American Sniper - Clint Eastwood's latest movie (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

he's obviously not bright, just ignore him

 

[cstu]

Military looks to recruit less educated

The military also seems to be drawing recruits who have less education, as a recent report documented the percentage of new recruits entering the Army with a high school diploma dropped to a new low.

The study, which was conducted by the National Priorities Project (NPP), found slightly more than 70 percent of new recruits joining the active duty Army had a high school diploma, nearly 20 percentage points lower than the Army’s goal of at least 90 percent.

Army officials confirmed lowering their standards to meet high recruiting goals in the middle of ongoing conflicts that the U.S. was involved in around the world.

Massachusetts-based research NPP concluded that the number of high school graduates among new recruits fell to 70.7 percent in 2008.

“The trend is clear,” Anita Dancs, the project’s research director who based the report on Defense Department data released via the Freedom of Information Act, told the Washington Post. “They’re missing their benchmarks, and I think it’s strongly linked to the impact [of] the Iraq War.”

The study also found that the number of recruits with both a high school diploma and a score in the upper half on the military’s qualification test fell by 15 percent from 2004 to 2007. An analysis of recruiting data revealed that low- and middle-income families are supplying far more Army recruits than families with incomes of more than $60,000 a year.

“Once again, we’re staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden,” Greg Speeter, the project’s executive director, told the newspaper.

Share this article!

 

[Jack White]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

FBGs don't send their kids because it is setup to attract the under class of our country.

FalseThe majority of military recruits come from middle income families.

It us a tiny minority that "volunteer" out of some deep calling to protect our country.

I'd ask you to show your work here, but I know you can't. Another false statement.

2008 Syracuse University Study

In conclusion, among race, socioeconomic status, and immigration

status, socioeconomic status is the only significant predictor of having ever

served in the military. Class differences in military enlistment likely reflect

differences in the non-military occupational opportunity, structured along class

lines. This research shows that the all-volunteer force continues to see overrepresentation

of the working and middle classes, with fewer incentives for

upper class participation.

Of course this isn't the point of my post, but lets handle the nitpicking one attempt at a time.

So basically you just posted a link to an article that proves your initial post of "attracting the under class of our country" to be an erroneous statement.Well played, you really owned yourself there.

 

[jon_mx]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

What exactly was she defending against? These characterizations are very misleading. We are not going into countries to rule them. We were freeing them from a brutal dictator who was friendly to terrorists and offering them a new chance to rule themselves.

 

[jon_mx]

Military looks to recruit less educated

The military also seems to be drawing recruits who have less education, as a recent report documented the percentage of new recruits entering the Army with a high school diploma dropped to a new low.

The study, which was conducted by the National Priorities Project (NPP), found slightly more than 70 percent of new recruits joining the active duty Army had a high school diploma, nearly 20 percentage points lower than the Army’s goal of at least 90 percent.

Army officials confirmed lowering their standards to meet high recruiting goals in the middle of ongoing conflicts that the U.S. was involved in around the world.

Massachusetts-based research NPP concluded that the number of high school graduates among new recruits fell to 70.7 percent in 2008.

“The trend is clear,” Anita Dancs, the project’s research director who based the report on Defense Department data released via the Freedom of Information Act, told the Washington Post. “They’re missing their benchmarks, and I think it’s strongly linked to the impact [of] the Iraq War.”

The study also found that the number of recruits with both a high school diploma and a score in the upper half on the military’s qualification test fell by 15 percent from 2004 to 2007. An analysis of recruiting data revealed that low- and middle-income families are supplying far more Army recruits than families with incomes of more than $60,000 a year.

“Once again, we’re staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden,” Greg Speeter, the project’s executive director, told the newspaper.

Share this article!

Or we are seeing the military providing opportunity to those who need it the most. What would these kids be doing if the military was not there as a fallback?

 

[Smack Tripper]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Military looks to recruit less educated

The military also seems to be drawing recruits who have less education, as a recent report documented the percentage of new recruits entering the Army with a high school diploma dropped to a new low.

