I don't want to get into this into great depth. But this movie is utterly fallacious and is very misleading. This is pro-war, republican, ronald reagan *beep* The iraq war is a war crime, and this movie shows none of that.
shareWhat film did YOU watch?
I saw a film where a warrior of great skill and bravery gradually gets broken down by disillusionment and the strain of combat. Its certainly not pro-war ('*beep* this place man'), it has no political viewpoint and Ronald Regan was long dead before it was filmed.
The liberation of Iraq from an odious dictator and attempting to rebuild it as a democratic society was not a crime. What EXACTLY did you want it to show?
1) The film falls flat when showing actual drama in his life. It didn't look like PTSD at all.
2) Chris Kyle is not a war hero, he is a war criminal. In his autobiography he called the Iraqis "savages", and said he would like to kill more of them. He said he enjoyed every kill he got, and he loved the war. He also constantly lies. He said he was in New Orleons during hurricane katrina, and shot looters, which was proven to be false. He also lied about a court case, which he lost money for. I don't respect this scum bag, and PLUS Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11, but in the film it shows him seeing 9/11 and going to war.
3) George Bush and Cheney illegally invaded Iraq to find WMDS (weapons of mass destruction) not to "liberate," if that was the reason, then they wouldn't murder over 200,000+ civilians. No connection between Saddam and 9/11 was found, and no WMDs were found. It was because of oil. But you ignorant Americans don't know history.
4) They censored what i had to say about Reagan, but I'll leave it. But just a side-note ronald reagan did go to Afghanistan, so he is involved.
5) The Iraq war later led to the rise of ISIS, and if you call that a justified war, then you have no brain in that propaganda induced brain of your's. Go back to school with history books then have a conversation.
1) The film falls flat when showing actual drama in his life. It didn't look like PTSD at all.
2) Chris Kyle is not a war hero, he is a war criminal. In his autobiography he called the Iraqis "savages", and said he would like to kill more of them. He said he enjoyed every kill he got, and he loved the war. He also constantly lies. He said he was in New Orleons during hurricane katrina, and shot looters, which was proven to be false. He also lied about a court case, which he lost money for. I don't respect this scum bag, and PLUS Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11, but in the film it shows him seeing 9/11 and going to war.
3) George Bush and Cheney illegally invaded Iraq to find WMDS (weapons of mass destruction) not to "liberate," if that was the reason, then they wouldn't murder over 200,000+ civilians. No connection between Saddam and 9/11 was found, and no WMDs were found. It was because of oil. But you ignorant Americans don't know history.
4) They censored what i had to say about Reagan, but I'll leave it. But just a side-note ronald reagan did go to Afghanistan, so he is involved.
5) The Iraq war later led to the rise of ISIS, and if you call that a justified war, then you have no brain in that propaganda induced brain of your's. Go back to school with history books then have a conversation.
What are you talking about? You're not serious!
1. I thought it was an excellent depiction of PTSD
3. Chris Kyle called the INSURGENTS savages and loved killing them for all the lives it saved. He NEVER claimed to be in New Orleans shooting anyone, he just discussed rumours of others doing so. He lost the court case but he was dead by then so that's hardly surprising (several other witnesses backed his story up). No one ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, why do you denigrate this great hero?
3. Bush/Cheney liberated Iraq from a vile dictator and tried to establish a free and democratic society, that it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't noble. I'm not American and you're the ignorant one, there were thousands of WMDs recovered in Iraq;
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
4. Yes, Regan did go into Afghanistan and was instrumental in helping the free world winning the Cold War.
5. ISIS arose in Syria because President Assad released all his Islamic prisoners when he was facing the Arab Spring.
You are such a stupid moron, thank god for educated people like me.
He NEVER claimed to be in New Orleans shooting anyone, he just discussed rumours of others doing so.
I'm not American and you're the ignorant one, there were thousands of WMDs recovered in Iraq;
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
Yes, Regan did go into Afghanistan and was instrumental in helping the free world winning the Cold War.
ISIS arose in Syria because President Assad released all his Islamic prisoners when he was facing the Arab Spring.
Y'know what? That first one might have been more convincing if it wasn't just some news jockey saying it rather than a direct quote from Kyle himself.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
1) Here's where the New Orleans story stems from, not just someone else repeating a Chinese whisper;
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-special-forces-snipers-kill-americans-after-katrina/
2. Yep, the 1980s in Iraq when Saddam was in charge, so just admit you were wrong rather than try to filibuster, there were thousands of viable WMDs in Iraq, there was no production line which is what we feared, Saddam abandoned it due to sanctions but kept up the pretence so as to intimidate Iran.
3. The Mujahadeen WERE freedom fighters, AQ were just one small part of them and didn't do most of the fighting, that was actually the CIA's ally the Northern alliance (whose leader was assassinated by AQ on the eve of 9/11).
