Slashdot Mirror


E3: Epic, US Army Develop Games as Recruitment Tool

securitas writes "Reuters and AP tell us that Epic Games and the US Army have announced the America's Army series of games, jointly developed by the Department of Defense and Epic. The first two-part game in the five-year project includes an RPG called Soldier and a first-person shooter called Operations. The game will be free of charge and available for download in July or August, with 1.2 million CDs simultaneously released, attached to gaming magazines. Does this remind anyone else of the war-room scene from Toys or Ender's Game?" Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.

754 comments

  1. I just hope the games kick ass... by neo · · Score: 3, Funny

    and I also hope that Microsoft doesn't start complaining about how the Military is now in competition with their games. How is Microsoft supposed to make money on military games if the US Military is giving games away for free?

    On a serious note, I'd only have a problem with this if it didn't show what military life was really like. For example, I hope their sims version shows you the excitement of cleaning bathrooms and that you can level up in rock painting. Both of these skills are extremely important to the US Military.

    1. Re:I just hope the games kick ass... by reaper20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Green soldier has gained a level!"

      YES! Fear me mighty urinal!

    2. Re:I just hope the games kick ass... by peddrenth · · Score: 1

      I guess we'll never know, as the "America's army" site features a single blank page.

      Nevermind. I'll stick with Soulblighter for now. I spend more time in C12 battles than C21 ones in real-life anyway.

    3. Re:I just hope the games kick ass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at the cheat codes they'd put in such games:

      Yvan eht nioj

    4. Re:I just hope the games kick ass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't get it.....

    5. Re:I just hope the games kick ass... by EvlPenguin · · Score: 2

      Yvan eht nioj

      This is an Army game... not the Navy. Such a code would probably change your character's role from squad leader to toilet scrubber. Ooooh! 3D mopping!

      --

      --
      #nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
    6. Re:I just hope the games kick ass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is gross... interactive propaganda (probably funded by taxpayers) trying to lure young kids into a life of war machine drudgery. I wonder if Gulf War Syndrome vets get a free copy even if they are not within the 13-34 required age for pre-ordering? Goebells would be proud. War is state terrorism.

  2. Missing the point yet again by Wind_Walker · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Blah blah blah Army blah blah games blah blah brainwash the youth of America... God, get over yourself.

    Speaking as a hardcore gamer myself, I could care less about who makes a game. I couldn't care less about how it's distributed. I couldn't care less about how it's "brainwashing people" or how it's "like Toys!". It all comes down to one thing: Is the game fun? From what Penny Arcade tells me, it is going to be fun. That's all I care about.

    This is what separates the average geek crowd from the true gamers among us. The average geeks don't understand what it really means to be a hardcore gamer. All they care about is how many polys a model has, how good it looks, or how the breasts are modeled ("She kicks high"). Hell, I'm 23 and I'll be playing Mario, Zelda, and dozens of other "kiddie" games the day they're released, and I don't care.

    This is why I hate mainstream media coverage of games. Leave it to the professionals, please.

    1. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beautiful.........just beautiful.....i couldn't agree more.

    2. Re:Missing the point yet again by gotak · · Score: 1

      Just out for the day's steam letting eh?

      Cause i don't see what caused this rant..

      Or it is Game Pride week? Where's the parade?

    3. Re:Missing the point yet again by CSnrd · · Score: 1

      you're letting yourself be brainwashed by michael and the slashdot crew who uses slashdot to publish their own political agendas. I wish we saw more posts with actual news and thats it, every single story now has 2-3 lines tacked on the end of personal "vision". This is why slashdot will always remain a fringe news outlet.

    4. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, I should leave it to the professionals like you. Professional losers, that is. Get over yourself and your crappy kiddy games. You're 23 and you still play mario with all the gusto of a 5 year old...have you ever even kissed a girl? Loser.

    5. Re:Missing the point yet again by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but it IS a recruitment game. Isn't anyone afraid the game will be filled with advertisements for the military, such as tons of "Join NOW!" buttons, and pop-ups displaying the US Army website? If the games that are created with corporate advertising in mind are any indication, the final product should be a very good game gone horribly, horribly wrong.

    6. Re:Missing the point yet again by ichimunki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      give it a rest. all news is biased, if merely for the act of selection. that's why we come here, because we want a filter on the news geared towards free software, linux/BSD/MacOSX, video games, geeky stuff like robots and astronomy, cyber-liberties, programming, anime, and science fiction. frankly michael and the slashdot crew haven't done a darn thing to "brainwash" me. if anything, the forum they provide has opened my eyes by giving a fairly equal voice to any and all speakers.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    7. Re:Missing the point yet again by ozzimark · · Score: 0

      you're missing the point, who cares who he kissed, or if he's a loser, some games are fun, and some aren't. if you're sensible enough to realize this, not all games are good, and those that are fun to play, but have crappy graphics or some other denoucing odd shit, them so what, go play 'em. it's like konquest, the gameplay is slow, it's a 2d game where rectangles occasionally change color, but it's as fun as hell to play, because you could sit there for 4 hours with one of your buds laughing your ass off because of the stupidity of this awesome game. if you don't know of or play any games like that, then you're missing out on some seriously fun shit here

      --
      C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg
    8. Re:Missing the point yet again by nege · · Score: 1

      Elitist video gamers? Who wouldda thunk it???! For shame, slashdot for reporting on something you have no right!

    9. Re:Missing the point yet again by neocon · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that games shouldn't contain advertising? Or that military advertising is somehow worse than product advertising?

    10. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt there're a lot of corporately-sponsored advertisements that only expect to need 300 people to fall for their ads to succeed. As such, I doubt it's anywhere near as bad as the usual corporate sponsorship crap. Then again, we'll all be able to find out for ourselves when it's released, since it's free anyway.

    11. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say military advertising is worse than product advertising.

    12. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That news post had opinions tacked on. Journalists are trained, even told NOT to add opinion. Sure, all humans are biased but the goal is to avoid that.

      You can write a story and reread it. If there is a bias, you can take it out. It is not impossible to erase opinion from news.

      Other than that, this military game, if it's fun, could kick major ass.

    13. Re:Missing the point yet again by neocon · · Score: 0

      OK. Why?

    14. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Penny Arcade is hosted by the same company as America's Army Homelan gaming. Check netcraft.

    15. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your calling Penny Arcade professionals? Some of them are funny but just because a comic mentions "Sim Town" or doesn't mean it's funny.

      blah blah oldschool blah blah blah I'm a Gamer, God get over yourself
      when gaming becomes a job is when you should stop playing

      and we all know Terra Nova Strike Force Centari is the best Squad FPS so I don't see how this army game could be better.

    16. Re:Missing the point yet again by farfolen · · Score: 1

      for the love of (insert whatever you my hold dear), explain that one.

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    17. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because

    18. Re:Missing the point yet again by sg3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Isn't anyone afraid the game will be filled
      > with advertisements for the military, such as
      > tons of "Join NOW!" buttons, and pop-ups
      > displaying the US Army website?

      You know what would be funny?

      I'm assuming the game runs on Windows. With the Bush Administration working so much with Microsoft-- you know, getting rid of th pesky lawsuit and trying to get Passport made a type of nationwide ID .

      So imagine you're playing the game on Windows XP with all your Passport stuff filled in, like a good End User. You finish a really hard level, and suddenly a dialog box pops up and asks, "Do you wish to continue?". When you click yes, you get signed up for the army!

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    19. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      23 years old... and single! :P

    20. Re:Missing the point yet again by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      Anyone remember the Last Starfighter? Beat the boss on the arcade game, and the next day, get a visit from your local galactic Starfighter recruiter...

      I'm wondering how long it takes for them to add other MOS than Infantry. I'm old now - the glory of having little sleep, and hiking 40 mile treks with a 50 pound rucksack, LBE full of ammo, water and other assorted crap, plus a heavy ass M-16A1 (not to mention ammo can if you manage to draw that duty), just does not appeal to me like I did when I was 18. I wouldn't mind just working in the damn motorpool, or restocking the PX...

    21. Re:Missing the point yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now now, Ad homenim attacks only show that you don't have anything intelligent to say...

    22. Re:Missing the point yet again by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2
      What a pompous, elitist point of view. So only "hardcore gamers" can have a point of view on video games?

      Personally, I think "hardcore gamers" are weak. Any real "hardcore" gamer would have immediately made a connection with The Last Starfighter rather than a stinker like Toys.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    23. Re:Missing the point yet again by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Well, if you think it's morally wrong to have an army that kills people in defense of your country, then it to you, it probably is worse than ads that say "go buy a jeep!" So even though I don't agree with that sentiment, it's not too hard to understand why some people think that army advertising is worse than other advertising. I guess he just feels that the "product" being advertised is more immoral than most other products advertised.

    24. Re:Missing the point yet again by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Read the story at the top of the page to see where the Toys reference comes from. I think that supports the parent poster's point of view. Michael is not a hardcore gamer, so he made the connection to Toys and not The Last Starfighter

  3. Ender's Game? by L1nUx+h4x0r · · Score: 0

    I don't know. The battle room in that was pretty damned cool.

    That, and I doubt that "down" is toward the enemy's gate in this one.

    --
    The GPL makes software more like your mom. Free and open to all.
    1. Re:Ender's Game? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Actually, it reminds me of the Last Starfighter more than anything else. Recruiting those with a high score...

    2. Re:Ender's Game? by arkanes · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but imagine the suprise when they go to recruit the high scorer and it's just some punkass kidd with a wallcheat and an aim bot.

    3. Re:Ender's Game? by ZeDanimal · · Score: 1

      If he coded 'em both himself, screw enlisting him - get him working on some of that newfangled "smart bomb" software.

    4. Re:Ender's Game? by cryptor3 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but imagine the suprise when they go to recruit the high scorer and it's just some punkass kidd with a wallcheat and an aim bot.
      Maybe then cheaters will get the punishment they deserve: a visit from a real CT team.

      Let's see your aimbot save you now...

  4. Hey, if you want realism who would know better? by Shivetya · · Score: 2

    At least in their games we won't have powerups popping up... or my favorite first person shooter gaffe - shooting people only to have them fall forward or straight down. Of course this could backfire as well, people might not want to join the Army after seeing that its not all that different from a real job.

    It is also possible that they may run afoul of Congress, after all all that violence has got to be bad. Figure some Congressional Democrats will scream about it and the anti-2nd Amendment crowd will be there soon.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Hey, if you want realism who would know better? by MouseR · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wonder if this game will allow bombing down Canadians in training exercise, as in reality.

    2. Re:Hey, if you want realism who would know better? by henben · · Score: 2, Interesting
      or my favorite first person shooter gaffe - shooting people only to have them fall forward or straight down.

      You know, this isn't necessarily a gaffe. Although a bullet has lots of kinetic energy, because of its low mass it doesn't have a high momentum. Also, bullets tend to pass through people rather than lodging in them so they may not transfer all their momentum.

      The direction someone falls is determined more by physiology than physics.

      If you shoot someone with a rifle bullet, they will collapse, but this is thought to be due to blunt trauma of the spinal cord (see bottom of page) rather than the momentum of the bullet per se.

      With a pistol round, if they fall, it's likely to be due to blood loss or surprise at being hit.

      In either case, there's no particular reason for them to fall away from the side they were hit on.

    3. Re:Hey, if you want realism who would know better? by bofkentucky · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, we are bomb everyone, our own troops, a red Chinese emabasy, and Canadians. So get off your high horse and go back to drinking your Molson, eh.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    4. Re:Hey, if you want realism who would know better? by FreakerSFX · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why would anyone mod this up?

      Yes the US causes friendly fire casualties or hits inappropriate targets when bombing but historically so does any army that sees a lot of action.

      I am Canadian. I don't drink beer. I don't think this is funny. I do think the poster is a 'tard. I also don't blame America for killing our soldiers by accident. Just try to fix the problem so less Americans and allies/neutrals get killed by accident. And get rid of sociopaths who think it's funny.

      --
      This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
    5. Re:Hey, if you want realism who would know better? by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      You know, this isn't necessarily a gaffe. Although a bullet has lots of kinetic energy, because of its low mass it doesn't have a high momentum. Also, bullets tend to pass through people rather than lodging in them so they may not transfer all their momentum.

      That depends on how the bullet is designed. If I load my gun with FMJ ammo, the bullet will more than likely sail right through people, walls, etc. for some distance. If I load with JHP, though, the first impact will cause the bullet to spread out and form rough edges. This will create a bigger, more jagged hole, and there's a reduced risk of collateral damage from the bullet continuing past its target.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    6. Re:Hey, if you want realism who would know better? by JesseL · · Score: 2

      IIRC, the Geneva Convention requires the exclusive use of full metal jacket rounds for anti-personnel weapons. Use of JHP, soft-nose, straight lead slugs, shotguns, etc. (against people) are considered war crimes, so the game should reflect the use of FMJ rounds in its physics.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  5. Army of One by Imperator · · Score: 5, Funny

    See, I don't get this whole "Army of One" business. If I were to join the army, I wouldn't want to be fighting alone. I'm not delusional: I know I can't defeat enemies Rambo-style. No, I'd want to be part of a "Big-Ass Army of Many Ass-Kicking Soldiers, Tanks, and Other Military Equipent". Apparently I have to sign up with some other country to get this.

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    1. Re:Army of One by mobets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've started a new one. "Watch ME become WE"

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    2. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and be shot in the back by an incompetent co-worker :)

    3. Re:Army of One by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's an attempt to stamp out the perception of a soldier being a mindless automaton, a concept well overdue. I know a number of military people, and aside from being generally more disciplined and more respectful, they're not all that different. Once they get into other, more elite units like the Rangers, Airborne, Special Forces, etc, they *have* to be able to think for themselves, particularly because their missions require flexibility and since command may well fall on them in an emergency.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Army of One by Rolker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Join Canada'a army! Then you will be part of an "Army of about Eight"

    5. Re:Army of One by rark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the idea is that they are trying to get away from the whole 'cannon fodder' stereotype -- where any individual soldier is merely one more target in a wall of human targets, and nothing more.

      That, and trying to convince a generation that at least *thinks * they are individualistic that they really want to join up.

    6. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I have to _join_ to be "An Army of One"? Since its just me anyways how is this different from not joining? I am confused

    7. Re:Army of One by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 2

      True enough, altho frankly I'm a bit puzzled be the Army's decision to recruit directly into the Special Forces.

      Frankly I'd like those people to have a firm understanding of how the "regular" military units and people operate.

    8. Re:Army of One by Skirwan · · Score: 2
      See, I don't get this whole "Army of One" business.
      I think they're actually shooting themselves in the foot with that campaign... I was going to join the army, but then I saw that commercial and realized, "hey, I'll just let that guy do it."

      I mean, that guy's a whole army all by his lonesome... why would they possibly want my help?

      --
      Damn the Emperor!
    9. Re:Army of One by Peyna · · Score: 2

      Hmm, actually I recall seeing something on the History Channel about some special forces that were needed for WWII, and they needed people who had no prior military training because they needed to be able to act on their own and what not. I wish I could remember more details, but basically they did not want anyone who had gone through the regular military training, as that would be a weakness for what they were going to be doing.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:Army of One by big_cat79 · · Score: 1

      They don't recruit directly into Special Forces. You have to prove yourself first. Demonstrate certain levels of physical fitness (above and beyond those required of the standard soldier). Then you must apply for Rangers, SeALs, whatever. You can't just go enlist, and say "I wanna be a Navy SeAL!" Doesn't work that day. It'd be like going to a company, and saying "I wanna be a vice president".

      --

      BigCat79

      "The dead have risen and are voting Republican!" --Bart Simpson
    11. Re:Army of One by Pentagon13 · · Score: 5, Funny

      thats "Army of aboot Eight"...

    12. Re:Army of One by alman · · Score: 1

      Wow we have *that* many!!!
      I'm Impressed.

    13. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      But isn't that what Unit Cohesion is all about? You are many, but you are one. When one dies, the unit has suffered a death. When one succeeds, the unit is victorious. When one is threatened, the unit is threatened.

      The Army of One ad campaign is a cool campaign, but over the heads of 98% of the American public. Of course, maybe it is that other 2% they are looking for.

      Army of One concept = You become part of a larger whole (your unit). As a unit, you are one. As an individual, you grow and become better, thus making the unit better. We are 'One' as individuals, but we are also 'One' as a unit and 'One' as an Army.

      The same message could be made with "We are a family. The American Family. Mess with one of us, you mess with all of us ... and this Family takes no crap off anyone." More people would get that message, but I think it would attract a different subset of recruits ... a subset that is already fully represented, thank you very much.

    14. Re:Army of One by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      Not any more. You bombed four of them, remember?

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    15. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had no intention of joining just because your mommy would'nt be able wipe your lazy butt and dress you in the mornings any more...

    16. Re:Army of One by GMontag · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Frankly I'd like those people to have a firm understanding of how the "regular" military units and people operate.

      Total agreement there. We have had that problem in Aviation since about 1983, when the branch was formed and immediately started training Aviation Officers within the branch from day one.

      In the past, one had to work in another branch, at least through their Basic Course, before going to flight school and then they were still maanaged by their primary branch. We (I was Armor and Air Defense before going Aviation) had a much better understanding and appreciation of the "ground guys" than these newer folks seem to have.

      On another note, they could add Sim bust-your-knuckles-repairing-track and Sim bang-the-crap-out-of-your-head-inside-the-tank, Sim fall-off-the-speed-rope, i.e., "you can get hurt without being shot" games.

    17. Re:Army of One by gotak · · Score: 1

      At the rate our government is willing to spend on new equipment it should be eight or 4 as some pointed out good but very naked soldiers.

      Umm concidering how I was told that a lot of girls are at the Royal Military College ( just down the road from Queen's U) maybe they are trying to improve their public image.. :) Like make love not war.. :)

    18. Re:Army of One by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1, Informative

      don't you mean army of "aboot" eight?

    19. Re:Army of One by Bearpaw · · Score: 2
      That, and trying to convince a generation that at least *thinks * they are individualistic that they really want to join up.

      [nod] Not that they're the first generation to have that delusion.

    20. Re:Army of One by neocon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thought for the day:

      ``It's not really an `army of one', but that's the direction in which the Clinton defense budgets were heading.''
    21. Re:Army of One by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Then again you could be wrong:

      "Army recruiters like Sgt. First Class Jeremy Burton are pitching a new program that offers direct enlistment in the Special Forces."