The study, which was conducted by the National Priorities Project (NPP), found slightly more than 70 percent of new recruits joining the active duty Army had a high school diploma, nearly 20 percentage points lower than the Armys goal of at least 90 percent.

Army officials confirmed lowering their standards to meet high recruiting goals in the middle of ongoing conflicts that the U.S. was involved in around the world.

Massachusetts-based research NPP concluded that the number of high school graduates among new recruits fell to 70.7 percent in 2008.

The trend is clear, Anita Dancs, the projects research director who based the report on Defense Department data released via the Freedom of Information Act, told the Washington Post. Theyre missing their benchmarks, and I think its strongly linked to the impact [of] the Iraq War.

The study also found that the number of recruits with both a high school diploma and a score in the upper half on the militarys qualification test fell by 15 percent from 2004 to 2007. An analysis of recruiting data revealed that low- and middle-income families are supplying far more Army recruits than families with incomes of more than $60,000 a year.

Once again, were staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden, Greg Speeter, the projects executive director, told the newspaper.

Share this article!

This says the opposite: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/15/news/economy/military-recruiting/The Air Force only has only one half of one percent of recruits who do not hold a high school diploma, and those people have GEDs. The Navy has similar numbers.

The Army has always lagged in the area of quality recruits because of the size of the service. But the "military" consists of 4 branches, not just the Army.

 

[Jack White]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

Ask yourself this: if another country's army invaded the US and A to liberate you from your brutal dictator, would your wife be justified using a grenade - or any other tool available to her - or would you expect her to obey the "rules" of war?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

Ask yourself this: if another country's army invaded the US and A to liberate you from your brutal dictator, would your wife be justified using a grenade - or any other tool available to her - or would you expect her to obey the "rules" of war?

I find this fascinating if purposeful. What does it mean?

 

[jon_mx]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

Ask yourself this: if another country's army invaded the US and A to liberate you from your brutal dictator, would your wife be justified using a grenade - or any other tool available to her - or would you expect her to obey the "rules" of war?

If she is fighting by her own will to protect a brutal dictator, who cares? She is pretty dumb or she sides with evil.

 

[gump]

Good grief..

Meanwhile...http://variety.com/2015/film/news/box-office-american-sniper-to-dominate-super-bowl-weekend-with-35-million-1201417558/

Box Office: ‘American Sniper’ to Dominate Super Bowl Weekend with $35 Million

 

[cstu]

This says the opposite: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/15/news/economy/military-recruiting/The Air Force only has only one half of one percent of recruits who do not hold a high school diploma, and those people have GEDs. The Navy has similar numbers.

The Army has always lagged in the area of quality recruits because of the size of the service. But the "military" consists of 4 branches, not just the Army.

According to the Pentagon spokesperson only 2% are disqualified based on aptitude. So if someone has a high school degree, isn't fat, and doesn't have a criminal or drug history then they are likely getting in regardless of how they do on the test.

For the military, the largest single disqualifying factor is health, including such problems as obesity. The estimate for those who are disqualified only because of aptitude is about 2 percent, said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. That includes not just people who failed the test but also those with other academic deficiencies, such as failure to get a GED.

"The short answer is that 31 is the minimum score required for an applicant to enlist into the Marine Corps without incurring greater scrutiny," Marines spokesman Sgt. Bryce Piper said, referring to scores in the 31st percentile or higher.

Applicants who score 21-30 can still enlist if they pass an additional review and don’t require waivers due to any other issues.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Overall decent and I was entertained and engaged in the movie. I thought Cooper did a hell of a job in the role. That said, it was a clunky movie and I don't think it was near one of the best movies of the year. For my liking too many things in there just to force more drama in the story - on the phone with is wife in battle, the sniper vs sniper storyline, etc. Kyle's story is interesting enough to make for a compelling movie, no need for that silliness.

Can't remember the last war movie I thought was really good. I thought Fury and Hurt Locker were bad, Lone Survivor was meh, and this was OK.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Overall decent and I was entertained and engaged in the movie. I thought Cooper did a hell of a job in the role. That said, it was a clunky movie and I don't think it was near one of the best movies of the year. For my liking too many things in there just to force more drama in the story - on the phone with is wife in battle, the sniper vs sniper storyline, etc. Kyle's story is interesting enough to make for a compelling movie, no need for that silliness.

