How will history remember Chris Kyle?

[DoomPatrol]

hio Jerry the mouse,

i remember him as an individual who took a real joy in killing the Muslim enemies. it wasn't just a job for him, it was an adventure.

some like him. some found his mirthful attitude in his work a little bit strange.

oh, and i think Clint Eastwood directed a fictionalized movie about Mr. Kyle, where he inserted a bunch of made up nonsense about how conflicted Mr. Kyle was about his job as a sniper.

i also remember reading that he was shot dead trying to do some therapeutic shooting with a solder afflicted with PTSD.

- IGIT

Why do you always talk like a robot pretending to be human?

 

[DoomPatrol]

The suit was against Kyle’s estate, sonin effect, the inheritance that was left to his wife and children

I thought it was essentially the book distributors who wound up paying for it with their insurance or something like that?

I'm probably wrong.

 

[sub_thug]

The US lost over 4,000 KIA in Iraq. More than 30,000 wounded, many to a life-changing degree. The total cost was north of $2 Trillion.

It's hard to view the Iraq War and Occupation as anything other than a cluster-fuck of Olympian proportions.

We lost over 58k in Vietnam. The Russians lost over 15k in Afghanistan.

 

[sub_thug]

I thought it was essentially the book distributors who wound up paying for it with their insurance or something like that?

I'm probably wrong.

You’re correct. I was mistaken.

 

[KnightTemplar]

We lost over 58k in Vietnam. The Russians lost over 15k in Afghanistan.

Fair points.

 

[bigsmooth187]

So why did people try to kill him and his buddies? Because the US army invaded them for their natural recourses.
Or are you disputing that?

No one forced Kyle to go over there and kill 100+ people he signed up for that.
If it weren't for the actions for the US no one would have been killed his buddies or the Iraqis.
That had nothing to do with defending America.

I don't mind the US attacking other nations for their natural recourses that is life. But to claim some kind of moral high ground.
Or trying to defend people that voluntarily sign up to kill the people defending that country is not morally right.

And that is how history will remember him.

I don't know how to say this any other way, but morals don't mean shit if you're dead. All that shit goes on the backburner when lead is been slung everywhere, you have incoming indirect fire, and your buddies are bleeding.
Fuck morals, I just want me and my guys out of this shit alive.

 

[IGIT]

We lost over 58k in Vietnam. The Russians lost over 15k in Afghanistan.

hi sub_thug, good to see you today,

that's one way of looking at it.

a different perspective would be this; we spent around 800 billion in Vietnam (adjusted for inflation). our twin adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have tallied 2.4 trillion (this is one of the lower estimates), and the meter is still running.

US military doctrine is till based on the overwhelming application of force, but not necessarily manpower.

- IGIT

 

[irish_thug]

Why do you always talk like a robot pretending to be human?

Yeah. "Talk like"

 

[DespicablePeep]

Liar and a killer

 

[funcrusher2007]

Winter War sniper. Simo served during the winter war. never saw WW2 service.

Good correction,kinda proves the point... no one aside from history buffs and war/military interest will care ten years from now.

 

[Malvo]

Great shot. Shitty person.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

He was part of an invading Army that attacked a country for its natural resources.
And he killed a lot of dudes that were just trying to defend their country and way of life.
Should history remember him it won't be possitive.

WTF? Care to point out any of these natural resources we took? This war for oil shtick gets old after a while.

Also most of those insurgents weren't necessarily fighting against the US as much as they were trying to get the US to leave so they could kill all the shia and take back control of the country. You can take that noble crap about their way of life to a board that believes it.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So why did people try to kill him and his buddies? Because the US army invaded them for their natural recourses.
Or are you disputing that?

No one forced Kyle to go over there and kill 100+ people he signed up for that.
If it weren't for the actions for the US no one would have been killed his buddies or the Iraqis.
That had nothing to do with defending America.

I don't mind the US attacking other nations for their natural recourses that is life. But to claim some kind of moral high ground.
Or trying to defend people that voluntarily sign up to kill the people defending that country is not morally right.

And that is how history will remember him.

Saddam gassed his own people. If that isn't grounds to oust his ass then we aren't going to agree on anything.

Again show me these resources we took, where's the oil?

The majority of Iraq oil exports go to Singapore and always have.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I wouldn't either but for the guy to shoot and kill Kyle he must have been mentally deranged... likely above and beyond a general PTSD diagnosis.