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    22. Re:Army of One by heliocentric · · Score: 1

      My grand father was in special forces in WWII and he was selected because as a kid he often went hunting to had a general knowledge of weapons and could be trusted to stand for long periods of time quietly in the woods.

      He was selected early on and never received "regular" training. They did do a lot of things on their own, I remember he used to comment that they would take turns interogating those that they captured and the guy from NY would always kill his too early and they would never get good info.

      --
      Wheeeee
    23. Re:Army of One by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      Check again, recently they have been advertising enlistment straight into Special Forces. I checked it out, its true. There's an 18(+/-)month training program as opposed to the regular boot camp/AIT of normal forces, but you can enlist straight into Special Forces.

    24. Re:Army of One by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Or just join the Marines ;-)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    25. Re:Army of One by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      See, I don't get this whole "Army of One" business. If I were to join the army, I wouldn't want to be fighting alone.

      It's not meant to mean that you're a One Man Army. A fighting unit, be it a squad, platoon, company, regiment or whole Army works because it acts as a unit. Everyone works together to accomplish one goal. Acts as one. The campaign also demonstrates how important an individual is to the whole of the unit. It's a double entendre.

    26. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny...I just came back from Bosnia, and there were a damn sight more than eight pongoes over there, which somewhat overwhelmed me as an Air Force type. Nice to know, though, that each one of them, person for person, is worth a damn site more than your typical high school dropout/streetgang Yank soldier! Just ask any German who had to put up with us in WWII!

      Only reason you Yanks have a "better" military is because you throw lots of technology at many people who are basically stupid in the first place! I've seen how good the quality of your average technicians is, and I'm not impressed!

      I cannot ever picture a live fire exercise in the rain being supplanted by a video game!

    27. Re:Army of One by ahde · · Score: 1

      "Army recruiters like Sgt. First Class Jeremy Burton are pitching a new program that offers direct enlistment in the Special Forces."
      <p>
      And you can join the Navy and start flying a <a href="jakarta.apache.org">Tomcat</a> right away, too.

    28. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah how bout them brave Canadians, like when they started killing civvies in Somalia, betcha felt proud to be Canadian then didn't ya? Canadian Airborne, are they still around? Canadians should stick to the three things they do best: drink beer,play hockey,and shag Caribou. I'm sick of whiny Canadians with an inferiority complex, so what if their country is just a suburb of Detroit. If Canada didn't have America to hide behind, it would be another nutless European country that speaks French.

    29. Re:Army of One by Cally · · Score: 2


      It's an attempt to stamp out the perception of a soldier being a mindless automaton, a concept well overdue.


      Yeah, sure. That's why the first 12 weeks of basic training are about beating out the slightest tendency to do anything but obey orders, immediately, without question. All armies do this, for a very good reason: if soldiers were to stop and think about what they were doing, the majority -- well, the smart ones anyway - would be over the hills and far away. Otherwise, who'd blow civilians to bits when Gee Bubblehead wants to look noble & patriotic on the 9o'clock news?
      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    30. Re:Army of One by farfolen · · Score: 1

      Only reason you Yanks have a "better" military is because you throw lots of technology at many people who are basically stupid in the first place!


      It doesn't matter if the guy hitting the button or pulling the trigger is a high school drop-out, he can still hit that button or pull that trigger. our average soldier MAY not be as educated as those in other armies, but what they do needs to get done, and I'm not seeing any of the supposedly better educated armies doing it.

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    31. Re:Army of One by prismatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd imagine this recruitment thing is similar to getting Airborne and Ranger school in your contract when you enlist.

      What happens is that you go to Basic and AIT, then you go to Airborne holdover until they have an open slot for you. After you graduate Airborne school (if you do), you go on to RIP (the Ranger Indoctrination Program) after which, assuming you pass, you go on to a Ranger Battalion and piddle your thumbs until you get promoted to Specialist (E-4).

      Then, once you've got the rank and if you're still in the necessary physical shape, they send you through a Pre-Ranger prep course and then onto Ranger School, to return to your unit Ranger qualified, instead of some 5-jump chump sitting around at bat.

      Essentially, I'm assuming you'll get SF in your contract, go to BCT and AIT, Airborne holdover, Airborne, some sort of pre-SF training, and then piddle around in an SF unit until you make SGT (E-5), when you can finally go through the SF Qualification Course, which you still have to pass before you become an SF soldier.

      This is, of course, all assuming that you're enlisting. If you're commissioning, you don't get to choose your MOS, and you have to apply for SF once you're on the CPT (O-3) list just like everyone else.

      --
      Brian Voils
      "A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
    32. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as opposed to dropping bombs on units from other countries or shooting down civilian aircraft? You yanks have a piss poor record when it comes to "friendly fire" deaths, and your 3% acceptibility rate for deaths in an exercise is something that would never be accepted in other countries. Or how about the stories that surfaced after Gulf War I of Yank soldiers getting caught pissing on Saudi mosques, being executed for their trouble, and having the whole thing covered up to protect your Saudi allies? I could go on and on about how you yanks are always interfering in other contries'/peoples' business. Small wonder that it's only you guys and the Israelis that are the targets of terrorism. And somehow, it's never, ever your own fucking fault, is it! You're so fucking hard done by!

      The incident with the Airborne in Somalia was a small group of drunken assholes, one in particular, that was backed up by officers covering their asses, like officers always do, and the whole thing being blown up by a political witch-hunt from a government so eager to make budget cuts to satisfy the corporate bean counters that they would have sacrificed just about anything, (and still would).

      Inferiority complex? Only our government and our press are the ones continuously navel gazing, not the public as a whole. If you're so superior, why do you feel the need to put Canadian flags all over your backpacks when you go overseas? Afraid of getting blown up?

    33. Re:Army of One by farfolen · · Score: 1

      oy...overcoming an enemy by using technology is a perfectly viable way of winning a war. just because doing so doesnt require thousands of soldiers to valiantly throw their lives away doesn't make the army any worse or any dumber.

      that last post was meant for someone else.

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    34. Re:Army of One by farfolen · · Score: 1

      wonderful mastery of the art of flamebaiting. absolutely wonderful.

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    35. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Join Canada'a army! Then you will be part of an "Army of about Eight"


      Make that Four after your 'allies' kill four of your soldiers

    36. Re:Army of One by farfolen · · Score: 1

      as good as the marines may be, they've had wonderful recruitment rates since their inception, what the main forces (army, navy, air force) have seen their ranks dwindle because so few are joining. the Marines may be good (both my two brothers are Marines) but they won't be able to do everything, always. besides, everyone here is thinking only in terms of fighting. the services do a lot more than just fight, they maintain certain civilian technologies and have contributed greatly to research in civlian and scientific research areas. sure, they're going to put you through boot camp...but even the best army has its support and R&D divisions.

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    37. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get such a kick out of watching you yanks go completely spare whenever somebody points out some of your country's shortcomings!

    38. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when the technology fails, i.e. Windows crashes at a critical moment, your high school dropouts are FUCKED, because they can't think on their feet!

    39. Re:Army of One by kurokaze · · Score: 1

      *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*

      heh, I'm going to Europe in a couple of weeks,
      I wonder how many Americans I'll see there with
      Canadian flags on em :)

    40. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget it was low tech, not high tech, that enabled those terrorists to crumble two towers! Sometimes, high tech's not worth a damn!

    41. Re:Army of One by rark · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it was just to keep smart asses like you from wasting their time *G*

    42. Re:Army of One by Nick+Number · · Score: 2

      On another note, they could add Sim bust-your-knuckles-repairing-track and Sim bang-the-crap-out-of-your-head-inside-the-tank, Sim fall-off-the-speed-rope, i.e., "you can get hurt without being shot" games.

      Make the game good enough and carpal tunnel will take care of the pain part.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    43. Re:Army of One by TWR · · Score: 2
      Otherwise, who'd blow civilians to bits when Gee Bubblehead wants to look noble & patriotic on the 9o'clock news?

      Why, that would be the terrorists. Or the French, attacking another Greenpeace boat. You decide.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    44. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand that you can sign up with any one of several Palestine splinter groups if you would like to be an Army Of One. They have proven to be reasonably effective, and are the only type of army that the U.S. military currently finds itself unable to defend against. Perhaps the Army Of One ad campaign was the result of an effort by some out-of-the-box thinkers in the U.S. military to recruit a few suicide bombers of its own.

    45. Re:Army of One by Bosconian · · Score: 1

      I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire. For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone. Let each man keep his temple untouched and undefiled. Then let him join hands with others if he wishes, but only beyond his holy threshold.

      For the word "We" must never be spoken, save by one's choice and as a second thought. This word must never be placed first within man's soul, else it becomes a monster, the root of all the evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie.

      The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

      What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and the impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

      But I am done with this creed of corruption.

      I am done with the monster of "We," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.

      And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.

      This god, this one word:

      "I."
      --
      (thanks to Miss Rand)

      --
      Scarce, scared, scarred, sacred... -Col. Bruce Hampton
    46. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and instead of being assigned a knife and gun, you'll get a stick and a pocket full of rocks......no wait, I'm thinking of the Mexican "Army". In Canada you'd have to spray down your enemies with that crappy Canadian beer until the they die of toxic poisoning.

    47. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I work with quite a few Canadians, so I know how to push their buttons, and I know they saw this one. lol. BTW I'm not American, don't assume things kids.

    48. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anthem is an excellent book... undoubtedly one of my favorites.

      Ironically, I was thinking of this very same passage as I read the parent's groupspeak.

    49. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crappy Canadian beer? Huh? It's sure as hell better than any of the crap "y'all" make in the U.S.

    50. Re:Army of One by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      I'm in officer training for the US Air Force, and let me tell you, they make sure the folks in charge know what they're doing. Your average enlisted man may not always be the best educated, but the officers know their field backwards and forwards. Even the ROTC cadets, who don't join until they have a bachelor's degree, will end up going to as much as a year of additional Air Force training specificially for their field. Dealing with difficult situations and thinking on your feet is an essential part of officer training. The high school dropout may not always be able to handle it when the technology fails, but there will be someone there who can keep things rolling.

    51. Re:Army of One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, it's the basics that can really count...like when the batteries in your GPS die out in the middle of nowhere. Can you use that map and compass? Can the high school dropouts? Can they count on always having the ROTC guy there if they can't? The CF has been short staffed for so long, mostly due to decades of government cutbacks and mismanagement, that just about everybody can think on their feet! It's the only way to survive!

    52. Re:Army of One by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      Basic/Boot is about discipline, camaraderie, and teamwork. You learn how to work as a team with the other soldiers / Marines / sailors / airmen, and then you're sent into more specific training. There's a LOT of book learning in most modern militaries; it's not all PT and shooting drills.

      An undisciplined military is a useless military. A disciplined military is competent. A disciplined military with individuals who can think for themselves as well as follow orders will rule the battlefield.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    53. Re:Army of One by Professor+Nova · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is what they mean by "Army of One"
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/ne wsid_1 112000/1112411.stm

  6. Don't Foget This One... by Livn4Golf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.

    Don't forget the final game in the series: "Risking Their Lives to Protect Your Right to Make Stupid Jokes."

    1. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Zeddicus_Z · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Damn straight. Whether you're talking US troops, Australian troops or troops from *any* country.

      They deserve respect, not ridiclue.

      Mod this parent up.

      --
      Janie took my gun...
    2. Re:Don't Foget This One... by naughtypenguin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I served on active duty for 7 years with the Navy and Marines. I was in Somalia when the shit hit the fan but guess what other than that two weeks of my life in the military... it was yes boring mundane stuff like posted above. My best friend from high school joined the navy to see the world and work on aircraft engines... he spent the first 6 months cleaning toilets on the USS Roosevelt.

      People tend to think that the military is rought with action and excitement... Then they enlist.

      --
      Ohhh, your a naughty little birdy...
    3. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      he wasn't talking about the troups, he was talking about the the prez.

      just like his daddy did.

    4. Re:Don't Foget This One... by h0rus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Where's proof of that? Oh, right. There is none. You're just parrotting.

    5. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Ooblek · · Score: 2

      What about "Sim Manhatten Project"? Add that as a mod to Black & White.....

    6. Re:Don't Foget This One... by cjpez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, wasn't he making fun of the game? I didn't see anything in there ridiculing the actual armed forces . . . Unless you consider programming video games equivalent to "Risking Their Lives." I don't.

    7. Re:Don't Foget This One... by d^2b · · Score: 0, Troll

      Umm. How about:

      "Sim Risking their Lives to Improve the President's Chances in the Next E(r|l)ection?"

      There. Now everybody should be happy. Except
      maybe Democrats. Or Republicans.

      -- Playing nice with the other children since my
      last electroshock treatment

    8. Re:Don't Foget This One... by freuddot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Risking Their Lives to Protect Your Right to Make Stupid Jokes"

      Oh right. Could you please point me to the latest bill/law/act voted that actually Protect Your Right To Whatever ?

    9. Re:Don't Foget This One... by gaudior · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dumbass. It's called the First Amendment.

    10. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about: Sim Friendly fire

    11. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2

      No, he wasn't making fun of the game, he was using joke game titles to belittle the work done by the army: suggesting it was just getting blisters, standing around or invading foreign countries for approval ratings.

      The fact that you got modded up as insightful proved that moderation doesn't work.

      graspee

    12. Re:Don't Foget This One... by cjpez · · Score: 5, Insightful
      (sigh, responding to trolls...)

      No, he wasn't making fun of the game, he was using joke game titles to belittle the work done by the army.

      Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, of course, but I disagree. Anyone who joins into a branch of the military expecting to be all action and intrigue and excitement is going to be disappointed, if what my friends in the service have told me is true. Sure, there certainly is some more "glamorous" things that happen, but unless I'm mistaken, you can also expect a hell of a lot of boredom. Again, if you feel that he was belittling the armed services, that's your perogative, but it's also my right to disagree with you. I didn't find anything at all insulting in the jokes, and I stand by that opinion.

      As to your dig at moderation, does that mean that you have absolute control over what other people consider insightful, or interesting? If I find a post interesting and moderate it so, but you disagree, does that mean that the system doesn't work? If you're going to get pissed off about it, just wait until you've got some mod points of your own and then mod it down. That's the beauty of it - YOU control moderation as much as the next guy, so what are you complaining about?

    13. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Damn straight. Whether you're talking US troops, Australian troops or troops from *any* country.

      They deserve respect, not ridiclue.


      Now, I know what I'm about to say is really going to upset some people, but I don't think that should stop me saying it.

      When your friends, family and your fellow countrymen are directly threatened by a foreign force, then putting your life at risk to protect them is a brave and noble thing that demands respect.

      But when there's a conflict very far away, between people you don't know and of whom you know very little, and you risk your life because some politician has decided it is in the economic or political interests of the country, then you're a fool, and I'm afraid you'll get no respect from me. I may be glad that you do it, but that doesn't stop me thinking you must be pretty unintelligent. And I have to say that most of the USA's military actions overseas fall into the latter category, not the former.

    14. Re:Don't Foget This One... by John+Allsup · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whilst I can see the point about Sim Mess Duty and Sim Blister, the one about Sim Invade Iraq etc. shouldn't be put down in quite the same way.

      The fact is, war's are not (usually) started by soldiers, and not (usually) started because soldiers want to fight them. So far as the western world and many other countries besides are concerned, wars are started by politicians. International support for wars is built up and lost by politicians. And yes, many politicians will like the idea of war if it gives them good ratings (though hopefully won't go so far as starting one for those reasons).

      In short, the last of the 'joke' names was aimed at politicians rather more than soldiers, and politicians certainly deserve less respect.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    15. Re:Don't Foget This One... by freuddot · · Score: 1

      Dumbass yourself. It's been deprecated by the COPA and DMCA.

    16. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when did you join?

    17. Re:Don't Foget This One... by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep in mind that few soldiers are given the option of deciding whether or not they agree with the current war enough to fight in it. In order for someone to be both intelligent and noble, under your definition, they'd have to stay a civilian until an appropriate conflict came up and then join up. Unfortunately, if that was what people did we'd be completely unprepared when the conflict did come up.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, if that was what people did we'd be completely unprepared when the conflict did come up.

      That's true, but I don't see that it contradicts what I've said. It's a good thing that there are unintelligent people who want to sign up to the army during peacetime. I can be pleased that these people exist, and be grateful for what they do, but it doesn't mean I have to respect them. I think they're stupid. On the scale of things "avoiding getting killed" has to be one of the most basic tests of intelligence.

    19. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      That may be, but I have to say that I think the dig about `Invade Iraq to increase approval ratings' was rather offensive.

      We may indeed be going into Iraq, and we all know there are perfectly good reasons to do so. To pretend it has anything to do with approval ratings is silly, though.

    20. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      The problem I see with this statement is that in the current war it was people from `far away' who came to us on September 11. Now we can either go `far away' and destroy the infrastructure which made September 11 possible, or we can sit on our asses and wait for them to attack again. And in the modern world of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, that next attack could be much more deadly than September 11 was.

      So, while I disagree with your general characterization of why and when the US has gone to war in the past, and while, unlike you, I have a great deal of respect for those who are all over the world putting their lives at risk so we can sit here and have this debate, I would argue that even if we accept your premises, we should still be overseas right now, and we should still be thankful to the young men (and women) standing in harm's way for us.

    21. Re:Don't Foget This One... by aTMsA · · Score: 1

      Well, then what you need is to create something like a "defense only" corps, and let the people who enlist to it only work in national ground(or sea/air).

    22. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Flamebait

      Michael was in the Marines. If he wants to poke fun at the game and at the Army, that's cool with me.

      I was in the Army, and I assure you there was plenty of standing around, lots of blister-raising marches, and more pointless missions in foreign countries than were really needed.

      Somehow I doubt that the game is going to dwell much on the sheer stupidity of making sure your socks are all rolled "just so" before a barracks inspection.

      There's a line from one of the little ditties (called "jodies") we sang while we marched along, raising blisters, that goes, "Oh woe woe we, my recruiter lied to me."

      This game is a recruiting tool. Recruiters lie. Therefore this game will sugarcoat the Army and make it look lots more exciting than it really is.

      I'm not saying you shouldn't join the Army (or, if you have mental problems, the Marines or even one of the lesser branches*), just that you should go in with your eyes open after talking to people who've been in, not because of a video game.

      - Robin

      * Veterans of other service branches are free to disagree with my belief that the Army is not only the Senior Service but also the finest one. Non-veterans are allowed to join this discussion only if they buy drinks for all the veterans, and even then their opinions don't really count

    23. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2

      Many people, myself included, believe that recent terrorist attacks are as a direct result of the USA overseas policy. I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem.

      I still stand by my central argument, that you can't be very intelligent if you are willing to risk your own life in conflicts that do not have direct relationship with your immediate friends, family and countrymen and have political and/or economic motivations rather than moral or humanitarian ones.

    24. Re:Don't Foget This One... by richj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I served on active duty for 7 years with the Navy and Marines. I was in Somalia when the shit hit the fan but guess what other than that two weeks of my life in the military... it was yes boring mundane stuff like posted above. My best friend from high school joined the navy to see the world and work on aircraft engines... he spent the first 6 months cleaning toilets on the USS Roosevelt.

      I agree, I spent 4 years in the Marines as well (like an idiot I joined the Infantry, because I wanted action). I was in Somalia for 3 months, other than the time in Somalia life pretty much sucked. Some of the training is fun, but it gets old pretty quick. Especially when you're out in the field in Feb practicing the same thing over and over again.

      It was a great experience, I would have never traveled the world and done a lot of things I did, but the job itself isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    25. Re:Don't Foget This One... by CaptainStormfield · · Score: 1

      Explain how a statute "deprecates" the First Amendment? If it conflicts with the First Amendment it is a nulity. If it doesn't conflict, then the First Amendment never did protect the conduct at issue. Simple as that.

      --
      "The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
    26. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      Many people, myself included, believe that recent terrorist attacks are as a direct result of the USA overseas policy -- which is interesting, but is a point of view which you can only stick to if you carefully ignore what the people attacking us are actually saying. They don't say that they don't like our foreign policy. They don't say that we should be isolationist (as you suggest). They say that what we are and what we stand for must be destroyed, and they say that any degree of brutality against our civilians is acceptable to achieve that goal.

      I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem. -- but isn't this just giving in to blackmail, by saying that we should decide on foreign policy not based on what's right but based on what will appease those who might otherwise attack us?
    27. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when there's a conflict very far away, between people you don't know and of whom you know very little, and you risk your life because some politician has decided it is in the economic or political interests of the country, then you're a fool, and I'm afraid you'll get no respect from me. I may be glad that you do it, but that doesn't stop me thinking you must be pretty unintelligent.

      So what you're saying is that nothing is worth fighting for unless a country is directly threatening your country...

      Freedom? Liberty?? People in other countries don't deserve any of that right? Not according to your world view. I'm not saying that anyone should be the world's police force but shouldn't we try to help other countries attain these freedom's and esp if its our economic interest to do so?

      Get your head out of your ass and look around. There are things worth fighting for other than saving you or your neighbor's miserable hides.

    28. Re:Don't Foget This One... by freuddot · · Score: 1

      Supreme Court Rules on Challenge to COPA
      Posted by timothy on Monday May 13, @01:48PM

      from the know-it-when-they-see-it-a-few-times dept.
      Publiux writes: "LawMeme is reporting today that the Supreme Court upheld portions of the Child Online Protection Act because using community standards to determine what could be harmful to minors was not overly broad and thus not unconstitutional.

      By making this decision, the supreme court is saying that the consistution can be disregarded up to a point. The limit being "overly broad". The problem is that the ideals of the constitution can then be slowly eroded up to a point were community standards are of not having free-speech at all. History has shown that "community standards" are not absolute, as a constitution should be. For a good example of this, see the book "Lady Chaterley's lover" (sp?) and how it was received in its time. Now see that it is recognized as a great classic today. Today's "community standards" will allow some of us to censor such (future) great works that could become classics.

    29. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Last time I checked, there's no oil in Afghanistan.

      Anyway, which part of `totalitarian regimes nationalizing oil drilling projects which were paid for by private companies' qualifies as `capitalism'?

    30. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2

      Freedom? Liberty?? People in other countries don't deserve any of that right? Not according to your world view.

      Did I say that? Did I say that people in other countries don't deserve freedom and liberty? No, I didn't. What I said was But when there's a conflict very far away, between people you don't know and of whom you know very little, and you risk your life because some politician has decided it is in the economic or political interests of the country, then you're a fool

      My life is not worth losing for a politician's idea of what might be in the political or ecomonic interests of my country.

    31. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2

      but is a point of view which you can only stick to if you carefully ignore what the people attacking us are actually saying. They don't say that they don't like our foreign policy. They don't say that we should be isolationist (as you suggest). They say that what we are and what we stand for must be destroyed, and they say that any degree of brutality against our civilians is acceptable to achieve that goal.

      Err. No. They don't say that. Perhaps you've been reading different newspapers to me, but I understand that one of the central issues is the USA's intevention in issues in the Middle East.

    32. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest *you* actually read what they're saying. Bin Laden's main beef is not "what we are" or "what we stand for." His main problem is that the US has an army base in Saudi Arabia (AlQaida views this as sacreligious) and that the US backs the Israeli government against the Palestinians.

      This reminds me of a great Tom Tomorrow cartoon printed not long after 9/11--one newscaster is saying to the other, "And now Susan will give us a detailed look at radical Islam, including their beliefs and historical reasons why they might be driven to such despicable acts." And the bubbly blonde responds, "They hate our freedom." What a bunch of dogmatic BS.

    33. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Patoski · · Score: 1

      When your friends, family and your fellow countrymen are directly threatened by a foreign force, then putting your life at risk to protect them is a brave and noble thing that demands respect.

      But when there's a conflict very far away, between people you don't know and of whom you know very little, and you risk your life because some politician has decided it is in the economic or political interests of the country, then you're a fool, and I'm afraid you'll get no respect from me.


      I'm thankful most people don't think like you. With your way of thinking the country you presently live in, the USA would not exist (at least as we know it).

      If France had followed your foreign policy advice they would not have come to the aid of the US during the revolutionary war and enabled us to defeat the British at Yorktown.

      I won't even begin to list all of the countries (and more recent examples) which are now existing as free societies due to other country's military actions.

      --
      G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    34. Re:Don't Foget This One... by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem.

      That may in fact be true. We can't go back and rewrite history so we'll never know. While were speculating though, it is very likely that without any US involvement in Europe, Africa, and Russia in the last century, the Eastern Hemisphere would not be a very plesant place to live. If you are and Isolationist fine, but that means you can't help the starving people in Ethiopia, or stop the slaughter of innocents in Somalia, or liberate the concentration camps.

      It's pretty simple. We are the good guys. The bad guys always hate the good guys. As long as we keep being the good guys the bad guys will hate us. Should we stop being the good guys just so we can be friends with the bad guys?

      you can't be very intelligent if you are willing to risk your own life in conflicts that...have political and/or economic motivations rather than moral or humanitarian ones

      So politicitans and capatalists are dunb and whiney hippies are smart. You know the US gets involved in lots of humanitarian programs overseas. This pisses a lot of people off and makes us enemies. Should we stop all foriegn aid programs?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    35. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except that yes, they do say that. If I have been reading different newspapers than you, it is because I make a point of checking out what the Arabic media is actually saying. See MEMRI for translations (a number of other groups have verified these translations, not least the New York Times), or see the english-language versions of various Arab papers (though several of them are much less extremist in english than in arabic).

      Don't forget the Bin Laden tapes, either. Someone who is still complaining about the `tragedy of Andalusia (spain, 1492)' is not mad because of current US policy. Someone who considers the nature of US society to be evil is not making a policy judgement.

    36. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      and that the US backs the Israeli government against the Palestinians.

      Except that Bin Laden never mentioned this before September 11, and only stuck with it when it became clear that it had traction with left wing media outlets here and in Europe.

      This reminds me of a great Tom Tomorrow cartoon printed not long after 9/11--one newscaster is saying to the other, "And now Susan will give us a detailed look at radical Islam, including their beliefs and historical reasons why they might be driven to such despicable acts." And the bubbly blonde responds, "They hate our freedom." What a bunch of dogmatic BS.

      OK, please enlighten me. Just what combination of `beliefs and historical acts' would make September 11 acceptable?

      Mr. Tomorrow (and I saw that strip at the time) is making the mistake of believing that Mr. Bin Laden's motives are what intellectuals here say that they are, and not what Mr. Bin Laden himself says that they are. His argument boils down to saying `Uncle Sam was wearing a short skirt and do-me heels, and why was he out so late anyway, if he didn't want it.' -- please stop blaming the victim.

    37. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2

      I'm thankful most people don't think like you.

      I think probably a lot of people, perhaps most, think like me:

      1) I think it is a wonderful when one nation goes to help another in a war for humanitarian reasons. That is truely noble thing and the world is a better place for it.

      2) I personally am not going to die for the potential freedom of someone I've never met. That would be stupid. Only a truly dumb person would do that.

      You think most people don't think the same way as me? It's easy to believe (1) above, but not to believe it so much that you'd die for it!

    38. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2

      You know the US gets involved in lots of humanitarian programs overseas. This pisses a lot of people off and makes us enemies.

      Hmmm. I may be wrong but I don't think it is the humanitarian programmes overseas that make the USA unpopular. I don't see terrorists targeting the headquarters Red Cross and Oxfam. I think the interferring in local politics and dropping bombs and stuff tend to make more enemies.

      And to address one of your points, I do actually "help the starving people in Ethiopia" by working (for free) to raise funds for an aid programme there.

    39. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the US gets involved in lots of humanitarian programs overseas. This pisses a lot of people off and makes us enemies. Should we stop all foriegn aid programs?

      Maybe it would be a good idea to stop spending 30 times as much money for the military than for foreign aid...

    40. Re:Don't Foget This One... by ave19 · · Score: 1

      Hey, no hard feelings. Anyone willing to help keep THEM off my airbase while I shred shit as fast as I fucking can is my drinking buddy!

      (USAF, 8 years, linguist, okinawa)

      --
      ...or maybe not.
    41. Re:Don't Foget This One... by CaptainStormfield · · Score: 1

      I sympathize with your dislike of the "community standards" approach to pr0n. However, the very point of the "overly broad" bit of the Court's opinion was to emphasize that the regulation didn't infringe on conduct protected by the First Amendment. In other words, a statute is "overbroad" if it prohibits protected speech in the course of regulating/prohibiting unprotected speech.

      --
      "The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
    42. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2

      I have looked at the site you suggest, and I still think that the main issue is the USA's interventions in the Middle East. Most of the articles refer to Israel and the Palestines, or other ways the USA is intervening in middle eastern issues. Now, the people involved may say things about the nature of the USA, but that's just a symptom, not the cause of the current hatred these people feel towards the USA.

    43. Re:Don't Foget This One... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.
      "
      clearly, that one, was a shot at the armed forces.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    44. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Bin Laden never mentioned this before September 11, and only stuck with it when it became clear that it had traction with left wing media outlets here and in Europe.
      Sorry, this is just plain incorrect. Check out http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp (hardly a "left-wing media outlet"):

      "May 1997 - During an interview with CNN, bin Laden reaffirms his call for a holy war against Americans. 'We have focused our declaration of jihad on the U.S. soldiers inside Arabia...The U.S. government has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal through its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.'"

      Unless bin Laden owns a Tardis, this is before 9/11. In fact, that page has a whole bunch of really telling bin Laden quotes.

      "August 1996 - Bin Laden says to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper that the Saudis have a 'legitimate right' to attack the5,000 American military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia. 'The presence of the American crusader armed forces in the countries of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger and the biggest harm that threatens the world's largest oil reserves... The infidels must be thrown out of the Arabian Peninsula.'"

      Funny, I never thought the ADL of all organizations would actually back up my point.

      In any event, as far as "blaming the victim" goes, it's not a matter of making 9/11 "acceptable." Nothing makes it "acceptable." But there's a difference between trying to understand what drives terrorism and empty propaganda like "they hate our freedom."

      You can pontificate all you like in your self-righteousness, but even a cursory glance at the US' record WRT the Islamic world screams that the phrase "innocent victim" does not apply to the US.

      Does that make 9/11 right, justified, or acceptable? No, of course not. But 9/11 doesn't stand by itself; those thousands of victims are just the latest in a long muddled history of human rights abuses and terrorist attacks (by ALL parties, not just the Muslims, nor just the Americans, Israelis, etc.) in the Middle East.

    45. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duh. we cared when it was the cold war and the USSR was trying to prop up a communist government. we didn't care again until some terrorists hiding out in their mountains bombed a few buidlings.

      duh.

    46. Re:Don't Foget This One... by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine from the AF said, "The Air Force is different from any other branch of service. In the other branches, the officers stay behind and send the enlisted in to fight. In the Air Force, the enlisted men stay behind and send the OFFICERS in to fight."

    47. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      You say it's just a symptom. Bin Laden, in the tapes, says that we must be destroyed because of what we are. As he's the one who actually orchestrated the attacks, I think I'll take his word on it.

      This becomes especially clear when we see that there is a global movement which is trying to impose a very repressive and anti-liberty form of Sharia law in nations all over the world, from Nigeria to Uzbekistan, from the Philippines to Turkey. I don't say this movement speaks for all Muslims, of course, but it is a real thing, and it must be countered. As several news outlets have reported, there are even branches of this movement such as Jamat-al-Fuqra which are violently active here in the United States, and are calling for forced imposition of Sharia law here.

    48. Re:Don't Foget This One... by MentalPunisher2001 · · Score: 1

      I love this.
      "You are free to say whatever you want, as the community agrees".
      Hilarious.

    49. Re:Don't Foget This One... by jrnchimera · · Score: 1

      Nothing belittling about the joke? Oh come on now! "Invade Iraq to keep Approval Rating High'? That is clearly a cheap shot at the Bush Administration.

    50. Re:Don't Foget This One... by jrnchimera · · Score: 1

      Love it or leave it you asshole. You don't deserve to live in this country. Your lack of respect for the lives of those who died to help secure the freedoms you enjoy is fucking appaling you jackass.

    51. Re:Don't Foget This One... by rark · · Score: 2

      I think the more germane question is: when was the last time the U.S. had to go to war in order to actually protect our borders from invasion?

      Arguably it was WWII. Highly Arguably. (Yes, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor -- but what was the likelihood that they would have been able to take us over?)

      The biggest threats to our ability to make stupid jokes (and other forms of free speech) are internal, and this is at least as much of a function of our geography as of our military strength.

    52. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      Sorry, this is just plain incorrect. Check out http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp (hardly a "left-wing media outlet")

      Except that, again, Mr. Bin Laden did not mention this as a justification for his attack on the WTC and the Pentagon until well after the war in Afghanistan had started.

      But let's grant that Mr. Bin Laden's main complaint is about Israel, just for the sake of argument. What would this change? Do we make policy decisions out of a desire to appease madmen like Bin Laden, or based on what we believe is the right thing to do? Because you are suggesting the former, but the vast majority of Americans support the latter.

      In any event, as far as "blaming the victim" goes, it's not a matter of making 9/11 "acceptable." Nothing makes it "acceptable." But there's a difference between trying to understand what drives terrorism and empty propaganda like "they hate our freedom."

      But again, I'm not saying `they hate our freedom', they are. You may say that this is only a symptom, but they are saying it. And as even you admit, `understanding' terrorism does not make it acceptable. If someone is attacking us, we will defend ourselves. Then, if you want, we can discuss their `reasons' -- but see below.

      even a cursory glance at the US' record WRT the Islamic world screams that the phrase "innocent victim" does not apply to the US.

      Oh really? Hmm, let's look at the use of US troops in the 90's: Kuwait? US went to war to defend Muslim nations (Kuwait, Arabia, Turkey) which asked for our help. Bosnia? US intervened to defend Muslims from genocide. Kosovo? Ditto (whether rightly or not belongs in some other thread). The US pays billions of dollars in subsidies to a wide array of Islamic nations every year -- and that's not counting the oil money.

      Just which part of this is anti-Muslim?

    53. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      OK. So what's wrong with that?

    54. Re:Don't Foget This One... by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      I may be wrong but I don't think it is the humanitarian programmes overseas that make the USA unpopular.

      You are indeed wrong. Most of the atrocities in the world are created by people when you help the people who are disadvantage in these situations you piss off the people who put them in the situation in the first place.

      Help the Kuwaitis, piss of the Iraqis. Help the Iraqi people piss off the Iraqi government. Help the Somalis, piss off the warloads.

      I think the interferring in local politics and dropping bombs and stuff tend to make more enemies.

      That's why we only (deliberately) drop bombs on our enemies.

      I do actually "help the starving people in Ethiopia" by working (for free) to raise funds for an aid programme there.

      And do you get that it takes soldiers fighing the bad guys to make sure that aid gets to the intended recipients?

      OBL hates the US because of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. The government of Saudi Arabia apprechiates the US as an ally, and a force for stability in the region. OBL is an extremeist that does not represent the views of the people or government of Saudi Arabia. Would you have us pull out of Saudi Arabia to avoid antagonising OBL? That just doesn't make any sense.

      Should we cease all aid to Israel because it annoys Saddam? What if the money you are sending to Ethiopa does upset someone, who will someday become a terrorist and attack your country, will you cease sending aid?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    55. Re:Don't Foget This One... by jrnchimera · · Score: 1

      Maybe you would like our country to be defenseless in a time in which several countries are on the verge of becoming Nuclear Powers and/or acquiring Biological threats? Maybe we do spend more on Defense than we need to. But I would prefer that the cuts in defense go to help THIS country - like perhaps in feeding our own hungry - or helping with education.

    56. Re:Don't Foget This One... by pubjames · · Score: 2

      I don't disagree with any of your points, but I do disagree with your terminology.

      I do not think you should use the words 'aid' or 'humanitarian programmes' when you are talking about military action. This confuses the issues because most people have a different understand of what these words mean.

    57. Re:Don't Foget This One... by swillden · · Score: 2
      As a former member of the U.S. military and, I think, a reasonably intelligent person, I have to say I think you're dead wrong. And, frankly, pretty dumb as well. If "avoiding getting killed" is the primary criterion guiding your decisions in life (which I doubt), then staying out of the military is a much less effective solution than, for example, staying out of automobiles.

      Statistically, members of the military are only a tiny bit more likely to get killed than civilians; the difference is so small so as to be insignificant. Particularly since our participation in Vietnam ended.

      What you're really trying to do is to convince yourself that you're smarter than all of those dumb people in the service, because you can't understand their motivations. There's no doubt that you are smarter than many soldiers. There's also no doubt that many of them are a hell of a lot smarter than you, in terms of raw intelligence. And there's a good argument to be made that most of them are wiser than you as well.

      Sorry, arrogant people who call others dumb really piss me off.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    58. Re:Don't Foget This One... by swillden · · Score: 2

      This is largely the role of the National Guard. They occasionally get sent overseas, particularly in recent years after Clinton gutted the military, which has forced the guardsmen and reservists to do far more of the work than they would have expected (which is further gutting the ranks of the guard and reserves, BTW, as people realize that being a part-timer means getting sent around the world every other year, which really screws up their civilian careers) but that's not what their job is supposed to be.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    59. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Wiseazz · · Score: 1

      And political opinions are best shared during the discussion, not by the editors, in my not-so-humble opinion. Everyone bitches when they plug merchandise, so why not politics?

      --
      My sig sucks.
    60. Re:Don't Foget This One... by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      If soilders deliver food, is that aid? If the Army sets up mobile hostpitals and administers vaccines to children is that a "humanitarian programme"?

      If the combined allied forces release millions of Jews, Poles, and Blacks from concentration camps where they were patiently waiting to be executed is that a military action?

      The problem with using you terminology is that all of these things are in fact military actions, and yes, it upsets a great many people all over the world when the "meddling superpowers" engage in these actions. It doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do. If you are claiming that 9/11 is the price we pay for being the good guys then all I can say is, bring it on. Because we sure as hell aren't going to back down from what we know is right to avoid upsetting you delicate constitution.

      I hope you are very happy in whatever world it is that you live in. You are welcome in the real world anytime you chose to join the rest of us.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    61. Re:Don't Foget This One... by shaunbaker · · Score: 1

      Wow you obviously know what you are talking about, except for the fact that every single officer you will ever talk to only speaks of leading from the front.

    62. Re:Don't Foget This One... by makohund · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Almost...

      In the Marine Corps, you ALL go in to fight.

      Rank and job make no difference. You may all be pulled from regular duties to to go kick booty.

      At least, that's what they always TOLD me. :)

      (Good point though... hadn't thought about that before.)

      I almost take offense at Roblimo referring to other services as inferior... but I won't. (You know, that's ALMOST a troll. And a good one at that.) I mean, he's an Army dog for chrissakes. He probably doesn't know any better. ;-P

      Hell, I thought fellow Marines were the arrogant ones!

      Anyway, remember, we've all got our purpose and things we're good at. We all save each other's asses all the time.

      Want something bombed? A lot? Air Force.
      Want the skies cleared? Air Force.
      Need something moved fast? Air Force.
      Need troops moved fast? Air Force.

      Need an embargo or blockade? Navy.
      Want the ocean safe? Navy.
      Want an major intimidating display? Navy.
      Need a LOT of stuff moved? Navy.
      Need a LOT of troops moved? Navy.
      Need a mobile base with some air power? Navy.

      Need lots of guys with big guns? Army
      Need tanks and artillery? Army.
      Need to march in and take the place? Army.
      Need a massive invasion? Army. (Marine assist.)
      Need airborne gunships? Army.
      Gonna be in the area for a while? Army.
      Need a fine-combed search and destroy? Army.
      -- whoops... I mean "sweep and clear". :)

      Need a security team? Marines.
      Need to distract attention from your main force? Marines.
      Need an invasion? Marines. (Follow with Army.)
      Need direct air support for ground troops? Marines.
      Need everything everyone else has, but need it there RIGHT NOW? Marines.
      Need everything, but on a smaller scale? Marines.

      Have very specific needs? All have special forces units for special jobs of varying types. Pick your poison.

    63. Re:Don't Foget This One... by cjpez · · Score: 2

      Well, I don't bitch when they plug merchanise. It's their site. They can do with it what they want. If I find it offensive I'll stop reading, or just filter out posts by particular editors. So have at it, editors! If Slashdot were a "real" news source, I might feel differently, but anyone who uses Slashdot as a source of unbiased news is insane. :)

    64. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the comment itself sucks, it seems more aimed at the politicians than soldiers. Well in America anyway...

    65. Re:Don't Foget This One... by cjpez · · Score: 2

      Correct. And despite the fact that Bush is, technically speaking, Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, I don't feel that issuing digs at him implies they should be taken against the military as a whole. The way I understand it, if Bush orders the military to go invade somewhere, they're bound to comply (although I'm guessing (and certainly hope) that there's some amount of checks-and-balances there as well) with the order. I still say that there's nothing in that statement that should offend anyone who is out there risking their lives, &c.

    66. Re:Don't Foget This One... by cjpez · · Score: 2

      Here I go, disagreeing again. :) I feel that was was aimed chiefly at the Bush administration, or at least the very upper echelons of the military, not the military as a whole. Obviously your average foot soldier isn't going to have a choice where he's stationed, and certainly isn't going to be involved in the high-level political games played to get him to where he currently is.

    67. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      No, it wasn't. And it should be clear that it wasn't. Unless you equate the Commander in Chief with the armed forces. There's a long tradition of making fun of presidents and Congress for the bizarre, often inexplicable, and all-to-often stupid things they do (or don't do). For instance, I might choose to call G. W. Bush the Bozo in Chief, without intending any criticism of the Pentagon.

      There is no popular "approval ratings" metric for the armed forces. There is, on the other hand, an exteremely popular "approval ratings" metric of the President of the US. I think it is quite clear that the comment was directed at then-president G.H.W. Bush as if he were trying to improve his approval rating. Just like people dubbed the cruise missle attack then-president B. Clinton against (presumably) Osama Bin Laden the "Monica Missles", as if Clinton were trying to distract the public and the press from the never-ending Monica Lewinsky trial brought by Ken Starr.

      I think Americans are still pretty proud of the US Armed Services. I think Americans haven't been proud of our government for many, many years.

      -Paul Komarek

    68. Re:Don't Foget This One... by broody · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure. When I lived in Sri Lanka many people were upset with the US over our support for the Mahaweli Dam. The project caused havoc and difficulty which some people blamed on America.

      FYI, the link I provided could be about as biased against the project as one could be but seems to be the only thing with even basic facts.

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
    69. Re:Don't Foget This One... by CaptainStormfield · · Score: 1

      As I said above, I agree that the community standards approach leaves something to be desired. But your characterization of it is just wrong -- it is not a test about whether the community agrees with the content of the speech. Rather, it judges whether material is "harmful to minors" by "community standards."

      As an aside, there is considerable doubt about the constitutionality of COPA even after the Supreme Court's recent opinion. The Supremes said, in essence, that the fact that the statute employes the "community standards" test doesn't render COPA unconstitutionally overbroad. However, the court did not decide whether the statute might be invalid on other grounds.

      If anyone is interested, you can find the relevant supreme court opinion here.

      This post is not intended to constitute legal advice. If you need such advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.

      --
      "The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
    70. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is quite clear that the comment was directed at then-president G.H.W. Bush as if he were trying to improve his approval rating.

      I thought it was to protect cheap gas prices? No, it was to drive the price of oil up to make all of his Texas oil friends rich. Oh, no now I remember, it was because of the unrestrained agression of Iraq in the Middle East would have lead to destabilaztion in the region, and our allies asked for our help.

      Just like people dubbed the cruise missle attack then-president B. Clinton against (presumably) Osama Bin Laden the "Monica Missles", as if Clinton were trying to distract the public and the press from the never-ending Monica Lewinsky trial brought by Ken Starr.

      The "trial" was in fact a grand jury,and it just so happens that the "Monica Missles" were launched on the very day the Monica was testifying. That's quite a coincidence considering the proceding was "never-ending". BTW sources who know Bin Laden claim that it was that assasination attempt that pushed him over the edge and led to 9/11.

      Draw your own conclusions.

    71. Re:Don't Foget This One... by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      In places where you are allowed to own firearms, you can train and practice in your own time. The federally funded Civilian Marksmanship Program is supposed to promote and maintain good shooting skills among civilians so that they make better soldiers in time of war.

      Besides, if we're all drafted, we civilians wouldn't have much of a choice about it, would we?

    72. Re:Don't Foget This One... by swillden · · Score: 2

      The federally funded Civilian Marksmanship Program is supposed to promote and maintain good shooting skills among civilians so that they make better soldiers in time of war.

      That's really interesting. Where can I find out more about it?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    73. Re:Don't Foget This One... by jheinen · · Score: 2

      "Need everything everyone else has, but need it there RIGHT NOW? Marines."

      Unless you need it REALLY RIGHT NOW! - call the 82d Airborne Division. Wheels-up on their way to anywhere in the world in 18 hours or less.

      Hoo-ah.

      :)

      -Jeff

      --
      -Vercingetorix
      "Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
    74. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Chazmyrr · · Score: 1

      I think they're stupid. On the scale of things "avoiding getting killed" has to be one of the most basic tests of intelligence.

      You sir, are a perfect example of the illness that afflicts modern society. You place your own well being above that of anyone else. You have no respect for those who do not share your beliefs. You insult people whose values extend beyond pure self-interest.

      The unmitigated self interest displayed by you and others like you is the most convincing argument against universal sufferage of which I can conceive. You believe your life is inherently more important than the lives of millions of other people. You respect the military only when they are protecting you from a direct threat. The people serving in the armed forces have shown they are willing to sacrifice for the greater good. Why should you be given the franchise if you are unwilling to do the same?

      As for intelligence, if the dumbest beast of burden can "avoid getting killed", I'd hardly consider that a defining measure.

    75. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Yakko · · Score: 1
      Unless you're an SP, this is basically true. We enlisteds stay on the flight line and fix the planes that the officers break. :o)

      And of course, if you're in Support as opposed to Operations, we enlisteds get to send our officers to fight for funding (so the wing commander and his buddies manning the groups on a given base can get better computers, connectivity, email, etc...)

      Failing to win one of these battles costs a lot. I dunno if any heads rolled, but shortly before I got out, we had a certain Exchange server whose mail store was on a software "RAID." This post office was special because everyone at the head shed was on it. Suffice to say, when a drive failed, and there was no backup (no money for that either), 700 lusers including all the top brass lost 67% of their mail.

      I spent 15hr trying to get it back. The next day, we at least had approval for the backup (after the barn had blown away, yes. sure.)

      While I'm rambling, I thought the fake game names were quite funny.

      (9yr in USAF, btw)

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    76. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I understand. You think we were attacked on September 11 because we spend too little money on foreign aid? Really?

      And if so does that mean that you think that the reason we spend taxpayer dollars on foreign aid is in order to bribe the likes of Bin Laden into not attacking us?

      Anyway, with regard to the military, you're way off base. We spend about 2.9% of our GDP on military aid, as opposed to over 30% (more than ten times as much) during world war II. With this little money, our military is stretched a little thin even dealing with a two-bit opponent like Afghanistan while keeping up our other commitments. And you think we spend too much on defense?

    77. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the japanese captured outlying islands in the aleutian chain (the string of islands off alaska for the geographically challenged) and were planning to use them as a diversion while midway was captured. fortunately for americans we had a skeleton army protecting the alaskan mainland or the japanese would probably have taken over most of the habitable land in alaska. they did this primarily as a diversion while the main japanese armada lead by Yamamoto attacked midway, a small island in the middle of the pacific, which was very important as a resupply depot without which the usa would have trouble interfering with the japanese plans to take over most of asia as it was they were in burma, and very nearly into parts of india.

    78. Re:Don't Foget This One... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      actually, the statement makes a mockery of the armed forces, and belittles their mission.
      The fact that some people think the President is using them as pawns doesn't really matter.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    79. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
      Somehow I doubt that the game is going to dwell much on the sheer stupidity of making sure your socks are all rolled "just so" before a barracks inspection.

      Obviously you never learned attention to detail! When your socks are out of place, people die! No seriously, however absurd formal inspections are, they are a training tool for just that attention to detail. They suck, but they have their place.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    80. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      Are you in the military, or a veteren?

      -Paul Komarek

    81. Re:Don't Foget This One... by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      Try these two links:

      http://www.odcmp.com/toc.htm
      http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com/
      They also sell M1 rifles to qualified shooters as part of the program.

      Also, don't forget to take a look at the NRA website for other training classes and information.

    82. Re:Don't Foget This One... by annenk38 · · Score: 1

      No seriously, however absurd formal inspections are, they are a training tool for just that attention to detail. They suck, but they have their place.
      Surely, they have their place, but as a purely administrative tool. An observer can easily spot when things are out of place in an otherwise uniform layout. Unfortunately, attention to detail is not a general discipline. When one trains for a barrack inspection, one trains precisely for the particulars of barracks ispections, and this skill does not automatically carry over onto the battlefield. For example, studies have shown that in paintball team competitions, the civilian players consistently performed better then their professional military couterparts. This, in fact, had prompted the Marine Corps to completely overhaul its rifle training in the late 90s.

    83. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also left out

      Sim-Rape-The-Okinawan-Vietnamese-Filippina-Schoo lg irl
      And Sim-Defend-the-UNOCAL-oilpipeline-in-[fillinthebla nk]-for-the-benfit-of-guys-too-rich-to go-to-war

      other than that we're in perfect accord.

    84. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      The military does have to do as the president orders. If I remember correctly, the president can deploy armed forces, but must inform congress within 30 days. Congress then has to approve of the president's actions within 60 days or the troops must be withdrawn. I know that's the general idea, but I can't garauntee the specifics are all correct.

    85. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      When one trains for barracks and uniform inspections, you learn to be aware of countless, tiny bits of information. That skill can be invaluable in the battlefield. Those tiny details are what keep planes, parachutes, weapons, and other tools of the trade working properly. Something very slight could suggest an enemy position and help save the live of your flight. Don't underestimate the importance of attention to detail.

    86. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      Here here! Just like to point out that the Air Force has a major command dedicated to air support so the USMC aren't the only ones doing that.

    87. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      OK, please enlighten me. Just what combination of `beliefs and historical acts' would make September 11 acceptable?

      Open your eyes. You are the one who is brainwashed. No, no, they tell you. Believe us, they tell you. They are terrorists, they tell you. They deserve to die, they tell you... AND YOU BELIEVED THEM!

      When someone has blinded you to no longer see the truth, can you open your eyes?
    88. Re:Don't Foget This One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it was the USA that gave Iraq tons of war machinery to use against Iran, a Muslim nation. Iraq then started using those weapons against all of its neighbors. None of that crap would have been possible without the USA supplying the weapons to Sadaam.

    89. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 1

      I see.

      So, in your opinion, the only reason someone could consider men who fly planes into buildings in the hopes of killing as many civilians as possible to be terrorists is if they are brainwashed?

      What planet are you living on?

    90. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 1

      I don't think you've done your homework very well. Yes, the US backed Iraq against Iran, but it is hardly the case that the US built up Mr. Hussein's army -- or have you forgotten that Mr. Hussein fought the gulf war with Russian infantry weapons, Russian tanks, and Russian and French missile technology?

    91. Re:Don't Foget This One... by makohund · · Score: 1

      OK, OK... I know. Of course the Air Force do that too now. (And I'm sure they do it quite well. I figured someone would call me on that. No offense intended. :)

      BUT... the Corps DID invent the idea and most tactics in the first place. Starting during the Banana Wars and getting really good at it during the Island hopping campaign of WWII. Near the end, even Army units in the Pacific were demanding Marine air support if they could get it.

      This was back when there was no Air Force. There was the Army Air Corps, and they seemed to think planes were only good for recon and bombs. And taking out enemy planes and AA, to protect the recon and bombers.

      We still have the Air Wings, and that is pretty much their entire purpose and design... ground support for Marines and anyone else down in the dirt.

      Oh, and you Army peeps... we were doing the helicopter thing first, too. :)

    92. Re:Don't Foget This One... by makohund · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't forget you guys. :) You're listed down there under "very specific needs". I actually thought about a specific mention, but then I'd have to get into Navy Seals, Marine Recon, Green Berets, and all the others.

      But then again... how much firepower can you get there in 18 hours or less? (I'm sure it's a lot, but... tanks? LAVs? Artillery? Choppers? Serious question... I don't know. How big are typical deployment units, and how big can they get when neccessary? Who to pick probably depends on where it is and how much one needs.)

      And are you positive you can get actually get there first? 18 Hours doesn't seem too tough to me. :)

      There just may be an Marine Preposition Supply (MPS) ship (looking like a merchant ship) cruising around the neighborhood already, just in case. They could be all over the place, actually. And a ship packing an MEU probably wouldn't be all that far away, either.

      You still might be able to get there a little quicker (although counting by hours, for everything short of an entire MEF), but we probably scale better. A MAGTAF could show up in any size. A small platoon, a whole battalion... or an entire division. Each of which would include a matching component of air power and support staff and the whole think is a a completely self-contained operating force. And very well may include heavy duty stuff like tanks, artillery, armor.)

      Different job, different purpose, really. We're probably overkill for stuff you guys are perfect for. And vice-versa.

      (On that note, don't forget we saved your butts in Greneda, when you did get there first and it wasn't enough. :P)

      But that's enough rivalry BS for now. Go have a beer, and pretend I bought it for ya. It's all good. Ooh-rah!

      You guys gotta be pissed that regular Army gets berets now. That just doesn't seem right to me somehow. :)

    93. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 1

      But Sri Lankans aren't flying planes into our buildings, however upset they may be, so perhaps that suggests that Bin Laden is motivated by something other than dissatisfaction with our foreign policy, right?

      On the tapes, he says we must be destroyed because of who we are. I see no reason not to believe that that's what he means.

    94. Re:Don't Foget This One... by broody · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that aid programs lead to OBL. I'd label him one part anachronism, one part fantasist, with a splash of insatiable desire for carnage and attention.

      It doesn't take a genius to realize that aid programs sometimes lead to upset local populations. If you displace a lot of people and bring about a massive increase in malaria by building a dam, people get upset. If you build roads and the local death squads use them to butcher the 'rebels', people get upset. International efforts sometimes worsen conflicts. You don't have to be Michael Maren to see it.

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
    95. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 1

      Sure, but I stand by my statement that we shouldn't be making our foreign policy based on concerns about who might attack us -- that way lies appeasement. We should be making foreig policy based on what is right and what is wrong.

