Althouse: "Snipers are cowards. They don't believe in a fair fight. Like someone coming up from behind you and coldcocking you."

January 20, 2015

"Snipers are cowards. They don't believe in a fair fight. Like someone coming up from behind you and coldcocking you."

"Just isn't right. It's cowardly to shoot a person in the back. Only a coward will shoot someone who can't shoot back."

Michael Moore quotes his father, whose brother, an Army paratrooper in WWII, was killed by a Japanese sniper. That's part of the back and forth over a tweet Moore made that was taken to be about the movie "American Sniper."

Wouldn't virtually all of our military techniques be classified as cowardly by the standard set by Michael Moore's father? Only a coward would drop a bomb from the air?

Maybe some day they'll make a movie about President Obama pointing to the list of targets for a drone attack, and Michael Moore will still be around to quote his father.

Maybe the problem is making a movie from the point of view of the person who is in the position of killing from a devastating advantage. A movie affects the minds of viewers who have not themselves gone through the real world experience that gets a human being into that position. They're just sitting there, safely watching, and getting charged up according to whatever manipulations the filmmaker sees fit to impose on these pliable spectators.

That's something Michael Moore knows a lot about. Michael Moore... and Clint Eastwood.

193 comments:

Hagar said...: I have wondered some about this terminology. In past years theirs were "snipers," ours were "sharpshooters."; 1/20/15, 7:35 AM
MayBee said...: Wouldn't virtually all of our military techniques be classified as cowardly by the standard set by Michael Moore's father? Only a coward would drop a bomb from the air?

Good point.

There's a lot of talk about whether American Sniper is a pro=war movie or an anti-war movie. Why does it have to be either? Why do people need to have a message embedded in their true stories?; 1/20/15, 7:35 AM
Anonymous said...: "....There's a lot of talk about whether American Sniper is a pro=war movie ...."

I'd like to know some examples of pro-war movies.; 1/20/15, 7:39 AM
MayBee said...: Was Saving Private Ryan a pro-war movie or an anti-war movie?
It didn't have to be either, because it wasn't about a recent war.

But because Iraq and Afghanistan were started by George W Bush, liberals have to have war movies that are anti-war. They need to feed their hate.; 1/20/15, 7:40 AM
Curious George said...: One thing Michael Moore is an expert on...being a coward.

Well, that and being a fat, disgusting, worthless pile of shit.; 1/20/15, 7:40 AM
Anonymous said...: "...Wouldn't virtually all of our military techniques be classified as cowardly by the standard set by Michael Moore's father? Only a coward would drop a bomb from the air? ..."

The French at Agincourt thought the English cowards for using the longbow (medieval sniping).; 1/20/15, 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe the problem is making a movie from the point of view of the person who is in the position of killing from a devastating advantage.

In combat, there is no such concept as "fair". Good decisions are ones that accomplish the mission and bring your men home alive.

PS: Once the nation has made the determination to go to war, or had that decision thrust on them by enemies, the best way to end that war is by application of overwhelming force and by using any advantages given to win and end the killing. Hence Truman made the right decisions on the bomb...

PPS: It's Mission then Men. The hard truth for a leader is that some missions require you put your men at great risk.; 1/20/15, 7:45 AM
Fen said...: Michael Moore quotes his father, whose brother, an Army paratrooper in WWII, was killed by a Japanese sniper.

Bullshit. Like all vets that are used by the Left for their narrative, I bet that one is fake too.

Someone should check into that.; 1/20/15, 7:45 AM
MayBee said...: Lars- I have a feeling a pro war movie is anything that doesn't hit you over the head with a "Bush is a war criminal" message.; 1/20/15, 7:45 AM
Fen said...: "person who is in the position of killing from a devastating advantage."

You have no idea what you are talking about. STA Teams routinely operate deep behind the lines, where no one can save you if you fuck up. You are on your own.; 1/20/15, 7:46 AM
Xmas said...: "Three Kings" was as close to a recent, pro-war movie that I can remember.; 1/20/15, 7:46 AM
Tank said...: Moore thinks that war is some kind of sport where the action should be fair? Ya gotta work at it to be this stupid.

Once you've decided to go to war, or at the micro level to fight someone, the goal is to win and win as quickly as you can. Fair doesn't come into it.; 1/20/15, 7:47 AM
Fernandinande said...: Michael Moore quotes his father,

Therefore his father never said any such thing.; 1/20/15, 7:51 AM
Anonymous said...: PPPS, sniping is combat. No different than sitting in a stealthy F-22, being vectored by an AWACS against enemy fighters that can't see you, till you launch deadly missiles at beyond visual range.

Or take a shot at an enemy tank from 3 miles away and watch the turret of that tank sail 50 feet in the air with a K-kill.

Gunfight rules:

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.; 1/20/15, 7:52 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: My nephew and his girlfriend liked the movie a lot.

His quote was: "I took a break to go see American Sniper and it was awesome. I highly recommend it. I felt it was a really good portrayal of the psychological development that can occur through war".; 1/20/15, 7:55 AM
Fandor said...: Michael Moore reminds me of a big, undisiplined slob, standing behind a deli counter, baseball cap covering his stringy hair with greasy strands hanging down, insisting on selling you his brand of baloney.; 1/20/15, 7:56 AM
sinz52 said...: LarsPorsena:

Examples of "pro-war" movies:

Action in the North Atlantic
The Green Berets
Rambo II: First Blood
Uncommon Valor
Top Gun; 1/20/15, 7:57 AM
chillblaine said...: "Turns out I'm really good at killing people, Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine."

Barack Obama

But Obama is no coward. He takes down his adversaries using one of the sixty-seven forms of various martial arts he mastered while writing about composite girlfriends.; 1/20/15, 7:59 AM
tim maguire said...: Snipers tend to be ordered to snipe. "Sniper" also happens to be a dangerous job. Maybe less dangerous today than it used to be, but still, they tend to set up shop in very vulnerable positions.

Michael Moore's father was possibly not objective on the subject of snipers, no? Michael Moore is the sort of person who works backwards from a conclusion, his observations are not to be taken seriously. Michael Moore, like Al Gore, is a man who became very rich by lying to people who want to be lied to.; 1/20/15, 7:59 AM
Robert Cook said...: "PS: Once the nation has made the determination to go to war, or had that decision thrust on them by enemies, the best way to end that war is by application of overwhelming force and by using any advantages given to win and end the killing. Hence Truman made the right decisions on the bomb..."

We haven't had that decision thrust on us since WWII, but have freely chosen that decision time and time again...which is our bad.; 1/20/15, 8:01 AM
paminwi said...: "Maybe the problem is making a movie from the point of view of the person who is in the position of killing from a devastating advantage. "

Our soldier is in that position because he is smarter than the other guy.; 1/20/15, 8:01 AM
sinz52 said...: Althouse: "Wouldn't virtually all of our military techniques be classified as cowardly by the standard set by Michael Moore's father?"

Yes.

It's been centuries since armies faced each other across an open field like chess pieces, to fight only when given the signal by their commander.

Since then, soldiers have tried to shoot from positions of concealment so they wouldn't get shot at in return.

The other branches of the military learned the same thing. In World War I, ships used camouflage. Submarines were invented that could fire torpedoes when submerged.

Starting in World War II, warplanes were equipped with countermeasures to confuse enemy radar. Etc.; 1/20/15, 8:03 AM
KLDAVIS said...: How dare someone train and hone a skill to gain an advantage over the competition. An honest world government would be sure to realize the unfairness of it and insist the best snipers have one arm tied behind their back.; 1/20/15, 8:05 AM
sinz52 said...: Robert Cook: "We haven't had that decision thrust on us since WWII"

"Thrust" is always a relative term.

One of your heroes, Noam Chomsky, suggested that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was in response to numerous U.S. provocations and refusal to negotiate with them.

And of course, FDR's decision to move the Pacific Fleet from San Francisco to Pearl Harbor gave the Japanese navy an easy target to attack.

No war is ever "thrust" upon anyone. They always have the option to negotiate, either before or even after the outbreak of hostilities.

If someone punches you in the face, you always have the option to walk away.; 1/20/15, 8:06 AM
Lyssa said...: Wouldn't virtually all of our military techniques be classified as cowardly by the standard set by Michael Moore's father? Only a coward would drop a bomb from the air?

War is hell. It is a horrible, devastating, but sometimes necessary, evil thing. The fact that some people expect that it should be fair and even and polite astounds me.; 1/20/15, 8:06 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Pearl Harbor was a relatively recent pro-war* movie.

* By pro-war I mean that it portrayed US involvement and actions in a positive light.; 1/20/15, 8:07 AM
Hagar said...: Eastwood did his military service; as far as I know, not in combat, but that was a very real possibility at the time, so you thought about it - quite a lot, in fact.

Michael Moore - not so much.; 1/20/15, 8:08 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "It's been centuries since armies faced each other across an open field like chess pieces, to fight only when given the signal by their commander."

