now torturers and snipers are patriots.

Now, not so much.

and we didn't attack a country unprovoked and target the civilian population in WWII.
You know that, don't you?

which is almost universally condemned now as an atrocity.

No heroes in that.

If you want to compare Kyle to the bombing of Dresden, I am fine with that.

But if you want to show me where American snipers in WWII targeted civilians regularly, I would like to see it.

That word you use - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Some of the right-wing churches push that crap too. They'll depict three crosses on a hill with the sun behind and then have fighter jets fly out of the sun.

The United States shows a faith in violence that puts the most ardent Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or other religious practitioner in the shade. We will bankrupt ourselves to buy violence. We'll starve our citizens in the streets to buy more weapons and armaments. We'll close schools and let our roads go to ruin rather than deprive our violence machine of even a dollar of funding. Once we blow our enemies to Kingdom Come, we'll pick a fight with the survivors so we can keep practicing violence. We'll invent enemies if none are readily found. Those that sign on for this relentless program will be called heroes, those that resist will be pilloried and shunned.

Sorry, just had to.

Another reason I don't twit.

morons and never even know they are there.

MM likes to get them going and he does. I follow him on Twitter and it's fun to watch them completely lose it whenever he states a fact that they will never hear on their 'educational, patriotic foreign run, Fox'.

Like a 5 year old. Treat him as such.

The Bush Administration falsified intelligence used to justify the war.

Nothing we did there was justified, not a fucking thing, not a single shot fired.

I've met plenty of soldiers that have been subject to and lost friends to sniper fire and remotely detonated IEDs. I don't remember any of this righteous indignation pouring out on those behind those scopes and cell phones.

I'm sorry, I don't consider someone who has been indoctrinated to hate Iraqis, other Muslims, Vietnamese, etc., to the point they are willing to shoot them in the head, as a hero. Of course, some of them really didn't have to be indoctrinated -- they came by the hate naturally.

I blame the folks that send them there a lot more, but it's not like these guys are being conscripted nowadays.

or he has "come by the hate naturally"?

You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. I find your statements to be more foolish than Moore's.

It's not as if Iraqis are a threat to us here, and we did invade their country and try to bomb them into peace.

But that doesn't make MM correct. Cowardice is calling people cowards while you sit on your ass at home not really knowing jack shit about what is going on. I generally like MM, but he is just struggling for relevance here.

but I get his point.

I will reserve my judgment until then. Eastwood made the movie he wanted to. MM is free to do the same.

and you are free to reserve your judgment and defend your child for participating in what you've already admitted was an illegal invasion and occupation.

There are plenty of people that are cowards, MM is among them.

to do their job.

Pretty damn simple - don't want to go to war, don't join the serivce.
Sit home and bad mouth those that do, that is far better.

unless you're a coward or worse, one who benefits from such crimes.

"cut & run" = channeling sarah palin?

I don't mind bad-mouthing people who make excuses about participating in admittedly corrupt and illegal wars. You admitted it, but you still want to make excuses for your stepson's participation.

Not only that -- you want people to HONOR it. what a nerve.

was an illegal and corrupt war, and your attack on people who "sit at home in armchairs" as COWARDS is what's ridiculous.

people who participated in a somewhat awkward position.

If they knew so much about what was going on, why did they participate in a war you've already admitted was wrong? And sometimes, like the 'American sniper,' participate enthusiastically?

you don't have much choice in the matter if you are deployed i.e. "participate". You can't just leave because you didn't want to go fight a war. If you sign up for the service these days, you should probably figure you will be sent somewhere. If you don't want to go to war, don't join the service. It does make the US wrong for invading Iraq. Ultimately, the buck stops at Bush. The service people didn't decide it would be a lark to go to Iraq to invade.

I can't answer for any service people - enthusiastic or otherwise.

"freedom isn't free" -- isn't that what they keep telling us to justify our invasions?

applies equally to illegal invasions.

to sign up for the volunteer Army and then be all shocked when you are deployed and then go AWOL.

It's not rocket science. Don't want to go to war - don't join the service.

to serve, they're signing up for illegality and corruption?

So why would people sign up for such an illegal, corrupt enterprise?

And why should we HONOR those who do?

indoctrinates people to hate the enemy?? Just because it's your husband's son doesn't change the facts.

I will ask him.

I don't give a rats ass if your a sniper of a dude chopping peoples heads off with a swords, so I do not agree with Moore there. However Americans who joined the military after Bush started his war are all very suspect to me. Anyone who willingly joins up for a crusade is either desperate, a fool, or a sadist.

Many may be well intentioned, but well intentioned fools have done a lot more harm then good. As it is we will along with the rest of the world will pay a very high price for what those Cowboys got up to in Iraq alone. The blow-back has barely started, Isis is just a warm summer breeze in comparison to what is to come. The only real heroes in the US military fighting that war were the whistle blowers.

But, basically agree with your post.