Can't remember the last war movie I thought was really good. I thought Fury and Hurt Locker were bad, Lone Survivor was meh, and this was OK.

Sums it up well. Maybe we can get this thread back on track.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

George Washington was a treasonous insurgent.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

George Washington was a treasonous insurgent.

No kidding. Your point?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This says the opposite: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/15/news/economy/military-recruiting/

The Air Force only has only one half of one percent of recruits who do not hold a high school diploma, and those people have GEDs. The Navy has similar numbers.

The Army has always lagged in the area of quality recruits because of the size of the service. But the "military" consists of 4 branches, not just the Army.

According to the Pentagon spokesperson only 2% are disqualified based on aptitude. So if someone has a high school degree, isn't fat, and doesn't have a criminal or drug history then they are likely getting in regardless of how they do on the test.

For the military, the largest single disqualifying factor is health, including such problems as obesity. The estimate for those who are disqualified only because of aptitude is about 2 percent, said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. That includes not just people who failed the test but also those with other academic deficiencies, such as failure to get a GED.

"The short answer is that 31 is the minimum score required for an applicant to enlist into the Marine Corps without incurring greater scrutiny," Marines spokesman Sgt. Bryce Piper said, referring to scores in the 31st percentile or higher.

Applicants who score 21-30 can still enlist if they pass an additional review and dont require waivers due to any other issues.

Ok, not sure how that applies to your first post. Where is the Pentagon spokesman saying the military is now taking less qualified candidates than it did before? The Air Force has 70% of their recruits score above 50 and the minimum cutoff is 36. And you don't seem to understand placement either. The higher the advance score the more jobs you qualify for. None of the services have minimally qualified personnel in key fields.

Sure anyone can be a cook or do building maintenance, but that applies to the private sector also. Most Air Force and Navy recruits are average or above average kids from middle class families. Again, you have to look at all four services not just the bottom of the Army or Marine Corps pool.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

Ask yourself this: if another country's army invaded the US and A to liberate you from your brutal dictator, would your wife be justified using a grenade - or any other tool available to her - or would you expect her to obey the "rules" of war?

The rules of war are in place to protect women and children. That said , our willingness to "be ok" with collateral damage is disturbing and there's no debate that it fuels insurgency.

But there ARE protocols in place to protect women and children in these scenarios and you have to wonder about a culture that would use their own knowing they are less likely to be opposed.

To answer your question, no I would never ask my wife to take up arms unless under direct attack. Which this character was not.

You said anyone that kills a woman or child is not a hero. What if they were putting lives at risk? Even those of other women and children?

 

[top dog]

:sigh:

Kind of sad that we are back to the argument that people serving in the military do it because they don't have options. While I'm sure this is true for some people, it's not the only cause. I know this is a hard thing for some people to grasp, but some people serve because they actually believe in this country and WANT to do their part.

The reason we give these guys respect is because they are doing a job that most of us AREN'T willing to or CAN'T do.

 

[tommyboy]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

Ask yourself this: if another country's army invaded the US and A to liberate you from your brutal dictator, would your wife be justified using a grenade - or any other tool available to her - or would you expect her to obey the "rules" of war?

if you're wife was a supporter of the brutal dictator and joined the terrorist groups fighting on his behalf, then she's open season.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

George Washington was a treasonous insurgent.

No kidding. Your point?

Wait...we're supposed to make points in this thread?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

George Washington was a treasonous insurgent.

No kidding. Your point?

Wait...we're supposed to make points in this thread?

I always like where that specific statement leads to. Probably the wrong thread.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Crispus Attucks was an Uncle Tom!

 

[Gr00vus]

Ben Franklin had the clap!

 

[tommyboy]

Ayman Mohyeldin has suggested that Chris Kyle, the real "American Sniper," was a "racist" whose military missions were nothing less than "killing sprees."

