Why Do Liberals Hate 'American Sniper'?

jpx7 said:
And that's a huge ****ing problem with our country—and a state-of-affairs to which I resoundingly object. We shouldn't be training people to commit heinous acts; we should be a nation that strives to produce citizens who are able to act heroically if called upon, but whose ethos doesn't include the uncalculating commission of heinous acts.
Click to expand...

Well, we do send citizens beyond our borders to peacefully share our goodwill, expertise, and wealth: the Peace Corps and the Foreign Service, to speak of Federal agencies, as well as the innumerable non-profit organizations which are able to act with significant force in large part due to government assistance. However, the military is an entirely different beast whose primary tactic is the act of taking human life as a means to an end. It is what it is. To proceed as though that's a facet of human existence which can be avoided is idyllic, but completely unrealistic - for a multitude of reasons.
 
Hawk said:
Well, we do send citizens beyond our borders to peacefully share our goodwill, expertise, and wealth: the Peace Corps and the Foreign Service, to speak of Federal agencies, as well as the innumerable non-profit organizations which are able to act with significant force in large part due to government assistance. However, the military is an entirely different beast whose primary tactic is the act of taking human life as a means to an end. It is what it is. To proceed as though that's a facet of human existence which can be avoided is idyllic, but completely unrealistic - for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...

So if it's necessary to use our national resources creating these proverbial rough men who will kill without question when called upon, regardless of the moral calculus of the conflict, what burden does that place on us when we decide how to deploy them?
 
Hawk said:
Well, we do send citizens beyond our borders to peacefully share our goodwill, expertise, and wealth: the Peace Corps and the Foreign Service, to speak of Federal agencies, as well as the innumerable non-profit organizations which are able to act with significant force in large part due to government assistance. However, the military is an entirely different beast whose primary tactic is the act of taking human life as a means to an end. It is what it is. To proceed as though that's a facet of human existence which can be avoided is idyllic, but completely unrealistic - for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...

That may be; but "the acting of taking human life as a means to an end" is one of those "facet of human existence" against which our better natures should militate, as opposed to cavalierly (or even cautiously) accepting it—"idyllic" as the prospect of entirely eliminating might be. Meanwhile, to proceed unperturbed, as though it should remain an entirely casual facet of human existence—to sit in relative personal safety and simply say, alea iacta est, as humans are slaughtered, for good reason or bad—is insipid, and completely regressive, for a multitude of reasons.
 
jpx7 said:
That may be; but "the acting of taking human life as a means to an end" is one of those "facet of human existence" against which our better natures should militate, as opposed to cavalierly (or even cautiously) accepting it—"idyllic" as the prospect of entirely eliminating might be. Meanwhile, to proceed unperturbed, as though it should remain an entirely casual facet of human existence—to sit in relative personal safety and simply say, alea iacta est, as humans are slaughtered, for good reason or bad—is insipid, and completely regressive, for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...


Damn.
 
jpx7 said:
That may be; but "the acting of taking human life as a means to an end" is one of those "facet of human existence" against which our better natures should militate, as opposed to cavalierly (or even cautiously) accepting it—"idyllic" as the prospect of entirely eliminating might be. Meanwhile, to proceed unperturbed, as though it should remain an entirely casual facet of human existence—to sit in relative personal safety and simply say, alea iacta est, as humans are slaughtered, for good reason or bad—is insipid, and completely regressive, for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone is saying that everyone should accept the fact that human lives are taken but I do think everyone should accept that at certain times it is unavoidable. We are not dealing with civilized people right now.
 
Julio3000 said:
So if it's necessary to use our national resources creating these proverbial rough men who will kill without question when called upon, regardless of the moral calculus of the conflict, what burden does that place on us when we decide how to deploy them?
Click to expand...

The burden is placed on the citizenry when we engage in free and fair elections, elections that place men and women in seats that afford them the power to deploy the military.

Beyond that, given our system of government, I'm not sure what more one could expect aside from an open vote on each individual combat operation.
 
OK. Not exactly the question I asked, though. Your answer to my question, I presume, is "none"?

It just seems to me that since it appears to be inevitable that we have tools of war (be they cruise missiles or Chris Kyles), humane people would be pretty leery of any suggestion of their use.
 
jpx7 said:
That may be; but "the acting of taking human life as a means to an end" is one of those "facet of human existence" against which our better natures should militate, as opposed to cavalierly (or even cautiously) accepting it—"idyllic" as the prospect of entirely eliminating might be. Meanwhile, to proceed unperturbed, as though it should remain an entirely casual facet of human existence—to sit in relative personal safety and simply say, alea iacta est, as humans are slaughtered, for good reason or bad—is insipid, and completely regressive, for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...


