It seems most of your criticism about the guy is based on the fact that you don't think we should be in the war to begin with. I get that, but why do you feel it necessary to besmirch this guy. What little that you know of him is from his own statements, but what has he done while at war that you detest?
Look at his comments on the ROE at the start of the war and his general attitude towards his (supposed) "enemies" (and the population ?) over there ... and let your imagination run wild:
On page 79, Kyle describes the Rules of Engagement that his unit followed when they were deployed to Shatt al-Arab, a river on the Iraq-Iran border: “Our ROEs when the war kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see. That wasn’t the official language, but that was the idea.”
Operating in such a manner would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions - IOW:
a war crime.
(BTW - If his statement is actually true with respect to the ROE, then it means that the military itself -
as an institution - was actually complicit in the commission of war crimes)
Then toss in this moron's take on the religious aspect:
“The people we were fighting in Iraq, after Saddam’s army fled or was defeated, were fanatics,” Kyle insists. “They hated us because we weren’t Muslim. They wanted to kill us, even though we’d just booted out their dictator, because we practiced a different religion than they did.”
Yeah ... it couldn't have possibly been because you (meaning the military, or some portion thereof) had invaded their country and were running around committing all sorts of mayhem and evil ...
including rape, torture, and murder ...
As to "besmirching this guy" ... well, it's my sense that this guy isn't at all what he appears to be at first blush ...
From my perspective, and as pointed out by Will Grigg, a sane human being (real "hero" ?) would at least have some
respect for an enemy who was willing to fight and die to defend his homeland from foreign occupation ...
often in the face of totally overwhelming odds and much superior technology.
Kyle takes the opposite tact and seeks to demonize them as "cowards" and "sub-human" ...
which is simply a way of making himself "right" and his enemies "wrong" ...
Of course, that is completely laughable ... particularly considering what Kyle was actually doing - which certainly
wasn't directly facing the enemy in close quarters battle ... but rather
hiding ... and then picking them off from the (relative) safety of concealment.
If that passes for "hero" then someone is using a different definition than I am.
Beyond that, one has to examine Kyle's motivation (self-glorification apparently) for writing the book and seeking out the limelight ...
Kyle claimed (in his book) to have punched out Jesse Ventura during a wake for Michael Mansoor (a Navy Seal) in 2006 at a bar in Coronado, CA (Mc P's) and that after doing so he (Kyle apparently) quickly ran away ...
Kyle didn't even have the nut to actually mention Ventura by name in the book but later (inadvisedly) admitted in an interview that Ventura was who he was referring to.
Ventura promptly sued him for defamation of character and claimed that the incident was a total fabrication and had never occurred ...
and claimed that it was his support for Ron Paul that prompted Kyle to defame him.
One thing I do know is that absolutely bloodthirsty fans of war (and they certainly do exist) hate Dr. Paul with a rabid passion - ostensibly for his positions with respect to foreign policy and war and peace ... so it doesn't seem like a stretch to me that someone like Kyle - who I would contend is a murderous psychopath - would be motivated to do such a thing.
In this regard Dr. Paul's positions themselves - although not directed specifically to a particular individual - serve, for some, to function as a condemnation of their behavior.
Many members of the cult of the militarism and empire tend take a very dim view of such anti-war positions.
If you wish to read Ventura's court filing - which references and includes some of Kyle's
evasive answers to direct questions under oath - and which cites Kyle's own statements from his book where Kyle cops to the fact that he is an self-admitted liar and has successfully avoided legal prosecution (military and civilian) as consequence of those lies - you can find it at the following link:
In court Jesse Ventura fires back at local Navy sniper who claimed in book, interviews he punched the former governor | The Scoop Blog
It also cites Kyle's own wife who describes Kyle as:
"arrogant, self-centered, and glory-seeking" and who apparently told him (Kyle):
"You lie and think you can do whatever you want."
Beyond that, Ventura's claim that it never happened is backed up by the two former UDT/SEAL's who were with him at the bar and Terry "Mother" Moy - the owner of the bar (and former SEAL) who investigated the alleged "incident" - and determined that it never occurred.
Chris Kyle a hero ?
It just ain't smelling like that to me ...
and I've only taken a cursory look ...
When you are at war the object is to kill as many of the people that are trying to kill you as possible, right?
No - when you are at war the object is to
win - so that hostilities can cease and
peace can resume.
There are instances and times where achieving that goal may involve killing as many people as possible that are trying to kill you - but not always.
In fact, if one truly values and respects the lives of those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, one would look to resolve conflicts and war in a manner which both assures security and avoids any unnecessary loss of life.
Would you have been happier if the snipper would have allowed the women to kill several Americans because he thought she might be a freedom fighter? Of course not (right?).
Correct - I would not have been happier had several Americans been killed ...
But then I don't trust the
veracity of the reporter of the incident.
I'm guessing most soldiers don't get any pleasure out of killing, but if you're shooting at me, or placing a IED to kill me, I'd be happy that you were killed. (obviously not meaning you personally)
I would agree ... at least in the sense that most don't get any pleasure out of killing (probably nearly all - if they are really willing to be honest, lose any false bravado, and actually go ...
there)
As far as the "happy" aspect of killing another human being ... I don't know, but I wouldn't say that exactly - I'm sure however that anyone who has faced the prospect of death at the hands of another is
relieved when that threat is removed.
Beyond that, the burden that must be borne by those who have taken the life of a fellow human being isn't something that I would wish on anyone - friend or foe.
In a nut shell, what I'm saying is don't hate the warrior, hate the ones that caused the war.
That's one viewpoint on it ... one which Kyle addressed in the C-SPAN piece I watched last night. He really pushed "the don't be mad at me, be mad at Congress/pols/etc" angle ....
The position has
some merit to be sure ... as usual, there is plenty of responsibility/culpability to go around ...
On the other hand, if one follows that logic (
I'm not really responsible for what I have done - it's the guys that declared war and ordered me to do it) to it's ultimate conclusion, one winds up at a placed called ...
Nuremberg ...
This country, as a nation, has made it's thoughts known on that premise.
I still like the idea of putting the leaders of countries who want to go to war out in a field with battle axes.
Your sense of justice (and irony - considering most current "leaders" don't actually
do any of the fighting) is very well developed I'd say ...