He was schizophrenic and had PTSD according to his family.

 

[Gandhi]

Well, it is not so much about the US going in physically taking the oil out. But rather Iraq putting oil into the market at full capacity.
That is where people like the Koch brothers make their money from the refining of the oil. It doesn't really matter that much where the oil comes from (they make money no matter what).
They are just worried about a guy like Saddam messing with the large reserve from Iraq not making it to the market.
This is the short version of course. The military industrial complex right up there with the oil lobby.

That's why the Saudis are good. In many aspects, the Saudi are worse than Saddam. And if you actually wanted to go after terrorists you would hang the whole royal family.
But its all good because the Saudis while supporting radical Islam around the world don't mess with their oil getting into the market.
That's why Trump was ordered to go Sword Dancing with them.

In general, I don't have a problem with that. If it would benefit all of America like the oil industry does in Norway for example.
It is just that the US has a system set up so all the money stays with the top 1%.
And you can see it in here with the propaganda some people think it is about terrorism or human rights etc.
When they just do the dirty work for the 1%.

Iraq was our ally for a while, why do you think we ever got into a pissing match with them in the first place over Kuwait if all we had to do was place nice to ensure continued access?

I am not sold on this BTW. I am not saying I cant be persuaded, but I would have to see a lot more direct lines before I bought this narrative. Oil war for the Koch brothers just seems to much like left CT to me, of course that's not based on me doing a deep dive factually on your claim, but just on what I understand from ME history and theother factors at play.

It was certainly not about terrorism or human rights, on that much I agree.

 

[Gandhi]

Especially when the biggest reconstruction contracts went to French companies, as Iraq had been their major oil supplier for many years. It was also the reason they didn’t want us invading, not some moral platitudes. If the oil was so important to us, then it doesn’t make sense that we would give up so much of it so easily...

Yeah, I have not researched that particular theory but it does not really pass the smell test to me. Show me which oil companies have actually benefited from this, show me how and who they were lobbying for this before it happened, etc. I would want to see a lot more than some Fahrenheit 911 speculation before I signed up for any of it.

To me it seems to me to be some combination of oil making the region ripe for manipulation, Israel/Neocon politics, wag the dog response to 911, Bush personal vendetta over the assassination attempt aimed at daddy, perhaps some Halliburton war profiteering, and Saddam actually pretending he had the weapons to make himself look strong internally etc.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I thought it was essentially the book distributors who wound up paying for it with their insurance or something like that?

I'm probably wrong.

It was overturned because Ventura's lawyer told the jury that the publishers insurance would pay it instead of the estate.

It's set to go back to trial.

 

[DoomPatrol]

It was overturned because Ventura's lawyer told the jury that the publishers insurance would pay it instead of the estate.

It's set to go back to trial.

So that's what they wanted to get money from, but it was really from the estate? He just needs to drop the suit and move on.

Either way Ventura is such a piece of shit. He's conspiracy theory scum. I have absolutely no respect for him as a man. That's why he can't get a job, not because Chris Kyle says he punched him once in a book.

 

[Mark Cutting]

WTF? Care to point out any of these natural resources we took? This war for oil shtick gets old after a while.

Also most of those insurgents weren't necessarily fighting against the US as much as they were trying to get the US to leave so they could kill all the shia and take back control of the country. You can take that noble crap about their way of life to a board that believes it.

Lol... You poor rube. We all snuck back oil in our Camel Backs and upturned eyelids.

 

[sub_thug]

Yeah, I have not researched that particular theory but it does not really pass the smell test to me. Show me which oil companies have actually benefited from this, show me how and who they were lobbying for this before it happened, etc. I would want to see a lot more than some Fahrenheit 911 speculation before I signed up for any of it.

To me it seems to me to be some combination of oil making the region ripe for manipulation, Israel/Neocon politics, wag the dog response to 911, Bush personal vendetta over the assassination attempt aimed at daddy, perhaps some Halliburton war profiteering, and Saddam actually pretending he had the weapons to make himself look strong internally etc.

I think the Bush vendetta makes the most sense to me. I double down on that one because Scott McClellan said in his book that when Bush took office, he said right in the beginning that we were going into Iraq. Like in his first 5 Cabinet meetings. 9/11 was the catalyst that made it possible, but Bush knew what he wanted up front. Everything from that point on was just rationalizing why his dumbass idea made sense.