      After all, when you provide foreign aid to a population, the people who were benefiting from that population's misery are going to be pissed off. We saw that in Somalia, we see that among the Kurds in Iraq, we see that all over the world.

    96. Re:Don't Foget This One... by broody · · Score: 1

      While I don't share the right-wrong dichotomy, I understand where you are coming from. You can't make everyone happy and the hatred of homicidial dictators on balance is preferable to the alternatives. I never intended to imply otherwise.

      My point was that aid is often a mixed blessing for everyone involved. It is seldom as simple as the whiz-bang charity world makes it out to be. Of course, 'charity' is their job.

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
    97. Re:Don't Foget This One... by neocon · · Score: 1

      aid is often a mixed blessing for everyone involved. It is seldom as simple as the whiz-bang charity world makes it out to be.

      Yup, I have no disagreement with that statement. There are a lot of potential side effects to aid, such as creation of dependence, or disruption of local market mechanisms, which have to be considered when deciding how aid is to be given.

  7. Is this news or editorial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.

    This is a news site, correct? And on most news sites isn't editorial content explicitly labeled as opinion or commentary?

    I realize that michael may think that all slashdotters agree with his bias, whatever it may be, but I assure you there are many who do not.

    In other words, michael, keep your opinions to yourself if you want to pass this off as a news site!

    1. Re:Is this news or editorial? by GS11_Pus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that should read...

      Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Them From Detonating Nuclear Weapons in our Country

      Although, I guess that isn't any more subjective.

    2. Re:Is this news or editorial? by GS11_Pus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, terrorism will _never_ reach the US...

    3. Re:Is this news or editorial? by kramer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you get it. This isn't a news site. They don't have reporters, they don't write stories. They link to other news stories, it's a meta-site it's about opinion and commentary, that is the value added. There is nothing here other than opinion and commentary that couldn't be found at the various sites they link to.

    4. Re:Is this news or editorial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In america we like our news sanatized and government approved.

    5. Re:Is this news or editorial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think you get it. This isn't a news site. They don't have reporters, they don't write stories. They link to other news stories, it's a meta-site it's about opinion and commentary, that is the value added. There is nothing here other than opinion and commentary that couldn't be found at the various sites they link to.

      Ummm, no you pedantic fuckwit. See:

      News for nerds. Stuff that matters.

      In case you're too fucking stupid to realize the front page summaries are intended to be news while reader contributions are intended to be opinions.

      Some people will never get it.

    6. Re:Is this news or editorial? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true. Jon Katz is employed by Slashdot to write stories for Slashdot. Many articles posted here are longer pieces researched by the authors, most notably book and movie reviews. I agree that this site is heavy on the opinion and commentary-- the news is a lot more fun when you can chat about it. But the site's main function is that of filter. There is simply too much news in the world for me or you or any of us to read on our own. Slashdot through the submission and selection process filters out lots of news that I don't want to read while simultaneously highlighting things I may want to read but would never find on my own. The premise is that (even if we hold polar opposite views about something) a lot of geeks/nerds are going to want to read the same articles.

      In the case of this article, we probably have two sizable contingents: the ones that agree that the military shouldn't be making games to make army life look glamorous (because it isn't), and the ones who think that the military can do no wrong because they are supposedly risking their lives to protect us.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    7. Re:Is this news or editorial? by neocon · · Score: 0

      Well put.

    8. Re:Is this news or editorial? by mosch · · Score: 2
      on most news sites isn't editorial content explicitly labeled as opinion or commentary?
      This isn't a news site; it's a link/discussion site. If you haven't figured that out yet, well.... i guess not everybody can be the smart one in the family.
    9. Re:Is this news or editorial? by kramer · · Score: 1

      Oooh. I've been called a pedantic fuckwit.

      Fine, you want pedantic. Nowhere does it say "just news", "only news", or even "our news".

      And where exactly does it say that front page summaries are supposed to be just news? Is that in the nonexistant faq, or the nonexistant poster responsibility page?

      Now, I'm fucking done arguing with an idiot who's too much of a pussy to sign his name to his statements.

    10. Re:Is this news or editorial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now, I'm fucking done arguing with an idiot who's too much of a pussy to sign his name to his statements.

      No you stupid monkeyfuck. The reason its AC is that the kneejerk moderators here have a problem distinguishing between an honest-to-goodness troll and an opinion they don't like.

      Seems to me you'd fit that description. I don't need some tree-hugging ass-fucker like michael telling me that Bush is oh-so-bad because we might blow up Iraq and that he is only doing it to keep up his approval ratings. WHAT A LOAD OF HORSESHIT! If Bush wanted to use it for ratings we'd be in Iraq in the next month for two, in time for the November elections to ensure a Republican victory.

      Can't you anti-war people come up with something better? When speaking honestly anyone that is uninfluenced will admit that Iraq is a potential problem. People like you and michael are the reason 6 million Jews died in WWII. They wanted to appease Hitler and contain him. Come on. If the French (rifle droppers), Pols, Brits, and Russians would have had the balls to invade Germany when storm clouds were on the horizon a lot of people, both German and Allied, would not have had to die. Tell us your opinion on the use of atomic weapons in Japan? Should we have killed a few million Japanese and a few million Allied just to end the war with the use of atomic weapons?

      You pacifists are sickening. There are times in this world when reality requires one to take the initiative and kick some ass. Did you happen to catch the report that Army computer models put together Al-Queda's structure a few years ago and indicated a strike on five of the cells would have crippled them? Why didn't we do it? We knew Al-Queda and OBL were a problem? Because the people in charge were derelict in their duty to defend our country.

      Do you honestly believe that if gave in to everything the Iraqi's and their like wanted that we could buy peace? For how long? What happens when they start to threaten us again?

    11. Re:Is this news or editorial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Iraq bombing the US to prevent us from invading their country? Since the US has the perceived right to invade/bomb/sanction any nation that it deems hostile. I think that it should only be fair for other nations, that perceive the US as hostile towards them, to have the rigth to defend themselves against the US.

      Remember that Iraq has not threatened the US in the past few years, however the US HAS threatened Iraq.... If the US has the right to develop a nuclear arsenal, why then do not other countries have that same right?

      And yes, the whole Iraq business is just an excuse for the US administration to keep the majority of its dumbass population distracted from the real news. If our commander in chief cared so much about this whole axis of evil, he would not have allow to the second element of his axis of stupidity (i.e. the veep) to have sold millions of equipment to Iraq in his previous job just a couple of years ago. And if iraq is so evil how come it is the 6th largest provider of oil to the US? Or did Iraq just became evil a couple of months ago?

      And slashdot is not a news site, it is a commentary/discussion site.

    12. Re:Is this news or editorial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And on most news sites isn't editorial content explicitly labeled as opinion or commentary?
      No.
    13. Re:Is this news or editorial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, who the hell cares. Why are you getting so mad about this...I mean really who cares if he puts in his opinion, it's funny whether you believe it or not.

    14. Re:Is this news or editorial? by X.25 · · Score: 1

      I realize that michael may think that all slashdotters agree with his bias, whatever it may be, but I assure you there are many who do not.. In other words, michael, keep your opinions to yourself if you want to pass this off as a news site!

      And I assure you there are many who do.

    15. Re:Is this news or editorial? by nullard · · Score: 1

      Actually, there esd s memo leaked from the Bush (Sr.) administration saying that the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait would be the perfect excuse to maintain Cold War level military spending. You have to remember that Hussein was put into power by the US government. He worked for the CIA. Kuwait was drilling diagonally and stealing Iraqui oil. He ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO INVADE! The US said it would "look the other way" -- which is when the memo was written.

      I'm at work now but I do have documentation for what I'm saying.

      As far as the current crisis goes, read Stupid White Men. The US was planning to invaid Afghanistan last August. Don't forget the connections between Bush's oil company and Bin Laden (they were partners). Enron was involved too. Don't forget that Enron flew Bush to his campaign stops on their corporate jet. They were also having trouble convincing the Taliban to let them build a pipeline in Afghanistan. Enron may be no more, but who do you think is going to build the pipeline now? If you guessed that the same people who were involved in Bush's oil company and Enron are going to build the pipeline, you'd be right. Is it any surpise? The Bush familly was involved heavilly in the S&L crisis too. Of course, they KEPT the money that we (as tax payers) will have to pay for.

      This is not a news site, but then again there are few "real" news organizations left in this country. Almost none of them bothers to make connections between world events. They report things like the Gulf War, Bush's (Sr.) ratings, campaign finance, and oil prices as if they were unrelated.

      --


      t'nera semordnilap
    16. Re:Is this news or editorial? by bsane · · Score: 1

      Is that the same Michael Moore who knowingly lied about Bush evacuating Bin Laden relatives on 9/12? I saw him make the statement on the Daily Show. Turns out he said the same thing several days earlier on a Fox news show. The interviewer corrected him on the air...

      I'm at work or I'd look up references, but I believe www.snopes.com has a piece about it.

  8. PK's by Sarin · · Score: 2

    so basicly this says: uncle sam wants PK's

    1. Re:PK's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, if your idea of a fun game is sitting in jail, then you could say that. The article does specifically mention that if you get out of line you're going to spend some time in jail in these games.

  9. Other sims for military by naughtypenguin · · Score: 0

    Sim-Go-out-to-sea-for-six-months-and-not-get-lai d.

    or

    Sim-Jungle-Rot

    or

    Sim-Beaurocratic-Crap(??)

    or

    Sim-I've-got-some-vicious-form-of-Gonarhea-from- mo mma-san.

    --
    Ohhh, your a naughty little birdy...
    1. Re:Other sims for military by eyegor · · Score: 1

      Don't forget:
      Sim Cannon Fodder
      Sim Where's my sea sock?
      Sim Mess Cook
      Sim Don't ask, Don't tell

      --

      Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
  10. and the source ? by johnjones · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    this is U.S. taxpayers money where's the source ?
    (my yank mate is always on about how U.S. guv gives stuff away that has been payed by the tax payers)

    plus is there a linux version ?
    PS2 ?
    Xbox ?
    playstation?

    if they gave the source away ......

    regards

    john 'brit so what do I know' jones

    1. Re:and the source ? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      There may be a chance that the military can be convinced to release the source. Didn't they say the rendering engine was developed for a PhD thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School? It might be available in and of itself, in that case. Someone should look into this.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:and the source ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't they say the rendering engine was developed for a PhD thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School?

      Nope, Army Game Project has been using the Unreal Engine from the beginning. There is no way, regardless of whether taxes paid for it or not, the public will get the source. There are many many MANY games coming out that use similar technology and those games would be compromised.
  11. Government-subsidized violent games? by panaceaa · · Score: 1
    It will be interesting to see how violent these games are. With the recurring parental backlash against violent video games after high-school shootings and other events, will those same people start complaining about the government creating these games? This issue gets increasingly complex considering the Army is partially trying to recruit high school students under 18.

    Given this situation, I suspect these games would primarily be based on military strategy with an emphasis on non-violent missions.

    1. Re:Government-subsidized violent games? by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      "This issue gets increasingly complex considering the Army is partially trying to recruit high school students under 18."

      It's also interesting that the whole "escapist fantasy" argument loses its teeth. Even games that're touted as being realistic can generally argue that they're not intended to be acted out. But in this case, the government actually wants the players to eventually do the things they see in the game. Admittedly, it only wants the players to do these things under very specific circumstances (following orders while enrolled in the U.S. Military), but that statement is a significantly weaker defense compared to, say, Rockstar being able to flat-out state that they don't want you to act out any of the crimes in Grand Theft Auto 3, period.

  12. Ender's Game! by K'tohg · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is great! Another fan of Ender's Game. I find them so rare and scattered. I try to convice Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow are the best books ever. But many people just stare at me blankly a few have even smacked me. Sad.

    --
    > SELECT * FROM brain_cells WHERE synaptic_rate > 0
    0 row returned
    1. Re:Ender's Game! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're good. Best books ever? I don't think so.

    2. Re:Ender's Game! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true. Both Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow are awesome books. However, the other books of the series are no less interesting, allbeit different. I would reccomend the series to anyone. Orson Scott Card rules.

    3. Re:Ender's Game! by jck9626 · · Score: 1

      ooohh yea doode, I must agree Ender's Game and the entire Ender series were spectacular. I highly recommend them to anyone. As far as novels are concerned, I am not a sci-fi fan, but these books present many great ideas that really can widen your eyes. Card is an amazing author with a great story to tell. So just remember beware the buggers ;) -best books ever? maybe, but a positivly good read, and who can ask for more?

    4. Re:Ender's Game! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not the best books ever, but definitely a great read (I like the rest of the series equally well, though for different reasons as they have a very different focus and style). I picked them up shortly after joining a TFC clan based on the series (http://www.theenemygateisdown.com), and read through them much more quickly than I had expected.

    5. Re:Ender's Game! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really like most of Orsen Scott Cards stuff.
      This reminded me more of the movie. The Last Starfighter. In Ender's Game the game was the war. Here the game is a tool to find good soldiers. I always used to joke that if you ever finnished Harpoon, Red Storm Rising, Falcon, or 688i on the hardest level that two men in black suits would come and make you an offer you could not refuse. I can not wait to get a copy of them. I hope they run on Windows 2k :)

    6. Re:Ender's Game! by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      Ender's Shadow is far too religious. I didn't mind the nun too much, but there are a few bits where the rational minds do something of the sort that is best not put in words.:D

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  13. friendly fire by Bassthang · · Score: 3, Funny

    Accidently shooting your allies in "Operations" will gain you extra points. (The versions of the game in non-US NATO countries will not have this feature).

    --
    "What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death."
    1. Re:friendly fire by fraggleyid · · Score: 1

      For the advanced gamer: Play as an ally and have to avoid being shot from all sides...

    2. Re:friendly fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Include a strategy element, whereby one first develops highly technologically advanced weapons, sells them to the opposition, and then has to avoid getting blown up by their own munitions.

    3. Re:friendly fire by fraggleyid · · Score: 1

      Over prolonged campaigns, factor in an illness element due to exposure to depleted uranium, experimental medicine

  14. and the difference is? by PiGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    How could such a game be terribly different from another other first person shooter, especially those that were specifically designed to simulate an army experience (minus the bathroom duty, etc.). I'm guessing the sole difference is that you'd see army advertisments everywhere, and the music would be bad. And I'm sure the won't have boot camp instructors yelling their heads off, etc., but rather the classic "shaking-jaw-scrolling-text-so-slow-can't-speed-it -up-but-can-skip-it-with-a-keypress" mission briefs...
    "Hey, did you know that these violent games that you love to shoot people in are based on real life? In the next level, there are no extra lives - join the Army!"

    1. Re:and the difference is? by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      The difference is the realism. If you check out some of the news on the game from gaming sites, you'll see that they've included a lot of little points of realism in the game that most military games ignore, such as the use of hand signals, being forced to shake when you snipe without being in the prone position, and losing A LOT of your accuracy when you fire an automatic weapon.

  15. Gimme a break by Clue4All · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.

    I think it's very classy of you to make jokes about people who have died for your freedom. Sure, it sucks that the US get stuck policing the world, but as we've been shown, it's not going to do it on its own, and it doesn't look like anyone else is jumping up to do the job. Your attitude is disgusting.

    --

    Is your browser retarded?
    1. Re:Gimme a break by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." --George S. Patton

    2. Re:Gimme a break by The+Mgt · · Score: 1
      Sure, it sucks that the US get stuck policing the world

      When did they start policing the world then ?
    3. Re:Gimme a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should re-read the header. This was not a joke about people who have died. This was a joke about people who are still alive, and a wry comment about the less exciting aspects of being in the military that the games are not likely to deliver. I spent four years in the service of our esteemed Uncle including a year in Southeast Asia in the Vietnam era, and found that the experience did not result in a sense-of-humor-ectomy.

    4. Re:Gimme a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Policing the world? Yeah when it in it our interests. Do you really think there world have been any 100hr gulf war if Kuwait didn't just happen to be sitting on top of some of the world's biggest oil reserves?

    5. Re:Gimme a break by ocbwilg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's very classy of you to make jokes about people who have died for your freedom. Sure, it sucks that the US get stuck policing the world, but as we've been shown, it's not going to do it on its own, and it doesn't look like anyone else is jumping up to do the job. Your attitude is disgusting.

      Get off your high horse. Yes, they died for our freedom but that also includes the freedom to say what we want about them and criticize the government when we feel it's necessary. Pull your head out of your ass and smell reality for a change.

      If Bush invades Iraq it certainly won't be the first time that a politician has picked a fight to boost his approval ratings. What I find to be truly disgusting is the way that the Bush-Cheney gang have used and are still using the events of September 11th as an excuse to grab more power for themselves and then keep the American people and congress in the dark by claiming "national security". This also isn't the first time that a politician has done this either.

    6. Re:Gimme a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The died because they were stupid enough to buy the patriotic propaganda.

    7. Re:Gimme a break by Mant · · Score: 1

      I think he is mostly making jokes about the politicians who sent them (Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High) rather than the actual soldiers. Mant

    8. Re:Gimme a break by neocon · · Score: 0

      Ah, thanks for clearing that up. So, in fact, in your view, it's not remotely possible that in fact the people who planned and executed September 11 didn't just cease to exist the morning after? It's not remotely possible that many of them are still out there planning further attacks?

      No, if we are defending ourselves, it must be for `approval ratings', it couldn't possibly be because we are still under attack...

      And by the way, as for `the freedom to say what we want about them and criticize the government ': of course you have that freedom. And Clue4All also has freedom of speech, and the right to disagree with you and to say so. Why do you think freedom of speech means the right to not be disagreed with or criticized?

    9. Re:Gimme a break by neocon · · Score: 0

      I see. Did the people who died at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and on Flight 93 die for the same reason?

    10. Re:Gimme a break by fwr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I don't know of any power grab that the Bush-Cheney gang have done that I don't agree with. Perhaps the most controversial, arresting and/or detaining ILLEGAL immigrants, is even acceptable. After all, that's what the government is SUPPOSED to do. If you ask me, they should step up the INS enforcement division and go after ALL illegal immigrants -- and either immediately kick them out of the country or detain them for up to two years if they have any interesting ties to fundamental islamic extreamist terrorists, which I believe is the legal length of time they can detain someone before kicking them out of the country (and was well before 9/11). I have nothing against LEGAL immigrants, and would have a problem if they started kicking out legal immigrants for no reason, but I believe even legal immigrants can be held for up to two years if there is some charge / belief that they may have broken the law and forfited their privelage of being a legal immigrant.