The American revolution was a bunch of cowards (by MM's father's standard).; 1/20/15, 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Fen said...
Michael Moore quotes his father, whose brother, an Army paratrooper in WWII, was killed by a Japanese sniper.

Bullshit. Like all vets that are used by the Left for their narrative, I bet that one is fake too.

The only Paratroops I know in the Pacific were the 503rd PIR. They made one jump in Aug 44 and also a landing in the Philippines.

Moore did have an uncle (LaVerne) but the uncle was described as being one of the founders of the UAW Union (in 1935) so that would make him perhaps 29+ in 1944. There were few 29 y/o's in a parachute battalion.

I don't know if there were other uncles or if LaVerne bought the farm...; 1/20/15, 8:14 AM
Meade said...: Courage would look more like sending James Taylor to sing You've Got a Friend to the enemy.; 1/20/15, 8:17 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Michael Moore and Robert Cook are both treasonous pussies.

Not sure if Robert Cook is morbidly obese however. Would not be surprised.; 1/20/15, 8:22 AM
Peter said...: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." -- George S. Patton

Somehow I think Patton knew more about war than Moore does. Moore's complaint seems to come down to, "That's not nice." Does Moore understand that although war is horrible, sometimes the alternatives to it are even worse?; 1/20/15, 8:23 AM
Hagar said...: "It's been centuries since armies faced each other across an open field like chess pieces, to fight only when given the signal by their commander."

Not so. This was standard practice in the Civil War (known as the first "modern war," disregarding the Crimean.) and just gradually changing such that there were still some generals thinking this way in the WWI.; 1/20/15, 8:26 AM
tim maguire said...: Robert Cook said...We haven't had that decision thrust on us since WWII, but have freely chosen that decision time and time again...which is our bad.

I'm sure if you applied yourself, you could say the same about WWII, and all the ones before it. Come on, try! I have faith in you!; 1/20/15, 8:27 AM
rhhardin said...: Courage sounds French.; 1/20/15, 8:30 AM
Robert Cook said...: I saw AMERICAN SNIPER yesterday. It was quite good and I enjoyed it tremendously.

It is inevitable that audiences will tend to identify with the protagonist of any story, especially one such as this, and in that sense many will see it as pro-war, or, at least, pro-America's involvement and behavior in the war. Perhaps Eastwood even intended for it to be seen as in favor or America's involvement in these wars, (though I doubt it). However, if one watches it with a bit of distance, one can easily interpret it differently, and see it as a tale of Americans as foreign invaders fighting people who want us out of their land. "Mustafa," the sniper who is killing so many Americans, can only be seen as the counterpart of Chris Kyle, the "hero" of the movie. We do not see "Mustafa's" life outside the battle field, or his family, so we do not have an opportunity to identify with him or his circumstances; we easily see him as a "bad guy" we want to see killed. But he is no different in any way than the American Kyle.

Further, whether Eastwood intended it or not--and even if was true to Kyle's real nature--Kyle's obtuseness to what the war was doing to him and to his family can be seen as analogous to America's obtuseness to what our wars are doing to us, (and to what we're doing to those in the lands we've invaded).

It was easy for me to see the film as posing the question--for those prepared to see it--what are we doing over there? Kyle served four tours, racking up more kills than any other individual soldier, yet we never see or get a sense of what the goals are, what objectives are being fought for, or won or lost, in the cycle of skirmishes, of rotations from the war to home and back to the war, what purpose was served by Kyle's war experiences and many kills. It's easy to see it as a depiction of a war machine--and of war as a process--that, having been set in motion, simply carries on, like a natural disaster such as a typhoon or an asteroid collision with the earth--destroying or harming everything and everyone involved, until, finally, it's force is simply spent.; 1/20/15, 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Robert Cook said...We haven't had that decision thrust on us since WWII, but have freely chosen that decision time and time again...which is our bad.

That would be news to our Army Advisors in Korea in 1950 when the NORKS came across the border with 10 divisions and 100 Russian tanks.; 1/20/15, 8:33 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Not sure if Robert Cook is morbidly obese however. Would not be surprised."

No, I am not obese, morbidly or otherwise.; 1/20/15, 8:34 AM
gerry said...: Moore's Communism is the blood-thirstiest cowardice of all.; 1/20/15, 8:39 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: What, no OED on the word sniper?

Michael Moore's remark itself is a sniper shot. We'll see how Clint Eastwood shoots back; 1/20/15, 8:39 AM
Opinh Bombay said...: Going to war isn't about fair, unfair, cowardly and brave.

It's about winning and forcing the enemy to your will.; 1/20/15, 8:39 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: During wartime actions are taken that would be deemed immoral in any other setting. This is why the decision to go to war is such a terrible one. It imposes a moral cost on the individuals involved. My father-in-law bombed German civilians in WWII. He was a good person.

The decision to go to war has been taken too lightly for too long by the US. And, the costs of war are imposed on a much too narrow fraction of the population. There is a good discussion of this in the Atlantic. Ignore the bullshit title.; 1/20/15, 8:40 AM
Paul said...: Clearly Moore the Whale does not understand war. Nor Obama's drone assassinations.

Snipers have been used in war by America since the Revolutionary war!

Brendan's sharpshooters in the Cival War, Green Mountian Boys in the Revolutionary war, lots of snipers in WW1 on out to today.

So 'the fat one' is just mouthing off about things he does not know just to get his jowles in the news.; 1/20/15, 8:41 AM
Bob Boyd said...: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." - David Hackworth; 1/20/15, 8:42 AM
virgil xenophon said...: The Drill Sgt @7:52@#11

"If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin.."; 1/20/15, 8:42 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Rod Serling was a paratrooper in the Philippines. Fun off-topic fact.; 1/20/15, 8:43 AM
furious_a said...: The fact that some people expect that it should be fair and ...

...indicates that they have sided with Hamas and Hezbollah.; 1/20/15, 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: I may be totally wrong (or have read something totally wrong), but I remember reading that the British had trouble dealing with revolutionary forces that didn't stand up and face them, but hid behind trees and hedges and shot from cover. Cowards.; 1/20/15, 8:46 AM
SGT Ted said...: Since Michael "not really working class background" Moore doesn't know shit about warfare, or the Military, why would anyone give a shit what he says about it?; 1/20/15, 8:48 AM
MisterBuddwing said...: ... why would anyone give a shit what he says about it?

Excellent point. So why do you?; 1/20/15, 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: For me (my son about to enlist) the takeaway is similar to Hurt Locker. Shooting someone has a psychological effect, and should not be done without considering how it affects the shooter beforehand and how to transition to a "normal" life afterward.

There maybe some parallels with the national psyche, if such can be said to exist.; 1/20/15, 8:53 AM
Big Mike said...: I saw the movie. The scenes of Chris Kyle having flashbacks resonated with me, not that I saw combat during my time in service but I knew soldiers who did and those scenes are very well portrayed.

By the standards of Chris Kyle's father, Michael Moore qualifies as a sheep. Often the sheep resent the sheepdog, but that's only because thanks to the sheepdogs they never meet the wolves. Perhaps Michael Moore can talk to the editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo about meeting the wolves. Oh, wait.; 1/20/15, 8:55 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: We haven't had that decision thrust on us since WWII, but have freely chosen that decision time and time again...which is our bad.

I deeply regret our failure to lay down in front of your beloved and glorious Soviet Empire. Our bad.; 1/20/15, 9:01 AM
SGT Ted said...: Kyle served four tours, racking up more kills than any other individual soldier, yet we never see or get a sense of what the goals are, what objectives are being fought for, or won or lost, in the cycle of skirmishes, of rotations from the war to home and back to the war, what purpose was served by Kyle's war experiences and many kills.

Because, from certain soldiers points of view and experiences, such things are not necessarily part of your mission or worldview while deployed. Especially a smaller specialty support job like sniper, as opposed to being part of a maneuver unit. Other than to win, the details of the bigger picture are not necessarily clear.

You receive missions and assignments and you carry them out. Then you debrief, and take the next one. Saving Private Ryan was similar in focus, but, the audience has the advantage of knowing the ultimate outcome of the broader war depicted and their small mission was clear, even though they had to deal with whatever the battlefield brought along the way.; 1/20/15, 9:02 AM
tomaig said...: "Maybe the problem is making a movie from the point of view of the person who is in the position of killing from a devastating advantage"

Yes, The Wizard of Oz would
have been ever so much better had it been shot from the POV of the Wicked Witch instead of Dorothy The Witch Crusher.

What kind of nonsense are you talking here, professor? Are you saying that Eastwood should have made this movie - American Sniper, I believe it's called - from the POV of the Iraqis?
It seems as if you're disappointed that this film doesn't follow the tired old LOSER motif of US = bad.; 1/20/15, 9:06 AM
ron winkleheimer said...: War isn't about "fair." War isn't a sporting event. War is about using overwhelming force to defeat the enemy. Defeating means killing more of them than they do of you.

