what he did and if not for many of his actions body counts may have been quite a bit higher.

The body count was apparently much higher because of him.

Or do you only count the casualties suffered by the Americans and not those of the Iraqis?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Warmongering propaganda.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

Whatever Kyle was in Iraq, he certainly tried to help his military brothers afterward. Like it or not he did his job as a soldier. Hero, I say yes. He became very good at what he did and if not for many of his actions body counts may have been quite a bit higher. As for attitude, I think one would need to develope some degree of bitterness otherwise, your mental and or physical condition would be compromised.

I agree. I do view Kyle as a hero and all of our men and women that die for us, despite whatever the political reason is, they don't call the shots or make the choices, they do their missions as given and instructed to them and I can't fault any service man for that and all the more reason why I admire and have the deepest respect for them. These guys in no way should be held responsible for the missions they were ordered to undertake, now if people have a problem with certain policies and how they are executed, I don't have a problem with debating those points. There is much more depth and complexity to these guys lives, we can't begin to understand, especially what goes on before, during and after in a snipers mind.

-9 ( +8 / -17 )

There is much more depth and complexity to these guys lives

Apparently so:

Clint Eastwood was caught in a trap: His subject, murdered Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, lied a lot. In his autobiography, he said he killed two carjackers in Texas, sniped looters during Hurricane Katrina, and punched Jesse Ventura in the face. None of that was true.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_movie_club/features/2014/the_movie_club_2014/worst_movies_of_2014_american_sniper_glosses_over_chris_kyle_s_lies.html

6 ( +7 / -1 )

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Now you're quoting the Slate? Might as well said it came from Think Progress. What a load of crap, but as usual nothing that they print surprises me. They do need to sell a lot of papers, so whatever works for them, I guess.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Sarah Palin castigating “Hollywood leftists.”

“God bless our troops, especially our snipers,” she wrote.

Thank you Sarah for as always, your insightful and intelligent comments. Where would we be without you?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

What a load of crap, but as usual nothing that they print surprises me

b4f,

Did Chris Kyle kill two Texas carjackers, snipe 30 looters in New Orleans, and punch Jesse Ventura? Is it:

A. Yes he did; or

B. No, he didn't.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

they don't call the shots or make the choices, they do their missions as given and instructed to them

Pretty sure that was William Calley's defense.

You can justify anything if you just kick the responsibility for the decision up the chain.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

the guy kills almost three hundred iraqis and is celebrated when WE ARE THE INVADERS

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@Jcapan

As if Taibbi would know anything about war. Whatever. The man is a good reporter, I respect him especially on the stories he did on and about Wall St. but on this, he's nuts. Matt should comment on things he knows about about and war isn't one of them. So what he thinks on the issue is irrelevant. He needs to sit down next to Moore and Rogan and chill a bit.

“God bless our troops, especially our snipers,” she wrote.

Thank you Sarah for as always, your insightful and intelligent comments. Where would we be without you?

Bless her. As long as she can remain a sore in the progressives eyes, she's alright by me.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Havent seen the flick but will when I get a chance. I expect it will have its propaganda type bits, hopefully it does provoke thought on the Iraq War second time round.

I think what the US desperately needs to do is admit the entire idea & execution of the 2nd Iraq War was to absolute mistake, pretty much the entire world saw it, rightfully as such, it was so painfully obvious!

So clearly The Bush administration are the ones that need to answer for this colossal mistake. I mean Rumsfeld & Cheney & their crew.............................The people of the US should be clamouring for their heads(figuratively speaking)! It was they who cooked up this mess & STUPID idea that getting Sadam(I didn't like him at all, but clearly in hind sight he was better than the current Iraq! Best of the worst perhaps) out would bring about this wonderful NEW IRAQ was sheer lunacy.

And the results........... how many American men & women have died, families suffered, torn apart TOTALLY in vain! And when you add the death & destruction of Iraq that continues to play out now..............it should be obvious who was wrong, it seems the US can never the lessons that SHOULD have been learnt in Vietnam, but alas.

Hopefully this flick will help Americans realize just what was wrong with Iraq round two..............wishful thinking likely!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

i think this is another indication of how the US is becoming amore and more militarised state on an almost permament war footing. The military are more and more seen as the standard bearers of US culture and values. not that I think that makes Kyle a coward. Clint Eastwood may be a bit of a rightwinger but he is one of my movie heroes. and I find michael Moore to be an overblown windbag. so overall I'm with Clint - for that purely unscientific and illogical reason.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I'd be more than happy to tell you that it was an illegitimate war. Unfortunately for most of us here who are SITTING in front of a PC, we did NOT go out there and protest for George W. Bush's head.

Now for those of you who are throwing around the word "coward" I'm here to tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. Our movie hero Kyle is definitely the wrong tree. Don't call him a "coward". Go straight to the source!

George W. Bush is the "coward". The U.S always knew that a ground force invasion was going to be a piece of cake. George W. Bush knew they had no WMDs.

He started that war because of; 1: Oil

He wanted to impress his daddy. (Look Pa) 3: He's in league with the weapons industry. 4: He got the taxpayers to pay for moving all that merchandise overseas. As most of you should know we left it there with the highest bidder. 5: He's a coward.

So if you are going to call anybody a coward point your finger in the right direction. Sitting at a desk sending men and women to peril while you relax in the White House is being a coward.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

“As if Taibbi would know anything about war. Whatever. The man is a good reporter, I respect him especially on the stories he did on and about Wall St. but on this, he's nuts. Matt should comment on things he knows about about and war isn't one of them.” Absurd reasoning. The same old trick always used to silence dissent. Yet known war expert Sarah Palin gets youre praise? I know, it would be great though if only people who revere war-making were allowed to discuss it, none of us hippy critics. And the topic of his piece was a war movie. He also touches on the horribly corrupt politics that led to that deeply misguided war and then about how Hollywood turns war stories into entertainments devoid of politics. “That doesn't mean Vietnam Veterans didn't suffer: they did, often terribly. But making entertainment out of their dilemmas helped Americans turn their eyes from their political choices. The movies used the struggles of soldiers as a kind of human shield protecting us from thinking too much about what we'd done in places like Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos.”

Ever read Tim O’Brien, the Vietnam vet who has translated his experiences into some of the best books written on the subject? He wrote this about what war stories should be and it’s exactly the opposite of what Eastwood (and nearly all of H-wood) has done:

“A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things they have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil.”

4 ( +5 / -1 )

"Critics on the left have slammed the popular film as an attempt to whitewash the history of the American occupation of Iraq and say the subject of the movie, former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, deserves no hero treatment for his handiwork as a deadly sniper."

No doubt. These critics on the left don't appreciate the hard men like Chris Kyle who risk their lives to protect their right to say stupid stuff like this.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

I don't understand how you can glorify a killer.

“God bless our troops, especially our snipers,”

And that's coming from someone with strong Christian values.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Cognitive disonance...

12 ( +14 / -2 )

You want to see a really good film about snipers? Try "Enemy at the Gates".

6 ( +6 / -0 )

we did NOT go out there and protest for George W. Bush's head

I did. I strongly protested the invasion before it happened, when the media was pushing the White House-driven narrative with every ounce of strength.

Weren't too many of us doing that in 2002 or 2003.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

No doubt. These critics on the left don't appreciate the hard men like Chris Kyle who risk their lives to protect their right to say stupid stuff like this.

Serrano: perhaps you could enlighten us as to how our right to free speech was being threatened by the Iraqi regime? it may have been a country run by a deeply unpleasant man, but the secular state posed no threat to the West. The actions of the allied forces (Kyle among them) have helped create that threat.

You do not have to be on the left to think this - simply a realist with a basic understanding of foreign affairs.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I am not alone in saying that, as a veteran, I find fault with the movie, although it has its good points, as well.

Snipers are a fact of warfare. Both sides in any conflict will have them. It is not an easy task to perform, but then, just being a soldier is difficult.

My problem with the movie is the needless proselytizing that Mr. Eastwood decided to engage in. According to the words repeatedly spoken in the movie, the USA went into Iraq because of the 9/11 attacks. Those of us who were conscious during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq cannot help but remember the constant bombardment in the media from Bush, Cheney, and others in the Bush Administration, that the reason for the invasion was Saddam's supposed WMDs. They tried, rather weakly, to link Saddam to Bin Laden, but like the claims for WMDs, no proof was ever found or given.

Besides re-writing the historical reasons for the Iraq invasion, the movie overtly states that those who in any way question the motives for the invasion are weaklings. That is an insult to the many soldiers who did their duty, despite being disappointed in their leadership.

The movie also needlessly insults Iraqis and Muslims, basically giving out the message that all Muslims are enemies.

Over all, a very disappointing movie, although I suspect it accureately reflects Mr. Eastwood's view of the world.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

Hollywood in making "America are good guys and can do no wrong" movie shocker.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Wasn't the whole reason for the invasion to rid the country of WMDs? (Which didn't exist) We all know it was Dubya finishing off what his paw didn't in 1991.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"Serrano: perhaps you could enlighten us as to how our right to free speech was being threatened by the Iraqi regime? it may have been a country run by a deeply unpleasant man, but the secular state posed no threat to the West. The actions of the allied forces (Kyle among them) have helped create that threat.

You do not have to be on the left to think this - simply a realist with a basic understanding of foreign affairs."

I see you also have no appreciation for the hard men who risk their lives to protect your right to say that they helped create the threat that didn't exist??? You should re-read your post and then admit you're so wrong.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

While we are on the subject of Iraq, when are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Blair, et al., going to be brought to justice?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152879577490100&set=vb.95383500099&type=2&theater

0 ( +1 / -1 )

War is NOT PRETTY folks, people kill, snipers etc..this is what war is about. Why all of the surprise?? Kill from far away or kill in hand to hand combat or kill using drones, or etc..if this movie was about NINJAS would Americans be more accepting as compared to this guy on some roof top or waiting behind some bushes etc..?? Is it less HONORABLE?? Killing is killing folks.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I see you also have no appreciation for the hard men who risk their lives to protect your right to say that they helped create the threat that didn't exist??? You should re-read your post and then admit you're so wrong.

But you didn't answer the question, did you. How was the right to free speech was being threatened by the Iraqi regime?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Some Americans seem insane, blindly supporting this jingoistic cr@p.

They went into Iraq based on a lie... on a web of lies...

The rich American elite got richer on the back of this war.

Ordinary Americans died painful and pitiful deaths on Iraqi streets.

Countless more innocent Iraqis died.

It's all about money. The elite love a war... they get richer... they don't die though!

