"American Sniper" Chris Kyle: Patriot or Psychopath?

CrastersBabies · Jan 20, 2015

cornflake said:
As to CratersBabies experiences, there was an NPR thing a little while ago, that I'll try to figure out when I've got more time. It was a serial piece (not a Serial piece) with a bunch of tapes from a guy enlisted after 9-11, who became, let's say, disillusioned with his fellow soldiers' motives.

I'd be very interested. Thank you!

emax100 · Jan 20, 2015

Amadan said:
But yeah, "hero" is an overused word. I hate the fawning over soldiers every time they board a plane or attend a game.

I think if anything that would be first and foremost condescending and exceedingly patronizing. Even the soldiers who actually do fit the mold of hero and repeatedly placed their welfares on the line to protect other soldiers and civilians, Americans and others, I would imagine, often resent that as well and feel that, even though this is done with good intentions, makes them feel like they are being talked down to in the worst kind of way. And nowadays there are more people joining the Armed Forces simply because they have had too much of a struggle finding a job elsewhere and can often count on not being counted on to do anything that would clearly classify as heroic. I think that lumping them in with the those who are truly out saving lives, American and non-American alike, into a giant hero category cheapens the latter.

On the other hand, I personally would not feel that for our vets who have served, a simply and sincere thank you for your service and being more courteous to them than you would an average citizen is all that out of line. Just as long as you don't to the deliberate fawning thing we see too much of.

nighttimer · Jan 20, 2015

cornflake said:
There's no way this movie wins best picture. No way in hell.

You could be right about that if you believe the oddsmakers in Vegas.

Best Picture
“Boyhood,” 2 to 5
“The Imitation Game,” 7 to 1
“The Grand Budapest Hotel,” 9 to 1
“Birdman,” 18 to 1
“Selma,” 20 to 1
“The Theory of Everything,” 30 to 1
“Whiplash,” 60 to 1
“American Sniper,” 75 to 1

Maybe the odds are so long against American Sniper because the Academy worried if it wins, Eastwood might amble on stage carrying a chair.

cornflake said:
As to the nominations and the box office - the nominations were out before it opened, and made weeks ago.

True, but Selma was initially screened months ago in early November. That's plenty of time for the naysayers unimpressed by the film's 99 percent "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes to start bitching and whining it didn't depict LBJ as the Great White Father rushing to rescue the Negroes from the evils of Southern segregation.

This is still the Academy Awards which considered sentimental bullshit like Driving Miss Daisy a superior film to Do the Right Thing, so who really gives a rip?

c.e.lawson said:
Unlike the OP, I happen to think any person who signs up voluntarily for the American military (I'm only going to speak for my military, since I'm American) for idealistic reasons and is willing to risk their lives for American ideals, IS a hero. I do think that some who join do so for practical reasons or no better choice, and for those, I'd assign heroism based on their actions once they are soldiers.

I signed up voluntarily and in the entire six years I served I never met a soldier who considered themselves to be a hero. "Hero", like "genius" has been abused by being applied to situations and persons undeserving of it.

A Purple Heart or Medal of Honor recipient is far more deserving of the accolade of being a "hero" than a guy whose greatest risk to life and limb is a cut from all the paper they're shuffling. Soldiers have a job to do and they do it. That's professionalism, not heroism.

c.e.lawson said:
I also think some who are left of center politically are angry about this film and are scapegoating Kyle in order to counteract the pro-military/pro-fighting terrorism response the film has received thus far.

Well, I'm left-of-center politically and I'm not at all angry about American Sniper.

While I don't like Clint Eastwood's politics, I like Clint Eastwood and he can make any doggone movie he wants. Being sniped at by Seth Rogan and Michael Moore doesn't diminish Eastwood in the slightest. They should be more concerned about making better films themselves than criticizing Eastwood for coming up with a film which clearly has found an appreciative audience.

I haven't seen the film so I have no opinion as to whether its any good or not. It's noteworthy that Eastwood stepped in to direct after some guy named Spielberg bowed out due to budgetary restraints.

