Every thread we have had on this subject has devolved into a mess. Now that it's been awhile since we've had these discussions, I'd like to share my thoughts on the issue. Regarding the movie itself:

• From all accounts, it sounds like a great war flick.
• The character in the movie seems to be a real American hero in both actions and personality.
• The movie is propaganda and regularly departs from what really happened.
  

When you look at the real Chris Kyle, it becomes much more complicated an issue.

• Chris loved what he did, and he did it well. Objectively the guy was not a coward and it took guts to do what he did.
• Contrary to the character of Chris Kyle, the real Chris Kyle did not have the same angst over killing people.
• The real Chris Kyle appeard to have zero tolerance for Muslims, period.
• The real Chris Kyle had a bad habit of telling lies. He defamed Jessie Ventura and his estate ultimately had to pay for Chris's lies. He made claims about killing looters during Katrina that do not appear true.
• Clearly the real Chris Kyle was a disturbed individual when he lived at home and prior to his death. Evidently PTSD was the primary culprit that affected him late in his life. Did this cause him to become a liar who claimed to beat up and kill people back in the U.S. after his tours in Iraq were over? I don't know for sure, but it's probably not surprising if it was the root cause.
  

My conclusions are that the film was a propaganda piece designed to create a sympathetic character plus make us feel good about the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Within the context of Chris Kyle serving in the military and not having a say in which wars the U.S. chooses to fight, he served with distinction. It is not fully known whether there was a darker side where he killed indiscriminately more people than he should have. But within the context of having to be there, he did his duty.

Overall, I take no pride in the U.S. being in Iraq in the first place. It was the wrong war to fight. We unnecessarily destabilized the country and was caught up in regional disputes. When you take the larger picture into account, Chris Kyle's role and the role of others was unnecessary and cost too many lives. That's not Chris's fault, but the fault of our politicians who sent them to war in the first place.

Some food for thought below. As with everything, you need to try to watch these with objectivity in mind. They're not to the level of Michael Moore's ramblings, but also they're definitely not rah rah propaganda pieces either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2bA9t4Nn58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9J0G1Unvoc

Russia Today is a generally a pretty decent news station for certain topics, however it is owned by the Russian Government so I don't really trust any reports is has on US foreign policy, to which of course Chris Kyle is related.

I think you bring up some interesting questions, but RT shouldn't really be used as a balanced source.

Thought provoking, as usual. Thanks, miko.

I'm not so sure about the propaganda angle. I think the movie was made solely to make money. Does it use literary license to cover some warts and make it more palatable to the American public? Probably, just like most movies. It's still 100x more accurate than anything from Oliver Stone or Michael Moore.

If we're going to get political, I'll take a right wing movie like this over a left wing movie celebrating the greatness of the Cuban health care system any day.

I read the book after all the controversy was made public, and the book edition I read had been edited of some of his more extraordinary claims . We had a quite a bit of comment about the book and the move it up here because Ole' Jesse was involved, of course.

I though personally the book, while interesting on a tactical level, was not very well written. That's OK because clearly C. Kyle is not a professional writer and there is always certain charm in a more granular explanation of events as opposed to a polished memoir. All in all it was a perfect book to read on a plane, and leave in the pocket for the next traveler.

(03-09-2015 01:00 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Thought provoking, as usual. Thanks, miko.

I'm not so sure about the propaganda angle. I think the movie was made solely to make money. Does it use literary license to cover some warts and make it more palatable to the American public? Probably, just like most movies. It's still 100x more accurate than anything from Oliver Stone or Michael Moore.

If we're going to get political, I'll take a right wing movie like this over a left wing movie celebrating the greatness of the Cuban health care system any day.

No propaganda, all about making money. Warner Bros bought the rights to make the movie.
Originally they wanted David O Russel or Speilberg to direct, but he had a different version than WB, so they gave it to Eastwood. Also, WB insisted on Bradley Cooper starring in it.
First and foremost they wanted to make a profit.

(03-09-2015 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:00 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Thought provoking, as usual. Thanks, miko.