For a movie like this to paint a complex situation as good guys vs bad guys... it's just ridiculous.

How can Americans lap up this cr@p?!

I like American people... they are some of the nicest people I have met.

And so many clever people there...

Yet so many just let themselves be brainwashed by their own government and media... wtf?!

Forget that good guys vs bad guys crapola...

How about looking at the bad guys who got you into that mess... how about looking at how much power the military lobby has in America... how about spending all that money spent on weapons on helping ordinary Americans...

Great citique of this movie on vox.com right now. Well worth reading...

6 ( +8 / -2 )

My problem with the movie is the needless proselytizing that Mr. Eastwood decided to engage in. According to the words repeatedly spoken in the movie, the USA went into Iraq because of the 9/11 attacks. Those of us who were conscious during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq cannot help but remember the constant bombardment in the media from Bush, Cheney, and others in the Bush Administration, that the reason for the invasion was Saddam's supposed WMDs. They tried, rather weakly, to link Saddam to Bin Laden, but like the claims for WMDs, no proof was ever found or given.

1Glen -- respectfully, as a fellow vet, I disagree with you, for the very reasons you indicate. The Bush Administration, as you noted, kept up such a constant drumbeat -- including big-time help from media outlets like Fox News, that a majority of Americans did mistakenly believe that Iraq was somehow tied to 9/11 and/or at least had WMD. I mean even Hilary Clinton voted for the war. How do you expect Chris Kyle, I rodeo cowboy from Texas, to decide that he was fighting an "immoral cause"? Come on.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Hollywood is the most destructive weapon used against us. If you are not awake and in tune with reality then enjoy the brainwashing

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I was glad to see at least one veteran quoted in the article who could speak up against the movie and his ambivalent feelings. This isn't All Quiet On The Western Front or anything, but the lesson of that movie hasn't been lost even if he's never seen it. Too bad America still needs its propaganda films to cover up the lies that put them in Iraq to begin with, and the people who put them there. Actors and Directors can focus on a good story, but to ignore the petrified remains of the elephant in the room is a pretty glaring omission. Pretty sad what America is today and what it celebrates. The culture of the gun

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hollywood uses ‘American Sniper’ to destroy history & create myth http://rt.com/op-edge/224507-american-sniper-movie-usa/

Forgot to add my link to my previous post

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Bush Administration, as you noted, kept up such a constant drumbeat -- including big-time help from media outlets like Fox News, that a majority of Americans did mistakenly believe that Iraq was somehow tied to 9/11 and/or at least had WMD. I mean even Hilary Clinton voted for the war. How do you expect Chris Kyle, I rodeo cowboy from Texas, to decide that he was fighting an "immoral cause"? Come on.

As if Fox News influenced Bush to do anything. They did no more influencing him than Sharpton and msnbc influencing Obama as someone who worked for NBC I can tell you, the media at least when I was at the network didn't tow the line for any president, there are always reporters that admire or might favor a president for whatever reason, but unless they are on an opinionated talk show, their job is to just report the news and nothing else. We can go back and forth on the issue of 9/11 Bush, whatever. I was for the war, you weren't and leave it at that. You will always have people that were for and some that were against it. To me any person that served their country gets my greatest respect and gratitude. But I think to mock Kyle like that is very distasteful and low to say that about a fellow soldier. I personally have absolutely no problem with what he did.

Wasn't the whole reason for the invasion to rid the country of WMDs? (Which didn't exist) We all know it was Dubya finishing off what his paw didn't in 1991.

We don't know that for sure, if there is a smoking gun that he said or was thinking that exactly is pure speculation, but what is not is that at least Saddam is gone, that is the main thing. No one misses the butcher of Baghdad. Good on him for that.

Absurd reasoning.

How so? That's how I feel. I'm entitled to feel the way I want.

The same old trick always used to silence dissent. Yet known war expert Sarah Palin gets youre praise?

Hey, Equally you have Joe Biden that supposedly knows virtually everything. The left praise him

I know, it would be great though if only people who revere war-making were allowed to discuss it, none of us hippy critics. And the topic of his piece was a war movie.

So when have you ever seen a soldier in a Hippy movie?

He also touches on the horribly corrupt politics that led to that deeply misguided war and then about how Hollywood turns war stories into entertainments devoid of politics.

That's why I love my country so much, we have the freedom of choice and to watch what we want and if I want to watch a Woody Allen movie I can do that as well.

“That doesn't mean Vietnam Veterans didn't suffer: they did, often terribly. But making entertainment out of their dilemmas helped Americans turn their eyes from their political choices. The movies used the struggles of soldiers as a kind of human shield protecting us from thinking too much about what we'd done in places like Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos.”

If you don't like war movies, you have the absolute right to watch something else, obviously you and many others that think like you are wrong, the movie already picked up a several Academy Award Nominations and broke the box office record. It did $90.2 million in ticket sales which is NOT shabby at all, in fact, it's better than good.

Ever read Tim O’Brien, the Vietnam vet who has translated his experiences into some of the best books written on the subject? He wrote this about what war stories should be and it’s exactly the opposite of what Eastwood (and nearly all of H-wood) has done:

No, but I will check it out, I love a good read and enjoy hearing different perspectives on issues like these.

“A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things they have always done.

That depends on what the underlying message is and if you think the movie glorifies war, then you are wrong, the movie is more about Kyle, the aftermath and the trails and tribulation that come with war.

If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil.”

Thanks for your opinion. I though thought it was a great movie, great man.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

In the future, Iraqis will use this movie to teach their children why they hate Americans.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Popular entertainment requires box office. Mr. Eastwood isn't the World Court. He's an expert in what makes box office.

Is anyone actually surprised a positive spin on a complete disaster with war profiteers driving the narrative and a President who couldn't bother to show up for work, not the first time, is somehow not going to need a red carpet reboot?

That red carpet is rolling across the deserts of the Middle East and Africa and straight into the green zone of Hollywood bank accounts because no one wants to be bothered with parsing who knew what and when. That's not Hollywood's job. Hollywood's job is to make a decent buck off fantasy and no one is going to tell Americans what fantasy helps them feel better, except a canny marketing department and Mr. Eastwood's deft touch.

Is 'Sniper' "All the President's Men"? No. It's what Hollywood does, an especially Mr. Eastwood. It panders to half truths wrapped in slogans the audience isn't challenged by and can easily accept and cheer for.

That's why there was such a big audience for the BushWars, Written and Directed by Dick Cheney. Where's Mr. Cheney's Oscar? Bush/Cheney wove the biggest fantasy in American history from more lies and sham patriotism than "Triumph of the Will".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They don't need the movie to motivate them to hate. As recent events have shown. ISIS and the radicals could care less where you are from. You're still an infidel. Equal opportunity terrorists.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Reference: Compare 'Sniper', BushWars, 'Triumph of the Will'

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-triumph-of-the-will-1935

Riefenstahl's propaganda isn't directly analogous to Mr. Eastwood's work, but it is deliciously comparable to Cheney's BushWars. Enjoy.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I am a Vietnam Vet, and find this propaganda film disgusting. No, I cannot bring myself to watch more than the rushes. But self-righteous violence is always the hallmark of little minds with big egos and no Humanity.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If Michael Moore hates it, I',, probably like it. I consider Michael Moore an ignorant ass. I don't know, however, that I'm comfortable making a hero of basically a cold blooded killer. It's a job I know is necessary, a job that has to be done. But any sniper is not putting his life at risk, which is one hallmark, I think, of a hero. Knowing that your life's on the line and stepping out and doing it anyway. A sniper's just a good shot, not a hero. Evidently, however, America is filled with so many people who blindly hate any and all Muslims that anyone who kills Muslims is seen as a hero. Sad, really.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Popular entertainment requires box office. Mr. Eastwood isn't the World Court. He's an expert in what makes box office.

At the end of the day, it's still a movie,

Is anyone actually surprised a positive spin on a complete disaster with war profiteers driving the narrative and a President who couldn't bother to show up for work, not the first time, is somehow not going to need a red carpet reboot?

No one is surprised and people don't have to watch it, the few people on JT that didn't like it are in the minority and that's fine, Who are you to say, what is good or not? If someone likes it, fine, if not, that is ok as well.

That red carpet is rolling across the deserts of the Middle East and Africa and straight into the green zone of Hollywood bank accounts because no one wants to be bothered with parsing who knew what and when. That's not Hollywood's job.

Who are you to say what Hollywood can do or what it can't?

Hollywood's job is to make a decent buck off fantasy and no one is going to tell Americans what fantasy helps them feel better, except a canny marketing department and Mr. Eastwood's deft touch.

Apparently, you don't seem to understand that making movies is an art form and how they achieve that through recreation and reenactment and to try to capture something historical or to simulate a certain time period or social situation is truly a difficult and not an easy thing to accomplish and as with any art, it is completely subjective. There are people that like Moore's movies, I find them trashy, some like horror, some love, love stories, some like documentaries and fiction or non fiction, we are all different. And one way you can tell what the masses like is through ticket sales and demand. This movie is breaking the record, so what? You have the power of the purse and if you don't want to support the movie, don't go and see it. But don't condemn others that want to see it. We all have different tastes and that should be respected,

Is 'Sniper' "All the President's Men"? No. It's what Hollywood does, an especially Mr. Eastwood. It panders to half truths wrapped in slogans the audience isn't challenged by and can easily accept and cheer for.

You weren't there when Eastwood made the movie and you didn't see who was on the set, who helped advise him what was true or not what was said or supposedly how a conversation was, the audience doesn't need to be challenged on anything, it's entertainment, a movie based on the life of Kyle and that's all it was. Remember: it is not a town hall meeting where they take Q and A.

That's why there was such a big audience for the BushWars, Written and Directed by Dick Cheney. Where's Mr. Cheney's Oscar? Bush/Cheney wove the biggest fantasy in American history from more lies and sham patriotism than "Triumph of the Will".

Ok, now you are going into bizarre territory.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Propaganda films like these only fan the flames of division and promote an US vs Them thought process. Only Hollywood, right-wing fanatics and military suppliers profit. As an American, I am ashamed that we are still doing this. And I think a lot of Americans are as well, that is why there is a huge debate over it in the States. SMH at you Clint Eastwood. Go back and talk to the chair.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7859791/american-sniper-iraq

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass

They do need to sell a lot of papers,

Slate doesn't sell papers. It's an online magazine.

when have you ever seen a soldier in a Hippy movie?

Hair (1979) -- I'm sure you'll love it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Propaganda films like these only fan the flames of division and promote an US vs Them thought process.