Was it "cowardly" when the allies took active measures to mislead the Germans about when and where they intended to invade Europe?

Are ambushes "cowardly?"

Is it "cowardly" to have and use equipment such as night vision gear, drones, and laser sighted bombs?

Is it "cowardly" to provide soldiers with months of training (and in the case of officers, years) in first aid, marksmanship, land navigation, battle tactics, etc. before placing them in combat if the enemy cannot?

Michael Moore is a putz.; 1/20/15, 9:08 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: As for Robert Cooks analysis of the movie itself, I can't really disagree with it.

Movies should treat us as adults, not force feed us either pro-war or anti-war propaganda.; 1/20/15, 9:11 AM
MAJMike said...: If you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck.; 1/20/15, 9:12 AM
Kelly said...: Steven Spielberg was originally going to direct Sniper. He was going to go back and forth between the American and Iraqi sniper showing both sides much as he did with Munich. For whatever reason he pulled out and Eastwood took over. I wonder how the Spielberg version would have played with Audiences?; 1/20/15, 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Action in the North Atlantic
The Green Berets
Rambo II: First Blood
Uncommon Valor
Top Gun
_______________________

Action in the North Atlantic was a realistic look at the Murmansk run.

Green Berets ..maybe

Rambo, Uncommon, Top Gun, all fictional. As pro-war as Superman movies.; 1/20/15, 9:16 AM
mccullough said...: Michael Moore envies Clint Eastwood's abilities. His quote has nothing to do with snipers, it's about green eyed monsters.; 1/20/15, 9:23 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: First comes the need for hate and afterwards comes the need for justification. After that comes the need for articulation.

I mean, I should think it a rare individual who in all sincerity says something like: "Boy, oh boy! That Japanese sniper guy really did a first rate job on my brother. Blasted his brains all over the place and from out of nowhere! One hell of a shot! Gotta give credit where credit is due!"; 1/20/15, 9:23 AM
William said...: "It is fitting and sweet to die for one's country." Since WWI, liberals have waxed ironic about that statement, but there is irony to be found in their irony. They're quite willing to grant those who die in third world liberation struggles glorious martyr status. You can also die a glorious death in the Spanish Civil War. Some leeway is given to WWII fatalities, but only if they die fighting Nazis. There was something racist about VJ Day......Do you know of any Gold Star mother who has been treated with the sympathy and respect afforded to that of The mothers of Mchael Brown and Tayvon Martin.; 1/20/15, 9:23 AM
PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...: There have always been accusations of unfairness. Longbows, as someone mentioned. Submarines as someone else mentioned. Torpedoes (on destroyers) in WWI were considered to be unfair because it let a small ship sink a big battleship. Ditto ocean mines.

And so on.

On the other hand, snipers have always been viewed as particularly sneaky. Germans and French in WWI did not consider them normal soldiers and the rules were to shoot them on sight.

I have no problem with snipers. Or any of the other things I mentioned. The goal of war is to inflict pain and death on the enemy. To expand on one of Drill Sergeant's point, the quicker and more decisively you do it, the fewer die and the less pain. On both sides.

I had not planned on seeing the movie but since it seems to annoy all the right people, perhaps I have to.

New Republic ran a scathing review by some professor who had not even seen the movie. He had seen the trailer and read about it. Nice work if you can get it.

Also, a number of people I respect have said it is quite good.

John Henry; 1/20/15, 9:24 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: Hey, wait a minute. I think I might have just channeled the drill instructor guy from Full Metal Jacket expressing his admiration for Lee Harvey Oswald's marksmanship.

Oh well. We are talking movies, here.; 1/20/15, 9:25 AM
Brando said...: By Moore's logic, fighting with any advantage--and using it effectively--is cowardly. It was cowardly for us to fight the Japanese when they had an oil shortage and less industrial might than us. It was cowardly for us to fight the Nazis, when they already had their hands full with the Soviets. It was cowardly for the Union to fight the Confederates with more men, weaponry and ships.

Why not just be honest with what his problem is--he didn't like the war that Kyle was fighting in, and therefore cannot admire his deeds in it? Although some war opponents are capable of nevertheless appreciating the sacrifices and efforts made by our troops, perhaps Moore cannot do this. That's fine, our troops have historically gone through a lot to defend this country so that it can be a haven for imbeciles like Michael Moore.

When reading about what our snipers go through in training, and the exploits they accomplish (namely that U.S. sniper in Vietnam who got the enemy sniper by shooting him through his own scope) I'm just glad they're on our side.; 1/20/15, 9:27 AM
Sebastian said...: "They're just sitting there, safely watching, and getting charged up according to whatever manipulations the filmmaker sees fit to impose on these pliable spectators.

That's something Michael Moore knows a lot about."

Umm, only with regard to "pliable" lefties.; 1/20/15, 9:28 AM
PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...: William,

Why is it fitting and sweet to die for one's country? I know that you are quoting, not saying this but as you note lots of people believe this.

Especially people in other countries. Glorious and patriotic tend to be the words I see most commonly.

Patton had it right. Wars are not won by dieing for ones own country but by making the other poor SOB die for theirs.

The US has always been pretty conservative about making our soldiers die for our country. Especially unnecessarily like at the Somme Paschendale, Arras, Verdun, Stalingrad or some of the other totally useless butcher shops of history.

John Henry; 1/20/15, 9:28 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I deeply regret our failure to lay down in front of your beloved and glorious Soviet Empire. Our bad."

We have fought no wars that were necessary to prevent Soviet Russia from conquering us.; 1/20/15, 9:31 AM
William said...: From Elba to Waterloo, Napoleon racked up 100,000 casualties. It was perhaps the most pointless and vainglorious military campaign of modern history......I don't know if one can properly call Stendhal, Beethoven, Victor Hugo, Lord Byron et al the media, but they were the opinion makers of their era. They found nothing futile or sordid in Napoleon's campaigns. They admired Napoleon. So fuck the artists and intellectuals. More often than not they get things wrong and especially so in matters of war and economics.; 1/20/15, 9:36 AM
cubanbob said...: I'm sorry to say it but I can't help thinking of how that Jap sniper would have done us a favor if he had taken out Moore's father instead of his uncle.

Considering in the last hundred years the largest number of people murdered by state action or in the attempt to overthrow a state have been by leftist there is no need to give any attention let alone respect to any opinion on morality by a leftist.; 1/20/15, 9:39 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...from certain soldiers points of view and experiences, such things are not necessarily part of your mission or worldview while deployed. Especially a smaller specialty support job like sniper, as opposed to being part of a maneuver unit. Other than to win, the details of the bigger picture are not necessarily clear."

Of course. But filmmakers make choices when telling their stories, and Eastwood's decision to focus on Kyle's experience--without broadening it to attempt to convey any larger strategic purpose--furthers the perception, from a dramatic viewpoint--that the war has no coherent objectives or purpose, but merely is, a chaotic, perpetual disaster.; 1/20/15, 9:43 AM
Big Mike said...: We have fought no wars that were necessary to prevent Soviet Russia from conquering us.

It was called the Cold War. Ronald Reagan won it. George H. W. Bush accepted the surrender.; 1/20/15, 9:49 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Eight years of Obama have been hard on Moore's career. If another Democrat gets elected he's in big trouble. By 2020 or 2024 no one will remember who he is.; 1/20/15, 9:54 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Moore makes movies, right? How are they doing?; 1/20/15, 9:55 AM
Vet66 said...: Combat does not require the willing suspension of disbelief. It does require consideration of the potential for kinetic harm to oneself and those who are fighting with you and against you for a stated cause. Gives new meaning to the phrase "Pay it forward." The coherent objective/purpose of war is to WIN, a belief foreign to America haters and those who refuse to see the evil that exists in the world throughout the ages. The 'bigger picture' is clear to those called upon to defend it. Lack of Political clarity and moral relativism are what gives combatants nightmares, I.E. Jane Fonda, and Moore, etc.; 1/20/15, 9:58 AM
LYNNDH said...: Drill Sgt, 'There were few 29 y/o's in a parachute battalion.'

True, however my Father-in-Law was born in 1912 and was in 82nd during WWII. So he was 30 when he signed up in'42. Jumped into Sicily and walked across Europe. And Old Guy.; 1/20/15, 10:00 AM
traditionalguy said...: Talk about unfair tactics. Did you know that they will blatantly attack the force in the enemy's front and simultaneously sneak around his flank so they can attack the enemy force in its side. And that is even taught in military schools to young impressionable boys.; 1/20/15, 10:02 AM
Mary Beth said...: I was surprised by this. I didn't know anyone paid any attention to Moore anymore, but maybe that's the reason he said that.; 1/20/15, 10:04 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Our ally Yemen just fell to a pro-Iran backed group (i.e. with ships full of smuggled weapons). Its tribes mostly live in areas bordering our 'friends,' the Saudis.

