The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)

[remnant_phoenix]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

This position is predicated on one buying into the philosophy of "freedom isn't free." This is the idea that freedoms are earned/won by service men and women and then granted to civilians out of the goodness of the hearts of said service people.

I myself believe that freedom of speech is a natural right. It's something exists in and of itself. That freedom is suppressed by tyrants. Righteous governments create laws and policy to preserve and protect natural rights. From this perspective, freedom isn't earned and then granted by those who serve in the armed forces. On the contrary, servicemen and women have the honor of preserving and protecting something that exists on its own.

Which of these two perspectives do you think is more "American"?

Well, the founders of the U.S.A. overwhelmingly subscribed to the latter one. The American experiment was based on the philosophies of John Locke, who argued for natural rights; he argued that governments (and by extension, the military that they create) don't create and distribute freedom. On the contrary, he argued that freedom is the natural state of humanity and that governments (and military) are created to keep tyranny at bay.

The whole "freedom isn't free" mentality wasn't a normal thing in American culture until the Cold War, and then spurred back into the popular psyche in a post-9/11 world.

To top it all off, no matter which view one subscribe's to, the freedom of speech includes the right to criticize one's government, and all military actions are government actions, so that includes criticism of military actions. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Thomas Jefferson)

 

[J Tyran]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

How so? how are we put in danger from the invasion of Iraq?

Not all that up on current events I take it, the region has become the largest breeding ground for terrorists in the world. Far worse than Afghanistan ever was, people have been already been there, radicalised and then taught how to fight by groups that operate in Iraq (amongst other places) and set loose on the streets of Europe where they amassed a tragic body count.

The United States won't be immune from this.

 

[jacobbanks]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

This position is predicated on one buying into the philosophy of "freedom isn't free." This is the idea that freedoms are earned/won by service men and women and then granted to civilians out of the goodness of the hearts of said service people.

I myself believe that freedom of speech is a natural right. It's something exists in and of itself. That freedom is suppressed by tyrants. Righteous governments create laws and policy to preserve and protect natural rights. From this perspective, freedom isn't earned and then granted by those who serve in the armed forces. On the contrary, servicemen and women have the honor of preserving and protecting something that exists on its own.

Which of these two perspectives do you think is more "American"?

Well, the founders of the U.S.A. overwhelmingly subscribed to the latter one. The American experiment was based on the philosophies of John Locke, who argued for natural rights; he argued that governments (and by extension, the military that they create) don't create and distribute freedom. On the contrary, he argued that freedom is the natural state of humanity and that governments (and military) are created to keep tyranny at bay.

The whole "freedom isn't free" mentality wasn't a normal thing in American culture until the Cold War, and then spurred back into the popular psyche in a post-9/11 world.

To top it all off, no matter which view one subscribe's to, the freedom of speech includes the right to criticize one's government, and all military actions are government actions, so that includes criticism of military actions. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Thomas Jefferson)

Right, I didn't say he shouldn't exercise his free will and speak his mind. Only that I thought his opinion was invalid. Also, I feel that people do earn the freedom they enjoy. Does that mean that I think those who do not contribute should be imprisoned until they do? No, not really... I just have no respect for them and I feel they often take their freedom for granted.

 

[jacobbanks]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

How so? how are we put in danger from the invasion of Iraq?

Not all that up on current events I take it, the region has become the largest breeding ground for terrorists in the world. Far worse than Afghanistan ever was, people have been already been there, radicalised and then taught how to fight by groups that operate in Iraq (amongst other places) and set loose on the streets of Europe where they amassed a tragic body count.

The United States won't be immune from this.

Immune to what? Radicalized Muslims? I see your Charlie guy and raise you one Boston bombing.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Right, I didn't say he shouldn't exercise his free will and speak his mind. Only that I thought his opinion was invalid. Also, I feel that people do earn the freedom they enjoy. Does that mean that I think those who do not contribute should be imprisoned until they do? No, not really... I just have no respect for them and I feel they often take their freedom for granted.

You said that his opinion doesn't matter. While that isn't a direct suppression of his freedom, that is saying that his opinion should be disregarded in public forum, which is, in the end, the same result. If his opinion, according to you, should not be a part of the conversation, then the underlying purpose of the freedom of speech, to have one's opinion be accounted for in the public voice, is lost.