Oh, please, I'm from LA, it will only divide the Hollywood looney left, the libs just don't like it because the movie is doing so well at a time when the ME is completely falling apart. King Abdullah is dead a major ally (who actually couldn't stand Obama which was reported by none other than my former employer NBC and reporter Richard Engel (No surprise there) and the Yemeni president is under House arrest and wait until our troops leave Afghanistan, it'll get only worse and this president not only doesn't care and is incognito when it comes to the issue, but Obama does take his priorities very serious. When you snub the PM of Israel and take high priority to interview a woman that loves to bathe in a tub of milk and Fruit Loops, you have some very serious disturbing mental philosophical issues.

Only Hollywood, right-wing fanatics and military suppliers profit.

So now, if I support a Moore movie, I'm a patriot, but if I support Eastwood, I'm a fanatic? ROFL Please, try again.

As an American, I am ashamed that we are still doing this.

As an American, Im proud, and I hope, dearly hope the trend continues.

And I think a lot of Americans are as well, that is why there is a huge debate over it in the States. SMH at you Clint Eastwood. Go back and talk to the chair.

The exact opposite can be said as well, because if you were right, the movie wouldn't have even remotely made it out of the stall and apparently there are more people that supported it than I previously thought, good for them. Keep it up and Americans shouldn't be ashamed of supporting the movie, their troops or their hearts when it comes to their personal beliefs.

Slate doesn't sell papers. It's an online magazine.

Hey, I'm older and I'm still not used to this paperless thing, it happens. But I appreciate the reminder.

Hair (1979) -- I'm sure you'll love it.

No, I preferred Apocalypse Now (1979)

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

To me any person that served their country gets my greatest respect and gratitude. But I think to mock Kyle like that is very distasteful and low to say that about a fellow soldier. I personally have absolutely no problem with what he did.

bass -- I think you misunderstood the direction of my comment. I agree with you, and not with 1DGlen, that the fact that the Bush Administration about the connection between 9/11 and the Iraq War makes what Chris Kyle did any less heroic. You are right, I was against the war. But, as I said in an earlier post, I wanted to stand up and cheer for Chris Kyle at the end of the movie. Like yourself, I consider him a true hero.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Oh, please, I'm from LA, - Who are you to say, what is good or not? - Who are you to say what Hollywood can do or what it can't?" - from comments

Funny how living in LA makes everyone a bloody expert on everything. Funny how everyone is allowed to say what is good or bad, in free societies. Funny how no one is lecturing Hollywood or telling them what to do or not do, (except the Republican Party).

Comparing BushWars, Written and Directed by Dick Cheney, as it wove the biggest fantasy in American history from more lies and sham patriotism to "Triumph of the Will" is half the fun in an obvious critique of 'Sniper'. Far from bizarre, it's a useful bit of satire.

Eastwood makes plenty of simplified moral plays. American audiences love that. 'Might makes right', 'the good guy wins', 'gets the girl', 'mistakes were made', 'sorry, but we go on'. That's not a knock. Movies are a great escape.

Eastwood isn't doing evil. He's got a red hot hit and no one's looking for subtlety or nuance, they just want to feel better about the real life disaster of BushWars. Films can help with that and make pretty good bank. Who's harmed?

No film is going to undo the Iraq disaster, that also isn't Hollywood's job. So, they're pretty much sticking to the script and making a hero fantasy tale from the scrap heap of tragedies in Iraq. That gets jackasses in the seats. Kudos.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass

is incognito when it comes to the issue

Do you mean ignorant? Or does Obama sport a fake mustache, toupee, and trench coat when dealing with Middle East issues?

Hey, I'm older and I'm still not used to this paperless thing, it happens.

Slate has always been a paperless thing. For 18 years.

I preferred Apocalypse Now (1979)

I agree with you there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Funny how living in LA makes everyone a bloody expert on everything.

The left in Hollywood sure do think that, that's for darn sure!

Funny how everyone is allowed to say what is good or bad, in free societies. Funny how no one is lecturing Hollywood or telling them what to do or not do, (except the Republican Party).

But it's ok for liberals to criticize Conservative directors. Double standards, of course NOT.

Comparing BushWars, Written and Directed by Dick Cheney, as it wove the biggest fantasy in American history from more lies and sham patriotism to "Triumph of the Will" is half the fun in an obvious critique of 'Sniper'. Far from bizarre, it's a useful bit of satire.

You keep repeating that, so where is your outrage about Obama and his war in Afghanistan, who had more people killed in the first 3 years of Bush's 8 years? Surely, you must despise him as well, right?

Eastwood makes plenty of simplified moral plays. American audiences love that. 'Might makes right', 'the good guy wins', 'gets the girl', 'mistakes were made', 'sorry, but we go on'. That's not a knock. Movies are a great escape.

"Movies are a great escape." You said it, so you should take it with a grain of salt, watch it or don't and enjoy your life.

Eastwood isn't doing evil. He's got a red hot hit and no one's looking for subtlety or nuance, they just want to feel better about the real life disaster of BushWars. Films can help with that and make pretty good bank. Who's harmed?

I think there is so much stuff happening in America with Obama, foreign policy in ruins, the middle class, Obama and the upcoming new premiums, their personal safety, radical Islam and with hearing all of the problems and how the president is being difficult on virtually every level, it's good to be able to get out and escape the world for a few hours and one way of doing that is to watch a movie and we have dozens of choices to choose from and this movie happened to hit home with a lot of people, it has nothing to do with feeling better about Bush. Leave your Bushsyndrome and put it aside, please.

No film is going to undo the Iraq disaster, that also isn't Hollywood's job.

They are not trying to do that. They don't need to, history will do that.

So, they're pretty much sticking to the script and making a hero fantasy tale from the scrap heap of tragedies in Iraq. That gets jackasses in the seats. Kudos.

Hey, Hollywood and our president is the expert on that for sure.

Do you mean ignorant? Or does Obama sport a fake mustache, toupee, and trench coat when dealing with Middle East issues?

No, I mean the man is incognito when it comes to dealing with radical Islam.

Slate has always been a paperless thing. For 18 years.

Good for them

I agree with you there

Who's says we can't agree on anything?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

"In the future, Iraqis will use this movie to teach their children why they hate Americans."

So most Iraqis hate Americans because of this movie. Really! ha ha ha ha lol

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

"In the future, Iraqis will use this movie to teach their children why they hate Americans."

So most Iraqis hate Americans because of this movie. Really! ha ha ha ha lol

Your conclusion doesn't make sense.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

DID i think the sniper is a Stalingrad movie. As time moves on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"In the future, Iraqis will use this movie to teach their children why they hate Americans."

"So most Iraqis hate Americans because of this movie. Really! ha ha ha ha lol"

"Your conclusion doesn't make sense."

The first statement, "In the future, Iraqis will use this movie to teach their children why they hate Americans," is nonsense. If not for the Americans, the Iraqis would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein or one of his sons.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The first statement, "In the future, Iraqis will use this movie to teach their children why they hate Americans," is nonsense.

Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that your conclusion from that comment didn't logically follow the comment itself.

If not for the Americans, the Iraqis would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein or one of his sons.

And at peace. It's pretty hard to argue (logically) that things are better for the Iraqis as a result of American interference in Iraq.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Strangerland

You sure Iraq would be at peace if the U.S. hadn't kicked out Saddam? Try to remember that Saddam started the long Iran-Iraq war, invaded Kuwait, gassed the Kurds...

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You sure Iraq would be at peace if the U.S. hadn't kicked out Saddam?

Well no, I don't have a time machine that lets me slip in and out of alternate timelines to see how things would have been 'otherwise'. But I do know that Saddam ruled with an iron fist, and the country was stable and at peace - until the Americans came in. Now it's an absolute mess.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@bass4funk. Whatever, dude. You think what you want to think! I will think what I want to think. LMFAO!!!!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Fair enough. ROFL

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

San_Diegan, have you done that yourself? Signed: Combat Veteran, Vietnam (US Army), Beirut (USMC) Desert Storm (USMC), Timor (USMC), Iraq (Contractor), Afghanistan x2 (Contractor)

M (NS, GSOH, into Californians) seeks tough guy M for LTR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, they're pretty much sticking to the script and making a hero fantasy tale from the scrap heap of tragedies in Iraq. That gets jackasses in the seats. Kudos.

KCJapan -- what a foolish comment. First off, my guess is that you have not even seen the movie, but have chosen to pass judgement on it anyway. Second, you, along with the Michael Moore's and Seth Grogan's of the world, have decided to use the fim to make political statements that have no bearing at all on this story of a single individual called to serve during this time of turmoil in our country, and the world. Finally, I take personal offense at your characterizing people who see this film as "jackasses". I happen to be friendly with a number of American servicemen and women who served in Iraq, and wanted to see it, if for no other reason, to try to better understand what they had to deal with there.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It is often difficult to tell what is foolish. Many have detailed the foolhardiness and fecklessness of Cheney's War President. Others have pointedly referenced Mr. Eastwood's recent film on matters of context, e.g. the rationale behind the Iraq occupation. Still others march lock step with the comforts of country first and my country right or wrong. There is no attempt to determine "foolishness" in Mr. Eastwood's film, that isn't Mr. Eastwood's purpose in 'Sniper'.

Hero fantasy tales have their place. Acknowledging the truth about Iraq as a vast field of tragedy also has its place. Taking something personally has its place. Lionizing a sniper who went to BushWars as a matter of choice, not a draft, has its place. Telling the story of America in Iraq has its place.

In a country that places the highest value on freedom, and the importance of the truth in that endeavour, there is nothing foolish in challenging oneself to understand Iraq. Mr. Eastwood isn't interested in that story and that isn't foolish, that is his absolute right and he seems to live with it very comfortably. Good for Mr. Eastwood.

For Further Study and Reference: a better understanding of Iraq can be found in the staggering account, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi. Contrasting Mr. Bugliosi's researched and authoritative account will answer many questions in a factual review of the causes and actions that lead to the economic and moral disaster of BushWars. Those who fail to understand their history are condemned to repeat it. Mr. Eastwood isn't interested in that either and that is also his absolute right.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It is often difficult to tell what is foolish. Many have detailed the foolhardiness and fecklessness of Cheney's War President. Others have pointedly referenced Mr. Eastwood's recent film on matters of context, e.g. the rationale behind the Iraq occupation. Still others march lock step with the comforts of country first and my country right or wrong. There is no attempt to determine "foolishness" in Mr. Eastwood's film, that isn't Mr. Eastwood's purpose in 'Sniper'.