Bet Yemen's leader wished he had a few good snipers around his "palace."; 1/20/15, 10:07 AM
Wince said...: Heck, I think it was a mistake to give up our napalm and cluster bombs.; 1/20/15, 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: David Hampton said...Combat does not require the willing suspension of disbelief. It does require consideration of the potential for kinetic harm to oneself and those who are fighting with you and against you for a stated cause. Gives new meaning to the phrase "Pay it forward." The coherent objective/purpose of war is to WIN,

On one level, I agree completely, on another:

Men don't fight for God, Mother and the Flag. At the most atomic level, they fight for the respect of their squadies, e.g. not to be thought a coward, or letting down a friend.

At that level, war is not about winning. It is about surviving. However, often, the best way to survive to to be very good at killing those other bastards first. e.g. winning...; 1/20/15, 10:25 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: We have fought no wars that were necessary to prevent Soviet Russia from conquering us.

Thanks for your incredibly biased opinion, but by that standard, WWII was a war of choice too.; 1/20/15, 10:32 AM
Robert Cook said...: "'We have fought no wars that were necessary to prevent Soviet Russia from conquering us.'

"It was called the Cold War. Ronald Reagan won it. George H. W. Bush accepted the surrender."

Ahem...as I was saying, we have fought no wars that were necessary to defeat Soviet Russia from conquering us. (The assertion to the contrary, by the way, assumes without evidence that Soviet Russia was trying to conquer us, rather than merely trying to keep up with us...the better to insure they could defend themselves against us.); 1/20/15, 10:32 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Now I have to find "Action in the North Atlantic" to watch it.; 1/20/15, 10:35 AM
The Godfather said...: When I was a kid, in the western movies and TV shows I watched, the Good Guy never drew first, the Bad Guy did, and particularly on TV the Good Guy often didn't harm the Bad Guy, he just shot the gun out of his hand (you could tell that this stung a little, but the Bad Guy didn't bleed).

We grew out of that childish view heroics before we turned 10. Perhaps the fat fool (I know his name, but I won't use it) never grew up, and thinks that the world really works that way. Or perhaps he will do or say anything to draw attention to himself. That would be even more juvenile and despicable.

I am not a fat sloppy childish robot.; 1/20/15, 10:42 AM
Crimso said...: I somehow doubt that as the plane carrying Yamamoto was going down he thought "That's not fair!"; 1/20/15, 10:53 AM
Larry J said...: sinz52 said...
Althouse: "Wouldn't virtually all of our military techniques be classified as cowardly by the standard set by Michael Moore's father?"

Yes.

It's been centuries since armies faced each other across an open field like chess pieces, to fight only when given the signal by their commander.

Ah, no. It has been a while but not exactly centuries. In the American Civil War, both sides lined up across from each other and inflicted massive casualties for this insanity. Later in the war, they did a lot of fighting from trenches, a lesson widely used in later wars.

In WW-I, troops left their trenches and went "over the top" to confront enemies equipped with machine guns. In some battles, tens of thousands of men were killed in a single day.

In WW-II, the Japanese used Banzai charges to try and overwhelm Allied forces. By this time, American forces had learned this wasn't a good tactic. It was better to dig in and reply with massive firepower, although there were some terrible hand-to-hand combat actions during the war. On the other hand, every time American and Allied forces stormed a beach, it was about as dangerous as when their fathers went over-the-top in WW-I.

In Korea, the North Koreans and Chinese used human wave assaults (my Uncle Paul was on the receiving end of one of those).

During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, about a million people were killed in frontal assaults. Those aren't exactly the same as lining up across from each other but they require great courage/stupidity and result in massive casualties just the same.; 1/20/15, 10:55 AM
MountainMan said...: Hagar said:

"It's been centuries since armies faced each other across an open field like chess pieces, to fight only when given the signal by their commander."

Not so. This was standard practice in the Civil War (known as the first "modern war," disregarding the Crimean.) and just gradually changing such that there were still some generals thinking this way in WWI.

Quite correct, Hagar, at least until near the end of the war. The siege of Petersburg foretold the coming of trench warfare as would be practiced in WW I. Grant, Sherman, and Longstreet were among the first "modern" generals whose actions foretold how wars would be fought in the future.; 1/20/15, 10:57 AM
Shanna said...: Maybe the problem is making a movie from the point of view of the person who is in the position of killing from a devastating advantage.

You don't need a sniper when you have devastating advantages!

I don't know if I can see this movie because I know I would probably cry buckets knowing the ending, but I would love to see a movie about the female Russian snipers in WWII.; 1/20/15, 11:02 AM
cubanbob said...: Give Cook credit for his consistent communist sympathies. The Old And Greatly Lamented USSR posed a threat to no one. To Cook nothing short of an actual invasion on the continental US constitutes a true threat ( too bad for Alaska, Hawaii, PR, USVI, Guam and American Samoa)to the US.; 1/20/15, 11:06 AM
bbkingfish said...: Ann Althouse said:

"Wouldn't virtually all of our military techniques be classified as cowardly by the standard set by Michael Moore's father? Only a coward would drop a bomb from the air?"

Poets, philosophers, and even some military leaders, have been making precisely this point about modern warfare for over 100 years now.

Even General Patton, an enthusiastic warrior, rued that his profession had been robbed of the chance for heroism by modern military technology.

Michael Moore and his dad probably would agree with the general.; 1/20/15, 11:09 AM
mikeski said...: Our guys, naked and unarmed, against their guys, naked and unarmed.

First guy to pick up a rock to hit the other guy with? Coward.; 1/20/15, 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: "....But filmmakers make choices when telling their stories, and Eastwood's decision to focus on Kyle's experience--without broadening it to attempt to convey any larger strategic purpose--furthers the perception, from a dramatic viewpoint--that the war has no coherent objectives or purpose, but merely is, a chaotic, perpetual disaster..."

Every time I watch "All Quiet On the Western Front" I see the same shortcomings.; 1/20/15, 11:20 AM
Big Mike said...: Ahem...as I was saying, we have fought no wars that were necessary to defeat Soviet Russia from conquering us. (The assertion to the contrary, by the way, assumes without evidence that Soviet Russia was trying to conquer us, rather than merely trying to keep up with us...the better to insure they could defend themselves against us.)

Kindly reread the collected speeches of Никита Хрущёв. When someone who is in a position of authority says that he will bury me, I presume that he is not kindly disposed. I will weep no tears for the sundering of the Soviet Empire.; 1/20/15, 11:21 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: as I was saying, we have fought no wars that were necessary to defeat Soviet Russia from conquering us. (The assertion to the contrary, by the way, assumes without evidence that Soviet Russia was trying to conquer us, rather than merely trying to keep up with us...the better to insure they could defend themselves against us.)

Was Germany trying to conquer us? Or just Europe?

By your standards, WWII was a war of choice best avoided.

Stalin took the opening offered by Hitler and marched across Europe, enslaving many nations in the process.

I know, Robert Cook, that you are always quick to defend the communists, but the Soviets rolled tanks in a lot of places, and stirred up a lot of trouble in that era, including their destruction of civil government in Afghanistan, first by organizing a communist coup, then by rolling tanks to quell the reaction of the anti communist population.

One thing about Muslims, they are not communists.; 1/20/15, 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Was Germany trying to conquer us? Or just Europe?

FWIW, on Dec 8, 1941, FDR asked for a declaration of war, only against Japan

On Dec 8, 1941, Hitler declared war on the US, in solidarity with his Nipponese buddies...; 1/20/15, 11:41 AM
Brando said...: "Ahem...as I was saying, we have fought no wars that were necessary to defeat Soviet Russia from conquering us."

When's the last time we fought anyone to prevent them from conquering us? 1812? Even then the British weren't so much trying to conquer us as trying to neuter us while they held off Napoleon.

Most of our wars have been to advance an ever broadening conception of our interests (economic, political and ideological, which are usually intertwined) and while we can argue about the wisdom of some of those wars or where our actual "interests" lie, it's fairly settled that preventing the Soviets from dominating more of the world than they already did was necessary for our long term health. Considering what they did with the countries they controlled it's just a shame there weren't fewer of them.; 1/20/15, 11:42 AM
Henry said...: Did anyone mention Agincourt?

Sixth comment! Well done LarsPolena!

In more recent history, let's not forget the Minié ball. Claude-Étienne Minié, take a bow.; 1/20/15, 11:46 AM
jr565 said...: Sniper coward, but the guy piloting the drone brave.; 1/20/15, 11:48 AM
jr565 said...: What war did his uncle fight in. Was it on his own soil? THen he'd be the invader right? So maybe he got what was coming to him.; 1/20/15, 11:49 AM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/20/15, 11:49 AM
jr565 said...: "My dad was in the First Marine Division in the South Pacific in World War II. His brother, my uncle, Lawrence Moore, was an Army paratrooper and was killed by a Japanese sniper 70 years ago next month,"
BUT
"But if you're on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who've come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor.
So then the guy who shot his uncle was not a sniper but brave and a neighbor.
Since we fought Japan over in Japan. Making us the bad guy invaders.; 1/20/15, 11:54 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: On Dec 8, 1941, Hitler declared war on the US, in solidarity with his Nipponese buddies...