 

[jacobbanks]

Right, I didn't say he shouldn't exercise his free will and speak his mind. Only that I thought his opinion was invalid. Also, I feel that people do earn the freedom they enjoy. Does that mean that I think those who do not contribute should be imprisoned until they do? No, not really... I just have no respect for them and I feel they often take their freedom for granted.

You said that his opinion doesn't matter. While that isn't a direct suppression of his freedom, that is saying that his opinion should be disregarded in public forum, which is, in the end, the same result. If his opinion, according to you, should not be a part of the conversation, then the underlying purpose of the freedom of speech, to have one's opinion be accounted for in the public voice, is lost.

Right, whats so bad about that? If you were at a NAACP meeting, discussing ways to improve schools and community outreach to a black neighborhood, you wouldn't be taking suggestions from the grand dragon would you? He would likely be asked to leave, even though he is exercising his free speech, regardless of how offensive it is.

Now, I am in no way saying Bob (or anyone who dislikes the movies) is anywhere close to that bad, in fact I like most of Bob's videos. However, certain forums should disregard certain voices.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Right, I didn't say he shouldn't exercise his free will and speak his mind. Only that I thought his opinion was invalid. Also, I feel that people do earn the freedom they enjoy. Does that mean that I think those who do not contribute should be imprisoned until they do? No, not really... I just have no respect for them and I feel they often take their freedom for granted.

You said that his opinion doesn't matter. While that isn't a direct suppression of his freedom, that is saying that his opinion should be disregarded in public forum, which is, in the end, the same result. If his opinion, according to you, should not be a part of the conversation, then the underlying purpose of the freedom of speech, to have one's opinion be accounted for in the public voice, is lost.

Right, whats so bad about that? If you were at a NAACP meeting, discussing ways to improve schools and community outreach to a black neighborhood, you wouldn't be taking suggestions from the grand dragon would you? He would likely be asked to leave, even though he is exercising his free speech, regardless of how offensive it is.

Now, I am in no way saying Bob (or anyone who dislikes the movies) is anywhere close to that bad, in fact I like most of Bob's videos. However, certain forums should disregard certain voices.

And what about this forum says that certain voices should be discarded? And if so, who are you to say who should be discarded and who shouldn't?

 

[J Tyran]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

How so? how are we put in danger from the invasion of Iraq?

Not all that up on current events I take it, the region has become the largest breeding ground for terrorists in the world. Far worse than Afghanistan ever was, people have been already been there, radicalised and then taught how to fight by groups that operate in Iraq (amongst other places) and set loose on the streets of Europe where they amassed a tragic body count.

The United States won't be immune from this.

Immune to what? Radicalized Muslims? I see your Charlie guy and raise you one Boston bombing.

Yes, so I'm sure how you can see creating the worst training and creation ground for nutters like this is a very bad thing. There is also the argument the Boston bombers might not have did what they did without the "war on terror" in the first place, hard to say but it seems likely.

 

[JennAnge]

From comment at 2:20 re 50 shades of eyerolls...you and me both, Bob. We just got past that period in time contaminated by Twilight; even if you buried yourself under a rock and ignored all movies, books, posters, anything, it seemed to creep into your world via osmosis. And now this next year is going to be dominated by this...fungus that grew off of Twilight like a bad case of woodrot.

I'm going back under my rock. If anyone wants to join me, I'll be playing Starship Troopers on the DVD later. I suddenly wanted to watch it again after reading posts in this forum, and I can't figure out why...

 

[jacobbanks]

Right, I didn't say he shouldn't exercise his free will and speak his mind. Only that I thought his opinion was invalid. Also, I feel that people do earn the freedom they enjoy. Does that mean that I think those who do not contribute should be imprisoned until they do? No, not really... I just have no respect for them and I feel they often take their freedom for granted.

You said that his opinion doesn't matter. While that isn't a direct suppression of his freedom, that is saying that his opinion should be disregarded in public forum, which is, in the end, the same result. If his opinion, according to you, should not be a part of the conversation, then the underlying purpose of the freedom of speech, to have one's opinion be accounted for in the public voice, is lost.