With opinions like that, you might imagine Mohyeldin to be some unhinged bloviator from the bowels of the anti-American far left. Or, an NBC foreign correspondent [who formerly worked for Al Jazeera] who regularly reports on events in the Middle East. Which is exactly what he is. Ayman vented his bile on today's Morning Joe.

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2015/01/29/nbcs-mohyeldin-suggests-real-american-sniper-racist-who-went#sthash.nrfP1hn3.dpuf

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Excellent article

 

[Jack White]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

Ask yourself this: if another country's army invaded the US and A to liberate you from your brutal dictator, would your wife be justified using a grenade - or any other tool available to her - or would you expect her to obey the "rules" of war?

I find this fascinating if purposeful. What does it mean?

It's a joke I borrowed from Borat.

The US military routinely kills innocent women and children, apparently in disregard of the "rules" of war.

 

[Jack White]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

What exactly was she defending against? These characterizations are very misleading. We are not going into countries to rule them. We were freeing them from a brutal dictator who was friendly to terrorists and offering them a new chance to rule themselves.

If you really believe all that, I doubt anything I could say would make much of an impact on you.

 

[jon_mx]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

What exactly was she defending against? These characterizations are very misleading. We are not going into countries to rule them. We were freeing them from a brutal dictator who was friendly to terrorists and offering them a new chance to rule themselves.

If you really believe all that, I doubt anything I could say would make much of an impact on you.

I doubt if anything you say could make an impact on anyone it is so ignorant.

 

[Jack White]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

What exactly was she defending against? These characterizations are very misleading. We are not going into countries to rule them. We were freeing them from a brutal dictator who was friendly to terrorists and offering them a new chance to rule themselves.

If you really believe all that, I doubt anything I could say would make much of an impact on you.

I doubt if anything you say could make an impact on anyone it is so ignorant.

Your definition of the word ignorant seems to be "that with which I disagree."

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I doubt if anything you say could make an impact on anyone it is so ignorant.

Your definition of the word ignorant seems to be "that with which I disagree."

No, I think he's quite clear on the definition.

 

[joetrow]

If it weren't for the American military, we'd all be speaking russian right now.

If it weren't for people like Chris Kyle, America as you know it wouldn't exist.

But because of people like Chris Kyle, people that are willing and able to go into battle and fight wars most of us will never be exposed to, because of him and millions like him we can go to sleep at night with no fear of an invasion, with the certainty that tomorrow we'll wake up, hop in our car, go to work, make money, come home eat a nice meal and generally live the most advance lifestyle known to mankind. If your family income is above $32,500 annually, you are right now in the top 1% of the world. People on welfare make more than that. Yeah, i'm glad we have a strong military and I'm glad we have people that volunteer for it, so we don't have to send our sons and daughters off into a draft.

Yes, and if it weren't for public school teachers we wouldn't know how to read, without Obamacare we wouldn't have insurance, without the federal reserve we wouldn't have a medium of exchange, without welfare poor people would starve,,; in its entirety, without the government we would be helpless savages. Now, I don't beleive you believe that, so my question to you sir is, how do you define that point in which a problem becomes so complex that free individuals are no longer up to the task, and that we must instead employ governed individuals? And why, if you have so much faith in the ability for governed individuals to solve complex problems, should they not be employed to solve the minute ones?

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. Youneed me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

If it weren't for the American military, we'd all be speaking russian right now.

If it weren't for people like Chris Kyle, America as you know it wouldn't exist.

But because of people like Chris Kyle, people that are willing and able to go into battle and fight wars most of us will never be exposed to, because of him and millions like him we can go to sleep at night with no fear of an invasion, with the certainty that tomorrow we'll wake up, hop in our car, go to work, make money, come home eat a nice meal and generally live the most advance lifestyle known to mankind. If your family income is above $32,500 annually, you are right now in the top 1% of the world. People on welfare make more than that. Yeah, i'm glad we have a strong military and I'm glad we have people that volunteer for it, so we don't have to send our sons and daughters off into a draft.