It is absolutely absurd to disparage American Sniper for its patriotism. By all means, tear it to shreds for inaccuracy or if sugarcoats the truth to engage in "America, fuck yeah" jingoism, but to dump on the film because it may appeal more to conservative audiences than liberal ones only makes liberals look intolerant.

backslashbaby · Jan 20, 2015

He sounds very disturbed, but killing that many people will make folks disturbed very often, I think. I like the use of snipers in war; I prefer killing that is as targeted as possible so civilians don't die.

How was he before he went? That's how I'd try to decide whether his scary personality was a result of war or self-selection. It's certainly true that bloodthirsty folks like to try to sign up for jobs that involve killing people, so it could be either, I think.

Signing up to fight or to be a cop, etc, is not the same thing at all. I do think that's very heroic if done to protect others. I couldn't work a job where people are trying to kill me. I'd crack up very quickly. I very much appreciate that some people can do that, and the side effect of attracting disturbed people is just because of the nature of the work, imho. They all shouldn't be lumped together.

(My father made weapons of mass mass destruction, so I pondered how someone could do that all of my young life. In the end, war is hell, I decided. I'm too sensitive to take any of it, and that doesn't win wars, unfortunately.)

veinglory · Jan 20, 2015

I think Selma does a disservice to LBJ and is historically inaccurate. That does not make it a bad movie, but it does make that scene a bad scene in the movie because it is known that he did not rebuff MLK as shown. Pointing that out is not the same as being white-centric and wanting the movie to fawn over LBJ, it could in fact have left him out entirely and probably been better for it.

kuwisdelu · Jan 20, 2015

I don't understand the suggestions that those who joined the military for less-than-idealistic reasons (such as needing the GI bill, having nowhere else to go, etc.) are somehow less deserving of praise or somehow less "heroic".

Why?

Liosse de Velishaf · Jan 20, 2015

I have several relatives who served in the various branches of the US military, from WWII up until Korea. I have friends who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. None of them are heroes. They are great people who I respect for various reasons. They joined for several of the reasons mentioned in this thread, none of them for patriotism and glory. Some of them did stuff that still isn't well-known today, stuff the government ordered them to keep quiet about. Dangerous stuff, though not necessarily storming terrorist compounds in most cases.

I also have family or ex-family, or friends who served in the military who I don't like. Who were not very nice people as it turns out. Who did some pretty bad things. Though not murdering looters during Katrina.

Being a soldier makes you a soldier. Nothing else. Some soldiers are patriots. Some are assholes. Some are heroes. Some are criminals. But that has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with who they are as people, before, during, and after their service.

This guy comes across to me as a self-important shit. Probably not a hero. Perhaps a criminal if some of his sketchier stories are true. I like the concept behind the movie. I don't know that they picked the best guy to be the main character.

Haggis · Jan 20, 2015

Amadan said:
But yeah, "hero" is an overused word. I hate the fawning over soldiers every time they board a plane or attend a game.

I'm fairly certain that's nothing more than a failed attempt to make up for how Vietnam Vets were welcomed home. I expect that if most vets had their druthers, they wouldn't want to be spat on and they wouldn't want to be idolized. They'd simply want to come home and try to lead a normal life.

nighttimer · Jan 20, 2015

veinglory said:
I think Selma does a disservice to LBJ and is historically inaccurate. That does not make it a bad movie, but it does make that scene a bad scene in the movie because it is known that he did not rebuff MLK as shown. Pointing that out is not the same as being white-centric and wanting the movie to fawn over LBJ, it could in fact have left him out entirely and probably been better for it.

How do you leave LBJ out of a film where MLK requires the presence of the president to show his followers there is an end to the means of non-violence?

The relationship between King and Johnson is the most important one in Selma. We learn little of MLK's friendships with Andrew Young, Hosea Williams or John Lewis beyond a scene or two. As far as Coretta Scott King goes the big dramatic moment comes when she confronts her husband about his infidelities. Without Johnson, any portrait of King is incomplete.

At worst, DuVernay depicts Johnson and King as wary allies. In the film, Johnson agrees with King on the need for a Voting Rights Act, but he wants him to wait—Johnson has a Great Society to build—and warns that he doesn’t have the votes to push another civil rights bill on the heels of the 1964 Act, which outlawed discrimination in public accommodations. It’s not that King and Johnson are enemies—they both want to dismantle Jim Crow—as much as they have different responsibilities and priorities. In order to act, Johnson needs a push. And King gives it to him.