I'm not so sure about the propaganda angle. I think the movie was made solely to make money. Does it use literary license to cover some warts and make it more palatable to the American public? Probably, just like most movies. It's still 100x more accurate than anything from Oliver Stone or Michael Moore.

If we're going to get political, I'll take a right wing movie like this over a left wing movie celebrating the greatness of the Cuban health care system any day.

No propaganda, all about making money. Warner Bros bought the rights to make the movie.
Originally they wanted David O Russel or Speilberg to direct, but he had a different version than WB, so they gave it to Eastwood. Also, WB insisted on Bradley Cooper starring in it.
First and foremost they wanted to make a profit.

Sure there was a profit motive. But the profit motive and a "feel good' story about American patriotism goes hand in hand. The majority of this country do not want to think of America as a country that intentionally inflicts evil on others. So to maximize profits, a sanitized Chris Kyle who has both scruples and a dedication to his duty as a soldier wins the most hearts. You won't sell as many tickets for a film where the protagonist comes across as a cold blooded killer or where the U.S. is perceived as having ulterior motives for going into Iraq that were not directly related to the 9/11 attacks.

Really, everyone has said "no more" Vietnams. Well, most think that means we have learnt our lessons and will not fight a war LIKE another Vietnam again. But I also believe that the citizen's psyches do not want to admit that there will ever be another Vietnam again either. So if a war looks "bad", we will collectively figure out a way to whitewash it so that it does not come across as another "bad" war like Vietnam.

I'm content to just the let the whole thing go.

The guy saved American lives in a warzone. Was he a liar? Was he a scumbag? Was he full of ****? Was he a bad guy? The answer is maybe.

But, I don't respect him for any other reason than he saved his comrades in a war zone. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Please tell me he didn't use RT News as his source? Please....

(03-09-2015 02:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:00 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Thought provoking, as usual. Thanks, miko.

I'm not so sure about the propaganda angle. I think the movie was made solely to make money. Does it use literary license to cover some warts and make it more palatable to the American public? Probably, just like most movies. It's still 100x more accurate than anything from Oliver Stone or Michael Moore.

If we're going to get political, I'll take a right wing movie like this over a left wing movie celebrating the greatness of the Cuban health care system any day.

No propaganda, all about making money. Warner Bros bought the rights to make the movie.
Originally they wanted David O Russel or Speilberg to direct, but he had a different version than WB, so they gave it to Eastwood. Also, WB insisted on Bradley Cooper starring in it.
First and foremost they wanted to make a profit.

Sure there was a profit motive. But the profit motive and a "feel good' story about American patriotism goes hand in hand. The majority of this country do not want to think of America as a country that intentionally inflicts evil on others. So to maximize profits, a sanitized Chris Kyle who has both scruples and a dedication to his duty as a soldier wins the most hearts. You won't sell as many tickets for a film where the protagonist comes across as a cold blooded killer or where the U.S. is perceived as having ulterior motives for going into Iraq that were not directly related to the 9/11 attacks.

Really, everyone has said "no more" Vietnams. Well, most think that means we have learnt our lessons and will not fight a war LIKE another Vietnam again. But I also believe that the citizen's psyches do not want to admit that there will ever be another Vietnam again either. So if a war looks "bad", we will collectively figure out a way to whitewash it so that it does not come across as another "bad" war like Vietnam.

I'm not sure we've learned the lesson of Vietnam. The wars of this century were fought with one hand tied behind our back, just like Vietnam. And we're doing the same thing with ISIS.

Either go in and annihilate the enemy, or stay home. Hell, we can't even identify the enemy with ISIS ... are they "radical Islam" or "violent extremists"?

Does the movie portray the war favorably? Maybe. I don't know if that rises to the level of propaganda. And it's not like the government made the movie to cover its ass.

(03-09-2015 02:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:00 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Thought provoking, as usual. Thanks, miko.

I'm not so sure about the propaganda angle. I think the movie was made solely to make money. Does it use literary license to cover some warts and make it more palatable to the American public? Probably, just like most movies. It's still 100x more accurate than anything from Oliver Stone or Michael Moore.