That is the sole purpose of a sniper... You find that "honorable?"

What are you on about?

I didn't say anything about "honorable". I can tell you what I don't find honorable - a wealthy fat guy yammering on about ALL snipers because Movie!!11

People will like the movie, others won't. MM doesn't like it. MM can make his own movie.

Am I supposed to treat my husband's son like crap because of this? Call him a coward?

You can feel however you like about that but facts remain facts. I personally do not honor killers..

MM's uncle is a killer.
I am sure that he - husband's son (as well as I) do not give a crap if you honor him or not.

Snipers literally kill. There are many other jobs performed that don't involve direct killing. I've been to war, spent many hours outside the wire from east of Mosul (Keywest) to Arif Jan, Kuwait but the only time I fired my weapon was at the range. You certainly could argue that I facilitated the killing (the weapons I did transport were likely exported(Kuwaiti naval base was the destination) to who the hell knows where but we also delivered cargo such as a Starbucks machine) and I couldn't disagree but the job task of a sniper involves firing a kill shot.

Most people that go to war are killers. They don't take grenades, tanks and a crap load of guns just for show.

but I'll certainly concede most in a combat MOS does. We always had to put our weapons on "amber" status whenever crossing the Kuwati border or leaving the wire according to regulations but also according to regulations we had stay inside our level 3 up-armored vehicles but the 1 time there was small arms fire hitting our convoy (all aimed directly at a TCN vehicle) the rear gun truck certainly returned fire but I couldn't see where it was coming from (night) so I have no idea if he was successful. Amber is putting the magazine into the weapon. "red" would be switching the safety off safe.

difficult for him to stand up and say no, but why should I 'honor' him? as far as I'm concerned (and not attacking your husband's son particularly) there was nothing to honor about participation in that war as the war itself was completely dishonorable. It dishonored our country, our leadership, and everyone who participated in that murderous, dishonest episode.

I don't care who you honor or don't. You putting the blame entirely on people who volunteered is crappy. Troops don't deploy themselves. The President is the commander in chief.

couldn't have got his war on.

If they'd believed it was wrong, they couldn't have been forced to serve. So I doubt they believed it very strongly. or else they were just cowards. Or they thought the rewards were worth it.

A military force that decides which orders (on a grand scale... Not talking about individual, specific illegal orders) it will follow is no military force at all. It's up to the politicians to determine when the military is to be used, not individual soldiers.

Only Hitler.

I too refuse to honor the dishonorable service of men and women who volunteered to fight illegal and cowardly wars at the behest of Bush and Cheney.

Killing enemy soldiers is part of war. Snipers have taken out military leaders as well, which certainly advances their side's interests.

You may not think a particular war is justified, but if a sniper had taken out Hitler, would you have objected?

If "honor" really matters on the battlefield. War is a nasty business. And the job of the military is to kill people and blow shit up. If you find no honor in any of that, in understand, but I've been around the military most of my life, and most of the people I have met and have worked with I WOULD. Describe as honorable, even when I disagreed with them.

There were remnant Japanese snipers forever taking pot shots at Americans. These snipers were thought of as cowards.

DU considers my husband's son a coward. Now what?

I still won't call him a coward. I don't know that he is particularly brave. I do know that I wouldn't make it through a week of boot camp, let alone doing 2 tours in Afghanistan crawling around with one other guy. What am I supposed to do here? Throw him under the bus to appease people on a discussion board? The guy that this movie is about is probably an asshole, but from what I know about S, he is in no way the movie guy.
Of course, because I won't throw him under the bus I'm suddenly a gung ho war person.

But this is another war movie, in my mind, seeking to glorify and justify the Iraq War. Sniping should never be glorified.

The Iraq War in no way preserved our freedom. This should be understood.

There was absolutely no good reason to go there in the first damn place. The whole thing was drummed up terra!1/wmd!1.
I don't think that anybody that is against the war will have their minds changed by this movie. I also don't think that the people that were all about that war would suddenly change their minds to be against it. We have Bush and Cheney to thank for this mess. Unfortunately, they won't be held responsible for it in any way.

I will go out on another limb and say that because I have not seen the movie, I don't know that it justifies the war per se. I'm not sure if it includes the story of the run up to the war. Maybe people's views on the war color their perception of the movie. The anti-war see it as anti, the pro people see it as pro. I had read somewhere that it is pretty ambiguous in that way. But that could be wrong. As I said in my other post, the guy is probably an asshole. The Viet Nam vets I know personally all reacted to their time there differently. Some won't talk about it, one had to finally be confined to an institution because the things he saw drove him around the bend. Each person that goes to war experiences that war differently than the next. Not every person that goes is a decent person to begin with. Why would we expect a war to change them into decent people? Others may go into it a good person and come back an asshole. The obvious answer is that those in charge think long and hard before sending in troops. In a conversation I had with S, he said that no amount of training can fully prepare you for the real thing. Nothing he said in that conversation indicated that he was super happy or woohoo lemme at 'em about Afghanistan. I'm not trying to "glorify" snipers. I guess all I am trying to say is that everybody shouldn't be judged by the actions of one guy. I find the idea of snipers creepy. Unfortunately, it's part of the tools used in war.

here you have a soldier that had to see his target up front and personal, was usually by himself and exposed, and knew he would be retaliated against with enormous fire power. WWII snipers were not cowards.