Now, there’s a case that even this is unfair to Johnson. While it’s true he didn’t want to introduce a voting rights bill so soon after the Civil Rights Act of 1964—he needed votes for his economic program, and he didn’t want to alienate Southern Democrats—it’s also true that, in late 1964, Johnson told Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to write the “the goddamndest, toughest voting rights act you can devise.” This draft was written with help from Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, and was the basis for the bill the leaders introduced in March 1965. The Johnson of Selma, in other words, is much more reluctant than the Johnson of reality.

This is most clear in the scenes with Hoover (played by Dylan Baker), where Johnson allows the FBI director to harass King’s family with evidence of his infidelity. This is a far cry from real life. Yes, Johnson knew the contents of the FBI’s file on King, but there’s no evidence he conspired to smear him. That was a Hoover project, with no connection to Selma or the Voting Rights Act. Johnson may have been frustrated, but he wasn’t stupid, and attacking King would have only radicalized the movement, pushing it closer to its more militant activists. As much as King needed Johnson, Johnson needed King.

Which brings us back to our original question, arguably the only one you should ask of a movie that fictionalizes historical events: Why did the director make these choices? What is DuVernay trying to tell us when she makes Johnson more reluctant than he was, or when she shifts the timeline to give him a role in the FBI’s smear tapes? It’s possible these choices reflect ignorance, but I don’t think that’s right—Selma gets so much right about the period that it’s hard to believe DuVernay just didn’t know. It’s also possible they reflect malice, but again, Johnson isn’t the villain of the film—that distinction goes to Tim Roth’s (delightful) George Wallace, who doesn’t care that he’s on the “wrong side of history.”

If you need a clue, look at the people portrayed in the movie. If you don’t count Martin Sheen, who plays federal Judge Frank Minis Johnson Jr., Johnson and Wallace are the only politicians. Almost everyone else is an activist or an ordinary citizen: Carmen Ejogo’s Coretta Scott King, Lorraine Toussaint’s Amelia Boynton, Wendell Pierce’s Hosea Williams, Keith Stanfield’s Jimmie Lee Jackson, Stephan James’ John Lewis, Jeremy Strong’s James Reeb, André Holland’s Andrew Young, and many, many others.

Selma, simply put, is about the men and women who fought to put voting rights on the national agenda, and it engages history from their perspective. By hardening Johnson—and making him a larger roadblock than he was—DuVernay emphasizes the grass roots of the movement and the particular struggles of King and his allies. In the long argument of who matters most—activists or politicians—DuVernay falls on the side of the former, showing how citizens can expand the realm of the possible and give politicians the push—and the room—they need to act.

LBJ is one of my favorite Presidents and did more to advance the cause of civil rights than any of the occupants of the Oval Office before and after him. That said, I don't care if the keepers of LBJ's flame say Selma is unfair to him. It's not his story.

asroc · Jan 20, 2015

CrastersBabies said:
My father was trained as a sniper in Vietnam. He scored the highest marks you could score on the testing. He was so good in fact that they rarely sent him out into the field. From what he says about that experience, I can surmise that he was only used for very specific targets. He spent most of his time training other snipers. (Now, at 70, he still has a sharp-shooter ranking.)

And he was a very quiet, thoughtful, steady man. In his military experience as a trainer, he said that "the slower the heart, the steadier the aim." That it was the quiet ones who had the patience.

Some of our SWAT snipers will sometimes shoot at a range I frequent and they tend to be like this. Quiet, collected, very professional, even a little nerdy. It's why the Kyle story stuck with me; he seems so uncharacteristic.

I wonder if distance has something to do with it. Police snipers shoot from less than a hundred yards to maybe a few hundred yards away max, modern military snipers often from over a mile. Maybe it seems less real over such a distance.

c.e.lawson · Jan 20, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
I don't understand the suggestions that those who joined the military for less-than-idealistic reasons (such as needing the GI bill, having nowhere else to go, etc.) are somehow less deserving of praise or somehow less "heroic".

