jrfrank56

Honestly, from my perspective I appreciate people who take the time to shake my hand, but I can't help but feel that it is just their way of patting themselves on the back for the "I did my one good deed for the day" sort of thing. I simply say, "Thank you." It's shorter than saying, "If you really care or want to thank a vet, write your congressman and tell him/her to stop thinking every problem in the world needs US soldiers to be sent there or volunteer at the VA." The one veteran said it best, "it beats the hell out of being spit on and called horrible names." Very true.

Culture, many troops see it as weakness. They don't want people to think they are crazy or that there is something wrong with them. They don't know how to decompress or go about finding help. In the Army, we would have monthly power point presentations on PTSD and other problems within the military or at least once a quarter in accordance to the the fiscal year. You could tell there is a difference in approach to the subject between the guys that deployed and the ones that didn't

With civilians, in general, I believe it is a lack of understanding what PTSD is and what it entails. There was a fellow student yesterday who did not even know what it meant. Think about it, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, it just sounds like a medical term coined by a monotoned voiced doctor. It wasn't called PTSD in the past. I believe George Carlin had a bit on this subject.

I picked up the book yesterday and started reading last night. I'm only about 100 pages in so far but will say based on what I've read so far, the movie was not an accurate portrayal of Chris Kyle. I'm not saying that as a negative to Chris Kyle.

 

For example, the opening scene when he shot the kid and woman. It was actually only a woman and he didn't really seem to have that much trouble with it. Yes, at first he wasn't sure but after the shot there wasn't this internal conflict that they seemed to show in the movie. He said she was evil, that she was already dead, he just made sure she didn't take any Americans or other innocents with her.

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe the clash I see in the media and in real life is mix of people who just saw the movie and those who read the book and saw the movie. How people feel about the military also plays a big part. Personally, like Larry Wilmore said last night, "I don't take movies that seriously ... You know, if I did, every time I got on a [cuss word] plane there would be some [cuss word] snakes." I think it is an insane example of people want every single detail in a 2 hour movie. I'm just glad it is bringing more attention to PTSD and the life of veterans when they come home.

IMO, he enjoyed killing the enemy because he saw them as pure evil. I also think when he said it "was fun" he was talking about the whole experience of a SEAL.

Woodsrider, if that is how you interpreted the quote or the book if you read it, you are certainley entitled to that opinion. I came to that conclusion as well . It's just that I have had to defend some people from harsh backlash due to them not having a favorable opinion of Chris Kyle because they believed the movie did not accuratley portray him. I'm just being objective and trying to see how others came to their conclusion about the movie and I understood where they were coming from. I believe this subject has some grey area and that is where people differ.

Welcome to your first then.

 

We just disagree. Plain and simple. You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

 

I'm not going to continue to clutter this thread with our back and forth. You won't change my mind nor will I change yours.

I concur and thanks for your service capt278.

Where did it say he say he enjoyed it quite a bit? Which chapter? I could have missed that.

 

I think he "Enjoyed" saving the men he was fighting with and he "Enjoyed" protecting them.

"There's another question people ask a lot: 'Did it bother you killing so many people in Iraq?' I tell them, 'No.' … I loved what I did. … I'm not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL"

He enjoyed protecting his guys and killing the enemy. Like I said before, i'm not judging the man. I can accept the good and the bad and some of the complicated events that surrounded Chris Kyle. I would have loved having him providing overwatch when I was in Afghanistan. I'm just pointing out the differences between him in the movie and the book. He mentions in interviews the only thing that had him worried was the legal ramifications of shooting. Let me say it like this, many others and I came to the conclusion that this man was not bothered by killing and liked it when I finished the reading the book. People interpret what they read and hear differently. It doesn't take away from the fact that Chris Kyle is a hero to me.

IMO the movie did not make it look like he struggled in killing the enemy. It showed him struggling to shoot a child.

 

The rest of the world doesn't play by the same rules we do. We do not sacrafice our women and children.