Compared to the standard groundpounder like myself, most of our fire was at great volume, directed at muzzle flashes or tracers in the bushes or fleeting movement in the jungle. Not actually seeing the person you're shooting at. We had 2 snipers in each of our companies in the 60's. Standard grunt carried about 300 rounds of rifle ammo, 250 rounds of machine gun ammo, a LAW rocket, 2 mortar rounds and at the end of a firefight would be pretty well depleted of Ammo. The snipers counted their ammo by the dozens. It's easy to armchair quarterback it never having lived it. MM's uncle if he was a combatant in WW2 was a target, whether by a 4000lb bomb from a Stuka or a single snipers bullet, he would never had known the difference. Yeah, i'm a Vet, pro-military and a Democrat, as are a lot of DUers and will always rankle the nerves of anti-war rooters.

Depends on your position and targets.

Context is everything.

Is that a coward?

You're right..context is everything.

. . . what if a sniper would have taken out Saddam Hussein in 2002?
That would have prevented the entire Iraq War from ever beginning, no shock and awe.

You have to know that the CIA had a plan drawn up to do that very thing by 2001, if not earlier.

When Saddam Hussein told Dubya Bush that he would leave Iraq and live in exile for a mere $1 billion dollars, why didn't Bush agree, and then tell the bank where the money was deposited not to honor Saddam's requests for withdrawals.

Hell, Bank of America would have been glad to do that sort of thing for Dubya Bush.
Then again, that bank only wanted to do that sort of thing to retired Americans living on a fixed income.
But, I digress.

Things start getting murky when you throw in shooting at kids, women, looters, shadows & things you just get a bad "feeling" about.
For myself, I feel one can only be as heroic as the cause is heroic.
Were the young people who were just doing the duty they were assigned in other counties, in other periods of history, just as heroic?
If the cause is bad, but the individual acts with valor for his state, if that is all that is needed to be a hero then history is full of them.

ending lives.

Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. SPOILER ALERT: The sniper is a teenaged Vietnamese girl.

Or maybe he's forgotten the valiant snipers -- many of them women -- of the USSR during World War II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipers_of_the_Soviet_Union

Something something Noam Chomsky something something...

I've come to understand the biological origins of politics well enough to ever want to play the game. There simply is no correct view of any issue. And I try not to do "belief-based behavior" any more.

Archers were hated and derided as cowards since they were in place behind the foot and horse and would unleash a shower of death. War is Hell and I hate it but in war there will be snipers on both sides.

Where you find FR-style Moore hate, you find a troll letting their slip show.

For a minute there I felt like I had stumbled onto the wrong site.

it's the general, reflexive Moore hate that's a give away. No one agrees on everything, but those who speak of Michael Moore like an enemy... that's a headspace usually occupied by right wingers.

pushing right-wing perspectives.

and the right-wing discussion style, which is to belittle one's discussion partners.

Sockpuppet is a growing job opportunity.

I even despise this movie. I disagree with his sentiment in this regard.

Last edited Mon Jan 19, 2015, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

The haters are the posters I find suspect.

MM is a voice of freedom. Not a voice for freedumbs.

Michael Moore draws out the haters like flies to a bug zapper.

And calling the, "campers" is incredibly stupid.

Mine is that when you're engaging in no-kidding military struggle, the idea is that you make the fight as unfair as possible. You stack the odds in your own favor as much as possible and "hit 'em where they ain't."

Gotta love it when he gets that hornet's nest all stirred up.

This is one of his wildly stupid moments.

Simo Häyhä was indisputably one bad ass motherfucker...

if they talked to this guy, Jethro Collins

To be shot in the back like that by a mean dirty killer, it's just not right.

Snipers are not cowards. Snipers are a necessary tool in an army's arsenal and have been since well before WWI. It is sad about his uncle, but there are many Dads, uncles, brothers that are alive today because of the actions of snipers.

(I will defend those who become snipers, but I will not join in the glorification and worship of "American Sniper" Chris Kyle&quot .

Are Bomber crews? Are Drone operators? Are ICBM operators?

The real issue is what constitutes a 'hero'. For me it is someone who risks all to do something good. That to me generally means saving lives (human and Animal).

Times instruments of mass killings and political ideology

The question isn't if they are cowards, but if they should be considered heroes

Yes, right you are Michael.

Yet we continue to invade without provocation, and call ourselves heroes anyway.

It's not good or bad. It's just another tool of war.