So now we are trying to psychoanalyze what's in Eastwood's head? Give it up, dude. You're taking it all too seriously.

Lionizing a sniper who went to BushWars as a matter of choice, not a draft, has its place. Telling the story of America in Iraq has its place.

He did what he was supposed to do, got the bad guys and protected his men. Good on him for doing a brave and noble act.

Mr. Eastwood isn't interested in that story and that isn't foolish, that is his absolute right and he seems to live with it very comfortably. Good for Mr. Eastwood.

So you think you know more about war and what Eastwood went through or the connections and people he's spoken with or interviewed?

Those who fail to understand their history are condemned to repeat it. Mr. Eastwood isn't interested in that either and that is also his absolute right.

I hope you scrutinize Obama and hold him to the same accountability. How dare he drone strikes these terrorists, not even arresting them, just shooting them from the skies. Where is your outrage?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Outrage is a luxury, reason is a reward for hard work.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@bassfunk. You are the exact reason why I don't debate right-wing fanatics anymore. You don't listen at all or try to understand another thought process at all. No, no, no. You are only thinking about how to attack instead of how to understand if you could be wrong. You just sling mud and do what every right wingers does;

What about Obama? What about Obama?

You are not here to debate. You are to here dictate and no matter what anyone ever shows you, you will never change your mind at all because you are too busy trying to be right. Now, that is my last word on the matter.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In reading the VOX review of 'Sniper' at Jan. 24, 2015 - 08:58AM one has a broad and comprehensive understanding of good critique technique and a better understanding of what "We were right, they were wrong,” Rieckhoff wrote of in Variety as referenced in the article.

Any serious student of film, or propaganda for that matter, has what amounts to an organizational template for effective film review and rational analysis of the flowing affect cinema has on it's audience. The reader achieves a far better understanding of how Mr. Eastwood's work doesn't polarize an audience but compresses it into acceptance of his premise. Warning: Do not read the article before seeing the picture.

After having the film experience read the VOX review and pay special attention to the reproduced 'Tweets', they tell more about the audience 'Sniper' was designed for and the effectiveness of Mr. Eastwood's well practiced constructions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There were 2 Snipers, One becomes national HERO in America and other becomes ENEMY of the World.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You are the exact reason why I don't debate right-wing fanatics anymore.

Because they don't the progressive liberal line?

You don't listen at all or try to understand another thought process at all. No, no, no.

I feel the exact same way about a lot, a lot of liberals.

You are only thinking about how to attack instead of how to understand if you could be wrong.

Nothing wrong. It's a movie, it was a great movie IMHO. I'm just defending my right as an American, I liked it, you will not change that and if you didn't like it for whatever political reason, it's fine by me, you have that right. But for some reasons when people don't stand shoulder to shoulder with Libs and tow the line, you are seen as the Devil. You think what you want, I'll do the same.

You just sling mud and do what every right wingers does;

You mean NOT having a monolithic thought process? I guess, good on me then.

What about Obama? What about Obama?

He's the worst.

You are not here to debate. You are to here dictate and no matter what anyone ever shows you, you will never change your mind at all because you are too busy trying to be right. Now, that is my last word on the matter.

Actually, NO. I'm not trying to be anything, but I won't be bullied into thinking that what I think and believe is wrong, that's my biggest objection. You can believe what you and so can I. And that's my last word on the issue.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Because they don't the progressive liberal line?

Don't you mean if they don't tow the right wing line?

I feel the exact same way about a lot, a lot of liberals.

Funny that is exactly what I think of the right wing as well.

But for some reasons when people don't stand shoulder to shoulder with Libs and tow the line, you are seen as the Devil.

Even funnier because it just happens to be how the right wing acts. Remember that famous line by republicans? "If you are not for us you are against us?"

You mean NOT having a monolithic thought process? I guess, good on me then.

The fact thing that I would call the right wing though process.

He's the worst.

Ah, that guy that came before him who opened Pandora's Box is not the worst? Just goes to show how much the right wing will take responsibility for........ nothing at all and blame the guy from the other party! Funny. The doomsday prophecies of your right wing did not come true. Actually doing a lot better than under Bush any time ever.

but I won't be bullied into thinking that what I think and believe is wrong, that's my biggest objection.

WOW. I mean seriously. WOW. Seems like you have been bullying everyone else on this thread into either accepting your side of things or getting people to shut up. Yeah, I would say that you have done a great deal of bullying here. I just made a fe simple comments and you went on a diatribe about how wrong I was.

Typical, typical. Just like the right.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Don't you mean if they don't tow the right wing line?

No, I meant, LEFT WING line.

Funny that is exactly what I think of the right wing as well.

Well, we are opposites, got that out of the way, now we can move on. No need to bicker. I know where you stand and you know where I stand, leave it at that.

Even funnier because it just happens to be how the right wing acts. Remember that famous line by republicans? "If you are not for us you are against us?"

The interesting thing is, at least the Republicans don't dither and flop when it comes to spitting out the words radical Islamists, if Hollande and Cameron can say it, define what it is, what makes this president different? Is he afraid the alienate the Muslim community, is he afraid they won't like us? They will not call it for what it is and when asked the WH secretary always gives the worst excuses, so bad, it's just painful to watch. Or is he afraid to commit to something, so he would rather stick his head in the sand and pretend that all of this killing is not taking place, but he has time to interview 3 dimwitted nuts from Youtube? Jeez, this guy is just an embarrassment all over!

The fact thing that I would call the right wing though process.

If that were true, there wouldn't a lot of infighting going on in the party between the Tea party, moderates, established and the rhinos.

Ah, that guy that came before him who opened Pandora's Box is not the worst? Just goes to show how much the right wing will take responsibility for........ nothing at all and blame the guy from the other party!

As I recall, the Dems are the party that keeps blaming Bush for everything and when did his majesty Obama ever take responsibility or accountability for anything? Seriously!

Funny. The doomsday prophecies of your right wing did not come true. Actually doing a lot better than under Bush any time ever.

If that were only true. On the surface, Yes. But once you peel that onion back, you find a litany of lies, misleading facts about what really is going on in the country.

WOW. I mean seriously. WOW. Seems like you have been bullying everyone else on this thread into either accepting your side of things or getting people to shut up.

Actually, No, I did not. Please don't mislead and make up stuff. I merely said, I liked the movie and I think that Kyle was a hero as I do all the men and women that served and some here attacked me for having that point of view. I am allowed to think what I what. If you think otherwise about Kyle, the movie etc. It's cool with me and NO sweat off my back. But if everyone here can say their opinion and dislike mine, I can say the opposite as well.

Yeah, I would say that you have done a great deal of bullying here. I just made a fe simple comments and you went on a diatribe about how wrong I was.

And you didn't go on a diatribe attacking me?

Typical, typical. Just like the right.

Only 653 more days until the madness of Obama comes to a close.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The most used technique in film review is repetition. "Best Picture Ever!" "It Was Better Than Cats!" "Suburb!"

In some exchanges constant game saying is amusing. Children enjoy a good game of "make me" or "I'm not, you are"; examples of the most common and useless wastes of time.

In reviewing Mr. Eastwood's work some also enjoy this exchange. Sadly, for adults, these are the fast forward parts. The tread mill of stupidity doesn't help understand Mr. Eastwood's work or more complex analysis, it's just quicksand for the mind. Enjoy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As I recall, the Dems are the party that keeps blaming Bush for everything and when did his majesty Obama ever take responsibility or accountability for anything? Seriously!

Well, that would be because Bush jr. was the worst president ever, who invaded a sovereign nation based on lies, and paid for it on the country credit card, while pushing policies that collapsed the economy, and Obama, one of the best presidents ever, has fixed the economy, brought the country to prosperity, achieved every goal laid out by republicans in their last campaign (with two years to go) and given the people health insurance (that even the 'pubs are admitting is working).

I'm surprised you'd even ask for that comparison.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well, that would be because Bush jr. was the worst president ever, who invaded a sovereign nation based on lies, and paid for it on the country credit card, while pushing policies that collapsed the economy,

Ok, so then how do you explain Obama's lies, when it comes to ISIS being on the run (that was the worst lie)and being responsible for the practical birth of it, being warned and NOT doing anything. Afghanistan is looking good and their army is ready to handle the Taliban. Whatever happened with Syria's red line, Benghazi, we still don't know what happened. Wanting to loosen sanctions on Iran, God knows why? Doesn't want to interrogate terrorists and gather pertinent intel, but rather drone and kill the Islamists, but that somehow makes it better? And if you want to talk about credit $18 Trillion revolving maybe?

and Obama, one of the best presidents ever,

In your opinion.

has fixed the economy, brought the country to prosperity,

You can declare prosperity when the wasteful spending stops. High paying jobs are available when 53% of college grads can get a good job, when the corporate tax is cut as well the capital gains tax get the Black unemployment rate down from over 10% then you can declare prosperity

achieved every goal laid out by republicans in their last campaign (with two years to go) and given the people health insurance (that even the 'pubs are admitting is working).

Yes and wait until their 2015 adjusted employee benefits come out and they see their premiums skyrocket the last thing they'll do is smile, in fact, they will lose their minds

I'm surprised you'd even ask for that comparison.

Because what you are saying is a one-sided liberal dream based on HALF truths.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

in this particular case we are talking about a racist bigot with blind hatred of all things Muslim and used his job with the military as an excuse to murder any person he thought might be on of the "evil muslims" - even the movie didn't make him out to be a hero, that was in the perception of the right wing "my country, right or wrong" crowd who believe that all Muslims are evil even though only a few extremists use the facade of religion as an excuse to cover their criminal behavior

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

" - even the movie didn't make him out to be a hero, that was in the perception of the right wing "my country, right or wrong" crowd" - Jim McBride - 05:52AM

The hero part, where did Mr. Eastwood cast any doubt on "Sniper's" heroism. Aside from all the rabid exchanges, it was very interesting where a case could be made that 'Sniper' was anything but a hero fantasy tale.

"There were 2 Snipers, One becomes national HERO in America and other becomes ENEMY of the World" - Gaijin Desi - 01:29PM

The best comment so far, brilliant.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@bass4funk Once again. You prove my point without even knowing it. You are the sad sick thing that has become of this country. So sad and pathetic; Now scurry off with no fact at all. You betray the country more than you know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in this particular case we are talking about a racist bigot with blind hatred of all things Muslim and used his job with the military as an excuse to murder any person he thought might be on of the "evil muslims" - even the movie didn't make him out to be a hero,

Where is your proof that in his heart deep down he was a Muslim hater? He may have hated the Islamists, but a racist? If you can prove that he was in fact a flat out racist, I would appreciate it.

that was in the perception of the right wing "my country, right or wrong" crowd who believe that all Muslims are evil even though only a few extremists use the facade of religion as an excuse to cover their criminal behavior

Really? A few extremists? Well, how about this? The majority of the moderate Muslims are not speaking out against these few radicals that have been causing havoc across the globe.