 

My father was a sharp shooter in Vietnam. They would strap bombs to children and tell them they either go towards our soldiers or they would shoot them.

 

Most people who have served in active combat would tell you that killing the enemy is easy because it feels justified and you are defending yourself and your brothers.

 

Killing an inocent is a different story. You never forget it.

If you read the man's memoir it certainely did. In his memoir he enjoyed it quite a bit whether it was a child or adult. Most people I served with did not find killing the enemy easy. Especially the higher ranking soldiers with years experience. Killing another human being is NOT EASY, even if it's justified.

No silly guilt trip.

 

You call me paranoid. You want to call people names. How about discussing something like an adult?

 

You have your opinion, I have mine. We disagree. That's fine. Leave the name calling to the 3rd graders.

 

I assumed nothing. Plenty of people have served their country. Thanks for your service.

Being called paranoid is name calling? lol that's a first. You did assumed, you assumed and tried to lay the whole I want to sit around camp fires and sing while innocents die crap on me.

We left support because we needed them as buffers against the Soviet Union.

I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said America has no allies, just interests.

You are really clueless how many it took to get bin Laden. How many years, millions of dollars and man hours do you actually think it took to get him?

Not clueless at all, if you think we went about it the right way in Afghanistan or Iraq, then it is you that is clueless. When we first entered Afghanistan, it was succesful and it came no where close to the man power that had peaked years later. You said millions of dollars and man hours, thats a lot better than 650 billion dollars we wasted there.

I completely understand and expected PP and mcpapa and others of our Liberal Wing of BGP to think this isn't much of anything.

 

My biggest deal is the double standard, if any GOP leader or candidate had said the same thing they would be roasted all over the news.

I seriously doubt that. I'm sure if a GOP candidate said what Obama said including supporting the LGBT community's right to get married with benefits in all 50 states, the LGBT community would be ecstatic. Now, if they said lifestyle choice along with comparing homosexuality being a disease like alcoholism as one BGP member mentioned, then I can see why they would be roasted.

I just got back from watching the movie. When everybody got up and it was dead silent. Very moving and Cooper did a great job.

"Sadaam killed almost a million of his own people prior to the war. How many hundreds of thousands more would have been killed in the last ten years if he was still in power? His own people tried and hanged him. Now, I spend a lot of time in Europe, and the war was unpopular in Germany and France because it went against their financial interests. I can tell you, as much as they like to think they are progressive...they are parochial to their own interests and it has never been in their vernacular to unilaterally put their behinds on the line to aid other countries. This may be harsh, but I was attacked many times by Germans who seemed to be more interested in our politics than their own. I get the sense that many of our liberals...maybe like yourself...spend more time buying into the propaganda on CNN, and worry about our popularity in Europe, rather than studying history and/or psychology to try to understand yourself how the world works.

Did we solve all the problems in Iraq or the middle east? Of course not. Did we stop the genocide against the Kurds by Sadaam?"

The only person that hasn't studied history is you. We can not afford to continue what we do. You and capt278 keep thinking our best defense is an offense idea by invading these countries and it has FAILED. We got Bin Laden with 24 men. There was no need to have 100,000 there. Besides Sadaam wasn't a bad guy to us when we supported him in the iran-iraq war. We all know how that worked out.

So I'm paranoid? I call it being a patriot.

 

It's a shame what some in this country have become. While those, like you, want to sit around the campfire, singing songs, innocents die. You have no solutions but want to criticize those that want to take action.

 

Again, you do not understand that these terrorists only understand and respect one thing, power.

 

Sleep well tonight, because to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, there are those on the wall guarding our freedom.

It's called common sense. What we try to accomplish by invading those countries has failed. Spare me the Jack quote. People like you shouldn't assume. I served my country for 4 years, got out with an honorable discharge and did a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an Infantrymen in the Army. So your silly guilt trip is not going to work on me.

I have a solution, bomb them into the Stone Age. That's where they want to live anyway. The beheading of women and children. Really?

