Posted on 02/01/2015 11:25:01 AM PST by RoosterRedux
The very term “sniper” seems to stir passionate reactions on the left. The criticism misses the fundamental value that snipers add to the battlefield. Snipers engage individual threats. Rarely, if ever, do their actions cause collateral damage. Snipers may be the most humane of weapons in the military arsenal. The job also takes a huge emotional toll on the man behind the scope. The intimate connection between the shooter and the target can be hard to overcome for even the most emotionally mature warrior. The value of a sniper in warfare is beyond calculation.
I witnessed the exceptional performance of SEAL, Army and Marine snipers on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. They struck psychological fear in our enemies and protected countless lives. Chris Kyle and the sniper teams I led made a habit of infiltrating dangerous areas of enemy-controlled ground, established shooting positions and coordinated security for large conventional-unit movement.
More than half the time, the snipers didn’t need to shoot; over-watch and guidance to the ground troops was enough. But when called upon, snipers like Chris Kyle engaged enemy combatants and “cleared the path” for exposed troops to move effectively and safely in their arduous ground missions. These small sniper teams pulled the trigger at their own risk. If their position was discovered, they had little backup or support.
As Navy SEALs, we have the privilege of using the best hardware the military has to offer. We have access to, and train with, the latest elite weapons. We operate with the world’s finest aviators, from multiple services, who transport us to and from targets and protect us from above with devastating firepower. Advanced drone platforms are at our disposal and wreak havoc on our enemies.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
A good example of how to ‘turn the other cheek’.
Leftists loved movie snipers when it was ‘Enemy at the Gates.’
This country is full of snipers only they go the name
“MSM reporters” or “Democrat strategists”.
It’s not complicated. Enemy spies bad, ours good. Enemy snipers bad, ours good.
I find it interesting that the late Mr. Kyle has been so demeaned, but a certain Mr. Hathcock, who had the same career in a different war, has not.
I heard Clint E. and the movie producers spent about 60 Million Dollars to make this movie.
For me, someone who most likely will never have One Million Dollars of my own unless I win the Lottery, 60 million is a lot of money.
For Hollywood, 60 million is like sending your kids to Disneyland, especially when the director has a reputation for not wasting production time, and for staying within budget, two qualities Clint possesses from what I have heard. So yes, they have a nice little Money Machine that will keep giving for a longtime. Even the White House wants in on the action, ride that wave of goodwill in all, according to Michelle.
“I find it interesting that the late Mr. Kyle has been so demeaned, but a certain Mr. Hathcock, who had the same career in a different war, has not.”
Only because he hasn’t caught their attention. Some of the criticism appears to be of the use of snipers after all a sniper kills them without giving them a warning or reading them their rights. I appreciate the service of Kyle, Hathcock and all the others.
I guess a sniper is similar in many ways to an abortion Doctor (sarcasm)
Certainly with all the publicity, Mr. Kyle has become rightly famous. Carlos Hathcock on the other hand, was a hero in a war the left hated even more than Iraq and Afghanistan. Hathcock is still a hero to those of us who served at the time. Some of us may be alive still, because of him, we just don’t know it...
Meaning if the liberals noted the similarities, they would be less judgemental
Yet Leftists can’t get enough of Che Guevara, who enjoyed using a large-caliber handgun to decerebrate people who were tied to trees.
Of course, the people murdered by Guevara were culturally and economically similar to Republicans in their own countries.
I think the reason why the left so hates this movie is that at not one point does this movie even pay lip service to the anti war movement. Almost all Hollywood films si9nce the Vietnam war have had something in it that is a anti war message. this film has the analogy of there being wolves. sheep and sheep dogs to protect the sheep. if you don’t know what I am talking about go see the movie.
A lot more rich Democrats than there are Republicans.
There was a time when foreigners though all Americans were top shots.
An American hunter in Africa hit a game animal at a very long range.
The Natives were not impressed because, in their minds, all Americans shot like that.
But, that was back in the 1950s before the fainthearts and girly men came to power.
LOL! You are right.
Both are good movies. The difference is that one sniper is fighting for the Bolsheviks and the other for American exceptionalism.
The Rusians also used snipers to great effect.
Amen to that, brother!
My outfit operated around Hill 55 at the time Carlos Hathcock was there. One of the guys in our company took a sniper round in the back while on 55. The round hit just above the ceramic plates of his flak jacket, penetrated most of the way through the ballistic nylon and the tip of the bullet just broke the skin.
That's a bit too close for me!
This country has millions of riflemen and women, capable of precision rifle fire...They’re usually referred to as deer and elk hunters...
I think this is what the Left actually fears most...They subconsciously “feel” the crosshairs on their own necks...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.