The hero part, where did Mr. Eastwood cast any doubt on "Sniper's" heroism. Aside from all the rabid exchanges, it was very interesting where a case could be made that 'Sniper' was anything but a hero fantasy tale.

Eastwood showed how Kyle's life was and the trails and tribulations he went through, whether he was a hero or villain depends on how you view the man and the movie is for you come up with your own interpretation.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The hero part: did Mr. Eastwood cast doubt on 'Sniper's' "heroism"? This is central to the supposed "angry debate".

"whether he was a hero or villain depends on how you view the man and the movie is for you come up with your own interpretation" - comments

Either Mr. Eastwood has created an Islamophobic bio-pic or there was an attempt at casting some subtly or nuance in the film portrayal of 'Sniper' and/or the BushWars context.

The film either has elements of pose and counter-pose or it is really more nearly propaganda. There is little here that suggests any balance or the appreciation of film as a complex message maker.

As comments have suggested; 'make of it what you will'. This is the same as either 'I don't care' or 'I don't know'. Both answers are the siblings of 'I can't be bothered'; the same viewpoint of the author of the real events. Time to get back on the treadmill.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Surprisingly, Whoopie Goldberg spoke out against the likes of Moore and Seth Rogen on "The View" when she said people all stood behind the movie "The Interview" when it was going to be pulled on the grounds of artistic freedom, so those people should also respect the rights of Clint Eastwood to make the films the way he wants.

Alphaape, you made a good point here.

Another one I want to focus on is the truth of Kyle's story. This movie is a character story, and who is the main character? Chris Kyle. As long as the movie stays true to who Chris Kyle was as a soldier and person, I believe I would call that a success, no matter how disagreeable or controversial the person or story is.

Essentially, this movie is not about what makes a hero, as many people have different views on what that is, but it's about portraying the character correctly. Hopefully, it manages to do that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass

If you can prove that he was in fact a flat out racist, I would appreciate it.

In his own book, Kyle wrote: “I hate the d$%& savages. I couldn’t give a flying f%$& about the Iraqis.”

Sounds pretty racist to me.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"In his own book, Kyle wrote: “I hate the d$%& savages. I couldn’t give a flying f%$& about the Iraqis. Sounds pretty racist to me.” - plasticmonkey - 09:31AM

That's your interpretation of "I hate the d$%& savages. I couldn’t give a flying f%$& about the Iraqis.”

One man's condemnation of an entire Nation is another's rationale for slaughtering innocent civilians. Pick a side and get off the treadmill someone else wants to dominate it. Guess who.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

plastic

In his own book, Kyle wrote: “I hate the d$%& savages. I couldn’t give a flying f%$& about the Iraqis.”

Sounds pretty racist to me.

Really? Where is the mention of race? I read the book and after three tries was finally able to see the movie today. Have you? Chris Kyle was no racist. The far Left is trying hard to tar him with something - anything - because he represents all they detest. A proud patriot who believes in his country and his fellow soldiers, sailors, and Marines. They are incapable of understanding all that an honorable man like Kyle represents. They refuse to understand the difficulties that military people go through and the types of sacrifices they make to do their jobs and come out alive. It's all so simple for armchair Generals to insist on the mindset people must have in order to survive under very difficult circumstances.

The Left's reaction to this movie is why America is so polarized today. It used to be that all American's could appreciate the sacrifices of a man like this. But for the past 50 years they expect war to be politically correct. The book and the movie does not deal with the politics of the war. That horse has been beaten to death by Hollywood for a decade. It's obvious that Liberals, Progressives, and the Left in general hate this man and his belief in his country. But it is fortunate for all of us that there is a huge number of Americans that have the utmost respect for all that he stands for. Sit back and fume at the success of this movie. That is your right living in a free country.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

No, I meant, LEFT WING line.

Not even close. The right wing screams bloody murder when all don't not fall in step, oh, I mean goose step. I was in the ARMY at one point in my life. After serving I was against the USA attacking Iraq, and I remember your ilk screaming that we were traitors if we did not agree to go to war. I remember how obnoxious the right wing was to anyone who did not agree to go to war under the lie that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I was there. I remember the RIGHT opening Pandora's box and you acting like it did not happen says nothing new. Convenient memories like the right are a sad thing. The right opened Pandora's box and now the worst things imaginable occur on a daily basis. As for Obama interviewing people that is just nonsense. He does not put gasoline on the fire. And at least he is working. If I remember right Bush spent three times more time off than Obama. Or have you conveniently forgotten that Bush took off more than 400 days off while president while Obama only took 125? Think about that if you will? 9/11 happened and Bush took more than 400 days off. Can you imagine if Obama had done that??? The right would have had a fit and called him a welfare president and every other thing that you could think of!!

Jeez, this guy is just an embarrassment all over!

Um, yes, for you he is. Because his name is what it is. That is the real issue here. Anyone who could call Obama an embarrassment after experiencing Bush has got their priorities wrong. Bust opened Pandora's box. Ruined the economy. Gave tax cuts for the rich under the guise that things would trickle down, of which, and of course anyone with common sense knew they would not. That guy was the worst embarrassment since his father. So many gaffes were made that could only be compared to Dan Quayle. Both were truly ignorant.

As I recall, the Dems are the party that keeps blaming Bush for everything and when did his majesty Obama ever take responsibility or accountability for anything? Seriously!

Ummmmm, yeah. Duh. Because he is responsible. He is the one who opened up Pandora's box on an outright lie. He is the one who ruined the economy. Hey, remember all those freedoms that the right is talking about Obama trampling on? Remember the moaning going on from the right? Um, was it not George Bush who went after our library books? Was it not Bush who said that it was necessary to see what everyone was checking out from the libraries? Yes, it was. See, you guys have no qualms with trampling over Americans when it is your party doing it, but you scream bloody murder when it is the Dems and result to childish name calling. Very, very hypocritical to say the least. And this nonsense of calling Obama "His Majesty" is just insane. You guys would have never put up with that if the left had done the same thing. NEVER, EVER. You would have called us UN AMERICAN and did so for far less. Be respectful to the president as I was to Bush. You guys would have never, ever stood for something so disrespectful, so how can you be so hypocritical and disrespectful to your country and the vote of the people. We the people, by the people, for the people VOTED HIM INTO THE PRESIDENCY!!! Show respect because you would demand nothing less than that for US!!!

Is he afraid the alienate the Muslim community, is he afraid they won't like us?

I am sorry, he is not as insensitive as you would like. There are many outstanding muslims in our community who do not need deserve alienation. And you should be ashamed to call yourself an American and suggest anything other than that. He better not alienate the muslim community. They are Americans just like you and I.

If that were true, there wouldn't a lot of infighting going on in the party between the Tea party, moderates, established and the rhinos.

Oh, this one makes me laugh. Truly laugh out loud. That is just an argument over who can be the most extreme. Not the more intelligent. THAT is just a pissing contest between one group who thinks they can appeal to the confused white crowd who feel that their lives suck because of the non-white crowd. Pure demagoguery for votes project. Stir things up for your own purpose nonsense. Make people feel alienated for your own political power. Most people who are not Republican get what that whining nonsense is all about. A boo hoo party so that people can feel good about themselves so that politicians can win power. We all get it who are non-republican.

Please don't mislead and make up stuff. I merely said, I liked the movie and I think that Kyle was a hero as I do all the men and women that served and some here attacked me for having that point of view. And you didn't go on a diatribe attacking me?

Only after you did. Only after you attacked me for my opinion just like you did jcjapan. Go back and look at yourself going after me for expressing my opinion.

Only 653 more days until the madness of Obama comes to a close

Yes, unfortunately so. GOD HELP US if we get a repugnican. It will be another four years before a Democrat can come in and fix things. After the first Bush there was Clinton. He unscrewed what the first Bush screwed over. And then Obama came and did the same thing after the second Bush came along and made it a legacy of screwing the country over. Thank God for elections. We can at least get rid of the Repugnican messes and their convenient memories that are created in the name of the wealthy.

The right never ever accepts responsibility unless the left HAS TO. Can never admit to opening Pandora's box on a lie. Thank God it was not the left who did that. If it had been you guys would have never, ever let that go. It is just so bizarre how the whole outrageous lies about the hunt for WMD's was and how little the right ever talks about it or admits it. Opened up Pandora's box and now we all have to deal with it. What do we hear for the biggest screw up in history? CRICKETS..... But if the left had done such a thing? There would have been hell to pay. HYPOCRITICAL to say the least.

Now, I will truly let that be my final words on the subject. A pure waste of time.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

sandiegoluv - 10:52AM

"Propaganda films like these only fan the flames of division and promote an US vs Them thought process."

Better to work the article than the comments.

Insight of Mr. Eastwood's work that is specific and personal to the viewer's experience is far more compelling than any brain quicksand trap. Sourcing the VOX review and specific illustrations can't be attacked and prove more substantial. Like the old timers used to say: 'Keep your power dry'. Appreciate the VOX link.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Thanks, KC. And noted. True that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wolfpack

Really? Where is the mention of race?

Savages? OK, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just that he hated every man, woman, and child in Iraq for the simple reason that they were Iraqi. That's so much more noble.

The far Left is trying hard to tar him with something - anything - because he represents all they detest.

Gimme a break. There are plenty of combat personnel who do their jobs admirably without detesting the people in whose country they are fighting (or, um, 'liberating'). I understand hating the enemy who is out to kill you. I do not respect holding that against innocents.

It's obvious that Liberals, Progressives, and the Left in general hate this man and his belief in his country.

Bull. What does 'belief in his country' mean anyway? Are we supposed to admire anybody who has an impressive kill record? Ultimately, that's what this story is about. It's not about heroes, even though Kyle may have been one. There are plenty of hero stories out there. It's about getting turned on because a member of Team USA kills a whole lot of 'bad guys'. And he thought it was 'fun'. Is that some patriotic virtue?

The book and the movie does not deal with the politics of the war.

Of course the movie does. It just pretends not to.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Great points, Plasticmonkey. Anyone who is not whipped into the demagoguery that permeates the soul of the right wing can agree to that.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As for Obama interviewing people that is just nonsense. He does not put gasoline on the fire.

He did with this one. All the networks shook their heads. That was just a complete disaster. On this one, he put kerosene on it.

