And since NONE of that was portrayed in the movie or had any bearing whatsoever on the story being told... that would be the definition of "irrelevant"
Disagree. I think there is plenty there to prove he's a great guy. Willing to sacrifice himself. Pretty much everyone who knew him liked him. Granted he was a "good ole Texas boy" and got into his share of troubles. But he was definitely the kind of guy you'd want on your side and know he'd have your back.
However, I do think he had some pretty big demons when he came back from Iraq. Those probably played into his "lies". IDK, maybe he tried too hard to keep the "Legend" alive? Or thought he had too?? Certainly nobody is perfect and he wasn't close. But he did many, many good things to help lots of people.
I think overall he was a "good" person who had demons he had to deal with. Probably living up to "Chris Legend Kyle" was one of them.
Ventura on the other hand, suing the estate after Kyle was murdered. Now that's a bad person. IMO.
It was filed before and continued after. A person with any sense of decency would have just let it drop after Kyle's death. Of course Ventura has never had that in his entire life, so not unexpected.I'd be happier if Ventura donated the money to charity, but I would have done the same thing if someone told ridiculous lies about me. And I do question whether the suit was filed before Kylie's death, or after.
It was filed before and continued after. A person with any sense of decency would have just let it drop after Kyle's death. Of course Ventura has never had that in his entire life, so not unexpected.
Well actually he didn't to sell the book. Ventura's name isn't in the book.A person with a sense of decency would not have made up such lies to sell a book.
Well actually he didn't to sell the book. Ventura's name isn't in the book.
But I see your point. Don't agree, but I can see your point.
Yea, that's what I said.He said it was Ventura while selling the book.
No.
There is a scene where Kyle and his wife watch 9/11 on TV.
But it isnt connected to anything in the movie events.
Hold it. There's a scene where Kyle and his wife watch 9/11 on TV...then what? What is the next scene?
He's at the recruiters' office ready to enlist.Hold it. There's a scene where Kyle and his wife watch 9/11 on TV...then what? What is the next scene?
So it sure sounds like the movie ties 9/11 to the Iraq war.He's at the recruiters' office ready to enlist.
In real life, he tried to enlist before 9/11, was initially turned down from his rodeo injuries, and then the Navy re-considered and accepted him.
It ties his motivation to join to the military to 9/11. Although his previous attempt to join the military would mean it was not.So it sure sounds like the movie ties 9/11 to the Iraq war.
It ties his motivation to join to the military to 9/11. Although his previous attempt to join the military would mean it was not.
BTW, since you raise the point, do you think we would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 never happened? I think that is a fair question.
Should have been done many years before. Clinton blew that one.Yes, Cheney would have invaded Iraq even without 9/11.
Should have been done many years before. Clinton blew that one.
Obviously not.Clinton was smarter than that.
Obviously not.
Yes, so obviously he didn't do his job.Well, he didn't invade Iraq, so ...
And to enforce the peace treaty and the UN resolutions. Bush failed also by not invading sooner.And Bush 41 knew when to say mission accomplished. The job was to get them out of Kuwait.
Yes, so obviously he didn't do his job.
And to enforce the peace treaty and the UN resolutions. Bush failed also by not invading sooner.
Oops sorry, I was talking Bush 43. (misread 41 or wasn't paying attention)Bush 41 succeeded overwhelmingly. Bush 43 failed drastically.
Irrelevant to meeting the UN resolutions. Only reason Bush 41 didn't take him out was the peace treaty and UN resolutions. As soon as he violated them (early in Clinton's term) he needed to be taken out. To wait til after 9/11 was wrong. Clinton and Bush 43 were both wrong. At least Bush 43 made up for it later. Clinton was probably too busy schtuppin' Lewinsky.Iraq was no threat to the U.S.

Oops sorry, I was talking Bush 43. (misread 41 or wasn't paying attention)
Irrelevant to meeting the UN resolutions. Only reason Bush 41 didn't take him out was the peace treaty and UN resolutions. As soon as he violated them (early in Clinton's term) he needed to be taken out. To wait til after 9/11 was wrong. Clinton and Bush 43 were both wrong. At least Bush 43 made up for it later. Clinton was probably too busy schtuppin' Lewinsky.![]()
Saddam was no threat to the U.S., even during the Clinton years. His taunting the U.S., and ignoring the UN resolution should have been met with bombing Saddams palaces, and whatever else was important to him.
Thousands of US lives and a trillion dollars was too high a price to pay.
Everyone thought Saddam had WMD's that could end up in the hands of terrorists.
By everyone, I mean, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, The CIA, British Intelligence, Democrats on the Hill, Republicans on the hill, the US military, the Israelis, and virtually every intelligence agency on the planet.
Oh, BTW, he had used WMDs against the Kurds and Iran.
So, it's easy for you to sit back with perfect 20/20 hindsight and say Saddam was no threat. But at the time, everyone thought he was he threat. The CIA said it was a slam dunk that he had WMDs. It was the right move at the time given the intelligence we had. George W. took decisive action to protect Americans. In retrospect, the intelligence was bad. The decision was still the right one given the facts.
Your Monday morning QBing is very unimpressive.
Clinton thought he had WMD, but didn't invade. I don't solely blame Bush for the Iraq war. I blame the democrats in Congress even more. Many were against the first gulf war, but saw how well it turned out. They didn't want to miss out this time. Had the democrats had any integrity, I don't think the second war in Iraq would have happened.
Fear of standing up for what you believe in has long been a failing of the base democratic party. Your analysis of 2003 is spot on. Hillary lost because of it. I would say that Clinton's definition of WMD differed significantly from Bush's.
It ties his motivation to join to the military to 9/11. Although his previous attempt to join the military would mean it was not.
BTW, since you raise the point, do you think we would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 never happened? I think that is a fair question.