If we're going to get political, I'll take a right wing movie like this over a left wing movie celebrating the greatness of the Cuban health care system any day.

No propaganda, all about making money. Warner Bros bought the rights to make the movie.
Originally they wanted David O Russel or Speilberg to direct, but he had a different version than WB, so they gave it to Eastwood. Also, WB insisted on Bradley Cooper starring in it.
First and foremost they wanted to make a profit.

Sure there was a profit motive. But the profit motive and a "feel good' story about American patriotism goes hand in hand. The majority of this country do not want to think of America as a country that intentionally inflicts evil on others. So to maximize profits, a sanitized Chris Kyle who has both scruples and a dedication to his duty as a soldier wins the most hearts. You won't sell as many tickets for a film where the protagonist comes across as a cold blooded killer or where the U.S. is perceived as having ulterior motives for going into Iraq that were not directly related to the 9/11 attacks.

Really, everyone has said "no more" Vietnams. Well, most think that means we have learnt our lessons and will not fight a war LIKE another Vietnam again. But I also believe that the citizen's psyches do not want to admit that there will ever be another Vietnam again either. So if a war looks "bad", we will collectively figure out a way to whitewash it so that it does not come across as another "bad" war like Vietnam.

I have not seen the movie, but I read that it is not patriotic or rah rah America.

miko33... troll on the sports boards, troll on the political board.

(03-09-2015 12:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

• The real Chris Kyle appeard to have zero tolerance for Muslims, period.
  

I think that most of the other items are on the mark except for this one.

'American Sniper' Chris Kyle defended against MSNBC racism charge by Iraqi interpreter - Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...st-msnbc-/ Wrote:An Iraqi Muslim interpreter for Chris Kyle spoke out against claims by MSNBC foreign correspondent Ayman Moheldin that the “American Sniper” was a racist and went on “killing sprees,” sharing his own experiences with Mr. Kyle whom he considered a dear friend.

In comments published Friday in IJReview, the interpreter, known by his codename Johnny Walker, said that Kyle was not a racist. He told reporters that Kyle had treated him like a brother in arms, sharing meals, talking about families and trusting him with his life.

“If you’re going to call Chris Kyle a racist, then call me a racist too,” Mr. Walker said, IJReview reported. “At times we were on the base, Kyle would laugh with the other Iraqi soldiers and joke with them. Again, why would a racist engage in that behavior?”

Mr. Walker said that when he attended one of Kyle embraced him at one of his book signings in La Jolla, Calif. After seeing him for the first time in several years, and said that Kyle credited him as an American hero during a speech at the event.

“Then, he said that I saved more SEAL’s lives than him. Pointing at me, and I am an Iraqi Muslim. So how is this racist?” Mr. Walker said, IJReview reported.

I didn't think the movie was anything special. Sure it was decent high budget war film that is clearly above average. However it felt more like a book rather than a movie. It's very hard to make a movie in a biography format, and the way directors/writers get around that is to focus on a specific story line within the main characters life. Make the movie about a storyline rather than about the character.

That IMO is what doomed the movie from receiving any serious consideration from the more prestigious Academy awards. When the screenplay for Lincoln was written, the guy wrote a giant 700 page script about his entire life. He then decided to take only the last 50 pages of the script, believing that was the part of his life that needed to be told.

That's how you make a decent movie script for a biography.

(03-09-2015 02:32 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Please tell me he didn't use RT News as his source? Please....

The truth is somewhere in the middle. So while this may be a "controversial source" that I linked to, I find that you can get a decent amount of truth about a situation when you consult multiple sources who each have different agendas who are analyzing the same situation.

(03-09-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:32 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Please tell me he didn't use RT News as his source? Please....

The truth is somewhere in the middle. So while this may be a "controversial source" that I linked to, I find that you can get a decent amount of truth about a situation when you consult multiple sources who each have different agendas who are analyzing the same situation.

RT makes FNC look like NPR.

(03-09-2015 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm content to just the let the whole thing go.

The guy saved American lives in a warzone. Was he a liar? Was he a scumbag? Was he full of ****? Was he a bad guy? The answer is maybe.