 

It will not stop the lone wolf. Nothing will. It sure as heck will take care of the ISIS/ISIL army.

 

What you don't seem to understand is they don't want to negotiate. They want to kill all of the infidels (which you and I are).

 

Or we can just sit back and talk about how horrible all the killing of the innocents is and not call it what it is.

Bomb them into the stone age? LOL because we haven't been doing that for the past decade. There are thousands of terrorist groups across the planet. We could literally wage war in every continent in the planet. It would fail miserably. Other countries are not going to allow the US to simply blow stuff up in their back yard. It's called logic. That is why there are chiefs of staff to advise the President not paranoid capt278. Once, we take care of ISIS, then there is Boko Horam and so on and so on. It is vital that other countries cooperate, because if they don't our efforts will fail. The US simply cannot afford to perform combat operations at the global scale many want it do.

I don't find it off putting at all.

Good for you. I can't fault people people who do or give those people death threats on twitter because they don't call him a hero or critsize the man because they feel the movie is trying to show kyle as someone he is not.

We should have sent our Sec. Of State over to give Sadaam and Osama big hugs.

what do you suggest we do then? It is obvious that it is wishful thinking on our part to think we can continue to go to war the way we do and expect a different outcome. Getting Osama didn't require 100,000 troops. Or is that a difficult concept to grasp.

Again, you have no solution.

 

Obama has largely ignored terrorism, other than some drone strikes here and there. His ineptitude has allowed ISIS/ISIL to flourish. They are an army with an ideology.

 

We will just have to disagree. I believe that you defend those that cannot defend themselves. I consider that part of the character of being a man.

Neither do you. One part of the problem is that we do not need to send the huge amount of troops that both administrations have done and failed. I think it is time to admit that from the very jump Iraq and Afghanistan was doomed to fail. The financial part was gonna cost us more than we wanted to "win" because to go "all out" would have burdened us and bring us more into debt. Then there is the people we choose to help prop up the government like Karzai and the sunni vs shia problem that happened when we picked a side. Then there is the fact in Afghanistan that those people don't even like each other. We could sink all the money and troops we want into this thing. It is not gonna stop four random people hatching up a terrorist plan in their basement. We can stop plans like that from happening, but it doesn't require an immense amount of money or troops. I consider that part the character of a man who uses logic.

I don't get why killing the enemy would be off putting or enjoying or having pride in the job our country asked him to do.

 

Every man has flaws no one is calling him infallible. If we expect our hero's to be infalliable we are setting way to high a bar. But we can respect , honor and look up to a man who sacrificed more than most and done more to protect our freedom than most.

 

I mean some of the same people on the left who are criticizing Kyle being considered a hero are the same people who look up to Bill Clinton and I don't think they want to compare skeletons in the closet. .

 

But I think we can define someone as a hero for the good deeds they have done whether it be those who consider Clinton to be one or those who consider Kyle.

 

You should be able to separate good deeds and still know everyone is human.

Pretty easy, because normal human beings don't enjoy killing other human beings regardless of the situation. Kyle described it in the book as fun. Saying if it was not for his family he keep going back to do it some more. "Our ROEs [Rules of Engagement] when the [iraq War] kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ’em. Kill every male you see. That wasn’t the official language, but that was the idea". from his memoir. You don't have to be a liberal or whatever to find that off-putting. But yes, I agree with you, we can define someone as a hero for the good deeds they have done.

I'll have to reread it, I don't remember him saying that he "Loved Killing". He did love protecting his guys and saving lives by shooting threats to them.

 

The Gas station thing and the Katrina thing I'd never heard until the last week or so...I doubt either one actually happened. Could have been Kyle just bragging or Urban Legend, I don't know.

 

Movie and the Book are not really that in sync, if you go in expecting to see the Book in Movie version you will be disappointed.

 

The movie points out pretty well what soldiers and their families go through, I think that is what is getting most of the acclaim, not the 160 confirmed kills.