And at least he is working.

That would be a first.

If I remember right Bush spent three times more time off than Obama. Or have you conveniently forgotten that Bush took off more than 400 days off while president while Obama only took 125? Think about that if you will?

Hmmm, after Foley was beheaded, your president 10 min. Later went back to the sand trap.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/us/politics/obama-the-nations-private-golfer-in-chief.html?_r=0

As far as 9/11, if you want to blame somebody start with Clinton, he was the one that HAD the opportunity and chose not to kill him.

The right would have had a fit and called him a welfare president and every other thing that you could think of!!

He IS the king of welfare. Welfare has been going up since Obama has been president. Now the real truth about Obama's America. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/4/obama-economy-welfare-dependency-peaks-as-rich-get/

Ummmmm, yeah. Duh. Because he is responsible. He is the one who opened up Pandora's box on an outright lie. He is the one who ruined the economy.

I forgot, Obama was in part responsible for racking up the deficit and guess what? It's still going up.

I am sorry, he is not as insensitive as you would like. There are many outstanding muslims in our community who do not need deserve alienation.

I never said they should be alienated, just the radical Islamists. And that's what the movie portrays Kyle as doing, killing the radicals. I don't have a problem with that.

And you should be ashamed to call yourself an American and suggest anything other than that. He better not alienate the muslim community. They are Americans just like you and I.

He should most definitely condemn radical Islam and push more for the moderates to take a stand 100%!

Bull. What does 'belief in his country' mean anyway? Are we supposed to admire anybody who has an impressive kill record?

Bad people, I most certainly do.

Ultimately, that's what this story is about. It's not about heroes, even though Kyle may have been one.

In other words, don't make any war movies OR they should be like "an Officer and a Gentleman." Something that makes the left feel good and just shun from the reality. If that's the kind of film you want to watch, go for it. At least in America, we have a choice and I personally hope more of these stories come out.

There are plenty of hero stories out there. It's about getting turned on because a member of Team USA kills a whole lot of 'bad guys'. And he thought it was 'fun'. Is that some patriotic virtue?

It's not about fun, it's more of an insight as to what these men go through and the sacrifices they made. I applaud them for that. It's guys like that gives us the right in this world to do exactly what we are doing now.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

it's more of an insight as to what these men go through and the sacrifices they made.

I understand that aspect of storytelling. It helps brings a traumatic experience 'home'. Empathy is more easily produced by appealing to people's sense of community, their own community. Kyle is an American sniper. That is not necessarily a bad narrative technique.

However, it seems to me that far too many thoughtful American war movies (and this one obviously tries to be thoughtful) focus on the hardships of the American side, the 'right' side, 'our' side, and forget about the other side. The suffering of the American military, that which has inflicted far more damage (right or wrong) than any other military in modern history, seems to receive a disproportionate amount of attention in film. It's a cliché that's gotten boring in my opinion.

But, hey, to each their own. Most people love a winner.

Personally I thought 'Das Boot' was a great war movie because it showed the humanity (good and bad) of those we are supposed to hate: a German U-boat crew out to sink our ships. And in the end, no one wins.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@BASS4FUNK Still unable to score a point in the world of common sense. I am ashamed to call you an American. Like I said before, you are the exact reason why I do not debate the right wing anymore. Emotion rules over logic and intellect. Do not attack people for their beliefs anymore. Do not start wars that you can not win. It is waste of time for you and more importantly for others who have more to do that to deal with your nonsense. Let people express their opinions without being bullied like you did me and JK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

However, it seems to me that far too many thoughtful American war movies (and this one obviously tries to be thoughtful) focus on the hardships of the American side, the 'right' side, 'our' side, and forget about the other side.

But nothing is wrong with that. If some director wants to make a movie from a jihadists POV I have problems with that, personally, I wouldn't care to see such a movie, But that's me. I understand why these guys do what they do and that's more than enough for me.

The suffering of the American military, that which has inflicted far more damage (right or wrong) than any other military in modern history, seems to receive a disproportionate amount of attention in film. It's a cliché that's gotten boring in my opinion.

I think there are a lot of people that praise and respect our military and want to know the insights as much as possible of what these men and women go through, but as you said, to each his own. Some people are bored with it, others not. It just depends on what you like or what you feel as important when it comes to war.

And yes, Das Boot was a very, very good movie. A true classic.

Still unable to score a point in the world of common sense.

Not trying to score anything, just expressing my POV just like you, that's all.

I am ashamed to call you an American.

If feel the same.

Like I said before, you are the exact reason why I do not debate the right wing anymore. Emotion rules over logic and intellect.

I never said anything unreasonable. I just said, I think that Kyle was a hero and I really liked the movie and you started jumping all over me for having a different POV.

Do not attack people for their beliefs anymore.

You are joking, right????

Do not start wars that you can not win. It is waste of time for you and more importantly for others who have more to do that to deal with your nonsense. Let people express their opinions without being bullied like you did me and JK.

Dude, you can say whatever you want and I shall do the same and if I enjoyed the movie and felt that Kyle is a hero, I have every right as a person to feel like that. It's OK. You also have the right to feel the way as you do, but I'm allowed to express my opinions, the same way you do. Enjoy.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@plastic

Savages? OK, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just that he hated every man, woman, and child in Iraq for the simple reason that they were Iraqi. That's so much more noble.

So I guess you have acceded that you have no basis for calling him a racist - that's good - we all make mistakes. But now you are saying, "he hated every man, woman, and child in Iraq". Care to give your rationale for making such a broad claim? He certainly never stated that. His focus was on fighting the people that were shooting at him and threatening the military personnel he was fighting with. You know, the same people that were cutting peoples heads off for PR purposes or blackmail, killing and mutilating Iraqi's who cooperated with the US, and for many other ridiculous reasons mostly attributed to their religious faith.

Take a look at this story: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/is-claims-it-executed-japanese-hostage

These are the same people - if not the exact same Islamic extremists - he was doing battle with.

Are these not savages? Are they not barbaric? Can you not face up to this harsh reality because you find it somehow politically incorrect? You seem to be trying so hard to be empathetic to Islamic extremism. Yet you seem to find so little empathy for people like Kyle that you find to be at odds with your view of the world. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I understand hating the enemy who is out to kill you. I do not respect holding that against innocents.

Can you name a single innocent he was holding anything against? Did you read the book or see the movie?

Bull. What does 'belief in his country' mean anyway?

I don't think you could understand what "belief in country" means to people like Chris Kyle. Too many Americans are unable to relate to the military experience and for the motivations people have for volunteering to serve under such difficult circumstances.

Are we supposed to admire anybody who has an impressive kill record? Ultimately, that's what this story is about. It's not about heroes, even though Kyle may have been one.

So he may have been a hero but his story is not about hero's? I'm not sure I follow that line of thought. Are you trying to make the point that if someone is in the military he may be a hero but if he kills people as part of his job he or she isn't? I'm beginning to think that this whole line about how the Left is against the war but for the troops is BS.

There are plenty of hero stories out there.

No one said there isn't a lot of heroic people "out there". This is a biopic of one man. Your emotionalism about the war is carrying you far afield. If you want to see a movie that fits your political views about the war there are plenty to choose from.

It's about getting turned on because a member of Team USA kills a whole lot of 'bad guys'. And he thought it was 'fun'. Is that some patriotic virtue?

To you Kyle was just a robotic killer without an understanding of what he was doing other than the enjoyment you assume he got from seeing his friends and countrymen being killed and injured. Is that really all that you take from this story? You couldn't see any complexity in the man's life? He overcame the hardships of the war experience and got his life back - do you think he enjoyed that experience?

Of course the movie does. It just pretends not to.

OK - please tell me how the movie (or book) is "pretending" not to be about the politics of the war? I didn't see any speeches by President Bush, or Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, or Senator Edwards about their support for the war. I didn't see Senator Reid's speech on the Senate floor calling his own countries troops losers.

Seriously, did you even see the movie or read the book or did you just take what was fed to you by MSNBC or some other left wind news source and run with it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@wolf

I think the main problem is, the left are completely taken back by the success of the movie. Everyone thought it would either do mediocre, be in the theater for few weeks and then be done with it. That's not what happened. Because it is doing so well and Eastwood, once again has, as you said, shown the complexity of war and the aftermath of what a person/family goes through. For the left, they feel that it represents a message that War is OK and acceptable as well as killing Muslims and that they are misunderstood and there are other ways to deal with them (which besides killing the radicals, nothing has worked) and we should be more tolerant. But the left will not define nor condemn, call out the radical Islamists and the Islamic community as well and Obama as it appears over the last 6 years, couldn't care less as to what happens with Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and the entire mideast as a whole. If you look at everything that has been going on within the last 2 years, who are the people responsible for causing all this death, mayhem and destruction? Radical Islamists, they even refer to themselves as Islamists, every other world leader call is that and our president for fear of political correctness refuses to call radical Islam out? The left just won't acknowledge it and then this movie comes out, smashing all records and the left just can't take it. I don't have a problem with people not like the movie, it's everyone's choice, but I do find it disturbing that people would jump on Kyle for doing his job and making it seem as if he and all snipers just joyfully go on the hunt to kill people for the pleasure and I find that very disturbing. We are supposed to vilify our military and the movie has done the exact opposite and it seems like there are more movies of this complexity that are coming out from other soldiers with their stories to tell and it seems the public has an interest in it, if you go by this movie. Some will watch and others won't and that's the great thing about America, people like Kyle have fought and died for the freedoms and rights we have and enjoy that we can at least have a choice and speak out like this and watch and have that choice. I wouldn't take that right away from the left, even though they confuse me with their anti-American rhetoric, but I respect their rights as well, I just don't agree with them. That's why I salute these brave men and women.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Care to give your rationale for making such a broad claim? He certainly never stated that.

In his words: "I couldn’t give a flying f%$& about the Iraqis." It's pretty clear he's not just referring to insurgents and terrorists. He's referring to a nation of people.

His focus was on fighting the people that were shooting at him and threatening the military personnel he was fighting with. You know, the same people that were cutting peoples heads off for PR purposes or blackmail, killing and mutilating Iraqi's who cooperated with the US, and for many other ridiculous reasons mostly attributed to their religious faith.

I understand that was his job. Then he didn't have to have such disdain for 'the Iraqis' in general. There's a difference between combatants/terrorists and 'the Iraqis'.

You seem to be trying so hard to be empathetic to Islamic extremism.

Absolutely false, and offensive. Now you're confusing Islamic extremism with 'the Iraqis'. Just like Kyle's statement does.