    11. Re:Gimme a break by paiute · · Score: 1

      "No bastard ever won a war using Windows-based weapons systems. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard use Windows-based weapons systems." -- the ghost of George S. Patton

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    12. Re:Gimme a break by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      in our haste to get in a war with afghanistan, we pretty much skipped ultimatums and diplomacy with the taliban. we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution, because bush wanted war. as for freedom to criticize the government, I firmly believe those who criticize me for criticizing the government are within their right. I don't want them to make my speech sound criminal when it is constitutional, however.

    13. Re:Gimme a break by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2

      nope. legal immigrants could not be held for two years before 9/11. part of the laws rushed through congress post attack did something like that. the FBI had its panties in a twist because they might have to follow the law and release "suspects" they had nothing to charge them with after a week or two. that was the law for any citizen, immigrant or not. we all know if you're suspected of being a terrorist the government has the right to throw you in county jail for a year *cough Wen Ho Lee cough* and never bring any real damning evidence against you. meanwhile you lose your job, relationships, money, health both physical and mental. maybe you get ass raped a couple times, but its okay, because the government doesn't fuck up and its more important to trample everybody's rights on the road to justice.

    14. Re:Gimme a break by neocon · · Score: 0

      in our haste to get in a war with afghanistan, we pretty much skipped ultimatums and diplomacy with the taliban. we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution, because bush wanted war. as for freedom to criticize the government

      Let's turn that around a little: ``in our haste to get in a war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution'' -- doesn't make much sense, does it? It is not our responsibility to `negotiate' with nations which are attacking us. It is our responsibility to destroy the infrastructure which makes attacks like September 11 possible.

      I firmly believe those who criticize me for criticizing the government are within their right. I don't want them to make my speech sound criminal when it is constitutional, however.

      Then we're agreed, except that I don't see anywhere where someone suggested that what you said was `criminal' at all.

    15. Re:Gimme a break by borzwazie · · Score: 1
      Off our high horse? Get off the damned couch and do something for the country, or for other people before you start bashing the guys that do. Don't ever equate a soldier's sacrifice with a politician's intent.


      You obviously have never done any kind of service or charity work, with an attitude like that. What are you going to say next? "Boy, those stupid firefighters and cops that saved all those lives on 9/11 but got themselves killed were a bunch of assholes for thinking they could save people since politicians and Israel created the people that crashed the planes."


      The right to speech also includes the right to keep your stupid troll opionions to yourself.


      And michael, you've proven your total ignorance of why soldiers are out there with that post. They don't give a fuck about politics.

      --

      "We apologize for the inconvenience."

    16. Re:Gimme a break by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2
      FBI had its panties in a twist because they might have to follow the law and release "suspects" they had nothing to charge them with after a week or two.

      Or, perhaps, the FBI had it's panties in a twist because they were legally required to let legitimate suspects go free and disappear.

      So let's see, it's wrong for the FBI to...

      - Fail to detain suspects which intelligence suggests might have knowledge of future attacks

      - Let suspects go free, because they might be involved in a future attack

      - Detain suspects after an attack, because it's "tramping everybody's rights"

    17. Re:Gimme a break by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      By definition, if they were legitimate suspects, there would be evidence enough to charge them.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    18. Re:Gimme a break by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      Off our high horse? Get off the damned couch and do something for the country, or for other people before you start bashing the guys that do. Don't ever equate a soldier's sacrifice with a politician's intent.

      You obviously have never done any kind of service or charity work, with an attitude like that.


      The above is ridiculously unfounded, indefensible, and just plain incorrect speculation. But then you wouldn't know that since your only intent appeared to be to bash me and smear my name. Especially since I never bashed any soldiers in my post. I understand though, you don't want the truth to get in the way of your bitching.

      The right to speech also includes the right to keep your stupid troll opionions to yourself.

      It's not a troll. It's "insightful" and "informative." Just check the mod points.

    19. Re:Gimme a break by chairmanKAGA · · Score: 1

      "They don't give a fuck about politics."

      Well, maybe they should have cared about them before they joined any branch of the military. By doing the dirty work for greedy polititions they are just as bad.

      When was the last time I was being "defended"? Not since WW2, every other time it is the USA attacking to maintain their grip on who ever it is they want to control for greedy people. If these greedy people never got their hands in this busines there wouldn't be all these countries that hate us thus putting us on the offensive to hit them before they hit us.

      The solider is then the tool used to get the job done.

      --
      "Allez Cusine!"
    20. Re:Gimme a break by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "Yes, they died for our freedom but that also includes the freedom to say what we want about them and criticize the government when we feel it's necessary. "

      that also includes his freedom to get on a high horse.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:Gimme a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No poor dumb bastard stuck using linux ever won a war, the other dumb bastards won it thanks to Windows since they could do twice the fighting in half the time with half the education."

    22. Re:Gimme a break by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      But AFGANASTAN did NOT attack us!

      WE ARE ATTACKING AFGANASTAN!

      Most of the terrorists and the planners and financers of the Al Queda orginization are SAUDI. If anything we should be attacking Suadi Arabia for financing the terrorists.

      And we are NOT at war. War is a political state that according to our (Usited states of America) constitutuion requires a declaration of such by the Congress (both houses). What we have here is the President illegally sending troops to bomb a soverign nation, kidnap and hold hostage it's residents and claiming that we're doing the right thing.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    23. Re:Gimme a break by paiute · · Score: 1

      Well, you are correct - in that Windows users average half the education of linux users. Let's see -- linux user:16 years schooling = college graduate therefore -- Windows user: 8 years schooling = Jethro Bodine

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    24. Re:Gimme a break by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Ahem. As a disabled veteran of the United States Navy, having received my disabling injury during the Gulf War thingy, I feel compelled to say: Shut Up. No one pokes more fun at the military than veterans. we like having fun poked at the military. The Military deserves it. Ok?

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    25. Re:Gimme a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, boy, that is not likely happen in the next humpdred years - a wealth of mid and low income U.S. citizens will drop rapidly as soon as ALL ILLEGAL immigrants are KICKED out of the country. Please, take macroeconomics 101 class and find some reliable statistics on the sheer number of illegal immigrants who work their azez out to pump up legal citizens standard of living.

    26. Re:Gimme a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had no evidence against those suspects save that they were Arab and happened to be in the vicinty (which is about the amount of "evidence" that they had in many cases)? Damn right it's wrong!

  16. The real thing? by derelict_hmx12 · · Score: 1

    Why play a sim when you can go down to your local recruiting office and sign up to take part in the real thing?

    Derelict

    1. Re:The real thing? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      That's the whole point. These are being distributed as a recruiting tool, to show something of what real Army life is like. They're skipping dreary details like KP, but the training is supposed to be pretty accurate to Army experience. The FPS is supposed to be reflective of real missions, where the goal is the point, not the body count. You won't have to wait for days in the jungle for a fight, but you will need some patience.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:The real thing? by GigsVT · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Uh, that's the point.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  17. Maybe they should have an army guild on Everquest by Aliks · · Score: 1

    It makes me wonder whether there are already army recruiters out there on Everquest looking for tech savvy youth. You can certainly tell who is a good soldier and who is not after a serious dragon raid! In fact some of the the guild leaders on Everquest remind me of the stereotype army sergeant barking out orders to keep the troops in line. Maybe this is where they go the idea from.

  18. Why? by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. Why put so much time and effort into developing an advert. Is it really going to attract more people into the army? Are they really going to use for training? Surely a poster campain and some paintball would do the trick.

    What's the catch? Why do the army want this softwear installed on our machines?

    --
    I am a Karma Library.
    1. Re:Why? by GS11_Pus · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of "Stop Loss?"

      Right now retention rates in the military are not keeping up with what is required to fight a two front war, and that is the standard the military set for themselves after WWII.

      In case you haven't been reading the real news, the war is getting more and more dangerous. It's entirely possible that the Middle East situation will erupt into WWIII, and if China decides that's a good time to attack Tawain...

      Even if Sharon and Arafat do the amazing and find peace, it's only a matter of time until China starts attacking Asia. Their population growth is just out of control, and eventually they will be left with very few options and a helluva lot of soldiers.

      Anyway, Stop Loss was initiated shortly after 9/11, and members of the military (this might be confined to certain career fields, not sure) are not allowed to separate, even if their enlistement is up. I suspect few civilians know this even exists. But it does, and in fact, I missed Stop Loss by less than a month. I separated Sep. 4th, and Stop Loss was initiated Oct. 1st.

      So why you ask? Well there you go.

    2. Re:Why? by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 2

      Well, being that this is based on top of the Unreal engine, development was neither costly, nor lengthy. I have no doubt that it cost less than any one recruitment commercial on television.

      As for training, no they will not be using this particular game for that. In fact, the US Army has been working with the people behind Operation Flashpoint to produce a better training tool than the version of Doom the Marines have used over the years.

      The US Army's use of modified off-the-shelf games dates back to the 80's with a version of the original vector graphics game Battlezone modified for use as a battle tank simulator.

      I applaud the Army for trying out creative marketting techniques, it's not as if the game will beam subliminal messages into your head, and with it being Unreal based, there's the possibility of it being modified for Linux use as well.

      Hell, as long as the game is good, it will be as effective a positive mindshare tool as any saturday morning cartoon is at getting you to buy action figures.

    3. Re:Why? by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I had not heard of Stop Loss.

      The question still remains though. Is advertising through video games really more effective than regular advertising? Will playing the game make more (suitable) people sign up?

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really going to attract more people into the army? Are they really going to use for training? Surely a poster campain and some paintball would do the trick.


      I think you're missing the point that this is going to probably reach a much different audience than their normal recruiting methods. They say they only need 300 people to sign up from this to break even on the expenditures, and it's only 1% of their recruiting budget, so why not?

  19. Also posted... by Armaphine · · Score: 0

    Over on kuro5hin.

  20. at last! by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
    This should be interesting.

    I know many people who are frustrated with these games where you have to take hundreds of hits before you are taken down. [The rare exception is Delta Force.] In real life, a single well placed bullet will end a soldier.

    It is very hard to find realistic games like this and I suspect the 'realistic fun' of it will be a joy for people who are tired of not being killed by a rocket to the chest.

    1. Re:at last! by platypus · · Score: 2

      take a look at
      operation flashpoint.

      One thing that adds to the realism (besides the damage when being hit) is that you can walk or drive over whole islands with several small towns on them.
      These areas (the whole game takes place on three islands) are enourmous - several kms diameter.

    2. Re:at last! by citanon · · Score: 1

      The problem is real firefights last for hours and hours. Nobody runs out since you'll die with a single bullet shot. This game sounds interesting, and it will be fun to run around raping newebies. However, if you're playing against some skilled people, then it's not gonna be much fun, especially if you get killed early in the round.

  21. sim..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sim Tailhook scandal....
    Sim Don't ask don't tell...
    Sim $400 toliet seat/$300 hammer...
    Sim Psych-ops...

    1. Re:sim..... by ryepup · · Score: 1

      You realize that the $400 toilet seat / $300 hammer thing was a fluke of accounting, right? They added up all they spent, then divided it by the number of things they bought. So they got a $300 dollar hammer but also got a $300 jeep.

      At least, thats what my old high school economics book said.

  22. Slashdotted!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Web URL isn't responding - did we just Slashdot the US Army??? Kewl - never mind carbombs, just point Slashdot at any military website and throw it into uttter chaos!!!

  23. eek, that would discourage me.. by pstreck · · Score: 1

    hrmm, i can picture the comercial now "Amazing explosive Apache action!".. followed by a stinger blowing up your helicopter. makes me want to run out and get shot, err be in the army..

    --

    Later,
    Phil
  24. Re:I'm sure the Army appreciates... by L1nUx+h4x0r · · Score: 0

    Distributed denial of service attack. Much better than a single point to point.

    --
    The GPL makes software more like your mom. Free and open to all.
  25. global thermonuclear war! by peter303 · · Score: 1

    "Do you want to play a game"? asks a classified war computer to Matthew Broedrick in the 19809s classic "War Games". Matt thinks hes hacked into a nifty new game site, when really it is an important defence computer. Things dont change much in 20 years.

    1. Re:global thermonuclear war! by spagma · · Score: 1

      Actually its "Would you like to play a game?"

      --
      If it won't boot, Fsck it!
    2. Re:global thermonuclear war! by Domasi · · Score: 1

      Shall we play a game?

      --
      If you could sum it up in a nutshell, maybe you should be writing O'Reily books. --- Domasi 2001
    3. Re:global thermonuclear war! by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      "Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"

      Seriously though, I'm a fan of games as much as most people, and moreso than others, but if we want to teach kids strategy, wit, cunning, et. al. we shouldn't be giving them GTA3 or State of Emergency (My two currently favorite games on PS2).
      We should be teaching them chess or checkers (strategy) and tic-tac-toe (futility) as well as many of the other games on Falken's system. That movie had a great message, games have, plain and simple, become nothing more than eye candy.
      They don't really teach you anything anymore, except how to launch a grenade into a store window (State of Emergency), drive over pedestrians at 45mph in a tank while shooting 20mm shells at pollice cars (GTA3), or do a faceplant into concrete after a 3.5sec hangtime and get up without a scratch (THPS3).

    4. Re:global thermonuclear war! by jonnythan · · Score: 2

      If you think chess actually teaches real world strategy and cunning, you haven't known many people very good at chess.

      As much as the fantasy books you read would like you to believe that the great military commanders are all brilliant chess and go players, the fact is that chessmasters are no better at non-chess strategy than anyone else.

    5. Re:global thermonuclear war! by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      I do agree with you, chess alone won't make a good general, and not all great generals play chess.
      When dealing with real life situations however, many people draw on previous experience. That is the point I was trying to make. If all you did as a child was play todays video games (and no, I'm not saying thats all kids do, I had a life as a child and, to some degree, now as well), then your experience is primarily how to point a rocket launcher at a helicopter and fire.
      I'm also not saying that chess is the only thing. Although I am not a big sports fan myself, I am a fan of organized sports for children, as they help to teach other values, including strategy (yes there is a lot of strategy in a well-played game of soccer or basketball, just dont expect to see much in professional sports).

      And for the records, I don't read fantasy books, so quit spewing your "every slashdot reader hides in his parents basement with no life and reads fantasy & comic books while re-writing the linux kernel and spewing anti-corporate propaganda" bullshit.

      BTW, I dont play chess personally, damned ADD... I can't sit down long enough to finish a game.
      Get a clue before you flame.

    6. Re:global thermonuclear war! by spagma · · Score: 1

      Oh shit, your right, I stand corrected.

      --
      If it won't boot, Fsck it!
  26. Realism or Power Fantasy? by yndrd · · Score: 1

    It'll be interesting to see what the developers decide to use as a means to encourage people to join the military:

    • Realism, in which I'm shot in the leg and die of infection in a swamp a thousand miles from home.
    • Power Fantasy, in which I single-handedly defeat legions of nasties.

    I'm not sure the realistic approach would be an effective recruitment tool. I don't remember people lining up to enlist after watching Saving Private Ryan: "Come! Join us! You too can wobble in shock holding your own severed leg."

  27. Navy games? by pjdepasq · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gee, I hope if the Navy does something like this, there will be SimTailHook.... now that's one I'd like to play!

    1. Re:Navy games? by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a new Liesure Suit Larry is in the works

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    2. Re:Navy games? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      I just wish the Navy would do a Harpoon type game....

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    3. Re:Navy games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The upcoming Navy Titles:

      Sim Watchstanding
      Sim Field Day
      Sim CHT Spill
      ....

    4. Re:Navy games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget these:

      sim FOD walkdown
      sim stores working party
      sim GQ
      sim fire/flooding drills

  28. The Last Starfighter by johndou1 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anyone remember the movie:The Last Starfighter?

    The aliens used video games on earth to train and recruit pilots for the war they were in.

    The Army will be watching to see who plays well and be giving them a visit.

    http://us.imdb.com/Title?0087597

  29. I have seen this by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is based on the Unreal engine, and it is awesome. nothing like your regular FPS.. it has the reality dial turned way up... if you get hit once you are dead, or bleeding to death no mega heath, no railgun's, no ammo everywhere, just your handy GI issued weapons. From the demo I watched and played, FPS fans will hate it. and several of the "kids" though it sucked, it requires thinking, skill, and for the player to be clever... very unlike FPS games where most of the players just run around hopping firing at everything that moves... camping is a requirement and only the stupid players do anything other than camping (stupid players=dead players)

    so basically, if you're the type of FPS player that gets' wildly mad at campers, you will hate it.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I have seen this by pubjames · · Score: 2

      camping is a requirement and only the stupid players do anything other than camping (stupid players=dead players)

      Camping? Simulated camping? Gosh! Sounds great fun! I'll have to get that game!

    2. Re:I have seen this by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought the fundamental rule of game design is to balance Realism with Fun. Ask any famous game designer about it. Sometimes you gotta reach out away from the real to make the game flow well, or to balance out what you can do.

      Lets look at some popular games:
      CounterStrike: Most people would say this is as "real" as it gets, when you die, your gone. But you can get hit in the leg, stamper for a second, then are back running full speed again. You can get shot in the arm, but still fire back. This game has a lot of realism, but it still balances it out with a 'fun factor.'
      Age Of Empires: The designers of AoE always talk about how stuff like Catapults had to be changed. Originally, you needed someone to fire and move them, but it lead to too many problems, so they just made them self useable, and movable. Upon doing this, they felt the game flowed better, and the testers had more fun with the game.

      I could go on, but I think "true realism" isn't what the gaming community wants. Games are a time when you can do stuff you normally wouldn't do...

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    3. Re:I have seen this by ZaMoose · · Score: 2

      He means camping in the Quake sense, not the tents n' baked beans sense.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    4. Re:I have seen this by jea6 · · Score: 2

      For true realism, try True Combat.

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    5. Re:I have seen this by ocbwilg · · Score: 2

      Sounds like fun to me. I liked Thief: The Dark Project. Death was very easy to find, and very hard to deal. I spent most of my time in that game slowly sneaking through, waiting for the enemy to come into my sights.