But, I don't respect him for any other reason than he saved his comrades in a war zone. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Like I said earlier, the guy was heroic in the line of duty given he was fighting in a war that should never have been fought in the first place. That being said, after his first 1 or 2 tours where he served for his commitment, why volunteer for more when he had a family? Only Chris and perhaps his wife can answer that. My point about starting this thread was to not get too hung up on the movie as being a true account of what actually happened. The guy wasn't the reincarnation of Audie Murphy nor was he the devil personified.

I have not seen the film and I don't plan to. I know the gist of it. I find that too many people think of it primarily as a "feel good, go America" story despite or inspite of the portrayal of how the war was ripping the guy up mentally and emotionally. I don't know what you guys have experienced, but it's what I've seen IRL when talking to people about the movie. We had a discussion several weeks back about nationalism, and I think this relates to that. JMHO.

(03-09-2015 03:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm content to just the let the whole thing go.

The guy saved American lives in a warzone. Was he a liar? Was he a scumbag? Was he full of ****? Was he a bad guy? The answer is maybe.

But, I don't respect him for any other reason than he saved his comrades in a war zone. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Like I said earlier, the guy was heroic in the line of duty given he was fighting in a war that should never have been fought in the first place. That being said, after his first 1 or 2 tours where he served for his commitment, why volunteer for more when he had a family? Only Chris and perhaps his wife can answer that. My point about starting this thread was to not get too hung up on the movie as being a true account of what actually happened. The guy wasn't the reincarnation of Audie Murphy nor was he the devil personified.

I have not seen the film and I don't plan to. I know the gist of it. I find that too many people think of it primarily as a "feel good, go America" story despite or inspite of the portrayal of how the war was ripping the guy up mentally and emotionally. I don't know what you guys have experienced, but it's what I've seen IRL when talking to people about the movie. We had a discussion several weeks back about nationalism, and I think this relates to that. JMHO.

Well, I think you would do well to watch the movie before you decide what it's message is. It's controversial for a reason.

It's impossible to come to a real conclusion on it if you haven't seen it.

(03-09-2015 03:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:32 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Please tell me he didn't use RT News as his source? Please....

The truth is somewhere in the middle. So while this may be a "controversial source" that I linked to, I find that you can get a decent amount of truth about a situation when you consult multiple sources who each have different agendas who are analyzing the same situation.

RT makes FNC look like NPR.

Well, if there is truth in their stories then it shouldn't matter where the source is from. Now I do not visit that site for news. Once in awhile I've visited Pravda to see their take on a few stories here and there, and when you strip away the bias there are facts that can be taken out of the stories just as well as any other news agency.

So far my favorite sources for news is the WSJ, BBC and NPR. Also, I enjoy Reason and the Cato Institute for articles as well.

(03-09-2015 01:00 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Thought provoking, as usual. Thanks, miko.

I'm not so sure about the propaganda angle. I think the movie was made solely to make money. Does it use literary license to cover some warts and make it more palatable to the American public? Probably, just like most movies. It's still 100x more accurate than anything from Oliver Stone or Michael Moore.

If we're going to get political, I'll take a right wing movie like this over a left wing movie celebrating the greatness of the Cuban health care system any day.

(03-09-2015 03:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 03:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:32 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Please tell me he didn't use RT News as his source? Please....

The truth is somewhere in the middle. So while this may be a "controversial source" that I linked to, I find that you can get a decent amount of truth about a situation when you consult multiple sources who each have different agendas who are analyzing the same situation.

RT makes FNC look like NPR.

Well, if there is truth in their stories then it shouldn't matter where the source is from. Now I do not visit that site for news. Once in awhile I've visited Pravda to see their take on a few stories here and there, and when you strip away the bias there are facts that can be taken out of the stories just as well as any other news agency.

So far my favorite sources for news is the WSJ, BBC and NPR. Also, I enjoy Reason and the Cato Institute for articles as well.

Doesn't matter if there is any truth. Every single article that they produce has an anti-American/anti West agenda to it. EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE. That "source" is the main propaganda channel for an authoritarian regime in a country ranked 152 (out of 180) for journalistic freedom.