I don't think you could understand what "belief in country" means to people like Chris Kyle.

And you are unable to articulate what it means either. Because it's a cliché.

bass

I think the main problem is, the left are completely taken back by the success of the movie.

Again reducing the controversy to a simple liberal vs conservative dichotomy. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives as well who don't care for this movie. And I'll bet there are some liberals who love it.

the left will not define nor condemn, call out the radical Islamists

Totally untrue. Another myth that liberals are weak-kneed, and conservatives fearless.

the left just can't take it.

Yes, the left en masse is apoplectic because a movie about a sniper is successful. What a world you live in. Personally, I have no problem that this movie is doing well. It's not my taste, and I may debate the subject and its framing, but I'm not outraged by it. I'm more outraged that Seth McFarlane's 'comedy' work is as popular as it is.

I do find it disturbing that people would jump on Kyle for doing his job

I'm not criticizing him for doing his job. I'm criticizing him for disparaging 'the Iraqis' as 'savages'. That's painting an entire group of people with the same brush, same as what you are doing to 'the left'.

they confuse me with their anti-American rhetoric

Please explain what about 'the left' is anti-American. Because they disagree with 'the right'?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Please explain what about 'the left' is anti-American." - comments

"Left-wing politics" — Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality."

"E Pluribus Unum" — Latin for "Out of many, one"

"The Left" — Used interchangeably, The Left is the idea that government of, by and for the people is so repulsive to making money from ignorant "Joe six pack jack asses", who don't deserve consideration because they are so poor and stupid, as to make a disgorgement of the stomach unavoidable to the infallible few who know better than anyone what is best for everyone as long as it doesn't take any time or interest.

While these definitions are useful in a larger context, e.g. the thrust and intent of a political party in America, none are relevant to 'Sniper' except as the controlling ethic behind the occupation of Iraq in BushWars. Mr. Eastwood is not making a film about that with 'Sniper'. 'Sniper' is far more complex.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Again reducing the controversy to a simple liberal vs conservative dichotomy. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives as well who don't care for this movie. And I'll bet there are some liberals who love it.

True. Point very well taken.

Totally untrue. Another myth that liberals are weak-kneed, and conservatives fearless

But the majority of liberals shun, condemn and are less likely to use military force, even in this situation. Obama STILL has not made a strategy plan on how to deal with ISIS.

Yes, the left en masse is apoplectic because a movie about a sniper is successful. What a world you live in. Personally, I have no problem that this movie is doing well. It's not my taste, and I may debate the subject and its framing, but I'm not outraged by it. I'm more outraged that Seth McFarlane's 'comedy' work is as popular as it is.

You may not be, but a large portion of libs, including the Hollywood elite are outraged that this film is as popular as it is.

I'm not criticizing him for doing his job. I'm criticizing him for disparaging 'the Iraqis' as 'savages'. That's painting an entire group of people with the same brush, same as what you are doing to 'the left'.

See, that's where I think you are fundementally wrong, I DO believe he had a distain for the radicals, but overal Iraqis, I don't believe that. Of course, we can never see what's in a persons heart, but according to his friends, family and writing, his hatred seemed more directed at the Jihadists.

Please explain what about 'the left' is anti-American. Because they disagree with 'the right'?

I believe that the left so badly wants to emulate and be like Europe. On every turn, if you want to say, Merry Christmas or if you want to believe in God or if you say, you are proud to be an American or PRO-American, you are out of touch, you should be shunned or ridiculed. The left are always trying to shut up the Right and I believe they want to destroy the GOP and have a Democratic on ruling party, they are trying so hard to marganilize the GOP, it's astounding.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

the majority of liberals shun, condemn and are less likely to use military force

I have no idea if this is actually a true statement in regards to American liberals. But being pro-military force is primarily an American thing, not a conservative thing. Conservatives in countries other than America also shun military force for the most part, it has nothing to do with being left or right.

The left are always trying to shut up the Right and I believe they want to destroy the GOP and have a Democratic on ruling party, they are trying so hard to marganilize the GOP, it's astounding.

And you think that the GOP has not been trying to do this to the Democrats for the past six years? The only thing needed to create a republican opposition to anything is for the Democrats to say they want it. The republicans don't care what it is, they just care that it is said by the democrats. Which is why they have no policy, and no suggestions about how to fix things, because they have focused their entire effort on opposing, in spite of the people whom they are supposed to be supporting.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'Sniper' will have lingering impact. The dialogue that Warner thought was so important will reveal a deep sense of victimhood from the millions who will Tweet they want to kill Muslims and the GOP-Tea who admire them.

Of course, this is because Mr. Eastwood didn't show how the GOP-Tea was the real victim of Bush/Cheney's BushWars.

For millions of GOP-Teas, Mr. Eastwood has made a new horror. The horror of having to suffer through an endless factual review of wars of profit orchestrated from the GOP-Tea White House under Bush/Cheney.

Maybe it is time to start condemning Mr. Eastwood for wasting time focusing on the very profitable BushWars.

Mr. Eastwood's 'Sniper' ends up doing exactly what Eddie Ray Routh did to Chris Kyle. Killing the hero story of BushWars and making the truth more important than fiction.

No wonder the rabid are so scared; the truth kills ignorance and that is just unacceptable. Hiding behind patriotism and ignorance, Mr. Eastwood has exposed the criminality of everyone involved in what Bush/Cheney in BushWars. 'Sniper' is a truly great motion picture, unintentionally, it revealed the truth. And that is more admirable than any liberal rant. Well done Mr. Eastwood.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have no idea if this is actually a true statement in regards to American liberals. But being pro-military force is primarily an American thing, not a conservative thing.

You have more conservaties that generally support our troops and are more patriotic or where it more with pride on their sleeves.

Conservatives in countries other than America also shun military force for the most part, it has nothing to do with being left or right.

If they do, that's their prerogative, but I have the utmost respect for them and million others it seems.

And you think that the GOP has not been trying to do this to the Democrats for the past six years?

There is NO Way possible that the GOP had ANY power to do that during the last 6 years. They were marganilized, they sat on the sidelines and watched how the Dems rammed EVERY legislation through, spent more on taxes, which resulted in the formation of the Tea Party.

The only thing needed to create a republican opposition to anything is for the Democrats to say they want it.

As I said many times, there is NO reason the GOP will with anything the Dems sign, if they see it's going to harm the country.

The republicans don't care what it is, they just care that it is said by the democrats.

Again, not true. There are many things they can come together on, like tax issues for starters.

Which is why they have no policy, and no suggestions about how to fix things, because they have focused their entire effort on opposing, in spite of the people whom they are supposed to be supporting.

That's a lot, this is why the Dems lost the House in 2010 and lost last year the Senate. The people want Washington to slow this president down, this is why the Dems were kicked out. They didn't learn back then and they didn't learn it last November either. This is why they are called the opposition and don't play partisan! Both sides do it.

'Sniper' will have lingering impact. The dialogue that Warner thought was so important will reveal a deep sense of victimhood from the millions who will Tweet they want to kill Muslims and the GOP-Tea who admire them.

Really? That's a bit overdoing it, don't you think?

Of course, this is because Mr. Eastwood didn't show how the GOP-Tea was the real victim of Bush/Cheney's BushWars.

You forgot to add Obama as well.

For millions of GOP-Teas, Mr. Eastwood has made a new horror. The horror of having to suffer through an endless factual review of wars of profit orchestrated from the GOP-Tea White House under Bush/Cheney.

I think he kinda summed it up that war is ugly and that the impact can have lifelong physical and physcological problems, if there is a message to be heard.

Maybe it is time to start condemning Mr. Eastwood for wasting time focusing on the very profitable BushWars.

I think Mr. Eastwood has the absolute right to do as he pleases and kudos to him for standing his ground. Were you as equally critical when Moore did his Anti-American movies?

Mr. Eastwood's 'Sniper' ends up doing exactly what Eddie Ray Routh did to Chris Kyle. Killing the hero story of BushWars and making the truth more important than fiction.

So when movies come out about the Obama years that soldiers had to fight and endure, will you show your outrage equally?

No wonder the rabid are so scared; the truth kills ignorance and that is just unacceptable. Hiding behind patriotism and ignorance, Mr. Eastwood has exposed the criminality of everyone involved in what Bush/Cheney in BushWars. 'Sniper' is a truly great motion picture, unintentionally, it revealed the truth. And that is more admirable than any liberal rant. Well done Mr. Eastwood.

Everyone has their own opinion and I think for those that loved it, good for them and I'm one of those individuals and for the people that didn't like it, that's their right as well. It just depends on what side of the political fence you are on.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

'Sniper' has more to offer than, "I like it" or "I don't like it". These charmingly childish opinions are just too precious. The film critic wants to pick them up and cuddle them; "yes you are! yes you are! you like things! you don't like things! good for you!!"

For the adult audience, what stands clear in Mr. Eastwood's film is what isn't shown. One commenter referenced an end sequence in "Inglorious Bastards". His reference was so fleeting, the images of Hitler chuckling as his Sniper killed one after another was confusing, what did Tarantino show? After a quick review, duh! How different that from Mr. Eastwood's audience? (Please reference Mr. Tarantino's sequence.)

Working in the present tense, and subject, Mr. Eastwood's production will be worked with the same vigor as "Triumph of the Will". Partially because propaganda is so closely woven into the picture few can cleave a distinction that redeems "Sniper". On the bad end it's nearly a thrill kill snuff picture, on the good end it's a camp feel good with death.

This will ultimately cast 'Sniper' as manipulative jingoism or a fawning lobotomy. The most important part of a tragic fail in motion pictures is when the clumsy self righteous delusions of the project become bacterial waste reused to make the original a permanent source of camp.

Working 'Sniper' becomes almost too easy. Mr. Eastwood knows his craft, maybe too well. Applied to the invisible BushWars, all 'Sniper' achieves is the confirmation of duplicity and tissue thin justifications that slaughter so many.

"My question is when does glory fade away and become a wrongful crusade, or an unjustified means by which consumes one completely?" - Marc Lee

Some would prefer Mr. Lee's words were left unsaid in 'Sniper'. Others know this is the only the beginning and Mr. Eastwood provided that spring board. Maybe the important dialogue Warner Brothers hoped for will replace the certainty of ignorance that makes Tweeting kill threats the only demonstrable result of 'Sniper'.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Anyway, it's great to have the freedom of choice, you didn't like it, I assume from your seemingly distain for Eastwood and I liked it, simple. It would most definitely be boring if we were all the same or did everything, believed everything in the same manner.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bass4funk. You are a true moron in every sense on the word. Just a complete bonehead. Dumb as they come.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@plastic

In his words: "I couldn’t give a flying f%$& about the Iraqis." It's pretty clear he's not just referring to insurgents and terrorists. He's referring to a nation of people.