Why?

You don't see any difference between Pat Tillman (who turned down a $3.6 million over 3 years pro football contract to join the army and then served several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan before his death) and someone who enlists because they have no other options and need a paycheck, meals and housing, all the while praying they don't get shipped overseas?

Hero is a subjective term. And there are varying degrees of heroism. And we all come at the term from our own values and experiences and perspectives. So yes, some are heroes in my eyes simply for choosing to join the military for idealistic reasons. And others earn that status by their actions after, no matter what their initial reasons were to join.

I'm not surprised at all by the former military here in this thread who don't like the term hero being applied liberally to soldiers. Those people have different standards for that term than some average citizens who can admit they would have a very hard time choosing to risk their own lives in the same way, to uphold our values and freedoms. But I, as an average citizen who chose a different path, have no problem calling many of these men and women heroes.

Xelebes · Jan 20, 2015

asroc said:
Some of our SWAT snipers will sometimes shoot at a range I frequent and they tend to be like this. Quiet, collected, very professional, even a little nerdy. It's why the Kyle story stuck with me; he seems so uncharacteristic.

I wonder if distance has something to do with it. Police snipers shoot from less than a hundred yards to maybe a few hundred yards away max, modern military snipers often from over a mile. Maybe it seems less real over such a distance.

I think the welcome home may have done more to make him flamboyant than his service period. When he's racking up his kills and the medals start coming, he is allowed to become more and more of a braggart and thus allows himself to become such.

Prozyan · Jan 20, 2015

Opty said:
I don't. Never said that I did. You're inventing that argument all in your head.

That was meant as a general "you", not an Opty "you". Apologies for not being more clear in my post.

Opty · Jan 20, 2015

Okay. No worries.

robeiae · Jan 20, 2015

*worries*

Alessandra Kelley · Jan 20, 2015

Haggis said:
I'm fairly certain that's nothing more than a failed attempt to make up for how Vietnam Vets were welcomed home. I expect that if most vets had their druthers, they wouldn't want to be spat on and they wouldn't want to be idolized. They'd simply want to come home and try to lead a normal life.

I don't know that there was ever any verified incident of a returning Vietnam vet being spat upon. Plenty of anecdotes and urban myths, but not a single incident that ever held up under examination.

All evidence is that the story was a deliberate fiction promulgated to undermine the anti-war movement.

kuwisdelu · Jan 20, 2015

c.e.lawson said:
You don't see any difference between Pat Tillman (who turned down a $3.6 million over 3 years pro football contract to join the army and then served several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan before his death) and someone who enlists because they have no other options and need a paycheck, meals and housing, all the while praying they don't get shipped overseas?

In terms of joining the military? No, not really. Giving up $3.6 million for a much lower-paying job will always be more notable regardless of what the lower-paying job is. I don't consider it significantly more heroic that he gave up that career to enlist in the military versus, say, to teach kindergarten, though.

Most of the people I know who joined the military have done so out of need, and some of them didn't see combat, and I respect the hell out of all of them. I can't see why joining out of idealism instead would make me respect them any more. It really wouldn't. Why should it?

Some view combat veterans more highly than non-combat veterans, and I don't get that either. A vet is a vet.

Haggis · Jan 20, 2015

Alessandra Kelley said:
I don't know that there was ever any verified incident of a returning Vietnam vet being spat upon. Plenty of anecdotes and urban myths, but not a single incident that ever held up under examination.

All evidence is that the story was a deliberate fiction promulgated to undermine the anti-war movement.

How about this one? I was in the Army in 1966 through 1969. They didn't send me to Vietnam. But I was spat on twice. The first time was by an old guy in Philadelphia when I was on my first one day pass from Basic Training. The second time was in Seattle when I was returning from Korea. It was a sweet welcome home. Oh, and I was called a baby killer more than once.

Sorry. No citation. Fox News wasn't there to cover it. Believe me or don't. Of course, maybe they only spat on veterans who didn't actually serve in Vietnam.

cornflake · Jan 20, 2015

CrastersBabies said:
I'd be very interested. Thank you!