Right, whats so bad about that? If you were at a NAACP meeting, discussing ways to improve schools and community outreach to a black neighborhood, you wouldn't be taking suggestions from the grand dragon would you? He would likely be asked to leave, even though he is exercising his free speech, regardless of how offensive it is.

Now, I am in no way saying Bob (or anyone who dislikes the movies) is anywhere close to that bad, in fact I like most of Bob's videos. However, certain forums should disregard certain voices.

And what about this forum says that certain voices should be discarded? And if so, who are you to say who should be discarded and who shouldn't?

Well, Escapists user agreement... Escapist can remove comments for any number of reasons. Me saying Bob should more or less shut up about a movie that wasn't really made for him isn't one of those reasons.

 

[jacobbanks]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

How so? how are we put in danger from the invasion of Iraq?

Not all that up on current events I take it, the region has become the largest breeding ground for terrorists in the world. Far worse than Afghanistan ever was, people have been already been there, radicalised and then taught how to fight by groups that operate in Iraq (amongst other places) and set loose on the streets of Europe where they amassed a tragic body count.

The United States won't be immune from this.

Immune to what? Radicalized Muslims? I see your Charlie guy and raise you one Boston bombing.

Yes, so I'm sure how you can see creating the worst training and creation ground for nutters like this is a very bad thing. There is also the argument the Boston bombers might not have did what they did without the "war on terror" in the first place, hard to say but it seems likely.

You're right, lets go back in time and leave Saddam in power... sounds perfect. He was a shinning beacon of humanity and fair governance. There's always going to be bad guys.

 

[jabrwock]

I don't see how it could be turned into "Murica Fuck Yeah" sensibly considering, from what I gather, the movie is about how it changes people and often not for the better. He pushes his family away time and time again because he's become addicted to war and it tears him apart, only to end in him being killed back home in a shooting range by another man whose mind has been lost to war. That doesn't paint war in a pretty picture for me. That doesn't seem like something that people would strive to re-create for themselves, personally.

Because like Passion of the Christ, people are treating it based on the IDEA(tm) rather than the substance. As he said, it's no Rambo, it's an ok movie that doesn't say much, but the "right" are talking about it like it is THE army recruiting poster for this generation.

Wouldn't be the first time (nor will it be the last) a movie's cultural significance is blown WAY out of proportion based on what people have decided it means based on their political agenda.

It's the right's equivalent of Oscar Bait. Clint Eastwood or other Reagan-era folk hero? Check. Military service? Check. Kicking the ass of "them"? Check. Totally non-ambiguously evil bad guy (almost super-villain level)? Check. Perseverance in the face of hardship (generally family trouble)? Check. Minor note about how war is hell on the participants, but don't delve too deep or it might be seen as criticism of the whole point of the war? Check.

It'll get added to the "must see" list of "Murica Fuck Yeah" crowd, and the rest of the movie-going world will barely remember it in a year. Because the cultural phenomenon will far outlast the the actual "meh, it was ok" movie itself.

 

[XDravond]

movie was meh maybe not as bad as Bob makes it out to be, but not that big of a deal around here in not-murica.... So I don't get all what Bob is on about but I can guess but glorifying all soldiers because they been soldiers yea that's dumb...


And all gibberish about "freedom" in this thread is quite funny actually.
And I'm free to speak my mind and are not "protected" by an old paper that should had a overhaul, written by people that has no clue about modern civilization...
And by free I mean peace for a loooong time (not "protected" by amercians ever) reasonably wealthy state with only danger is policies that USA wants to force on to our dumb politicians to protect their local businesses (PIPA/SOPA/etc)
And not afraid of getting shot by someone who got a badge because they think I might kill them with my bag from 100m away...
Nor am I afraid of loosing my job every day because a manger have a bad day we got laws against that
or go hungry we have social and economical support for that
or not have any ability to get roof over my head we can get help
or get sick and not be able to afford medical attention it's close to free,
or even for that matter not get education because I don't have enough money...

Oh and I love huge piece of meat with an ocean of cola and more fries than there's potatoes in a field... Plus I really enjoy shooting with guns, bigger is usually more fun and I've served in the military, infantry machine gunner to be precise...


Heh spent way to much time on this post oh well good troll I guess
oh and still: yea not great movie...

 

[WindKnight]

Haven't seen the movie, don't care to.