I'll ask you again. Did you read the book? Your failure to address that question speaks volumes about your arguments against Kyle's character.

If you did read it you would know that the context of that statement is in reference to his concern with protecting his fellow soldiers/sailors from the insurgents. The fact that you are willing to take his words out of context in order to make him out to be something he is not is 'false and offensive'. The fact that he is there fighting for his country and his countrymen and not for the average Iraqi should not surprise anyone. But to make the leap that he therefore could care less about the lives of Iraqi civilians is against the facts. I suppose it makes you feel better about your apparent dislike for American military personnel to believe such a thing but the facts are not on your side.

I understand that was his job. Then he didn't have to have such disdain for 'the Iraqis' in general. There's a difference between combatants/terrorists and 'the Iraqis'.

Yes there is. Read the book, watch the movie, or listen to the accounts by fellow vets and you will know that Kyle understand the difference very well.

And you are unable to articulate what it means either. Because it's a cliché.

Hey, everyone has a right to their opinion. But it just shows that you do not understand belief in country (ie. patriotism) and like most on the Left are unable to separate the concept from others such as 'jingoism', 'militarism', or some other awful '-ism' that you choose to associate it with. That's cool for you I guess. I'm just grateful for Chris Kyle and many, many other young people that believe in their country enough to volunteer and put their lives at risk for something they believe is of greater worth than their own lives. Your willingness to chalk up their sacrifice - and sometimes their deaths - to a 'cliché' is offensive. But you wouldn't understand that so I am not expecting you to.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Many reviews and comments seem to come down to the veteran's experience vs. non-veterans.

Veterans may feel Mr. Eastwood's work is best appreciated by veterans; those who haven't served can't recognize what in the film is authentic to their experience. More over belief in country and self sacrifice of veterans places their awareness of 'Sniper' as a film in a different category. Civilians just don't get 'Sniper'.

Comments here also seem to find "liberals" or "lefties" are also genetically unable to appreciate the "conservatives" or "patriotic" clarity when viewing 'Sniper'. By some analysis, questioning 'Sniper' isn't a treasonous act but it places the critique in a questionable light.

What 'Sniper' portrays is questionable because viewers who think about what they see in a film may not see patriotism and may question 'belief in country' if the answer to that question includes criticism of the war in Iraq. Warner Brothers represents that an important dialogue might come from 'Sniper'. Some comments have suggested 'Sniper' isn't about a dialogue, it's about the veterans' experience.

These boards don't really answer many questions but the one question in every veterans mind must include the rationale behind Iraq. And that question can't be ignored in a film about the soldier’s experience. The problem many have with 'Sniper' is that question. But that question will shadow any dialogue about Iraq for this film and forever for many Americans, just not enough of them.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wolfpack

Did you read the book? Your failure to address that question speaks volumes about your arguments against Kyle's character.

No. I did not read the book. I did not watch the movie. And I never served in combat. The only time I fired a weapon was when my boyhood friend invited me to shoot a tree with his 22. I missed the tree. I am not an American Sniper. I did not serve in the glorious defense of American freedoms in the debacle that was the Iraq war.

All of this I'm sure disqualifies me from commenting on the words of a true American Sniper who said in his book, "I couldn’t give a flying f%$& about the Iraqis." As an American Weenie I must be taking his words out of context. The complexities of war surely must have colored this hero's words in the same way that it did his fictional bragging about shooting looters after Katrina.

I feel for vets and I feel for heroes, but in a different way than you do.

Kyle did his job as a sniper well. I disagree with how you portray his skill.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any fool can pull a trigger and kill someone, and many do (Murder rate in U.S.A.). The farther away the target is and the more technology used, the less connection as a human they are perceived. Take 'em to dinner.... then choke 'em out with your bare hands. Watch their eyes bulge. Or... shove a blade between their ribs into their heart. Make sure you turn the blade sideways so it slides between the ribs easier. No, slicing! Stick 'em... If you don't get a 'Gumby' you ain't doing it right. Oh boy... I am starting to drool and shiver.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Certainly liberals like Michale Moore would never kill people, because men like Chris Kyle do it for them and the rest of us so we can stay safe. Some of us appreciate that. Liberals don’t, which is why they need to be reminded that people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. The sad truth is that most liberals don’t like America very much. When they think of America, they don’t think of waving flags, a city on a hill and “the land of the free,” they think of a rotten country they want to change before it hurts more people. The idea that there are people out there who are willing to die for this country because they think it’s such a great place is like a thumb in the eye.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Certainly liberals like Michale Moore would never kill people, because men like Chris Kyle do it for them and the rest of us so we can stay safe.

How did invading Iraq, a nation crippled by sanctions that had not attacked the US, make America safer?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland Jan. 29, 2015 - 08:30AM JST How did invading Iraq, a nation crippled by sanctions that had not attacked the US, make America safer?

It does not make it safer, but Chris Kyle was following orders and just doing his job. You can have a same argument about veterans of Vietnam war. The underlying problem the U.S. confronts is the one which periodically afflicts all successful economies, the over-accumulation of capital. The “vital region” today is the Middle East, of course, and oil is what makes it vital. American capitalism’s dependence on foreign oil sources has grown steadily since the end of WWII. The stake that U.S. capitalism has in the flow of oil from that part of the world is an established fact that even the U.S. goverment would not deny.

If by imperialism one understands the forcible control of another nation, for whatever alleged purpose, then the U.S. is an imperialist nation bent on dominating markets and controlling resources for the benefit of its ruling class. For despite all the lip service to peace, democracy, international law, human rights, etc., the stakes in Iraq and the Middle East generally are grossly materialistic. Markets, spheres of influence and sources of raw materials vital to the industries of all nations have been at the root of every major war of modern times, and the present situation is no exception. This is the reason capitalist nations will do anything, even to the point of waging war, to preserve and extend their foreign markets and spheres of influence, and to dominate sources of raw materials and cheap labor.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It does not make it safer, but Chris Kyle was following orders and just doing his job.

I agree. I don't fault him for doing the job he was tasked - soldiers act, they do not make the policies.

My issue is with framing Kyle's killing of people as something to keep the American people safe. It did no such thing. If anything, the actions in Iraq has made the US less safe due to an increased hatred of America by the people in that region, some of whom may be more likely to attack the US.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am looking forward to Disney's new movie "Drones" :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@plastic

No. I did not read the book. I did not watch the movie.

That explains your inability to correctly characterize who Chris Kyle is. He was not a racist. He was not a murderer of innocents. You are simply parroting the opinions of others taken out of context in order to somehow prove your preconceived notions of a man you culturally cannot understand.

All of this I'm sure disqualifies me from commenting on the words of a true American Sniper who said in his book, "I couldn’t give a flying f%$& about the Iraqis."

Well, yes it does. You have a right to your opinion but you do not have alright to your own facts. Kyle was deeply affected by his wartime experience. He was clearly torn about the possibility of having to kill children that were in threatening situations. If you read the book or saw the movie you would know that. His comments are in reference to the fact that as an American military man in wartime his priority was obviously for his fellow soldiers/sailors and his own country. If you knew what the insurgents were doing you would understand how savage they were - and still are.

I feel for vets and I feel for heroes, but in a different way than you do.

So how exactly do you feel for them? You show little respect or understanding for those in the military or for veterans. I get sick of people like Michael Moore who apply their hatred of the war to the people following orders. It disgusts me that after voting for the war Democrats undermine the militaries efforts in the field. Harry Reid announced from the Senate floor that his own soldiers were losing. A crass political act on his part.

Kyle did his job as a sniper well. I disagree with how you portray his skill.

Actually I have been portraying his character in the face of uninformed vitriol. His skill speaks for itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"My issue is with framing Kyle's killing of people as something to keep the American people safe." - "If you knew what the insurgents were doing you would understand how savage they were - and still are." - comments

'Sniper' would not have had the opportunity to shoot so many "bad guys", (all 160 were diseased vermin trying to kill Iraq's occupiers, 100% perfect every time), had the yellow cake and WMDs not been so carefully constructed into the lies of Bush/Cheney. How is it that falsehoods, Bush's lies, can be justified with glorification of the symptoms, 'Sniper', of the disease; the corruption of truth by Bush/Cheney?

No wonder many have little patience for glorification of the single most destructive action of any White House in the history of the United States.

Bush's Wars are without compare as a failures and 'Sniper' is part of the campaign of ignorance necessary to anesthetize the next generation into the acceptance of hatred for those America had no business molesting in the first place, the people of Iraq. How anyone can look at 'Sniper' and not acknowledge the cost to the people of Iraq is stupefying.

Veterans should be outraged at the parade of lies that continues to try to sanitize BushWars. Mr. Eastwood has done his work well. Many remain convinced the lies don't matter as long as they get to pull a trigger.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'American Sniper' triggers angry debate

The reason there is any debate is because the PC left hates it whenever someone is honest with people!. If more people would stop worrying about how folks would react and started telling the truth the world would be a better place!

Chief petty officer Chris Kyle was a man who told the truth and the PC left just can't deal with the truth!

Words to live by.....

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life! Winston Churchill

The world would be a better and safer place if we lived to be dead honest!

Values, dignity and respect for ones community are things that the far Left has always hated.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Chief petty officer Chris Kyle was a man who told the truth" - comments

Mr. Eastwood's 'Sniper' is all about that truth.

Some wish 'Sniper' were about some angry debate. Some love anger so much Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle's story keeps them angry and 'Sniper' fuels so much anger that hate is the natural result. That audience then Tweets they wish to kill "Muslims" because all they learned from ' Sniper' is anger. Mr. Eastwood helped that audience access their inner bigot.

Mr. Eastwood's 'Sniper' also helped access hate from the victims of BushWars. And who isn't a victim in the wars Kyle is only one tiny molecule of?

Mr. Eastwood has his audience watch 'Sniper's' four deployments to a theater rife with contradictions and at the end they cheer and cry. It is a strange animal that can return to kill again and again without conscience or regret or question, some might not even count it as human. But Mr. Eastwood makes this his template for patriotism. That is the chief failing of Mr. Eastwood's propaganda.

Some still have higher expectations, they can be called any name except ignorant, that is reserved for Mr. Eastwood's audience and those who continue to believe the necessary lies that smother the truth of BushWars. 'Sniper' is the mirror to those disturbed souls.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites