Rand Paul Responds to Ron: 'Chris Kyle Was a Hero'

[UWDude]

Nobody said it was a tragedy when Juba was killled.

[kcchiefs6465]

Good to see someone has a sense of perspective. Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that $#@! just goes right out the window.

True. Many people have lost their morals in that hell hole. I'm sure a few have lost all respect for life, have seen their friends blown up, or sniped, and really can't live with themselves anymore. Then you have a few sociopaths who actually enjoy it. They don't mind watching peoples' heads being evaporated or limbs being ripped off. They don't mind shooting anyone who tries to respond, because of course, they are savages, and it was either them or him. They don't mind shooting anyone on the street as was the orders from the higher ups. Hell, they only wish they could have killed more. Where's your perspective on this? Might I speculate for a moment that maybe the PTSD soldier who shot and killed him was one of the people I was referring to first. Perhaps he had heard Chris Kyle speak about wishing he could have killed more. Perhaps Chris Kyle was speaking about one of his escapades and the man got tired of listening. You don't know, and I don't know. But the more I think about it the more that scenario makes the most sense. Why a man with 160 bodies who openly brags about them, and says he wished he could have killed more, would take PTSD soldiers to the range, many of whom undoubtedly regret their actions and are virtually dead to violence, is beyond me. I very much can see Chris Kyle speaking about shooting someone's arm off and the shooting the subsequent responders when this man had enough of it. Where's your perspective on that?

[JK/SEA]

It's stupid to criticize somebody when they die.

in ALL cases?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Totally agree. I'm extremely anti-war and the guy used poor judgement taking someone with mental issues to a shooting range. But he absolutely nothing wrong in war and I'm thankful for people like Chris Kyle.

I'm with you. Iraq was a catastrophic foreign policy disaster; only Vietnam tops it really. It was terrible strategic policy. I think we all get that here. When it comes to military men like Kyle I look upon them as instruments of war. They aren't the suits in Washington initiating and directing policy. Aren't we always telling progressives that inanimate tools like guns don't kill people, but rather people kill people. Well the military is an instrument in this regard, when its misused I don't find fault with grunts on the ground like Kyle. He was placed in a bad situation, and carried out his duty. Being in a bad situation kind of goes with the job description and we need military men that are willing to put everything on the line when it truly does matter.

[PaulConventionWV]

Really people here defend McVeigh? I find that hard to believe, but if so so what? There are people here that believe reptilians from another dimension are taking over. But in the final analysis, are McVeigh and Oswald heroes? They did don the uniform.

I'm just saying he kind of dulled his point by using those examples. It seems to me like he was trying to point out some "bad people" who were marines when there is no real consensus that they actually were bad people.

[PaulConventionWV]

Regardless of all this fuss, and regardless of what Rand says... I don't think he ACTUALLY believes that EVERYONE who dons the uniform is a real hero. I simply can't fathom that he would actually mean that when he said it. It's clear to me that he said it for a reason other than actually to say what he believes because there's no way in hell he thinks every single soldier is a hero simply by virtue of being a soldier.

Sadly, however, some people do believe that. Americans are stoopid.

[PaulConventionWV]

DING DING DING!

You just nailed it. It all makes sense now. Ron's been posting to his Facebook account, hence the bizarre poorly worded post on January 30 where it was clearly him trying to say something but not coming off well, versus the tweets which are definitely different in style and substance.

REP... his initials. Ronald Earnest Paul.

That makes freakin sense.

Bravo. You deserve a cookie.

[Bastiat's The Law]

True. Many people have lost their morals in that hell hole. I'm sure a few have lost all respect for life, have seen their friends blown up, or sniped, and really can't live with themselves anymore. Then you have a few sociopaths who actually enjoy it. They don't mind watching peoples' heads being evaporated or limbs being ripped off. They don't mind shooting anyone who tries to respond, because of course, they are savages, and it was either them or him. They don't mind shooting anyone on the street as was the orders from the higher ups. Hell, they only wish they could have killed more. Where's your perspective on this? Might I speculate for a moment that maybe the PTSD soldier who shot and killed him was one of the people I was referring to first. Perhaps he had heard Chris Kyle speak about wishing he could have killed more. Perhaps Chris Kyle was speaking about one of his escapades and the man got tired of listening. You don't know, and I don't know. But the more I think about it the more that scenario makes the most sense. Why a man with 160 bodies who openly brags about them, and says he wished he could have killed more, would take PTSD soldiers to the range, many of whom undoubtedly regret their actions and are virtually dead to violence, is beyond me. I very much can see Chris Kyle speaking about shooting someone's arm off and the shooting the subsequent responders when this man had enough of it. Where's your perspective on that?

