By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Khan said:
SocialistSlayer said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Folks would call this guy a coward if he had fought for the other side, at any rate.

 

no we would accurately describe the vermin on the otherside as "evil barbaric savages". Coward not necessarilly, but like a nazi sniper, or any other villian fighting for evil, they are evil, while a sniper fighting for right, is not only not cowardly, but also a hero

That's really not what the movie was trying to say, though. He was good at his job, and his job was essential to operational success, and the operation itself was important (to sort the mess we had created in Iraq, attempt to restore order, and remove some people who indeed deserved the "barbarian" label from terrorizing the country), but the question is the human cost, not only in the lives he had to take, but in his own plummeting quality of life.

I don't doubt that the issue hits home with you, but it bears reflecting upon. War is a terrible thing that changes people, even exceptional warriors.

i agree with the bolded. im not saying the movie glorifies war, or even says its good. it is pretty much saying the opposite. but though war is regrettable, it is sometimes necassary. and this movie is clear (as was chris kyle) there is good, and there is evil. and he was killing evil, and didnt regret it. but it does come with a cost