    6. Re:I have seen this by tsaotsao · · Score: 1

      Uh... why should any game have a counterbalance to fun? If realism doesn't make a game more fun throw it out.

    7. Re:I have seen this by aTMsA · · Score: 1
      Well, then there are game mods, like Infiltration for UT, that also work like that, and try to create a very real game(and no, Counterstrike is not real), and lots of people love it.

      Just give it a try.

    8. Re:I have seen this by guyo26 · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I see this less a game and more of a marketing tool for the Army. In that case, it isn't a "fun mod" to Quake or whatever, it's a tool to let people "try out" the Army. Of course they would want to add in exciting parts, but for the most parts Army life is dull. Of course the exciting parts more than make up for it. *grin*

      And by the way, when you get hit with MILES [http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/photos/Jul2001/setaf 1.html] gear you're dead too. No injuries, just dead or alive.

    9. Re:I have seen this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infiltration for UT is neat and all but it is not available for Linux so therefore is not an option.

      the q3 mod makers at least make sure they cover all platforms. (urban combat was made on a linux platform) so I support them and give them more recognition than the guys that snub the fastest growing OS on the planet.

    10. Re:I have seen this by grazzy · · Score: 1

      try ghost recon.

      well, once in a while it pays of spraying osme with your MP5.. but generally its crawling in the grass that does the trick..

      there isnt even any working.. and 1 hit = dead in 80% of the cases, if you're lucky and get hit in the legs you are get crippled.. which means you aim less accurate, cant run and .. genreally suck.

    11. Re:I have seen this by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 2


      ... and yet Operation Flashpoint is an order of magnitude more "real" than run-n-gun mods like CounterStrike, yet is loads of fun, and popular enough to warrant several expansions.

      By your argument, no one would be playing any flight simulator for entertainment.

    12. Re:I have seen this by cruelworld · · Score: 2

      But it still has bunny hopping? Right? RIGHT?!?!?!

    13. Re:I have seen this by DamnYouIAmALion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six series has been pretty damn realistic since day one. The latest game in the series, Ghost Recon, is excellent and, consequently, is damn hard too! I'd recommended it if you want a really good FPS challange.

    14. Re:I have seen this by WildBeast · · Score: 2

      Can we play it in multiplayer mode?

    15. Re:I have seen this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but a near miss causes the detector to beep. so, you usually know when someone is firing at you.

      It only takes a few kills for you to learn to get your ass on the ground when the firing starts. :)

    16. Re:I have seen this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it uses the Unreal engine (which, IIRC, it will), will it run on Linux? Because otherwise, I just wasted about fifty cents of the government's money ordering my free copy thereof.

    17. Re:I have seen this by doorbot.com · · Score: 2

      I thought the fundamental rule of game design is to balance Realism with Fun.

      Yes, if you have to sell a game in a competitive market. Usually, in these cases, you'll cut out a bit of fun since that can't be easily conveyed on the box or in reviews; this will be offset by an attempt at increasing realism (which when it wears off you start missing the "fun" part).

      CounterStrike: Most people would say this is as "real" as it gets, when you die, your gone. But you can get hit in the leg, stamper for a second, then are back running full speed again. You can get shot in the arm, but still fire back. This game has a lot of realism, but it still balances it out with a 'fun factor.'

      CounterStrike is incredibly unrealistic. You have a crosshairs in the middle of your screen. Don't bother to aim, just use the little crosshairs! Of course you're right about getting hit and then running around at full speed. This game may have a "fun factor" (arguable) but it is hardly realistic.

      If you want realism, you want Infiltration for Unreal Tournament. The Inf team has done an amazing job on a free mod; it will be similar to the game from the US Army but it's available now. If you want the nitty gritty realism you want Infiltration; it takes practice to learn the game, but when you've spent the time, the rewards are huge.

      I can't wait to see what the Infiltration team will be able to do with the upcoming UII/UT2003 engine.

    18. Re:I have seen this by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      The Army isn't trying to make a game that balances realism and fun (for everyone). They want a game that is as realistic as possible, and the people that are still good at it and still find it fun are the people that the Army would want to look at for possible recruitment.

      Just pointing this out. I'm going to get it because it's free, but I'm going to deliberately (as if that's necessary) suck at it so that I can stay the h out of the Army.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    19. Re:I have seen this by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      Where do you order a copy?

    20. Re:I have seen this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  30. Problems with gov/mil sites. by Alron · · Score: 0

    Has anyone else noticed any problems connecting to alot of .GOV or .MIL sites? When I try to connect they ping me then wont let me in. Go figure, not only with these bloody army game sites, but with other sites like ins.gov. I find it mildly annoying and am really just wondering if I'm the only person that they ping. ;)

    Its as if they dont want me to play their games. Guess they know I'm too good for them or something. Lol.

    -

    --
    --Alron
    1. Re:Problems with gov/mil sites. by Domasi · · Score: 1

      I would think lately with all these cyber-terrorist rumors and and still in the wake of the 9/11 issue and the new alert they have going that most if not all GOV/MIL sites are being monitored and would take some time to reach a destination...

      Or if just could be my imagination.

      --
      If you could sum it up in a nutshell, maybe you should be writing O'Reily books. --- Domasi 2001
  31. Re:You shut up. by Peyna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, I am replying to a troll, but I feel the need to.

    I only hope this comment was done in sarcasm, but this elitist attitude I so often see from people who served in the military that bothers me. You tell me that I don't understand the meaning of the military or service, yet every day I drive by dozens of memorials to those who have died in the past, and am reminded of their sacrifice. I am thankful that there were people like them to protect our nation.

    Then I drive by lots of real tall buildings, and I am reminding of the what they were fighting to protect. Which is more important, the fight, or that which is being protected? I am grateful forpeople serve our military; my grandfather was in Korea, and my father served during the Vietnam Era.

    Still, that which is protected bears greater significance than the protectors. Our freedoms, liberties, our constitution, all are much more important than the soldier that died in an attempt to preserve them.

    The fight to preserve our liberties is no longer being fought on foreign battlefields, but in our legal system. I think we had a better chance when it had to do with who lasted the longest out there than we do putting faith in judges, juries, and politicians.

    But please, do not ever tell me I don't understand the military, or have no right to make light of it. If it really was protecting my rights, then I can say anything I want to about them, now can't I? =]

    --
    What?
  32. Would be fun to mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change it all around to anti-us propaganda... haha.

  33. Speaking from experience... by Art_XIV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't seem to recall there being any "Save often, Reload when you are Killed" workaround during my time in the Army.

    Nor were power-ups of any sort available, unless you count caffiene.

    It was certainly real-time, though much of the real-time was spent waiting.

    --
    The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
    1. Re:Speaking from experience... by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Nor were power-ups of any sort available, unless you count caffiene.

      Gee you missed the two most obvious powerups: alcohol and Motrin. They were in abundant supply in my unit.

    2. Re:Speaking from experience... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      My recruiter told me it was all done with autosave...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Speaking from experience... by Rain · · Score: 1

      I've also heard that in the multiplayer version, the "damn lag" excuse doesn't work at all, and things can get disasterous if you walk up to your enemy and tell them "omg yuor suhc a n00b."

  34. The Last Starfigher by hamoi · · Score: 1

    Didnt the good guys use something similar in the last starfighter? Will a recruiting officer show up at my house if I get a certain high score? :)

  35. other possible Sims: by blankmange · · Score: 2
    As a vet, I don't make light of our nation's armed services, their dedication, or their mission. I did, however, find it amusing to think about other possible sims to show true military life:

    Sim KP, Sim Boot Camp, Sim Freeze-Your-Ass-Off-While-Marching, etc...

    God Bless our sons and daughters in harm's way!
    --
    ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
  36. Mission #1 by Hard_Code · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Objectives:

    * Depart from airbase and patrol no-fly zone.
    * Follow waypoints to Canadian "training" area.
    * Drop bombs
    * Shit, I mean DON'T DROP BOMBS!

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:Mission #1 by liquidsin · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Well, in that case, mission #2 would go something like:

      *Watch football game
      *Choke on pretzel
      *Forget to mention to New Yorkers that some dumbfuck is about to crash planes into you

      Oh, wait...that's only if you're the fucking president.

      btw, show some respect for our dead soldiers. They are, after all, protecting YOUR interests. We're not fighting for ourselves - the world doesn't hate US...

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    2. Re:Mission #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol...Just cause your Canadian you don't think the does not *world* hate you. Get off your high horse pal.

      Why don't you try walking your pasty french-canadian ass into the nearest Islamic Arab country and yell "But, I am Canadian" in that goofy sounding 'eh' accent and get ready to feel the love.

      The *world* does not *hate* you the *most* only because you do not represent the heart of modern western civilization coupled with being the world's only superpower. Face it your Canadian and well you are just a northern extension of the US sucking off the tit of our nuclear umbrella.

      Please get a fucking passport and get your ass out of this continent and visit a Saudi Arabia, Israel, Africa, and Europe before you speak of this thing called the *world*.

      On the other hand you should not worry...the *world* does not hate you...you are Canadian...all world social, economic, and politcal problems are the US's fault...you have nothing to worry about...go ahead and just have a Molson...turn on some good old time hockey...and relax...It's OK it's not your fault.

  37. What about these? by telstar · · Score: 2

    Sim Friendly Fire
    Sim Don't Ask Don't Tell

    or everybody's cult favorite...

    Sim Seargent Pile

    1. Re:What about these? by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 1

      Sim Friendly Fire

      In the same series: "Sim Chinese Embassy Reconstruction Project".

      -Stephen

    2. Re:What about these? by red_dragon · · Score: 2

      I think the following might have a better chance:

      • Sim POW: Tests your resistance to torture.
      • Sim MIA: How long 'til you find a friendly camp?
      • Sim War Veteran: Weekly meetings at the local VFW post; bonus points for every war story you tell, whether it's true or not.
      --
      In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
  38. Way to go by TheCabal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.

    Nice way to belittle the work and sacrifices that I and millions of other people throughout the world have given in protecting YOUR rights. Yes, guard and mess duty sucks, but it's a part of military life. So does PT, first call at zero-dark-thirty, inspections, shining boots, cleaning weapons, endless makework, etc.. but it's all a necessary part of military life in order to keep discipline.

    As for "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High", that's an issue with the leadership, not the men and women who go when given the order. It's easy to criticize and ridicule from the safety of one's Aeron office chair. It's another thing entirely to raise your hand and swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Don't knock it until you've tried it.

    1. Re:Way to go by dipfan · · Score: 1

      Nice way to belittle the work and sacrifices that I and millions of other people throughout the world ...

      Speaking as one of those millions, I thought it was funny.

    2. Re:Way to go by plumby · · Score: 1

      I don't think (although I'm only guessing) that it was intended to belittle the work that is done by soldiers. I read it as a comment on the fact that this is meant to be an advert for life in the army, but which concentrates on what is, in reality, a very small part of the actual work of soldier. The other stuff may be necessary, but it is still boring, and not something many people probably consider before they sign up.

      And as for the Iraq comment - yes it is an issue with the leadership, but they are the ones that make the decisions, and as a soldier are you as happy risking your life to help their popularity as you are defending freedom?

    3. Re:Way to go by jtdubs · · Score: 2

      He's not knocking it. He's making a joke. You know, funny, ha ha. Some people enjoy making jokes, laughing at jokes, and humor in general. General. Get it. Hah hah.

      You seem to not be one of those people. And that's okay. But no need to get defensive. I doubt he has anything particularly against you, TheCabal, or the military.

      People make fun of things. Things get made fun of. The army isn't special in this. And they shouldn't be one of the exceptions. If we make them a group that you "can't" make fun of, then
      we lose some of that precious freedom that you are trying to protect.

      So, either laugh with them, or just ignore them, but no need to berade the man for having a sense of humor.

      Justin Dubs

    4. Re:Way to go by freuddot · · Score: 1

      "As for "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High", that's an issue with the leadership"

      Soldier, what amount of "issue" will you accept while still accepting order ? When this leadership has become a dictature, will you still fight for it ?

      For my part, your government has already gone way too far.

    5. Re:Way to go by kubalaa · · Score: 1
      --

      "If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show

    6. Re:Way to go by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      And as for the Iraq comment - yes it is an issue with the leadership, but they are the ones that make the decisions, and as a soldier are you as happy risking your life to help their popularity as you are defending freedom?

      While I was in the infantry, we had a saying: "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die". How I feel about a situation doesn't matter one iota to Congress, the President or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As I saw being slung around here on yet another anti-Microsoft article: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". I think that applies to the Iraq situation, although I will agree that it was flawed in its execution.

    7. Re:Way to go by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Speaking as one of those millions, I thought it was funny.

      I didn't.

    8. Re:Way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While on the issue of not knocking things that havn't been tried
      Don't knock being taken over by Iraq until you've tried it...

      Everyone is allowed an opinion, why do you suddenly beieve yours is more right just because you claim to of served in the military.

      Maybe you've just been sold more lies.

    9. Re:Way to go by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      So, either laugh with them, or just ignore them, but no need to berade the man for having a sense of humor.

      Just exercising my right to browbeat someone who happens to have an opinion I don't agree with, and isn't very funny. IMHO.

    10. Re:Way to go by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      Whiny bitch. Many of us have done our time; let the civilians have their fun. If you signed up for glory and respect, you picked the wrong job; go get your MBA. Like our division chief liked to say: "We're here to protect the citizens of the US, even if they don't want us to. Just nod and smile when they try to fit their heads in their asses." And spare the sacrifice speech; if my wife had decided not to go into grad school, I'd be back in boot camp right now, because I sure miss the quality of life I had when I was in right about now. It must be a real motherfucker for your bros to serve with someone with such a thin skin, especially if your unit has even a small fraction of the shit-talkers that every one of my commands had. Enjoy your time in and be happy that there is still a civilian world to return to where you can make jokes about the military without disappearing in the middle of the night.

      Sorry to wander off topic so violently, but I'd rather that US civilians realize that most of their military isn't wound so tight while having access to the most powerful weapons on the planet. :)

    11. Re:Way to go by plumby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die".

      "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

      So, you accept orders unquestioningly, yet realise that by not standing up to the wrongs of others you are complicit in their evil? Interesting.

    12. Re:Way to go by fwr · · Score: 2

      Make them a group we "can't" make fun of? No, we can't do that. There's a little thing called the First Ammendment in the Constitution that the people in the Army swear to protect and defend. No one can, or is suggesting, that it be made illegal to make tasteless jokes. In fact, there's a USENET group just for that kind of thing. But it is perfectly acceptable to make them socially unacceptable outside of special groups like alt.tasteless.jokes.

      Personally, I only found the last one tasteless. The other fictional titles were funny, but it's all a matter of personal taste. Instead of letting TheCabal express his/her opinion on the matter and leave it at that you have to berate him/her and basically flat-out try to stifle free speach by saying "just ignore them" [and don't say anything]. I don't think The Cabal was saying that michael didn't have the right to make tasteless jokes, just pointing out that one (or more depending on your personal view) was tasteless. If you give it more than five seconds of thought you'll see that there is quite a distinction between the two.

    13. Re:Way to go by ocbwilg · · Score: 2

      It's another thing entirely to raise your hand and swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Don't knock it until you've tried it.

      I dunno, it didn't look all that hard when I watched President Dubya do it on TV. And judging by his example, you can swear to protect and uphold the constitution of the US and piss on it at the same time. Imagine that!

    14. Re:Way to go by SerpicoWasTaken · · Score: 1

      When did it become a crime to criticize the Armed Forces? No one is making fun of the soldiers; they are making fun of the PR campaign. It doesn't say something like "All soldiers are fat and stupid". It doesn't belittle anyone. He was simply making a point about turning Army life into a true to life game, and how stupid the concept could be. The Army is part of OUR government. If I think it's doing something stupid, I'm damn well going to make that point. The military isn't immune from criticism just because people have died serving in it.

    15. Re:Way to go by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      So, you accept orders unquestioningly, yet realise that by not standing up to the wrongs of others you are complicit in their evil? Interesting.

      Obviously someone who hasn't served. Allow me to enlighten you: In the military, you do not have a choice. You are given an order, you obey. Military life is not like in the movies, or on "JAG", where orders are routinely disobeyed with a wink and nudge, and everything is hunkey-dorey at the end of an hour. I cannot name one branch of service where insubordination is tolerated. Failure to obey an order is grounds for a field grade Article 15 at the least, all the way up to a court martial if someone's feeling punchy. And it gets a lot worse from there. Pray it's not during declared wartime, where the penalties get to be a little harsher.

      You are allowed to disobey an unlawful order, though. But I've never been issued one.

    16. Re:Way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but your previous posts show that you're nothing but a troll. Go back under your bridge, troll!

    17. Re:Way to go by rixkix · · Score: 1

      He was just showing the basic mentality, which you continue to demonstrate.

    18. Re:Way to go by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      With the exception of a couple of people here, you military types have been way too sensitive about this. He wasn't even making a joke about the military. He was making a joke about the fact that the game, most likely, will be a glamorized version of military life that's meant to get people to join up. Despite all of its realistic combat, it isn't going to show the inanities of military life that soldiers regularly complain about.

      Even "Sim Invading Iraq To Keep Approval Ratings High" counts. You say that it's an issue with the leadership, not the soldiers. That was the entire point of the joke. This game's glamorized version of the military certainly isn't going to give you any situations where you have to fight for what you DON'T believe in. It's just going to show you military conflicts with terrorists that are trying to release biological weapons into the atmosphere or guerrila fighters in South America that are trying to overthrow a democracy. It's not going to show you any of the various military conflicts in the United States' recent history where soldiers were forced to go into battle with very little justification and possibly without any moral basis at all.

      The entire point was that this is going to be the recruitment poster or action movie version of the military, not the real thing. And for the most part, it's true.

    19. Re:Way to go by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      IMHO

      That acronym expands to In My Humble Opinion. What is humble about a rant by an angry elitist? Try using IMNSHO next time. Besides, no soldier has defended any American's freedom since WWII:

      • Korea: colonialism
      • Vietnam: colonialism
      • Grenada: Alzheimer's Syndrome
      • Panama: revenge
      • Iraq: oil [oil is pronounced "Democracy" in Arabic, according to GHWB]
      • Afghanistan: scapegoat needed
      --
      "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
    20. Re:Way to go by kubrick · · Score: 1

      It's easy to criticize and ridicule from the safety of one's Aeron office chair.

