Jump to content


Member Since 02 Mar 2009
Last Active Private

Posts I've Made

In Topic: let's talk about chris kyle

23 January 2015 - 02:44 PM


“Savage, despicable evil,” writes Kyle. “That’s what we were fighting in Iraq…. People ask me all the time, `How many people have you killed?’... The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.”

None of the American military personnel whose lives were wasted in Iraq had to die there, because none of them had any legitimate reason to be there. From Kyle’s perspective, however, only incorrigibly “evil” people would object once their country had been designated the target of one of Washington’s frequent outbursts of murderous humanitarianism.

Preemptively I will state I was never a proponent of the Iraq war but, I do get tired of the captain hindsight nature of most of the people on this forum. You missed his point. He talks about protecting his brothers. My job in the military directly involves keeping service members alive. It's called force protection. Regardless of why we are there, we are there. You never want to see your friends and brothers killed in action. So, you do what's within your legal rights as a lawful combatant to do so.

After returning from his first combat tour in Iraq, Kyle recalls, he was rudely roused from slumber one morning when the burglar alarm went off. Although this was a malfunction rather than a real emergency, Kyle’s reaction was revealing.

“I grabbed my pistol and went to confront the criminal,” he recalls. “No son of a bitch was breaking into my house and living to tell about it.”

Why was it “evil” for Iraqis to feel exactly the same way about the foreign sons of bitches who broke into their country and wrecked the place?

Later in the book, describing a stalking exercise during his training to become a sniper, Kyle recounts how he “heard the distinct rattle of a snake nearby.”

“A rattler had taken a particular liking to the piece of real estate I had to cross,” Kyle recalls. “Willing it away didn’t work…. I crept slowly to the side, altering my course. Some enemies aren’t worth fighting.”

Exactly: The only enemies worth “fighting,” apparently, are those who aren’t capable of hurting you when you trespass on their turf.

This is misleading. If you honestly think they were helpless and innocent, you're wrong.

I really think it speaks more to the whole conflict. But again, the military didn't decide to go to Iraq. We were told.

“They may have been cowards, but they could certainly kill people,” observes Kyle of the guerrillas. “The insurgents didn’t worry about ROEs [Rules of Engagement] or court-martials [sic]. If they had the advantage, they would kill any Westerner they could find, whether they were soldiers or not.”

If that charge (made on page 87 of Kyle’s book) is accurate, it might reflect the fact that the Iraqi resistance (as well as the tactics of foreign guerrillas who joined the fight) was playing according to ground rules established by the U.S. early in the war.

On page 79, Kyle describes the Rules of Engagement that his unit followed when they were deployed to Shatt al-Arab, a river on the Iraq-Iran border: “Our ROEs when the 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.”

The circumstances in those two times are drastically different. In the beginning it was conventional conflict. He even states at the end of the passage you quote it wasn't literal.

Through the years though the objective changed and our ROE changed. The ROE made force protection much harder. That's life though. The only issue I every had with restrictive ROEs was when it became required to allow locals to break into or convoys.

That being said we never beheaded journalists, kidnapped NGO employees, or threw acid on western women working for NGOs. That's one of the things he hints towards as well. Some one will bring up drones again as a rebuttal. Whatever. I don't fault you guys for what you read in the media, I fault you for a lack of critical thinking skills. It's literally like liberal robots here. Canned responses based off people who make up their mind before hearing the full argument.

“He made a run at me,” Kyle continues. “Pretty stupid. First of all, I’m not only bigger than him, but I was wearing full body armor. Not to mention the fact that I had a submachine gun in my hand. I took the muzzle of my gun and struck the idiot in the chest. He went right down.”

If Kyle had been a warrior, rather than a bully, he would have admired the authentic courage displayed by the smaller, unarmed man who fought to protect the ship and cargo entrusted to him.

Thin line between courage and stupidity. I am unfamiliar with this operation. But, it reads like VBSS. Having done VBSS before, I can tell you we try to make it clear as day we don't intend to threaten people. I never had someone on a ship rush me, but he would have met the same fate. I would also think he is stupid. We would not be there to threaten him and now because he just elevated the threat and everyone is going in handcuffs. No free meals, courtesy of you taxpayers, for them. His sudden rush of "courage" hurts himself and his friends.

