Posted on 01/18/2015 8:18:04 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
By now, the story of Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle is familiar. He holds the record for the most confirmed kills, he wrote a book which led to a movie, and he was killed on a shooting range by a PTSD ex-Marine. There is also the troubling business regarding comments he made about Jesse Ventura.
No doubt, he was a skillful killer. By all accounts, he displayed little emotion—possibly facilitated by the extreme distance from his targets.
OK. Skillful killer, shows little emotion, and kills only the bad guys. But for the fact that these deaths are sanctioned by the State, how is his career fundamentally different from Richard Kuklinski, the notorious Iceman? Arguably, many of Kyle’s targets are soldiers doing their thing, albeit for the other side, and are probably nowhere near as “bad” as the Mafia scumbags offed by Kuklinski. Possibly, one distinction is that Kyle’s targets might kill “innocent” people. I assume we would define “innocent” as non-combatants.
Of course, a non-combatant can still aid the enemy.
But, let’s move on. Given Kyle’s tremendous skill, why was he not deployed in missions to assassinate enemy leaders, rather than combatant targets on the ground? Why do we have Marquess of Queensberry rules that seem to prohibit killing the very leaders who are promoting these wars in the first place? No doubt, there were dozens of opportunities for the Allies to take out locations where Hitler was ensconced, for example. Somehow, though, the only such operations were inside jobs, and they failed.
With all due respect, what was wrong in the minds of Kyle and Chad Littlefield, that they would take strung-out Eddie Ray Routh...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Clown.
Coach is WRONG!
How can you question the overwatch mission of an American Sniper?
What ignoramus asks why the sniper isn’t assigned to hit enemy leaders?
What ignoramus believes Jessie Ventura?
This falls in the category of “I don’t know the facts, so I’ll make something up.”
Boy did this guy get up on the wrong side of the bed. Not usual
for the bog site it was from but opinions are like ...
Anyway, we can all agree that we don’t want every kid growing up to long for a sniper role, but this fellow served with high distinction and honor. As a paid assassin he would certainly not been serving in a role that is universally recognized in just war concepts.
Isn’t hitting key important targets the purpose of special forces in the first place.
There can be no doubt that there is an emotional toll on a sniper and they suffer torment just any other combat veteran. However what civilians writing from the safety of their protected homes don’t understand, is the grim horror and reality of war. The enemy killed by this skillful shooter never killed or maimed another American soldier. Any veteran knows exactly what that means, armchair civilian pop psychologists don’t have a clue.
The political class doesn’t start assination campaigns because they do not want to get shot in return - think ‘professional courtesy’.
Did this guy see the movie?
There is something very wrong with someone who would write that.
“...how is his career fundamentally different from Richard Kuklinski, the notorious Iceman?”
Well, let’s see here, one killed for fun and profit, and the other killed in service to his country. How hard is that to grasp?
“Why do we have Marquess of Queensberry rules that seem to prohibit killing the very leaders who are promoting these wars in the first place?”
Seriously? I can give you about a dozen reasons for that, but a few will suffice.
#1 - The current enemy is not dependent on leaders, so taking out their leaders will not stop them.
#2 - It’s never wise to give your enemy a martyr, especially when you have put in a lot of effort to demoralize them.
#3 - It’s a violation of international and domestic laws.
#4 - If we assassinate foreign leaders, then foreign countries feel free to assassinate our leaders in return.
In some ways I feel that I’ve already seen the movie because I’ve been bombarded with trailers on TV. I’ll see it when it comes to pay for view.
He didn't bother commenting on the movie, he focused on attacking Chris Kyle personally.
Killing enemy leaders? I agree whole heartedly. He should have been transported back in time to kill Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Wasn’t the one of the conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination that he failed at taking out Fidel? I think it is proven that a man calling himself Lee Harvey Oswald showed up at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico a week or two before JFK got assassinated?...but that is all just a conspiracy theory right?
There is no scene of the bad sniper with his family. He is a lone wolf the entire movie. There is no moral equivalency in this film. Kyle lays out his reasons for going back on tour and in the process, we witness some pretty awful atrocities from the terrorists. I encourage everyone to see American Sniper.
incoherent piece
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.