If the book and movie are not in sync that will not bother me one bit. I'm glad the movie is getting the acclaim for portraying the home life. As for the "loved killing" part, I guess I should rephrase that to him enjoying killing the enemy. I can understand why some people find that off-putting vs the man in the movie who struggled with it.

One thing I would like to add is the quote about Kyle enjoying killing "savages" has been taken out of context .

 

He was talking about the jihadists not all Iraq's. People coming out and judging him and who have never been in his positions seem petty and small.

I read the book and kyle enjoyed killing period. I guess that is why some people are upset, the movie did not portray what they believed to be the real Chris Kyle. Plus, there is the Ventura incident, gas station, and the rumored Katrina event. I will say this. Chris Kyle's actions in Iraq saved a lot of troops lives. To me, he is a hero for that. On the the other side, I can understand why people don't think he is a hero because of the Iraq war and how he talked in the book. It was a bit disturbing to me. The amount of hero worshipping in this country can be excessive. So I can understand why people don't kiss the ground Chris Kyle walked on. For pete's sake he is a Navy SEAL, not a saint. So I don't think people hate their country or are communist because they don't like him or the movie.

That said, a really good movie is a really good movie regardless of what happened in the book and i'm looking forward to seeing it this weekend. As one person mentioned before, the major theme of the movie appears to be how the war affected Kyle. The affects of war and PTSD on the troops when they come back home are a serious matter. Any movie bringing that to light I'm all for it.

I would argue the Nazi agenda was an ideology as were the axis parties intentions. We left support to allow stability and reconstruction of their society's. Abandoning Iraq in such a sensitive state was a mistake period. Saying going into Iraq was a mistake is a point I can respect. But at the Sametime you have to admit the exit strategy of Obama was a failure. It has directly led to the instability in the area.

They were still an Army. They had a uniform. We knew who the enemy was. When the Japanese attacked, they had a military. We can defeat a military, not an ideology. As for the bolded, yes Obama had failed in that regard. Like I said, we have leaders that do not know how to wage war. I stand by the notion that we cannot rush off to war like we did. The two plans so far is to commit a lot of troops and then leave to have a power vacuum, then the other plan is to stay there as long as possible sucking up money and troops lives. Fighting a "Global War on Terror" is like fighting the war on the drugs.

We will just disagree . Iraq was filled with blunders and could of been handled much better. That we agree.

 

Afghanstain was a success when handed to Obama and he ruined it. Iraq while filled with blunders was in a good position when handed to Obama and again his policy led to failure .

 

What we do know is under Bush terrorist organzations were being crippled both physically and emotionally and financially.

 

Under Obama terrorist organzations have grown not only in size but sheer power. All this can be traced back to decisions of his own foreign policy.

 

I won't say Bush was perfect he made many mistakes obviously. I'm not in his fan club. But understanding foreign policy it's night and day.

 

It's one thing to argue if Iraq helped defend our freedom but to act like Afghanstan was a legit war to fight the war on terror shows a lack understanding of global terror.

Afghanistan was not a success when handed over to Obama. It was failing because after we went into Afghanistan, all attention went to Iraq. Then once Iraq went down it went back to Afghanistan. Terrorist organizations grew stronger under Obama?

The Terrorist Notches on Obama?s Belt - ABC News

I agree that Afghanistan was the right place to be but it was not a success when it was handed over.

Having long term bases worked in Europe afterm WW2.

That was fighting an actual army. This is fighting an ideology.

If Obama had have kept some troops in Iraq, like the generals requested, it would be a far different situation. He sure didn't try very hard to negotiate a SFA with Iraq.

 

When you are the strongest free nation in the world, the world looks to you to be the leader.

 

Clinton did a much better job at foreign policy than Obama. He understood his job as a leader.

Please, then tell me how long must we stay in those countries then? Say we stayed a couple years. Who is to say that after we left with this plan that another terrorist group doesn't enter Iraq?