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

This is ridiclous. I'm a huge supporter of the military and even work for the DoD, but I'm tired of this line. The last vets that fought for our freedoms were from WW2. And the freedoms "protected" in that war for the US was tenuous at best. We only got involved after Pearl Harbor was bombed, which wasn't much worse than a modern terrorist attack.

You're out of your mind if you think any of the people in the middle east are threatening our freedoms. You can definitely say that troops right now are working to ensure that we don't get attacked in a large scale way again. But what you can't say that our "freedoms" are being defended.

Until we get invaded, there are very few things that will be classified as protecting our freedoms when it comes to armed response.

Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensive

Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?

You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

As it turns out, physical violence as an answer to criticism... not legal.

LEGAL? WHAT IS LEGAL? Does committing an action that is illegal prevent one from preforming such action? No? Thought not...

Well, then I guess you slam into arrest, prosecution and some jail time. I mean, hey, break laws, face consequences, or do you have some magic fairy bunny to get you out of those?

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Just a question but I don't understand the "Iraq was a mistake" opinion, I mean, Saddam Hussein wasn't known as a really nice person with things like Halabja chemical attack or financing terrorists. It might not be the big bad monster thought originally but people paint it as an utopia invaded by americans for profit.

The issue is not the fact that he is gone but the fact that we are entrenched with helping the people set up government and security while protecting them from violent elements from within. Concerns are raised that if we leave, the system could collapse but the amount of time, money. and manpower being put in is a drain on the states.

 

[josh4president]

Hey guys, how about this:

If you want to see the movie, go see it.

If you don't want to see the movie, don't go see it.

Is that acceptable for everyone? Are we good here?

 

[Darth_Payn]

Hoo-boy, this got ugly. Maybe Bob just isn't the audience for a war movie, especially one that doesn't portray American soldiers as anything other than blood thirsty psychopaths (let's see you call out a movie for doing that, Bob!)* and it's a REAL stretch of the imagination to find any political subtext for what should be a biopic of a guy who's senseless and tragic death colors the rest of his life.

I sort of figured this is the kind of direction this movie would have to take, seeing as Chris Kyle, in real life, was a pathological liar and actually posthumously lost a huge defamation lawsuit against one of my home state's former governors. The dude wasn't a good man, and while I respect his service and contribution to the US Navy seals, he doesn't deserve the amount of attention, admiration, and fame being thrown at him because of this film. Whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

You mean Jesse Ventura? That Nutball?! Yeah, take a man's widow to court over something her dead husband did. That's sure to not win ya any douchebag points. If Ventura told me what time of day it was, and he had a clock on him, I still wouldn't believe him.


*Or maybe he did, and I just can't be arsed to dig through the Escape to the Movies archives for what he thought of Zero Dark Thirty and The Hurt Locker right now.

 

[Cyberstrike_v1legacy]

Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

Why is this still a thing?

It will always be a thing... Unless you think that you would be safe in a world without people willing to defend you and your loved ones.

And here go. Patriotism is not just defending your country with a gun, it's also having the balls to say that something is seriously wrong with your country especially when your fellow country people won't like what you say. While that might not be as life-threating as being shot at, it's just as brave.

 

[Windcaler]

Did I watch a different movie from everyone else? What I saw was a movie with a clear anti-war sentiment buried inside the narrative. Seriously if you put yourself in the shoes of this admitadly romanticized soldier does this honestly make you say "America, fuck yeah!"? Would you want to leave your wife and kid alone over and over and over again to see humanity at its very worst and do some question stuff in the process? Do you feel the desire to slowly have your sanity slip away as you deal with the horrors of war that dont stay on the battlefield and chase you home to invade your dreams and your very soul, putting yourself and your loved ones in danger during what seems like an endless struggle in your own mind?

These are serious anti-war messages guys. Why does it seem like nobody realizes that?

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

I am a veteran. I spent 6 years with 10th mountain division and was deployed twice. Once to bosnia with SFOR6 and once to afganistan. When I see comments like these I see the height of arrogance. We all swore the oath of service, to defend our country from foriegn and domestic enemies, but that oath doesnt make us any better then a civilian. Our experiences and expertise is different but that never makes us better then anyone else

If you still serve then you need to get off that high horse before you get yourself or someone in your squad killed. Ive seen that happen before and theres no doubt in my mind that it'll happen again