Again. Force protection.

Good news! It was government sanctioned, so it isn't terrorism.

You're such a troll. If you can't distinguish between the actions of groups like LH, KH, DAESH, AQAP, AS, AQIM, etc. I have nothing for you. Chris Kyle is a hero because he saved lives. Go tell the family members of the people he saved me is no hero. Go tell the wounded vets he worked with after leaving the military he is no hero. Let me know how that turns out.

He is a SEAL. He writes like SEAL. Go read some of the other books from SEALs. They're similar. Their POV is also very tainted. People dehumanize their enemy to cope. I see if all the time.

In Topic: let's talk about chris kyle

21 January 2015 - 02:40 PM

Saddam's armed forces were among the most, if not the most powerful military in the region. There is no credible evidence that al Qaeda was present in Iraq in any significant numbers prior to the US invasion.

Good point. Fact.

The Taliban were the only functional government in Afghanistan at the time of the US invasion. Over a decade of nation building efforts by the US has resulted in a corrupt government that doesn't have the support of many outside the capital city. It is highly likely that Taliban forces will be back in power once the US public's support for nation building dwindles.

Incorrect. The Taliban controlled Kandahar and parts of the south. They allowed local elders to run their villages, as long as they agreed with their political ideology. If they didn't teach political Islam according to the Taliban, they killed them and found an "elder" more amenable to their will. Outside of that, villages governed themselves mostly. The Taliban, like many others were a figurehead. They controlled their areas no more or less than general dostam, hekmatyr, or masood controlled theirs. Hint: they had followers and sympathizers but didn't govern much of anything.

Taliban won't be in charge. They aren't the same unit they once were. If it's some group calling themselves the Taliban, understand its not the same. It may descend into civil war again but, only time will tell.

Throughout history Afghanistan has been a quagmire for foreign nations. It is proving to be the same for the US who has been involved in meddling in the country for generations.

For what it is worth, I support the Northern Alliance as well. However, Afghanistan has been nothing but a money pit for the US. We would have been better off letting the CIA track down bin Laden and kept the troops at home.

You have to account for NATO influence here too. So don't go all captain hindsight.

After it is all said and done Afghanistan is what it was prior to the invasion, a largely unstable tribal society based on ancient religious beliefs. The US doesn't have enough treasure or patience to change that reality.

They adapt. They play all sides very well. They are a lot more savvy than most nations/peoples on earth.

I just hope if it descends to chaos, their presidents are smarter than najibullah.

In Topic: Why are so many Muslims violent in the modern era?

21 January 2015 - 02:24 PM

You also realize a lot of these places don't have an accurate census, right? So, the numbers of people we have killed are going to be off no matter the source.

we shouldn't get mired in the petty details

Cute. You take away context to fit your argument or point. Given some of the discussions i have read in which you participated, i expected more from you. Oversimplification is not your friend here. I'm done with this discussion.

In Topic: Why are so many Muslims violent in the modern era?

21 January 2015 - 04:11 AM

haven't we killed something like 150,000 civilians over there in the past ten years? that's a fifth of charlotte. we either suck ass at avoiding collateral or we're not trying very hard.


or 150,000 dead innocent people are just a necessary sacrifice and we shouldn't get mired in the petty details


You also realize a lot of these places don't have an accurate census, right?  So, the numbers of people we have killed are going to be off no matter the source.


The locals know this too.  A lot of times these totals are a result of people looking to get a free hand out.  If I can claim a dead family member and get a handout from the U.S.,knowing you can't verify the information ...


Also, you have to account for human nature too.  These are word of mouth societies.  What actually happens and what people report to "impartial inquiries" and "investigations" are the equivalent of the telephone game children play.

In Topic: Why are so many Muslims violent in the modern era?

21 January 2015 - 02:33 AM

It definitely accelerated these movements.

Eye roll all you want but believing they should be thanking us and applauding us for destroying their whole society, structure and basically uprooting everyone in the whole country might cause.....you know... EXTREMISTS!!!...maybe?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Perhaps it's also because the people who are considered extremists were also being stomped out under Saddam's oppressive boot.  Muqtada Sadr just didn't wake up during the Iraq War and decide to start instigating civil unrest and violence.