I'm not going to comment about the details of the murder because there's way too much speculation going on. Many vets are avid sportsman so I don't find it all that odd they would take up hunting or shooting as a hobby. Many fighter pilots joined motorcycle clubs after previous wars because they enjoyed the freedom the bike offered, the exhilaration of driving fast, and because they missed the bond they developed with their aircraft. Riding motorcycles offered some semblance of that. We know less about the human mind than we know about the oceans under Saturn's moon Titan.

[A Son of Liberty]

Iraq was no "mistake" or blunder, or anything of the sort. It was a very intentional, strategic maneuver.

[sailingaway]

No it doesn't prove your point. Ron didn't "tell us" until he was specifically asked. He's not above playing some of his cards close to the vest.



Edit: And you're doing what you accused me of doing earlier which is ignoring to twisting facts because the conclusion is too painful for you. If Ron was always as straightforward as you'd like he would have said when he made the endorsement "And I'm only doing this because I have to in order to keep my chairmanship." Instead he waited until there was no longer any risk and until he was specifically asked by a supporter. If he comes out later and says "Yeah, I knew Rand was pretending to go along with the neocons and I decided to go full bore on the educational campaign and we both realized that this dual strategy would help further the cause by simultaneously building up Rand's credibility when he had to distance himself from me and building up the overall movement as I taught people about liberty" will you go "Great! Glad it worked!" or will you go "But...but...but....I feel so betrayed?" Speaking for myself, if the strategy actually works I have no problem with it.

No, I just disagree with you and would think less of Ron if what you said were true, it wouldn't make the other branch of action ok for me. You are ok with both so to you the leap isn't a big deal, but it would be for me.

And Ron telling us when asked is the point. We've all been asking, haven't we?

I just think Ron is responsible for his own actions, including this tweet if he wrote it, and Rand is responsible for his own actions. You are trying to get Ron responsible for Rand's actions and I just see no evidence for that, and NOT being ok with that, I am not going to make that leap.

We may just have to agree to disagree, since I see this as a leap of faith situation.

[jmdrake]

Yes.

Not at the result, but at the dishonesty.

I don't call hiding your hand "dishonest." Ron wasn't being "dishonest" when he endorsed GOP incumbents that didn't fit his principles without immediately adding "I'm just doing this because I have to."

I do think the means to an end matters. But I also think if you aren't selling liberty all the way to the white house, you will have no support to 'impose it' when you get there, so that outcome is unlikely.

True. It's important to keep selling liberty. And Ron will do just that. But if all this movement does is sell liberty nobody will reach the WH in our lifetime.

[TheGrinch]

Yes.

Not at the result, but at the dishonesty.

I do think the means to an end matters. But I also think if you aren't selling liberty all the way to the white house, you will have no support to 'impose it' when you get there, so that outcome is unlikely.

Seriously hold Rand's feet to the fire when he deserves it, but also realize that in politics you have to pick your battles or you'll get nowhere, so there's time for means and there's time for ends, things like this and the token endorsement are examples of when it serves no practical purpose to take a political stand.

When the other side is using every means necessary to retain and grow their control, then well, it might make you feel better about yourself to stay pure, but you will do nothing but paint yourself in a corner if you keep giving them ammo against you unnecessarily. Pick your battles and fight hard for them, and if you're successful you can start enacting things that were originally tougher for your constituents to swallow.

I know some hate it, but incrementalism is really the only way we get anything accomplished before it's too late. If you don't accept that, then work more locally (all should be doing that anyway) and be ready when/if the deck of cards collapses to say "I told you so" about the whole pure message. But the stakes are too high right now to just be shunned aside an anti-Israel fake republican, essentially political suicide as Ron found out.

[jmdrake]

No, I just disagree with you and would think less of Ron if what you said were true, it wouldn't make the other branch of action ok for me. You are ok with both so to you the leap isn't a big deal, but it would be for me.

And Ron telling us when asked is the point. We've all been asking, haven't we?

Have you gone up to Ron and personally asked him a direct question about what's going on with him and Rand? Because I certainly haven't. Posting something on an internet forum doesn't count. I have it from a pretty reliable source that Rand is playing a role. But hell, you don't even need a reliable source. Just look at old youtube videos of Rand speaking. Rand knows all about Bilderberg and doesn't think Iran having a nuke is a threat, but he can't say stuff like that now. Ron has to know what's going on. Even if, as you feel, Ron doesn't approve, he at least knows and isn't being forthcoming.

I just think Ron is responsible for his own actions, including this tweet if he wrote it, and Rand is responsible for his own actions. You are trying to get Ron responsible for Rand's actions and I just see no evidence for that, and NOT being ok with that, I am not going to make that leap.

I've never said Ron was responsible for Rand's actions. That said, Ron ultimately took responsibility for the endorsement of Ken Buck. And at the time that was just as shocking to the liberty movement as Rand's eventually endorsement of Mitt Romney or this calling Chris Kyle a "hero" one day after Ron was attacked for allegedly dissing Kyle.