We sit in 'relative personal safety' as a direct and incontrovertible result of the actions of our military.

In a world void of malevolence, your perception would have legs. Seeing as it's clearly not, you've offered no reasonable explanation as to how a peaceable stasis could be achieved outside of this kind of highfalutin 'what man should not find bloodshed abominable' trope. Nobody likes death and hostility. However, the deranged notion that it is in any fashion extinguishable is depraved unto itself.
 
This discussion has turned into a vocabulary teaching moment for me. Thank you gentlemen.
 
Hawk said:
The burden is placed on the citizenry when we engage in free and fair elections, elections that place men and women in seats that afford them the power to deploy the military.

Beyond that, given our system of government, I'm not sure what more one could expect aside from an open vote on each individual combat operation.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The President has been acting unilaterally while not gaining congressional approval for war - since the Bush days (and maybe before). So our elected officials have had no say in whether or not we go or not.

Additionally, Obama and Bush both campaigned as staunch anti-war Presidents, and they were elected. Yet, here we are fighting anyone who doesn't do what we tell them.
 
sturg33 said:
Not exactly. The President has been acting unilaterally while not gaining congressional approval for war - since the Bush days (and maybe before). So our elected officials have had no say in whether or not we go or not.

Additionally, Obama and Bush both campaigned as staunch anti-war Presidents, and they were elected. Yet, here we are fighting anyone who doesn't do what we tell them.
Click to expand...

You are right to a point. Bush was given a blank check by Congress. Only a handful were reluctant . That is one of the main reasons we aren't talking about President Clinton and how impressive Sen Obama looks for 2016

Presidents have entered "conflicts" since the Whiskey Rebellion - Indian Wars
 
sturg33 said:
Not exactly. The President has been acting unilaterally while not gaining congressional approval for war - since the Bush days (and maybe before). So our elected officials have had no say in whether or not we go or not.
Click to expand...

Is the President not an elected official?
 
sturg33 said:
The President doesn't have constitutional authority to declare war. Only congress
Click to expand...

Yes, but you know that he's Commander-in-Chief and can dispatch troops without an official declaration of war ... which is also a constitutionally provided right.

We could do this dance all night.

The point is, and was, that the President is a chosen representative of the people (and further, can be held imminently responsible for egregious military overreach).
 
Hawk said:
Yes, but you know that he's Commander-in-Chief and can dispatch troops without an official declaration of war ... which is also a constitutionally provided right.

We could do this dance all night.

The point is, and was, that the President is a chosen representative of the people (and further, can be held imminently responsible for egregious military overreach).
Click to expand...

Only congress can declare war. President can dispatch troops to protect US assets, but cannot declare war.
 
jpx7 said:
That may be; but "the acting of taking human life as a means to an end" is one of those "facet of human existence" against which our better natures should militate, as opposed to cavalierly (or even cautiously) accepting it—"idyllic" as the prospect of entirely eliminating might be. Meanwhile, to proceed unperturbed, as though it should remain an entirely casual facet of human existence—to sit in relative personal safety and simply say, alea iacta est, as humans are slaughtered, for good reason or bad—is insipid, and completely regressive, for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the argument. Most folks view taking a human life beyond our better natures as abhorrent. But some of us realize the importance of accepting those who bend those rules without perturbing societies' rules. Reason being that war isn't quite as idyllic and naive as you seem to think it is. In the moments of taking a shot I don't think I want someone who has deep thoughts on whether or not they should take that shot.

And to answer julio's question on who should decide to take that shot. Ultimately it falls on the person or people in power. It is what it is. One marksman isn't going to change that and it's incredibly naive to think one soldier is going to change that.
 
sturg33 said:
Not exactly. The President has been acting unilaterally while not gaining congressional approval for war - since the Bush days (and maybe before). So our elected officials have had no say in whether or not we go or not.

Additionally, Obama and Bush both campaigned as staunch anti-war Presidents, and they were elected. Yet, here we are fighting anyone who doesn't do what we tell them.
Click to expand...

Obama campaigned against the war in Iraq, but he didn't say he was anti-war. He was pro Afghanistan.

He also said before elected that he would act unilaterally if he felt it necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top