4. ISIS arose in Syria when Assad released all his Islamic fundamentalist prisoners so that he could claim to be fighting terrorists rather than rebels seeking a democratic Syria. It then spread over the border to Iraq where terrorists groups on the ropes flocked to it.
Your grasp of reality/history is appalling!
The Mujahideen, a major terrorist organization
hehe the moment you said 'thank god' common man please you are the moron really you are so full of *beep* man really. you don't now *beep* about education.
sharePlease state your qualifications for being able to state what PTSD does and does not look like.
You strike me as a troll whose education comes from watching youtube videos. If I am mistaken, here is your chance to demonstrate that. If you can, then I'll address the rest of the rubbish you went on a rant about.
First you yourself are very political in your comment. Secondly Is that the way you justify this war? Its not a democracy and had a cruel dictator? Thats true for a lot of countries so why the hell choose Iraq. The so called reason for that was that Iraq had weapon of mass destruction which it didn't. Thirdly life isn't that simple, if you want to get rid of a dictator the only way to go is to support democratic forces in that country, not invading the country with you own military and then take oil from that country. Look at where we are now, do you feel safer from terrorists now?
share1. Yes, anything wrong with that?
2. True of a lot of countries but most don't go around invading their neighbours and funding terrorism and sit on a massive oil reserve to fund it.
3. Yes, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, don't buy the myth;
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
4. We sponsored the Iraqi resistance for years but they were NEVER going to topple Saddam.
5. Yes, I do.
You all miss the point on Iraq, really.
Iraq had a record of previous WMD use in war (ok, so it was only used on Iran, who cares I guess, oh, yeah, and Kurdish villages regarded as rebellious as well) .
Iraq had a solid record of a nuclear weapons program and ambition, to a point where Israel launched a long-range and very skilful airstrike aimed at destroying or delaying the machinery for that program.
Iran btw itself launched a less-known failed F4 raid aimed at the same purpose.
Saddam was still in power, and despite making a deal for transparent inspections at end of Kuwait Gulf War, had reneged over and over on that agreement.
Occasioning bombardments by the Clinton regime aimed at enforcing those agreements.
Sanctions remained in place limiting materials and chemicals able to be imported by Iraq, materials like Chlorine, which were said to have spin-off side effects affecting Iraqi water hygiene, and said by critics and "respected humanitarian NGOs" to have caused the deaths of large numbers of Iraqis, especially children. (not that I believe those claims at face value, at best they are exaggerated in terms of numbers)
Saddam was never going to be overthrown by sanctions or Lefty Kumbuyas and their suggestion of letters and speeches at the UN.
And he was never likely to be overthrown by force by his own population.
And if there had even been an attempt made at that, as we see demonstrated in Syria, the death-toll would have been many times any claimed death toll of the 2003 operation.
He would have died in power, and most likely been superceded by another strongman from his military, or probably worse still, by Uday/Quasay one or both his depraved sadist pervert sons.
Saddam remained a geopolitical problem which would not go away, like a rash which never quite heals, astride the world's most important oil seaway.
It seemed desirable to resolve all of that once and for all.
As the other poster says, has this worked out particularly well, has it resulted in a peaceful stable Iraq and sown the seeds of sustainable liberal democracy in the Mid-east?
No...noble failure mitigated by insipid success on some fronts.
No, it has pretty much failed in most of that, and it is hard to deny that we have a less stable region now than we had in 2003.
With benefit of hindsight, would I support it again as I did at the time?
No.Not worth the Western lives and many fine men and women lost outright or made physical and psychological cripples, as every war does... not worth the train load of money wasted, which could have done wondrous things spent at home.
What would have happened in lieu of it?
We sit on our hands and manage Saddam's problem reactively and ineffectually with sand-bucket and hose, something like as Clinton had been doing, I guess.
But let's be clear, no one claimed this thing was done just because Saddam was a brutal dictator. It is cited as a moral dividend, but never as a casa belli.
But none of what you say mattered as long as it was Iraq killing Kurds, and Iranians, with AMERICAN supplied biological weapons.
Because they came from the Saud, and who do you think supplies the Sauds?
Sorry, but if you give someone a handgun, and tell them to kill their neighbor you can't pretend to be a law bringer, or in any way shape or form righteous, when you go and shoot them just in case they shoot someone with some other handgun you think they have, produce false evidence that they have, and then fail to find after killing them.
Saddam used chemical weapons, not biological. The Saudis supplied him with chemicals but they're dual use, they'd have a hundred applications, if I sold you fertilizer for your garden and fuel oil for your heater its' not my fault if you mix it together to make a bomb?
share"According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." The Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians."
So can we dispense with the bull?
Sure, you couldn't abandon Iraq, the Ayatollah's Iran on the borders of Saudi/Kuwait was unthinkable.
shareSaudi Arabia being such a beacon of democracy, and peace.
shareAnd what does that have to do with the price of Kimchee in Pyongyang?