We may just have to agree to disagree, since I see this as a leap of faith situation.

I agree that it is a "leap of faith" situation. I just don't think I'm the one making the leap. I could be, but I don't think so. Regardless of what's going on, I'm not bothered because my faith isn't dependent on exactly what tactics Ron and/or Rand may be using.

[sailingaway]

To both posts above, I understand what you are saying, but the extent of actions taken I do not agree with, even accepting the principle to the extent of how you describe what you do.

We just disagree on that.

And, honestly, when people are confused as to where someone stands, I think it is going too far.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Don't your own words make it an apt comparison?

German soldiers were in a war, fought to win, and saved German lives. Like Kyle, they were just following orders.

“The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he came from. And if he was really evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home. If he would not rather have stayed there in peace. War will make corpses of us all.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien (Veteran of the Battle of the Somme)

[kcchiefs6465]

“The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he came from. And if he was really evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home. If he would not rather have stayed there in peace. War will make corpses of us all.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien (Veteran of the Battle of the Somme)

Or you wonder how many more you could have killed.

[erowe1]

“The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he came from. And if he was really evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home. If he would not rather have stayed there in peace. War will make corpses of us all.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien (Veteran of the Battle of the Somme)

Great quote. Adding it to my list. +rep.

[AFPVet]

What was wrong with that quote? Kyle apparently had no problems with serving the bankers over there. What some people are forgetting is that Capt. Paul was in the Air Force.

Once more, you can be in the military and avoid deployments. I was non deployable while I was a cop in the Air Force. Why would anyone 'like' what they are doing over there in that hell hole? All it is over there is Vietnam 2.0. Apparently some people have no idea.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Okay. I know I wasn't going to post anything else on this tonight. But I just had to click on the thread.

Anyway, it's interesting to note that two people on opposite sides of the Chris Kyle debate totally missed my point. It wasn't about Chris Kyle. It was about Ron and Rand Paul and that if...if they are being deliberate and strategic in how they approach this foreign policy debate going forward, that's not necessarily vile and sinister.

And Bastiat, for the record from what I've seen those criticizing Kyle aren't criticizing what he did during the war, but rather criticizing his apparent gloating after the war, or at least his part in it.

Your speculation was ridiculous, that is why nobody addressed it.

Also countless people have spun Kyle's service to fit their agenda. "He killed 150 women and children". Their words. They deliberately misrepresent our soldiers seeking out to kill woman and children. Does that occasionally happen? Yes. I know the sight of 13-year-old slinging an AK bigger than his body is shocking in the West, but women and children are sometimes armed and engaged in combat. It's a sad reality of war. What would you do if you found yourself in a situation like that in a combat zone? Would you hesitate? Would you pull the trigger? Would you allow them that split second so they get the shot off and killed you or one of your guys?

[sailingaway]

Your speculation was ridiculous, that is why nobody addressed it.

Also countless people have spun Kyle's service to fit their agenda. "He killed 150 women and children". Their words. They deliberately misrepresent our soldiers seeking out to kill woman and children. Does that occasionally happen? Yes. I know the sight of 13-year-old slinging an AK bigger than his body is shocking in the West, but women and children are sometimes armed and engaged in combat. It's a sad reality of war. What would you do if you found yourself in a situation like that in a combat zone? Would you hesitate? Would you pull the trigger? Would you allow them that split second so they get the shot off and killed you or one of your guys?

actually, I think what people have mostly been saying on that side is that Kyle is a special -- unusual -- case and in no way represents our soldiers as a body.

[A Son of Liberty]

Your speculation was ridiculous, that is why nobody addressed it.

Also countless people have spun Kyle's service to fit their agenda. "He killed 150 women and children". Their words. They deliberately misrepresent our soldiers seeking out to kill woman and children. Does that occasionally happen? Yes. I know the sight of 13-year-old slinging an AK bigger than his body is shocking in the West, but women and children are sometimes armed and engaged in combat. It's a sad reality of war. What would you do if you found yourself in a situation like that in a combat zone? Would you hesitate? Would you pull the trigger? Would you allow them that split second so they get the shot off and killed you or one of your guys?

If I saw a 13 year old carrying a gun and found myself about to rationalize killing a boy, I would immediately say "F**K THIS S**T", turn to my superior officer, declare myself to be a conscientious objector, and deal with the consequences... because none of those consequences would include having to deal with having killed a little boy for the rest of my life.

And if more and more people would do this very simple, logical thing, the power of the state to put people in situations like this would evaporate instantly.

[The Gold Standard]

Your speculation was ridiculous, that is why nobody addressed it.