Yes, and if it weren't for public school teachers we wouldn't know how to read, without Obamacare we wouldn't have insurance, without the federal reserve we wouldn't have a medium of exchange, without welfare poor people would starve,,; in its entirety, without the government we would be helpless savages. Now, I don't beleive you believe that, so my question to you sir is, how do you define that point in which a problem becomes so complex that free individuals are no longer up to the task, and that we must instead employ governed individuals? And why, if you have so much faith in the ability for governed individuals to solve complex problems, should they not be employed to solve the minute ones?

Pretty sure people learned how to read for centuries without having public school teachers to guide them. But I'm sinking to your level now, and no one wants to do that.

 

[joetrow]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

Ask yourself this: if another country's army invaded the US and A to liberate you from your brutal dictator, would your wife be justified using a grenade - or any other tool available to her - or would you expect her to obey the "rules" of war?

If she is fighting by her own will to protect a brutal dictator, who cares? She is pretty dumb or she sides with evil.

The problem is (and I think it is quite clear), it is up to the invading country to decide who the brutal dictator is.

 

[joetrow]

If it weren't for the American military, we'd all be speaking russian right now.

If it weren't for people like Chris Kyle, America as you know it wouldn't exist.

But because of people like Chris Kyle, people that are willing and able to go into battle and fight wars most of us will never be exposed to, because of him and millions like him we can go to sleep at night with no fear of an invasion, with the certainty that tomorrow we'll wake up, hop in our car, go to work, make money, come home eat a nice meal and generally live the most advance lifestyle known to mankind. If your family income is above $32,500 annually, you are right now in the top 1% of the world. People on welfare make more than that. Yeah, i'm glad we have a strong military and I'm glad we have people that volunteer for it, so we don't have to send our sons and daughters off into a draft.

Yes, and if it weren't for public school teachers we wouldn't know how to read, without Obamacare we wouldn't have insurance, without the federal reserve we wouldn't have a medium of exchange, without welfare poor people would starve,,; in its entirety, without the government we would be helpless savages. Now, I don't beleive you believe that, so my question to you sir is, how do you define that point in which a problem becomes so complex that free individuals are no longer up to the task, and that we must instead employ governed individuals? And why, if you have so much faith in the ability for governed individuals to solve complex problems, should they not be employed to solve the minute ones?

Pretty sure people learned how to read for centuries without having public school teachers to guide them. But I'm sinking to your level now, and no one wants to do that.

Because I dislike Scott Walker everyone thinks I'm a leftist?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

If it weren't for the American military, we'd all be speaking russian right now.

If it weren't for people like Chris Kyle, America as you know it wouldn't exist.

But because of people like Chris Kyle, people that are willing and able to go into battle and fight wars most of us will never be exposed to, because of him and millions like him we can go to sleep at night with no fear of an invasion, with the certainty that tomorrow we'll wake up, hop in our car, go to work, make money, come home eat a nice meal and generally live the most advance lifestyle known to mankind. If your family income is above $32,500 annually, you are right now in the top 1% of the world. People on welfare make more than that. Yeah, i'm glad we have a strong military and I'm glad we have people that volunteer for it, so we don't have to send our sons and daughters off into a draft.

Yes, and if it weren't for public school teachers we wouldn't know how to read, without Obamacare we wouldn't have insurance, without the federal reserve we wouldn't have a medium of exchange, without welfare poor people would starve,,; in its entirety, without the government we would be helpless savages. Now, I don't beleive you believe that, so my question to you sir is, how do you define that point in which a problem becomes so complex that free individuals are no longer up to the task, and that we must instead employ governed individuals? And why, if you have so much faith in the ability for governed individuals to solve complex problems, should they not be employed to solve the minute ones?

Pretty sure people learned how to read for centuries without having public school teachers to guide them. But I'm sinking to your level now, and no one wants to do that.

Because I dislike Scott Walker everyone thinks I'm a leftist?

I actually might have to reconsider my opinion on Scott Walker now.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Feature films are fiction, even when they're based on a real person.http://www.alternet.org/culture/7-big-lies-american-sniper-telling-america

I mean, I really liked Argo. I'll admit that once I realized how removed from reality it was, it took something away from the movie for me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a really entertaining piece of cinema.

This movie was closer to reality than Argo. Certainly there were things that were dramatized and the story line of the Kyle vs. the Butcher was mostly a creation. But the movie does capture real emotions and situations soldiers are in. The tragedy of his death was very real. The emotions of what he and his family have to go through is real. The type of split second decisions that must be made on the battlefield are real. The dangers and fears of a battlefield are very real. By Hollywood standards, this is about as real as it gets. This is a movie, not a documentary.

I remember being upset when the the film version of The Firm changed the ending.

Then Roger Ebert taught me that when a film is adapted from other material, the filmmaker has zero duty to be 100% faithful to the source material.

Film is a unique medium and by definition cannot replicate a play, book, short story or any other medium.

I don't consider Kyle a hero. And to characterize any of his actions as self-defense is laughable; a woman with a grenade is defending herself against foreign invaders.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with Eastwood's choices. He's an artist. His film - the undeniable propaganda value of it notwithstanding - is a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. Though I hasten to add that even documentaries are not unbiased accounts.

I agree with much of what you say, but this is one I don't get and can't understand.

The rules of engagement in warfare are not to use women and children in this manner, and she is plainly in the context of this film a guerrilla combatant... should you watch your own friends die, should you negotiate, please tell us what is the proper way to navigate that situation.She w

She was not defending herself she was sent to her own death to take soliders with her.

There is an us against them dynamic that is inevitable in these situations and I don't judge or second guess his choice in the slightest. Really don't see an alterative as presented in the film

Ask yourself this: if another country's army invaded the US and A to liberate you from your brutal dictator, would your wife be justified using a grenade - or any other tool available to her - or would you expect her to obey the "rules" of war?

I find this fascinating if purposeful. What does it mean?

It's a joke I borrowed from Borat.

The US military routinely kills innocent women and children, apparently in disregard of the "rules" of war.

Define "routinely"

 

[gump]

I doubt if anything you say could make an impact on anyone it is so ignorant.

Your definition of the word ignorant seems to be "that with which I disagree."

No, I think he's quite clear on the definition.

C'mon DD...it's clearly everyone else, and definitely not him.

 

[jon_mx]

It is becoming clear why there are people who have so much hatred towards this movie. It counters their worldview that American soldiers are a bunch of uneducated savages who indescrimitavly slaughter women and children in peaceful-loving self-governing countries who are minding their own business. Most informed people would take issue with about a half-dozen things in that worldview, but those thoughts are wired in their brain. This movie is an assault on several of them. Their emotional response makes sense. Their words, not so much.

 

[jamil]

saw it last night and thought, "Great, a 10 page thread on movie discussion."

You guys are losers.

 

[Fallerjw]

I thought this was a pretty good article about the movie: http://oafnation.com/2015/01/26/american-sniper-the-voice-of-veterans/

Having been in Iraq, this movie hit home with me. The question I kept asking was this, "How would the average person react when confronted with the decision to shoot or not shoot the woman and child who are about to inflict significant damage to your unit / buddies?". Also, it was clear to me how and why people who come back from war struggle. I'm not sure the average person has a good grasp on the types of decisions that are being made by people in war.

 

[cstu]

If it weren't for the American military, we'd all be speaking russian right now.

If it weren't for people like Chris Kyle, America as you know it wouldn't exist.

But because of people like Chris Kyle, people that are willing and able to go into battle and fight wars most of us will never be exposed to, because of him and millions like him we can go to sleep at night with no fear of an invasion, with the certainty that tomorrow we'll wake up, hop in our car, go to work, make money, come home eat a nice meal and generally live the most advance lifestyle known to mankind. If your family income is above $32,500 annually, you are right now in the top 1% of the world. People on welfare make more than that. Yeah, i'm glad we have a strong military and I'm glad we have people that volunteer for it, so we don't have to send our sons and daughters off into a draft.