Well, that was only because we couldn't keep our nose out of what Japan was doing in the Pacific and China, not to mention our aid to the British. I read somewhere where it was US Navy aircraft that helped locate the Bismark.

American involvement in WWII was a choice, not a requirement to avoid the US being conquered.

I am not suggesting that that would have been the right course of action, I am just trying to explain to Robert that he doesn't go back far enough, if he is going to talk about wars to avoid conquest.; 1/20/15, 11:55 AM
William said...: No sane person would want to lve in North Korea. At the time American troops were involved in combat in that region, Walter Lippmann pointed out that the South Korean Rhee government was hopelessly corrupt . He thought that no American should be asked to die to ensure its continuance. The left has absolutely no memory of when and how they were extravagantly wrong.......Incidentally, those human wave attacks that China launched against US forces were not a marker of the fervor of Commnist troops. Mao used forces suspected of loyalty to Chiang for those attacks. They charged entrenched US positions because the blockading squadrons behind them would promptly execute them if they held back.; 1/20/15, 11:56 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...Maybe the problem is making a movie from the point of view of the person who is in the position of killing from a devastating advantage

Respectfully Professor I suggest you think deeply about the nature of a sniper's work and consider where they're forced to locate w/r/t the enemy, friendly forces, etc. Especially for snipers like Kyle (who would set up with only a few guys in areas controlled by the enemy) there may have been an advantage when firing that first shot but they very quickly became fixed targets for vastly superior numbers of enemies who they then had to hold off and survive until they could exfiltrate.
A remote drone strike, on the other hand (if not controlled/adjusted by someone on the ground anyway) is closer to the idea of having a devastating advantage not requiring the sort of courage/valor in the face of a threat of immediate physical harm. I think it was Bill Maher who got in trouble for saying the 9/11 hijackers were brave but our guys firing cruise missles were not. If that's your point or comparison, very well, but snipers don't really fit that mold--snipers hang it out there and their initial advantage is more than made up for by the disadvantageous positions they have to put themselves in to get the shot.; 1/20/15, 11:57 AM
Robert Cook said...: "When someone who is in a position of authority says that he will bury me, I presume that he is not kindly disposed."

Aha! I knew someone would put forth this stale canard. Funny how we can use the language in ways that are literal or figurative, but our opponents only know how to use language literally. Kruschev clarified that he did not mean they would attack and conquer us, but was referring to the "historic inevitability" (according to Marx) of communist displacement of capitalism.; 1/20/15, 11:59 AM
traditionalguy said...: Single shot breech loaders were favored by the Us Army since the troops did not waste ammunition as they were killed. Then Samuel Colt started providing the ammunition wasters with a revolver. They bought them with their own money to increase their fire power from two shots a minute to 13 shots in the first 30 seconds, and then they lived and the hostiles were killed.

Getting your fire power on target first is all you need to know to win. And snipers are usually the first to do that.

s; 1/20/15, 11:59 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: I always get a laugh out loud when Robert talks about absence of evidence too. Like he can prove a negative and knows the correct interpretation of every historic event, and the contents of every diplomatic cable on all sides.

History is sure simple for a Marxist. Especially if you can crack every ambiguous situation by assuming evil intent on the part of the US.; 1/20/15, 11:59 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Told you. Robert Cook is always quick to defend the Soviets from any calumny.; 1/20/15, 12:00 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I know, Robert Cook, that you are always quick to defend the communists...."

I have never defended the communists. You are simply one (of many) who interprets the world crudely, in binary terms: us/them, black/white, good/bad.

'twas never so.; 1/20/15, 12:01 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: So Robert, how is socialism doing "burying us" by outproducing us?

The latest experiment in Venezuela going great?; 1/20/15, 12:03 PM
Jason said...: We have fought no wars that were necessary to prevent Soviet Russia from conquering us.

If that idiot cookie were a rabbit, he'd allow the python to wrap itself around him four times before resisting, thinking "well, he hasn't bitten me yet, so it's cool."; 1/20/15, 12:04 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: I have never defended the communists

I pointed out that Communism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin, and you defended communism then.

You seem to defend them every time they are insulted, on this forum, anyway.; 1/20/15, 12:04 PM
Robert Cook said...: You also assume, with no evidence--and incorrectly--that I am a Marxist.

Perhaps I would be if I had ever read Marx, (which I have not), but probably not. What little I have heard of his analysis of capitalism's failings seems valid to me, but that doesn't mean I would agree that his prescription for change is workable or desirable.

But again, you can only see up/down, this/that, yes/no...so you probably won't make any more sense of what I'm saying here than any other comments of mine you've remarked on.; 1/20/15, 12:07 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I pointed out that Communism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin, and you defended communism then."

Uh...no. Show me where I "defended communism then."; 1/20/15, 12:09 PM
Robert Cook said...: "So Robert, how is socialism doing 'burying us' by outproducing us?

'The latest experiment in Venezuela going great?"

You continue to demonstrate your blinkered worldview: did I say socialism/communism would inevitably succeed capitalism? I did not; Marx did, as I clearly reference in my comment), and many of his adherents.

Perhaps you should try to think through what my remarks my might actually mean before responding to your own assumptions.; 1/20/15, 12:13 PM
Jason said...: Weaselly little fucker ain't he?

About as weaselly as Moore trying to say "I didn't say anything about Kyle when I called snipers cowards!"

Peas in a pod.; 1/20/15, 12:14 PM
Jason said...: News flash, cookie: Bolshevism envisioned a GLOBAL dictatorship of the proletariat. They were a threat to everyone, and had the intention of overthrowing everyone. They had no problem stating so, and chose to do it largely through "wars of national liberation," because that's what was available to them. They would have happily invaded France as easily as Poland but for the threat of American nukes, and given the opportunity the communists engaged in cross border aggression in every direction, and would only stop if they were threatened with defeat.

Aggression was in their doctrine from the beginning of the movement. It is part and parcel of Bolshevism.; 1/20/15, 12:17 PM
Henry said...: Shanna wrote: I would love to see a movie about the female Russian snipers in WWII.

Or this guy.; 1/20/15, 12:29 PM
Robert Cook said...: Jason,

If you call my disputing the ignorant misinterpretation (or willful misrepresentation) of my comments, "weaselly," that doesn't reflect well on you, does it?

"Bolshevism envisioned a GLOBAL dictatorship of the proletariat. They were a threat to everyone, and had the intention of overthrowing everyone."

Grandiose statements of intent--aspirational or boastful or threatening, however they may be intended--are not equivalent to capability, are they?

We had (and have) the same intent to control the world--at least, that part of the world we can profit by--as this is the nature of empires. And we certainly use violence to achieve our ends, as we can see in the present day. General Smedley Butler called it back in the 1930s: the American military is just the "muscle" for big business to assert and sustain its agenda wherever it will.; 1/20/15, 12:31 PM
furious_a said...: American involvement in WWII was a choice.

Wilson made a choice dragging America in WWI. Lincoln made a choice dragging the South back into the Union. The Colonists made a choice rebelling against their Sovereign. Damn illegal wars.; 1/20/15, 12:36 PM
furious_a said...: Michael Moore is too fat to hide behind a tree. He's too fat to squeeze his oleaginous bulk into a Ghillie Suit.; 1/20/15, 12:37 PM
furious_a said...: "Pro War" movies:

Schindler's List
Twelve Years a Slave
Hotel Rwanda
Raid on Entebbe
The Killing Fields

...when nothing less awful will serve.; 1/20/15, 12:41 PM
n.n said...: Hand-to-hand combat, in an open field. No atomic bombs. No bombers to establish an Islamic state in Europe. Although, in France... No, not in France. No assassinations to establish a left-wing Islamic state in Libya.

Make love, not war. Right, Moore?

Oh, and abortion, only by the mother's hand, in a public space. No privacy cover for religious -- anti-religious, really -- sacrificial rites. While premeditated abortion received an exemption under the "religious" clause or a sincerely held faith about when and by whose choice a human life acquires value, I think reasonable people of all faiths will agree that a wholly innocent human life should not be summarily terminated in privacy.

Make life, not abortion. Right, Moore?

No cowards on the field or in the clinics. Of course, the situations are not comparable. In the field, there is probable cause to carry out self-defense, while in the clinics, the victims are wholly innocent.; 1/20/15, 12:43 PM
Thorley Winston said...: I don't know if I can see this movie because I know I would probably cry buckets knowing the ending, but I would love to see a movie about the female Russian snipers in WWII.