Also countless people have spun Kyle's service to fit their agenda. "He killed 150 women and children". Their words. They deliberately misrepresent our soldiers seeking out to kill woman and children. Does that occasionally happen? Yes. I know the sight of 13-year-old slinging an AK bigger than his body is shocking in the West, but women and children are sometimes armed and engaged in combat. It's a sad reality of war. What would you do if you found yourself in a situation like that in a combat zone? Would you hesitate? Would you pull the trigger? Would you allow them that split second so they get the shot off and killed you or one of your guys?

What don't you understand? Most normal people come back scarred for life and mentally mangled after what the government orders them to do. I feel for those soldiers. Kyle came back celebrating every life he took and had their blood dripping from his chin as he longed to take more of them. Nothing in life gave him more joy than slaughtering those savages. That is the difference.

[TheGrinch]

What don't you understand? Most normal people come back scarred for life and mentally mangled after what the government orders them to do. I feel for those soldiers. Kyle came back celebrating every life he took and had their blood dripping from his chin as he longed to take more of them. Nothing in life gave him more joy than slaughtering those savages. That is the difference.

So you feel for those who come back mentally scarred for life, but not a guy who might have become sadistic because of what he was asked to do. That's kind of ironic, no?

I simply don't believe that people are born evil, I think circumstances like what he went through are far more often to blame, so no, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to call this misguided soul as unworthy of sympathy.

[Occam's Banana]

Also countless people have spun Kyle's service to fit their agenda. "He killed 150 women and children". Their words. They deliberately misrepresent our soldiers seeking out to kill woman and children. Does that occasionally happen? Yes. I know the sight of 13-year-old slinging an AK bigger than his body is shocking in the West, but women and children are sometimes armed and engaged in combat. It's a sad reality of war. What would you do if you found yourself in a situation like that in a combat zone? Would you hesitate? Would you pull the trigger? Would you allow them that split second so they get the shot off and killed you or one of your guys?

I honestly don't know what I would do. I like to imagine that I would do the "right thing" - whatever that might be in such horrid circumstances (and assuming there even is a "right thing" to do in situations like that).

But I *am* absolutely, positively 100-percent CERTAIN of THESE things:

I would *NOT* gleefully boast about how much I enjoyed doing the awful, terrible things that I might have had to do.

I would *NOT* revel in bringing death to those I arrogantly & contemptuously dismiss as "savages" (merely because they happened to be my opponents on a battlefield).

I would *NOT* loudly declare how much I relished the slaughter other human beings - and I would *NOT* enthuse about how much I wish I could kill even more of them.

No decent person would do *ANY* of those things. Chris Kyle did *ALL* of those things.

It is on THAT basis that he can be identified as a vile, despicable, and contemptible bastard. May he rot in hell.

[The Gold Standard]

So you feel for those who come back mentally scarred for life, but not a guy who might have become sadistic because of what he was asked to do. That's kind of ironic, no?

I simply don't believe that people are born evil, I think circumstances like what he went through are far more often to blame, so no, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to call this misguided soul as unworthy of sympathy.

It's possible you're right about what made him that way, and I never once said he deserved to die or killing him was a good thing. Maybe he could have been rehabilitated, I don't know. The fact is though, that the government didn't see any reason to rehabilitate him, so that wasn't going to happen anyway, and it is hard to feel sympathy for a sociopath, no matter how he became that way.

[TheGrinch]

It's possible you're right about what made him that way, and I never once said he deserved to die or killing him was a good thing. Maybe he could have been rehabilitated, I don't know. The fact is though, that the government didn't see any reason to rehabilitate him, so that wasn't going to happen anyway, and it is hard to feel sympathy for a sociopath, no matter how he became that way.

Fair enough, and I really haven't researched much about the guy, but a big disagreement I've always had with the anti-war left is their inability to understand how a culture of war, let alone being on a battlefield against people shooting and bombing you, can cause a person to have a twisted view of morality and the opposition; And further that it's the ones sending them off to war unnecessarily to kill others or even themselves who are the ones who should really be demonized, as they sit in their comfy chairs and reap the benefits of young men giving their lives for their "country".

[The Gold Standard]

The thing is, he probably would have been a future candidate for president, and with the bankers and MIC and media behind him he would have won too. Now that is scary $#@!.

[AuH20]

What was wrong with that quote? Kyle apparently had no problems with serving the bankers over there. What some people are forgetting is that Capt. Paul was in the Air Force.

Once more, you can be in the military and avoid deployments. I was non deployable while I was a cop in the Air Force. Why would anyone 'like' what they are doing over there in that hell hole? All it is over there is Vietnam 2.0. Apparently some people have no idea.

Do you really think Kyle was willfully serving the interests of bankers????? Seriously.

[Dick Chaney]

The more Rand opens his mouth the more I despise him....

[FSP-Rebel]

The more Rand opens his mouth the more I despise him....

For me, it gives me a greater sense of hope that he knows how to operate and build the coalitions he needs to have a shot at the nomination. Your only focus is words, not actions.