It took a *while* searching, as I couldn't remember exactly where he was deployed or what the heck program it was on (or out of where, as it could have been borrowed from a public radio station someplace else and played on my local) and had just generic terms, but I really remembered the story, if that makes sense, and wanted to find it for you (and me), because it was really affecting, I thought.

Okie - this is the transcript; I think there's a link to the audio version there too someplace. It's part four, down the page - Deep, Dark Open Secret.

shadowwalker · Jan 20, 2015

Opty said:
Which comments were those? I reviewed every post in the thread up to the point of you posting that and no one in the entire thread had said anything disparaging about snipers in general.

So, either you are (like Prozyan) inventing posts by other people in your own head or you mistakenly believe that Michael Moore posted somewhere in this thread and only you can see his posts.

So if someone mentions what other people have said outside of this forum, we are not allowed to also comment on that? Well, excuse me.

Opty · Jan 20, 2015

The way you wrote your post, it seemed that you were responding to something that had been said here.

Otherwise, the "Cowardly?..." seemingly comes out of nowhere and is essentially a non sequitur, especially given that you gave absolutely no indication that you were referring to something said outside of the thread.

robeiae · Jan 20, 2015

Alessandra Kelley said:
All evidence is that the story was a deliberate fiction promulgated to undermine the anti-war movement.

What evidence would that be?

I get the fact that such stories can be used as propaganda, but there's no evidence of such stories being wholly fabricated as a part of some nefarious plan. There are plenty of stories from vets--like Haggis--who claim such instances occurred. Maybe some are lying, maybe some are mis-remembering. And while one can say these incidents were not "verified" (which is saying very little, imo), one cannot say they were fabricated as a matter of fact.

emax100 · Jan 20, 2015

Alessandra Kelley said:
I don't know that there was ever any verified incident of a returning Vietnam vet being spat upon. Plenty of anecdotes and urban myths, but not a single incident that ever held up under examination.

All evidence is that the story was a deliberate fiction promulgated to undermine the anti-war movement.

There are no verfied incidents because the newspapers and channels at the time couldn't be bothered to bring it to their attention. To start with the assumption that all the vets and their families who shared these stories are lying falls well into blatant disrespect of the troops territory.

shadowwalker · Jan 20, 2015

Opty said:
The way you wrote your post, it seemed that you were responding to something that had been said here.

Otherwise, the "Cowardly?..." seemingly comes out of nowhere and is essentially a non sequitur, especially given that you gave absolutely no indication that you were referring to something said outside of the thread.

No one else seemed to have a problem figuring it out. :Shrug:

c.e.lawson · Jan 20, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
In terms of joining the military? No, not really. Giving up $3.6 million for a much lower-paying job will always be more notable regardless of what the lower-paying job is. I don't consider it significantly more heroic that he gave up that career to enlist in the military versus, say, to teach kindergarten, though.

Most of the people I know who joined the military have done so out of need, and some of them didn't see combat, and I respect the hell out of all of them. I can't see why joining out of idealism instead would make me respect them any more. It really wouldn't. Why should it?

Some view combat veterans more highly than non-combat veterans, and I don't get that either. A vet is a vet.

Re: your first paragraph -- Are you honestly comparing teaching kindergarten with being a combat soldier? Or are you only looking at the paycheck? I'm not talking about the paycheck. I'm talking about the risk of life and limb to protect American ideals. That's heroic.

And regarding the rest about a vet being a vet -- come on. Do you think a doctor who volunteers to travel to Africa and treat Ebola is equivalent to a hack in Beverly Hills injecting Botox? A doctor is a doctor, right? Wrong. I think the fact that there are Purple Hearts and Silver Stars and Medals of Honor tells us that a vet is not a vet.

"American Sniper" Chris Kyle: Patriot or Psychopath?

Burninator!

No Gods No Masters

~~~~*~~~~

volitare nequeo

Revolutionize the World

Evil, undead Chihuahua

No Gods No Masters

Alex

Delerium ex Ennui

Are you one, Herbert?

Touch and go

Sophipygian

Revolutionize the World

Evil, undead Chihuahua

practical experience, FTW

empty-nester!

Touch and go

empty-nester!

*