I haven’t seen one about Russian female snipers in WWII, but I remember seeing this one in the theaters.; 1/20/15, 12:50 PM
Big Mike said...: @Jason, @tim in Vermont, you guys broke the code! Cookie is a hard-core communist. He's been taught that when cornered he's supposed to act all offended and deny, deny, deny. He demands to know here he said this and where did he say that? I dunno, Cookie, wherever you learned to express yourself using Marxist terminology I suppose.

He's a lying little crapweasel.; 1/20/15, 12:53 PM
David said...: I think Michael is thinking of the good old days when opposing armies lined up against one another and charged.; 1/20/15, 1:00 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Wilson made a choice dragging America in WWI. Lincoln made a choice dragging the South back into the Union. The Colonists made a choice rebelling against their Sovereign. Damn illegal wars."

WWI was certainly a devastating catastrophe, a choice Wilson should never have made.

Those who resided in the south certainly considered Lincoln in the wrong to prevent their secession from the union, and many still do so today.

You can be sure the King viewed the American colonists with as much scorn as we view the Muslim extremists.

Everyone has their point of view, dude.; 1/20/15, 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Jason:
"Bolshevism envisioned a GLOBAL dictatorship of the proletariat. They were a threat to everyone, and had the intention of overthrowing everyone."
Robert Cook in reply to Jason:
Grandiose statements of intent--aspirational or boastful or threatening, however they may be intended--are not equivalent to capability, are they?

Those "grandiose statements of intent" were also backed up with concrete ACTS, such as the blockade of Berlin which led to the Berlin airlift, and the NORK's invasion of South Korea. Had the US not responded as it did to Stalin's blockade of Berlin, West Berlin would have become Communist. Had West Berlin become Communist, it is debatable that history would have later turned out as it did- such as the reunification of Germany. Had the US not responded to the NORK's invasion of South Korea as it did, South Korea would be Communist today.

Or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Oh yes, the Communists were just full of hot air. Tell me another one.; 1/20/15, 1:11 PM
furious_a said...: (stolen from twitter)

Seth Rogen and Michael Moore are co-producing a remake of the Tarantino classic:

Ungrateful Basterds; 1/20/15, 1:14 PM
n.n said...: If wars were fought in hand-to-hand combat, would FEMENists still push women into combat roles for a political victory? We know they don't care about human rights or dignity, male or female, but would they maintain the pretense of representing women, and would women continue to sacrifice, not only their children, but also themselves, for their liberal profits: power, money, sex, ego, and convenience?; 1/20/15, 1:15 PM
Brando said...: I agree about drone strikes being "cowardly" (to the extent that "cowardly" even matters on a battlefield--it's an absurd concept; war has never been "gentlemanly" even where certain rules and ethics were adhered to) in that there is zero risk to the offense--their drone might get shot down but there's otherwise no vulnerability.

Snipers though have major vulnerabilities--their rifles generally lack rapid fire capability, and once their cover is blown they can usually be taken down even by small numbers of the enemy. It's a highly risky job.

As for "defending his home"--I wonder how Moore would have felt about the southerners fighting on home ground during the Civil War against invading Union forces? Using his logic, the Rebs were noble and good, the Yanks were the bad guys. He has completely ignored whether the causes or circumstances of the war are ever justified, which isn't surprising because he's quite unintelligent.; 1/20/15, 1:16 PM
furious_a said...: Concord Hymn, by Michael Moore:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the Embattled Farmers stood,
And fired from concealment like little girls.; 1/20/15, 1:19 PM
Robert Cook said...: BigMike enters the fray, to equally delusional and impotent effect!; 1/20/15, 1:29 PM
Dan Hossley said...: Two problems. First, why on earth would anyone believe the hypocrite? Second, why do we even care what the hypocrite says?; 1/20/15, 1:32 PM
Big Mike said...: Oh, I think I have you pegged, Cookie. We laugh at you, Cookie. You are nothing but a punch line.; 1/20/15, 1:37 PM
Jason said...: Oh, horse hockey. We have your number, you miserable little left-tard shit.; 1/20/15, 1:38 PM
Jason said...: Cook: We haven't had that decision thrust on us since WWII, but have freely chosen that decision time and time again...which is our bad.

My high school friend, Christine Snyder had only just gotten married a month before she was murdered on an airplane. Flight 93.

I don't recall any evidence of her checking the block on the boarding pass that said "I never want to see my family again." I don't think she got to "freely choose" very much that day, except maybe the choice to go down fighting.

So come tell me in person about how we haven't had that choice thrust upon us since WWII, you cur. I will smash your face in and put your head through a wall and keep at you just for the sport of it.

Don't you dare try to resist, Cookie. Then you'll just be fighting "a war of choice." Of course, you're a man of principles, right? You're above it. LULZ.

Marxist shit.; 1/20/15, 1:47 PM
MountainMan said...: "In general, the principle is, the farther from the scene of horror the easier the talk. "

A quote from a great essay by the late Paul Fussell. I re-read this every year on Aug 6 when all the apologists show up decrying Truman's use of the atomic bomb. The perspective is different when it is your ass on the line, as was Fussell's. And my late father-in-law's as well as, like Fussell, having survived the fighting in Europe (having been seriously wounded in the hedgerows in Normandy) he was sent to the Pacific to be in the invasion of Japan. A great essay well worth your time:

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS1300MET/v12/undervisningsmateriale/Fussel%20-%20thank%20god%20for%20the%20atom%20bomb.pdf; 1/20/15, 1:48 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: I am sure that Michael Moore thinks the Cuban Snipers in Venezuela shooting people demonstrating for *food* are patriotic heroes of the revolution.

And as for "capability"? Unopposed the Soviets would only have grown in strength. Had Robert Cook been in charge of the US, I am sure defense spending would have been cut drastically, Star Wars would have died in the crib, Afhganistan would have been left in Soviet hands, as would the Warsaw Pact. Without US defense spending, the Soviet Union would still be occupying half of Europe. But the Poles have never had self determination. I am sure Cook would have one more time sold them out for "Peace in our time."; 1/20/15, 1:51 PM
Jason said...: More than that, without US defense spending, Russia would have occupied BOTH halves of Europe.; 1/20/15, 1:56 PM
Jason said...: More broadly, once you commit forces in an urban environment, if you care about non-combatant casualties (I don't use the word "civilian" because left-tars idiots like Cookie can't tell the difference and abuse the language to twist the truth), then you love snipers.

If it weren't for snipers, we'd have to accomplish the same objectives with machine guns, artillery, booby traps, mines, chemical weapons and airstrikes.

Snipers are life savers compared to what you'd have to do if you committed to not employing them.

Same with White Phosphorus. Libtards who don't know their asses from their elbows get all worked about WP, thinking it's a chemical weapon of exceptional cruelty. No, it's the fastest way to put up a smoke screen to save your own troops' lives, and it's an efficient marking round, daytime or nighttime, that you use so you can spot your artillery fires and airstrikes more accurately and you don't have to use much more lethal HE, which would cause much, much more destruction.

Libtards are constantly and stupidly wrong about everything.

Cookie is their Darth Vader. And their Clown Prince is Garage.; 1/20/15, 2:02 PM
furious_a said...: Lefties are butt-hurt that American Sniper's opening first four days' domestic gross ($105M) crushes the lifetime domestic gross of their preferred weepy and unattended WoT films other films combined:

Green Zone $35M*
Lions for Lambs $15.0M**
Stop-Loss $10.9M
Rendition $9.7M
Valley of Elah $6.7M
Grace is Gone $1.0M

oh, yes giggle..Redacted $0.07M

*starring Matt Damon!
**starring Robert Redford, Tom Cruise *and* Mery Streep!; 1/20/15, 2:09 PM
TCR James said...: It was so much easier to look up to our servicemembers when they were sharp looking people in 60 year old black and white photos. Those people fought in The Good War and should be looked up to. These servicemembers today who get all dirty and sometimes pee on dead terrorists and sometimes act like knuckleheads after they muster out and talk their right wing politics are soooo icky...; 1/20/15, 2:19 PM
holdfast said...: Disclaimer: I have not seeen the film, though hope to do so soon.

Cook wrote: "Of course. But filmmakers make choices when telling their stories, and Eastwood's decision to focus on Kyle's experience--without broadening it to attempt to convey any larger strategic purpose--furthers the perception, from a dramatic viewpoint--that the war has no coherent objectives or purpose, but merely is, a chaotic, perpetual disaster."

I can't really disagree with that. I suspect that Eastwood made the right decision, to keep the movie sharply focussed on Kyle. I have never served in combat, but a decade in uniform taught me that even a well run, large-scale training exercise is chaotic and sometimes veers towards actual disaster - and that's without incoming fire (mostly, except that time when the Arty FOO F'd up . . .). In war, the guy who wins is often the one who is able to process and see through the chaos and disaster.