Yes, and if it weren't for public school teachers we wouldn't know how to read, without Obamacare we wouldn't have insurance, without the federal reserve we wouldn't have a medium of exchange, without welfare poor people would starve,,; in its entirety, without the government we would be helpless savages. Now, I don't beleive you believe that, so my question to you sir is, how do you define that point in which a problem becomes so complex that free individuals are no longer up to the task, and that we must instead employ governed individuals? And why, if you have so much faith in the ability for governed individuals to solve complex problems, should they not be employed to solve the minute ones?

Pretty sure people learned how to read for centuries without having public school teachers to guide them. But I'm sinking to your level now, and no one wants to do that.

At least the wealthy did!

 

[jon_mx]

I thought this was a pretty good article about the movie: http://oafnation.com/2015/01/26/american-sniper-the-voice-of-veterans/

Having been in Iraq, this movie hit home with me. The question I kept asking was this, "How would the average person react when confronted with the decision to shoot or not shoot the woman and child who are about to inflict significant damage to your unit / buddies?". Also, it was clear to me how and why people who come back from war struggle. I'm not sure the average person has a good grasp on the types of decisions that are being made by people in war.

Pretty awesome article by a vet.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

saw it last night and thought, "Great, a 10 page thread on movie discussion."

You guys are losers.

Welcome to the FFA, jamil!

 

[SproutDaddy]

It is becoming clear why there are people who have so much hatred towards this movie. It counters their worldview that American soldiers are a bunch of uneducated savages who indescrimitavly slaughter women and children in peaceful-loving self-governing countries who are minding their own business. Most informed people would take issue with about a half-dozen things in that worldview, but those thoughts are wired in their brain. This movie is an assault on several of them. Their emotional response makes sense. Their words, not so much.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say I hate it. I'm positive that this is probably the most ridiculous post of the thread though. You're definitely living up to your reputation here. Congrats?

 

[oso diablo]

I thought this was a pretty good article about the movie: http://oafnation.com/2015/01/26/american-sniper-the-voice-of-veterans/

Having been in Iraq, this movie hit home with me. The question I kept asking was this, "How would the average person react when confronted with the decision to shoot or not shoot the woman and child who are about to inflict significant damage to your unit / buddies?". Also, it was clear to me how and why people who come back from war struggle. I'm not sure the average person has a good grasp on the types of decisions that are being made by people in war.

i thought the movie could have ended after that scene, and i still would have been satisfied. it's that powerful, and sufficiently emblematic of the movie's entire point.

 

[jon_mx]

It is becoming clear why there are people who have so much hatred towards this movie. It counters their worldview that American soldiers are a bunch of uneducated savages who indescrimitavly slaughter women and children in peaceful-loving self-governing countries who are minding their own business. Most informed people would take issue with about a half-dozen things in that worldview, but those thoughts are wired in their brain. This movie is an assault on several of them. Their emotional response makes sense. Their words, not so much.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say I hate it. I'm positive that this is probably the most ridiculous post of the thread though. You're definitely living up to your reputation here. Congrats?

Thanks. Coming from an American/verern-hating nut job, that is a huge compliment.

 

[SproutDaddy]

It is becoming clear why there are people who have so much hatred towards this movie. It counters their worldview that American soldiers are a bunch of uneducated savages who indescrimitavly slaughter women and children in peaceful-loving self-governing countries who are minding their own business. Most informed people would take issue with about a half-dozen things in that worldview, but those thoughts are wired in their brain. This movie is an assault on several of them. Their emotional response makes sense. Their words, not so much.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say I hate it. I'm positive that this is probably the most ridiculous post of the thread though. You're definitely living up to your reputation here. Congrats?

Thanks. Coming from an American/verern-hating nut job, that is a huge compliment.

Whose judgmental now? And you couldn't be more wrong. You have no idea how much of my family and friends are vets. You seem to be the one without a clue here. Congrats!

 

[joetrow]

It is becoming clear why there are people who have so much hatred towards this movie. It counters their worldview that American soldiers are a bunch of uneducated savages who indescrimitavly slaughter women and children in peaceful-loving self-governing countries who are minding their own business. Most informed people would take issue with about a half-dozen things in that worldview, but those thoughts are wired in their brain. This movie is an assault on several of them. Their emotional response makes sense. Their words, not so much.

At least you have pity on us from up there.