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Peace yes, democracy no but the lesser of 2 evils by about a million times.
shareYes, maybe where Iraq is concerned post ISIL... SA being an exporter of wahabi terrorism for decades hardly makes it a beacon of anything.
shareMakes it a beacon of oil and therefore a strategic asset beyond belief. Certainly Saudis have been involved in terrorism but as individuals, not their government/state, you wouldn't say the US is a terrorist sponsor just because of all the US citizens who have sponsored or participated in terrorism
shareyou wouldn't say the US is a terrorist sponsor just because of all the US citizens who have sponsored or participated in terrorism
I don't need to try anything.
The analogy was facile.
Instead the corrupt presidency of a major cocaine exporting country would be a more fair analogy to that of SA.
If the President of such a country won his election with the support of drug cartels, kept his power via the enforcement of those cartels, was paid millions by those cartels for his acquiescing to their 'needs', and turned a blind eye to the production of and export of cocaine would he be morally complicit or responsible for the production and export of cocaine?
Yes, he would be.
In case you didn't know it all legitimate rule in SA is the result of deals between the ruling family and clerics, you know, the ones that think all non-muslims should be forcibly converted or culled.
If the president of the U.S only had his position because he made a deal with terrorists, ones that he agreed (or had to) turn a blind eye to the activities of, as long as they conducted their terrorism outside the U.S then your analogy might hold water.
The rulers in SA have that power in agreement with the Wahabi clerics.
"On February 9, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known as the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[32]
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[33]"
Yes, Anthrax has many harmless domestic uses.
True but irrelevant, again, these have their legitimate uses and Saddam never resorted to bio weapons, you may as well ban exporting test tubes,
shareThey changed the reason for invading Iraq at least 4 times.
That's the mark of a liar.
Now that we know Chris Kyle fabricated almost everything about not only his life, but his time on active duty, I'll propose the same question to you. What film DID you watch?
He was also texting his buddy about the man that ultimately shot and killed him about how nervous he was and to "watch my six". Yet still put a loaded firearm in his hand. That's a really stupid way to die.
I'm a vet. One thing is always certain. Those that boast about combat have likely seen it from a distance, or never seen it at all.
"Neckbeards hate and ruin everything."
What ARE you talking about? What did Kyle fabricate?
He didn't put a loaded firearm into Routh's hand, Routh shot them both in the back because they wouldn't talk to him on the journey (or so he claims?)
How could Chris Kyle not boast about combat when he won a load of medals and had 100+ kills?
Here's a third party breakdown of some of Kyle's embellishments:
http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle
He didn't put a loaded firearm into Routh's hand, Routh shot them both in the back because they wouldn't talk to him on the journey (or so he claims?)
Your link just takes you to the IMDB message boards.
We only have Routh's word for what happened, what were they supposed to do, chuck him out of the car, they were there to help him?
He didn't make up the Katrina thing, he just discussed rumours of it with Brandon Webb.
The last website just repeats the mistake about Katrina and judges have since overturned the pro Ventura verdict of the court. As for the car-jacking, impossible to prove one way or the other.
The liberation of Iraq from an odious dictator and attempting to rebuild it as a democratic society was not a crime.
Your response is the dumbest statement I have ever read? Where did I say Iraq had attacked us? Does that penetrate that brain of yours?
shareit is only a movie kids.
shareHAH another troll....
Do try harder.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
But this movie is utterly fallacious and is very misleading. This is pro-war, republican, ronald reagan *beep* The iraq war is a war crime, and this movie shows none of that.So basically you didn't like it for personal agenda reasons rather than just on artistic merit. Even the liberal Hollywood crew nominated it for a best picture Oscar. share
Liberal hollywood is ret@rded. Hollywood loves war propaganda
shareLiberal hollywood is ret@rded. Hollywood loves war propagandaDon't think liberal Hollywood likes "war propaganda" one bit from an idealistic standpoint, but that all fades away when it comes to what hits at the box office.....and that is decided by who buys tickets. share
+Clint Eastwood's direction was ok. This was a substandard movie. It didn't have any real emotion, it was quite bland during dramatic parts. And it's not "personal agenda" if the film is historically incorrect, it's just laziness. Bradley Cooper's acting was ok, the movie is just a pro-war bs of a film.
shareRetarded cliches. Let drag Reagan into it again when you have nothing else worth saying.
shareSo you didn't see it. Congrats another libtard talking about something he/she knows nothing about.
shareAs gun porn for firearms fetishists the film is a masterpiece. I get hard just thinking about the scene when he pulls the gun on his wife.
She has a kind of psychiatric cabaret. Very good. There was something about Suez.
Ronald Reagan? Uh, this was Obama's War, same as the other 5 wars he started by bombing Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and of course Iraq again, because that's what it's called when you bomb another country, innit?
share