At any rate, this films sounds like a good (i.e. well made and accurate) war movie in its portrayel of Kyle's slice of the war. It has been said before that any such good war move is of necessity at least partly "anti-war" because war is not a good or nice thing. It may be necessary, but it isn't supposed to be attractive.; 1/20/15, 2:33 PM
Meade said...: tim in vermont said...
"Movies should treat us as adults, not force feed us either pro-war or anti-war propaganda."

Insane people don't need propaganda to go to war but normal, sane people do.

Greatest pro-war propaganda movies: Triumph of the Will and Frank Capra's Why We Fight series.; 1/20/15, 2:33 PM
Christy said...: FWIW, the hero character in the TV show Bones was a sniper before joining the FBI. Scattered throughout the series are bits of how he deals with that, including his need for the government which ordered him to kill to be good. Just thought I'd toss out that this conflict has been explored in popular culture before.; 1/20/15, 2:34 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: In Cookie's defense, there is no doubt that the ideas of free expression, economic liberty, freedom of assembly and association have been extremely disruptive in world politics.

It is easy to hate the US when your population sees something better and gets tired of crap you've been feeding them. Lord knows he has massive sympathy for oppressive states worldwide.

It is said that Soviets were amazed that US propaganda worked so well, and the propaganda they used worked so poorly. Well, full supermarkets are what back up "propaganda" and make it work.; 1/20/15, 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Sgt York was a coward.; 1/20/15, 2:47 PM
n.n said...: Pro-choice required an unprecedented effort to convince ostensibly sane women and men to murder their own children. In overtly totalitarian societies, it required government coercion to "convince" mothers and fathers to abort their children. However, in liberal societies, with the normalization, including culture corruption, sexual "education", and political incentives, women and men voluntary terminate their unwanted children in order to earn the favor of their profits: power, money, sex, ego, and leisure. Unlike war, the sole intent and purpose of abortion is to commit collateral damage, that is murder of [wholly] innocent lives, in the privacy of a government sanctioned and subsidized clinic.; 1/20/15, 2:59 PM
Rusty said...: Robert Cook said...
"When someone who is in a position of authority says that he will bury me, I presume that he is not kindly disposed."

Aha! I knew someone would put forth this stale canard. Funny how we can use the language in ways that are literal or figurative, but our opponents only know how to use language literally. Kruschev clarified that he did not mean they would attack and conquer us, but was referring to the "historic inevitability" (according to Marx) of communist displacement of capitalism.

Then he should have said that. He was unclear about that when he was banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. A lot of people believed he meant it literally.
What did Finnland ever do to soviet Russia anyway?; 1/20/15, 3:10 PM
Brando said...: I haven't seen "American Sniper" yet, but it's one of the few films out now that I'm looking forward to. As to why it's more successful than other Iraq-war movies, I can't say--the only one I've seen was "the Hurt Locker" and I don't remember much of that because it kept losing my attention.

I don't think the quality of a movie is really due to whether it's pro-war, anti-war or neutral--and some movies may have different effects on different viewers. Sort of like "Do the Right Thing"--I don't know what Spike Lee's intent was, but my sympathies were with the pizza shop owner who was just trying to run his business (and to Lee's credit, he made Aiello's character sympathetic too). I could also see two viewers coming out of "Black Hawk Down" with one thinking "gotta kill those bastards!" and the other thinking "why were we there in the first place?" A good movie may have a message, but it won't hit you over the head with it--let the viewer interpret what is onscreen.; 1/20/15, 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: tim in vermont
It is said that Soviets were amazed that US propaganda worked so well, and the propaganda they used worked so poorly. Well, full supermarkets are what back up "propaganda" and make it work.

I have read on occasion accounts Soviets or former Soviets reacting to the average US supermarket: these must be Potemkin creations.

The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia is about the Americans who immigrated to the Soviet Union in the 1930s,and who later mostly perished in the Gulag. There is one account of an audience in a movie theater reacting to a newsreel of injustice in the US- of blacks being beaten by policemen. The reaction of the audience was not what the government expected: "Look at what good shoes these blacks are wearing."

Michael Moore once referred to the terrorists in Iraq as Minutemen.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?

US forces employed snipers against the terrorists- as did the terrorists employ snipers. I never heard Michael Moore denouncing the terrorists in Iraq for using snipers.; 1/20/15, 3:14 PM
Rusty said...: ibtards are constantly and stupidly wrong about everything.

Cookie is their Darth Vader. And their Clown Prince is Garage.

No. Just a couple of fools. Their fantasies and assertions are easily deflated.; 1/20/15, 3:14 PM
Brando said...: "Kruschev clarified that he did not mean they would attack and conquer us, but was referring to the "historic inevitability" (according to Marx) of communist displacement of capitalism."

Even figuratively, it's a provocative statement. So Nikita was a boorish undiplomatic fool--his clumsy and erratic behavior was exactly why we had to be wary of him and prevent his regime from becoming more powerful than they were.

The Soviets expanded their empire at every opportunity, and while they weren't as reckless as Hitler, they methodically expanded wherever there was weakness. Had we not cut them off at certain chokepoints, they would have dominated the developing world, perhaps western Europe, and the resources we depend on. We can't know how that would have turned out, because they were checked, and later imploded, but their behavior from 1917 on is a good guide to what we could expect from them.; 1/20/15, 3:19 PM
Brando said...: "The reaction of the audience was not what the government expected: "Look at what good shoes these blacks are wearing."

I remember reading something similar--U.S. TV shows imported into the USSR, which were supposed to show how bad the poor in America had it (maybe "Good Times"?), but where the Soviet audiences were more impressed that the poor in America had nice applicances and flashy clothes. I'd also read that "Dallas" was imported in to show an evil capitalist, but the Soviet audiences were instead dazzled by the wealth on the show and more envious of Americans.

I don't remember if those were true stories.; 1/20/15, 3:23 PM
jr565 said...: furious_a wrote:
Seth Rogen and Michael Moore are co-producing a remake of the Tarantino classic:

Ungrateful Basterds

I do like the fact that Seth noticed the propaganda of the Nazis, while ignoring that the whole movie is a fetization of revenge fantasies against the Nazis.So much so that the movie actually has the inglorious basterds kill Hitler in a glorious assassination, along with all the SS.

Dont' really remember that bit of history.; 1/20/15, 3:36 PM
Robert Cook said...: "My high school friend, Christine Snyder had only just gotten married a month before she was murdered on an airplane. Flight 93."

Jason,

I'm truly sorry about your friend who was murdered so horribly, but we are fighting wars that have nothing to do with the people behind 9/11.

The people who carried out the 9/11 attacks were stateless terrorists; they were NOT the people (or government) of Afghanistan; they were NOT the people (or government) of Iraq; they were NOT the people (or government) of Pakistan or Syria or any of the other places where we are carrying on senseless attacks. It's like attacking a hotel and killing all the management and all the people who are staying there because a few criminals who killed one's loved ones stayed there for a little while during their planning of their crime.

Most of the perpetrators were Saudis, and much of the funding came from Saudi Arabia, an staunch "ally" of ours to this day. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia, if the point was to get at the perpetrators of 9/11? If there is a purpose at all to what we're doing, is is NOT what we're being told the purpose is.

Our disproportionate and ill-aimed response to 9/11 has made everything far worse than it would have been otherwise.

Tell me: what are we fighting for, and what goal do we hope to accomplish? How do we know if we've won? How do we win?; 1/20/15, 3:42 PM
Robert Cook said...: Brando,

But we didn't fight any wars against the Soviets. We managed this checking of their supposed relentless march to world domination without engaging them in war.; 1/20/15, 3:45 PM
Robert Cook said...: "In Cookie's defense, there is no doubt that the ideas of free expression, economic liberty, freedom of assembly and association have been extremely disruptive in world politics."

So much so that all these are being checked here in the "homeland," (a wretched, Nazi-ism term).; 1/20/15, 3:46 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Every time I watch 'All Quiet On the Western Front' I see the same shortcomings."

I haven't seen the movie, but I read the book years ago. A great book.

Of course, WWI was the first great, senseless, insane, monstrous war of the modern era. There was no point to it, no purpose, no positive outcome, no good guy victorious, no bad guy vanquished. Just butchery and slaughter.; 1/20/15, 3:50 PM
William said...: Kruschev is generally regarded as the closest thing the Bolshies came to producing a humanist. Here's some interesting background info on Nikita. His son was married to a woman who had previously been married. She had a son by her previous marriage and a son with the second husband. Nikita's son was killed in the war. He invited the widow and her children to live in his large Kremlin apartment. The widow was by no means a traitor. She did, however, carry on a flirtation with a French envoy. That was enough to get her sent to the gulag. Kruschev allowed his natural grandson to live with him. The other son was run to a state run orphanage. And that's how the most humane leader the Bolshies ever produced treated his closest dependents. Scumbags. All of them.; 1/20/15, 3:54 PM
Hagar said...: We managed to avoid an all-out war with the Soviet Union, but we fought a number of smaller wars where the enmemies were armed, financed, and organized by the Soviets - China, Korea, Viet Nam, etc. come to mind.; 1/20/15, 3:56 PM
William said...: I agree with Cook that there is a good chance that the sacrifice of any young man who goes to war will be in vain. The chances of that happening during a Democratic administration increase exponentially.......Some wars were worth it, and some weren't. Life is lived forward and understood backward. There is no sound universal principle regarding war, except the best outcome is to win it.; 1/20/15, 4:01 PM
Jason said...: Remember when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? We responded by invading Morocco.

Good times.

Cookie, you're a fucking idiot.; 1/20/15, 4:02 PM
furious_a said...: ...without broadening it to attempt to convey any larger strategic purpose--furthers the perception, from a dramatic viewpoint--that the war has no coherent objectives or purpose, but merely is, a chaotic, perpetual disaster.

Like the first ten minutes of Saving Private Ryan or the "Day of Days" episode of Band of Brothers.; 1/20/15, 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: holdfast said...
In war, the guy who wins is often the one who is able to process and see through the chaos and disaster.

von Clauswitz: War is very simple, but in battle, even the most simple things are very difficult....; 1/20/15, 5:13 PM
Jason said...: A 5 percent efficient army beats a 3 percent efficient army, every time.; 1/20/15, 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Jason said...
A 5 percent efficient army beats a 3 percent efficient army, every time.

alternate rule:

The Army with the simpler uniforms beats the army with the fancy uniforms...; 1/20/15, 5:42 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: But we didn't fight any wars against the Soviets. We managed this checking of their supposed relentless march to world domination without engaging them in war.

How about that? That Reagan was some genius. Maybe he was an idiot savant? Outcomes matter, not process.; 1/20/15, 6:14 PM
Unknown said...: I'm probably outing myself here, but I don't give a shit. I narrated two ceremonies where Silver Stars were awarded to a couple of heroes at my post.

I wrote the story on this one: Sgt. Timothy Gilboe

A colleague of mine wrote this one: Sgt. M. Joshua Laughery

Both of these men have more courage in the underwear they discarded yesterday than Michael Moore and his ilk will EVER show, even if they live to be 100.

Fuck that lard-ass piece of shit and all the rest of the armchair and keyboard generals among us.; 1/20/15, 6:27 PM
Revenant said...: But we didn't fight any wars against the Soviets. We managed this checking of their supposed relentless march to world domination without engaging them in war.

And in today's lesson, we learn the meaning of the phrase "proxy war".; 1/20/15, 6:29 PM
Revenant said...: So much so that all these are being checked here in the "homeland," (a wretched, Nazi-ism term).

If the Nazis are the only people you can think of who use terms like "homeland" and "fatherland", you really need to read more.

These are not new words or concepts.; 1/20/15, 6:42 PM
n.n said...: Zedediah Grimm:

It's just about stroking egos and scoring points. People like Moore don't actually care about human rights or human lives. They don't care about people's natural and legal right to self-defense. In fact, they not only support, but promote murdering the most... No, the wholly innocent in our world.

Make love, not war?
Make abortion, not life.

That's all that needs to be known in order to distinguish between their persona and nature.

Anyway, survival of the fittest. Deception is a virtue. Their profits justify the means. Whether it is national redistributive change to reduce personal contribution, or national abortion rights to prevent clutter in their playgrounds, there is always an ulterior motive.; 1/20/15, 7:26 PM
Michael K said...: "Was Saving Private Ryan a pro-war movie or an anti-war movie? "

Private Ryan was a pretty dishonest anti-war movie. Tom Hanks line, "maybe the only decent thing to come out of this whole war is this (Saving one life)."

This ignores the Nazis, the Jews, the Russians with thousands of children hanged by the Germans and a lot more.; 1/20/15, 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Robert Cook
But we didn't fight any wars against the Soviets. We managed this checking of their supposed relentless march to world domination without engaging them in war.

Better written "...without OFFICIALLY engaging them in war." There were Soviet airmen in the Korean War, for example. Not to mention the war material the Soviets supplied the NORKs and the Chinese. Not to mention the material the Soviets send the North Vietnamese. Not to mention the material we sent the Afghanis. Plenty of proxy wars.; 1/20/15, 7:34 PM
RecChief said...: I have news for the portly millionaire, there is nothing 'honorable' about war. When it comes down to it, the Marquess of Queensberry can go fuck himself.; 1/20/15, 7:34 PM
Michael K said...: "We haven't had that decision thrust on us since WWII, but have freely chosen that decision time and time again...which is our bad."

Yes, we should have just grabbed a tube of KY and bent over after 9/11. That your advice ?; 1/20/15, 7:37 PM
Michael K said...: " yet we never see or get a sense of what the goals are, what objectives are being fought for, or won or lost, in the cycle of skirmishes, "

Speak for yourself, lefty. I think Bush tried too hard to make something of Iraq but we wanted to try to see if Arabs could govern themselves without strong men. We failed. The left was cheering every American death. Iran was using Russians .50 calibre sniper rifles. The bad guy sniper was probably either Iranian or Syria.; 1/20/15, 7:42 PM
Michael K said...: "Also, a number of people I respect have said it is quite good. "

It is excellent, especially showing the impact on families of deployed soldiers.; 1/20/15, 7:46 PM
Michael K said...: "At that level, war is not about winning. It is about surviving. However, often, the best way to survive to to be very good at killing those other bastards first. e.g. winning..."

Although SLA Marshall's writings are now under some suspicion, there is some interest in his studies that suggested that only 25% of soldiers in WWII fired their rifles. They did not run away but were willing to carry ammunition and pass it to the shooters. The whole army marksmanship program was changed to reflect this situation, true or not.

In WWII fighter planes, a small proportion of pilots to most of the kills.; 1/20/15, 7:51 PM
RecChief said...: to those of you who think Moore is lying about his father being a paratrooper in the Pacific, if I remember correctly, the 11th Airborne and 2/503 regiment served in the pacific. Not sure if they ever dropped in that theater though. 2nd battalion 503rd regiment performed the US' first combat jump when they dropped into North Africa.; 1/20/15, 8:06 PM
RecChief said...: we wanted to try to see if Arabs could govern themselves without strong men. We failed.

I;m sorry I take issue with this. It's the Iraqis who failed to govern themselves.; 1/20/15, 8:08 PM
Jason said...: They were doing ok. At least maintaining. Until Obama and the libtards kicked the supports out from under them.; 1/20/15, 8:18 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/20/15, 10:01 PM
Revenant said...: Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia, if the point was to get at the perpetrators of 9/11?

First of all, I can't think of a better way to start an actual, world-wide religious war between Islam and the United States than to invade Mecca.

Secondly, you know -- we all know -- that if we had in fact invaded Saudi Arabia, you'd have condemned America for that, too.

Finally, saying "the government of Afghanistan" didn't attack us is disingenuous. Bin Laden's crew were there with the permission of the government of Afghanistan despite already being wanted for the murder of Americans. To use your hotel metaphor, if the hotel management has been knowingly and openly harboring mass murderers for years, they do not get to complain when SWAT teams come down on them like the wrath of God.; 1/20/15, 11:27 PM
J said...: Moore's uncle was killed by a Japanese sniper?You mean one of those cowardly people on one of those islands in the Pacific where 95-98% of all enemy soldiers died.Yeah that sniper was a coward right.
Americans have been known for being unfair about these things since the British complained about us hiding behind trees to shoot their red-coated manly selves.; 1/21/15, 1:27 AM
J said...: Moore's uncle was killed by a Japanese sniper?You mean one of those cowardly people on one of those islands in the Pacific where 95-98% of all enemy soldiers died.Yeah that sniper was a coward right.
Americans have been known for being unfair about these things since the British complained about us hiding behind trees to shoot their red-coated manly selves.; 1/21/15, 1:29 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...you know -- we all know -- that if we had in fact invaded Saudi Arabia, you'd have condemned America for that, too."

Of course...my question was rhetorical. As the 9/11 attacks were the acts of stateless terrorists, invading any state in response would have been--as ours were--criminally stupid, and just plain criminal.; 1/21/15, 10:18 AM
Jason said...: Except that there they were, fool. In Afghanistan.; 1/21/15, 2:59 PM
Robert Cook said...: They fled--escaped us--immediately. So why did we stay? Why are we still there?

Why did we go into Iraq?

Whatever our reasons, they have nothing to do with fighting terrorists or with 9/11. But what we're doing is certainly inflaming hatred of us throughout the region and is inspiring more extremists to do violence.; 1/21/15, 3:59 PM
T. A. Hansen said...: What irks me is that many people use my son did this, my dad did this, my unlce did this in WW2, Vietnam, Iraq so I get make moral judgements on war and combat. Both sides use this tatic, but it's more grating coming from an anti-war leftist.; 1/22/15, 9:42 PM