      ... and it's fun, too! :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    21. Re:Way to go by plumby · · Score: 1

      I understand the concept of soldiers following orders unquestioningly. I was a military cadet (admittedly not a full-time soldier, but I have experienced military discipline), but that is beside the point.

      Governments do sometimes ask their armed forces to perform tasks that are nothing to do with protecting the people of that country or democracy. Do you feel that no-one should challenge this? You seem to claim that as a soldier, you can't challenge it because it's against military code, but civilians can't challenge it because they are not the ones that are doing it, and they are denegrading the soldiers when they do.

      And back to the point, this is exactly what I think the original posted is getting at - that as a soldier you are not signing up to a force who's role it is to defend your country, but who's role it is to follow the orders of their commanders, whatever they may be.

    22. Re:Way to go by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Governments do sometimes ask their armed forces to perform tasks that are nothing to do with protecting the people of that country or democracy. Do you feel that no-one should challenge this? You seem to claim that as a soldier, you can't challenge it because it's against military code, but civilians can't challenge it because they are not the ones that are doing it, and they are denegrading the soldiers when they do.

      Soldier's don't have the luxury of questioning orders. You as a cadet should at least know this. For example, if orders were given tomorrow that we were marching into Country X, what do you think would happen if I questioned the morals/rightness/ethics of those orders? They'd say "Shut up Cabal, or we'll Article 15 your ass and throw you in the stockade". If I continued, it would be a field grade court martial, time at Leavenworth, BCD discharge with no benefits, and no chance of employment. If it were wartime, it would probably mean the firing squad.

      When you enlist, you sign your name on the dotted line, you hold up your right hand and swear to defend and protect the Constitution and to obey the lawful orders of your superiors. A lot of people in this forum seem to get hung up on the differences between unlawful and something they don't agree with. I don't agree with OS/2, but it's still legal, dammit. I'm sure a significant percentage of them smoke pot, despite it being illegal, but they don't have any ethical quibbles about it. Situational ethics, I guess. I call them hypocrites.

      Can you protest? Yes, but you're not going to get far. Can civilians? Yes they can, and should. See Vietnam. Civilians are the only people who can make policy. It starts there. The military is just the enforcement arm.

      And back to the point, this is exactly what I think the original posted is getting at - that as a soldier you are not signing up to a force who's role it is to defend your country, but who's role it is to follow the orders of their commanders, whatever they may be.

      I agree.

    23. Re:Way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you are 1 of the millions of humorless nerds.

    24. Re:Way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, you must be truly ingorant in your hatred towards your own fucking country.
      See my friend, I am from Russia and even I can recognize that Vietname and Korean were NOT colonial wars but struggle against USSR which was , at that time, embarking on spreading its influence all over the world.
      And to make sure that you understand, we are not talking here about "political pressure" but true brutal dictatorship the kind you see in Vietnam or North Korea.

      I am not gonna even comment on Afghanistan since, your are obviously completely out of touch with reality.
      I mean, if more Americans are like you then US simply fucked big time.

      I don't give a fuck about US but it is interesting to watch people getting so fat and rich as to completely lose any sense of real world and engage in happily attacking their own fucking country thinking.
      Wait for another Hitler or Stalin. These folks would love to have you on the other side - you will simply make their jobs so much easier.
      Amazing, fucking amazing.

  39. This is going to suck by dipfan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unlike similar combat games, the primary goal of "America's Army" is not killing a massive number of enemies, but instead completing tasks and setting career goals.
    "Will there be guys tearing off arms and using them for clubs? No. Because the Army would never do that."


    They just lost their target audience - if I can't use somebody's arm as a club, I ain't interested. Career goals? Fsck that.

  40. Is it just me or.... by Domasi · · Score: 1

    All the information they requested sounds like they are trying to increase their database of new recruit possibilities...

    You liked the game.. how would you like to kill real people, son?

    Be all you can be, until dinner-time :)

    --
    If you could sum it up in a nutshell, maybe you should be writing O'Reily books. --- Domasi 2001
  41. video meets reality by Mr+Tigerpants · · Score: 1

    If they're really bringing in video game stuff, I wanna join the Army and use them there "Stinky Hands" from Dakitana or that crossbow that shoots TNT-loaded chickens from Redneck Rampage. Never mind Crudsader, here comes a divisions of camoulaged soldiers waving Stinky Hands and chickens over the horizon.....

  42. Approval Ratings High? by AgentGray · · Score: 1

    ...Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.


    Comments like this is just plain stupid...Plus, I don't believe it's going to happen. The current administration is using "other means necessary" to stop any type of terrorist activity there. I don't think terrorism has a statute of limitations.

    I wonder how much is already going on that we don't know about, and I wonder how that can affect approval ratings? Of course, the only approval rating I'm concerned about is mine.

    --
    "Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
    1. Re:Approval Ratings High? by ocbwilg · · Score: 2

      Comments like this is just plain stupid...Plus, I don't believe it's going to happen. The current administration is using "other means necessary" to stop any type of terrorist activity there. I don't think terrorism has a statute of limitations.

      Sure it will. The current Bush administration has had a hard-on for Hussein since they first came to power. The last thing that Dubby wants is to be known as the second generation of Bush presidents who "failed to get the job done." Have you been watching the news lately? Have you been listening to Cheney during his almost weekly visits to "Meet the Press" where he talks about the evils of Iraq? It's going to happen, it's just simply a matter of timing now. Bush is just waiting for an excuse (liked failed negotiations on weapons inspectors).

    2. Re:Approval Ratings High? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That still doesn't eplain why the liberal trash of this country thinks it is so wrong. Iraq is a land of severly oppresed people, with a dicator for life in power who doesn't mind murdering thousands of his own people in grotesque and meaningless ways for his own amusement. He is intent on invading his neighbors to gain wealth while diverting his people's attention, he is desperately trying to build or aquire weapons of mass destruction to threaten first world powers so that he is left alone in the region, and he is a sick bastard with a history of political murder and torture when he was 'up and coming'.

      Although we did have dual reasons for the first war there (oil and an expansionist power who threatened stabilty in the region, which not only threatens peace but our oil supplies), it was not neccissarily the wrong thing to do (getting involed I mean), it was a legitmate cause. You may ask why we had to kill a hundred thousand soldiers in the field, and it's a good question... it was because in the 70's the liberals of this country ensured that we no longer could use a single well placed bullet to do the job, forcing the president to instead wage large scale war.

      When congress and the liberals lost their stomach over the Highway of Death, George Sr had no choice but to pull up short... everyone (just about, well over 90%) wanted Hussein gone, but thanks to the rich 10% and the press they controlled they twisted up the war into a slaughter (all war is slaughter friend) on national television. We couldn't assasinate him and we couldn't continue fighting because we were winning to easily bloodily on TV.

      He remains in power, with multiple programs seeking to empower him with WMDs thanks to all the extra brain power coming out of russias now defunt WMD programs. He still slaughters Kurds and oppresses his own people. He supports terrorism, ...like you know the attack on the WTC that killed thousands on national television, remember?, and he lives in opulance while his people suffer mightily under world wide UN sanctions and his own debauchery.

    3. Re:Approval Ratings High? by neocon · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone is `waiting for an excuse' at all. We have very good reasons to go into Iraq, we've said what they are, and we've said that we're going in, and staying in until Mr. Hussein is out.

      What we are waiting for is planning, preparation, and restocking of supplies of ammunition and other goods depleted during the campaign in Afghanistan.

      And so it's clear, what is your objection to Cheney going on `Meet the Press'? He's telling the American people what Bush thinks should be done, and judging by the current administration's approval ratings, the American people agree. If he were not on the air, you would be objecting to the lack of information coming from Washington...

    4. Re:Approval Ratings High? by fwr · · Score: 2
      Not having mod points available at the time, I thought I'd quote a post by neocon:
      I don't think anyone is `waiting for an excuse' at all. We have very good reasons to go into Iraq, we've said what they are, and we've said that we're going in, and staying in until Mr. Hussein is out.

      What we are waiting for is planning, preparation, and restocking of supplies of ammunition and other goods depleted during the campaign in Afghanistan.

      And so it's clear, what is your objection to Cheney going on `Meet the Press'? He's telling the American people what Bush thinks should be done, and judging by the current administration's approval ratings, the American people agree. If he were not on the air, you would be objecting to the lack of information coming from Washington...
      I'd have to agree. I don't think that kicking out the weapons inspectors is an "excuse." There was an agreement. Hissein broke that agreement. Game over. That we waited all these years was only due to a corrupt presidency under Clinton (does anyone really think he would have been able to lead a war effort with Lewinsky going on? Really!) and common-sense preparation. Bush couldn't jump right in and order an invasion the minute he took office. Planning for things like that take time.
    5. Re:Approval Ratings High? by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      If you believe the conspiracy theorists, it's already been planned for next year. To answer the question "What does every first term Presidency want? A second term". That, according to conspiracy theory, is exactly what's going to be done next year to put Bush in the White House for 4 more year. I guess it's a comback tour "Unfinished Business" or something. With WWF superstars opening for it.

    6. Re:Approval Ratings High? by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Comments like this is just plain stupid...Plus, I don't believe it's going to happen. The current administration is using "other means necessary" to stop any type of terrorist activity there. I don't think terrorism has a statute of limitations.

      Which terrorism, and what are those 'other means'? Might they, very well, be similar to terrorism? I've lived through one of those 'means' few years ago, and can tell you that it's worst terror you can imagine.

    7. Re:Approval Ratings High? by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      I think that was a reference to the first Bush administration and the invasion that started the Gulf War. Though I know some who would interpret the comment with a more current context.

  43. Another film by stephenbooth · · Score: 1

    Does this remind anyone else of the war-room scene from Toys or Ender's Game?"

    More so of "The Last Starfighter". Given the increasing prevalence of online capabilities in games machines and in-box data storage (Microsoft reckon that they have enough space on the internal HDD of the X-Box to store every detail of every game a gamer will play in the entire life of the machine) how long before a really good high score results in a vist from the feds?

    Stephen

    --
    "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
  44. Please Explain....... by rabbits77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what /. has against military service? In many countries the average /. reader's military service is *mandatory*. Also, as a US citizen myself,I volunteered and served in the U.S. Navy and cannot complain one bit about the experience. Was it harder than sitting on my ass playing Mortal Kombat(which was new at the time >:)? Yes it was. Did it help me pay for college and make me a better person? You bet your ass it did. Maybe I don't come from as privileged a background as the rest if you but military service helped me out substantially. I guess it is just fashionable to spend your late teens and twenties doing drugs and being a bored, sullen, and directionless loser nowadays.

    1. Re:Please Explain....... by Rupert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think for a living. I do not find the idea of being told I can't think for myself at all appealing. So I don't do it.

      Not that I'm particularly knocking the Army's training methods. I just think I'm very poorly suited to being a soldier.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    2. Re:Please Explain....... by jamie · · Score: 3, Informative
      "Please Explain... what /. has against military service? ... I guess it is just fashionable to spend your late teens and twenties doing drugs and being a bored, sullen, and directionless loser nowadays."

      Several of the people involved in bringing you Slashdot, including the author who posted this story, have previously been in the U.S. armed forces.

      And -- Hey... I may be sullen, and I may be directionless, but... uh what was that other thing you said?

    3. Re:Please Explain....... by fwr · · Score: 2

      Money isn't everything. Possibly the author was suggesting more of a moral / ethical / intellectual other thing.

      Just because the Michael may have served in the U.S. armed forces does not make anything he says about them beyond reproach. Again, NO ONE is saying that Michael doesn't have a right to express his opinions, but don't try and stifle the opions of others by berating them for expressing them. Some of us can't understand how others fail to see the difference between expressing an opinion and attempting to stifle free speach. Michael wasn't expressing an opinion in the normal meaning of the word, he was making a few jokes. Some people commented that parts, or all, of that joke was offensive to them. What's wrong with that? Now if Michael wants to respond with either a clear and concise explaination of what his opinion is, or making clear that the jokes did not express his opinion, then I don't think anyone can rightly blame him for those comments.

    4. Re:Please Explain....... by Sebbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, I manage to be bored, sullen, and directionless without drugs, I'll have you know!

    5. Re:Please Explain....... by kubrick · · Score: 2

      I guess it is just fashionable to spend your late teens and twenties doing drugs and being a bored, sullen, and directionless loser nowadays.

      Hey, that's been fashionable since at least the 1950s... ever seen Rebel Without a Cause or The Wild One?

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    6. Re:Please Explain....... by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps today people at least have enough sense not to think dying for a stupid cause (patriotism) is worth anything. Or perhaps they don't like the thought of killing other people. Or they may simply prefer to have a bit more control over their own life, not having some guy with more metal on his shoulders than themselves wake them up at three in the morning just to "harden" them and all that...

      /Mikael (who managed to avoid the Swedish army thanks to being deemed mentally unstable.)

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    7. Re:Please Explain....... by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

      Actually, for many of us "slackers", it's not military service we're opposed to, it's the fact that the military strives to mold everyone into their lego-universe of fabricated roles. When dealing with large numbers of people, it's far simpler to get them all to conform to a set role, than to try and use the strengths of each individual as they're suited.

      This is the same problem the public school system in America faces. It's hard to BOTH teach kids who are slow AND keep it challenging for those who are bright. There isn't enough manpower or funding to let them teach everyone at their own speed, and the result is many underachievers who simply got too bored of school, or couldn't keep up and stopped trying.

      Another big source of reluctance is the general mistrust of the Government that our population has acquired. Much of that is due to the massive amounts of waste and corruption that turn up almost every week. It also comes from a lack of a defined black-and-white goal. It's not hard for people to rally behind a leader who cries 'Stamp out terrorism!', but when they see that the same bombs which hit a camp full of armed gunment are also smashing the homes of women and children, the picture gets a bit out of focus.

      The biggest challenge with ANY of this is convincing the common man that he matters. If he believes that his voice can be heard, then he will care. If he cares, he will vote, lobby, and even fight for what he holds dear.

      "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

      If someone feels they can't make a difference, that they have nothing to offer, then they will give up trying and just live out their lives. It's not easy to see how you matter these days, and sometimes it takes most of your life to find out.

      Anyways, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the men and women who DO serve in the military. You are doing something that I cannot do. Just remember that while the Big Freedoms are essential, the little ones are what make our country worth living in. If the people who want to censor the net, control what we can do with our property, and decide how we can spend our time (hear me RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/Lobbyists?) could figure that out, maybe we could concentrate on the important things.

    8. Re:Please Explain....... by rark · · Score: 2

      There are options other than military service and being a bored, sullen, directionless loser. Honest ;)

    9. Re:Please Explain....... by dgb2n · · Score: 2

      I think for a living. I do not find the idea of being told I can't think for myself at all appealing. So I don't do it.

      Yet another fallacy associated with military service.

      The point of the US Army's training methods isn't that you don't think for yourself. Rather, it is to learn fundamental skills to develop a framework of discipline and excellence and then empower leaders at all levels to think for themselves and exercise initiative.

      It was a Russian General who once noted that he know American military doctrine better than most American generals, he just couldn't depend on the American's following their own doctrine. That doesn't reflect a lack of free thinking but rather the encouragement of it.

      I was attending a graduate computer science program full time as an active duty Army officer when one of my instructors commented that I appeared at ease presenting a topic to the class. I responded that I should since I did it all the time in the Army. He answered "I've never met anyone in the Army with a brain before".

      Get over it. I think for a living too.

    10. Re:Please Explain....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are either a lying coward or certified by the government to be insane. Either way is pretty pathetic.

    11. Re:Please Explain....... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "I think for a living" == I don't want to do somethng that doesn't involve a chair, and my ass
      "I do not find the idea of being told I can't think for myself at all appealing" == I onlywant to be told what to do if it involves my ass in a chair.
      "So I don't do it." because my ass wouldn't be in a chair as much as I like.

      "I just think I'm very poorly suited to being a soldier" I'm sure you got that correct.

      For someone who "thinks for a living" you sure applied no thought to understanding the military and relied on common miconceptions.
      Your not somebody who thinks, your sombody who lives by rout under the illusion that they think.
      Someone in the military thinks more before 7 am then you do by noon.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Please Explain....... by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      not certified insane, just not mentally stable enough to serve in the army. btw, I consider this to be a Good Thing(tm)...

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    13. Re:Please Explain....... by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      The comment "I think for a living" was based on a misconception. In the United States, soldiers are expected to be able to think on their feet. But that still doesn't mean that everyone is suited to be a soldier. What Rupert was probably trying to get at is that he is someone who doesn't take orders well or doesn't do well in an environment as structured as the military. That lifestyle just isn't for some people. My instructor for ROTC was even willing to admit that.

  45. Tailhook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Funny thing is, the woman who complained, she was complaining about actions that ocurred at something like her fifth Tailhook conference.

    Just what the fuck did she expect if she wanted to hang out with a bunch of drunk twentysomething pilots?

    And why did she keep going back for more and more?

  46. Finally! by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

    Now when my parents complain about me playing video games I can truthfully say that it's the army's fault.

  47. More liberal bullshit by artemis67 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High

    No president has ever been reelected to office following a war.

    1. Re:More liberal bullshit by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2

      Nope. It's the big set up for Jeb. Go Jeb! We can have our own royal inbreeds, the Bushes!

    2. Re:More liberal bullshit by ocbwilg · · Score: 2

      No president has ever been reelected to office following a war.

      That may or may not be true as I haven't taken the time to check the stats, but either way it is irrelevant here. I very distinctly recall the elder president Bush's approval rating skyrocketing when the US invaded Iraq. And I very distinctly recall the younger president Bush's approval rating skyrocketing when the US invaded Afghanistan. So the notion that invading the lands of a "hated enemy" (even one that you yourself invented) boosts approval ratings is quite valid. As to your claim about reelection, that's not what we are discussing here.

    3. Re:More liberal bullshit by neocon · · Score: 0

      And that shure helped him in the 1992 election. Oh, wait.

    4. Re:More liberal bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm.. Harry Truman?

      Nominated VP, 1944. Became President when Roosevelt died, April 12 1945 (eighteen days before Hitler's suicide). Germany surrendered in May 1945 and Truman dropped the bomb on Japan in August.

      Reelected 1948, left office in 1953.

      I'd say that qualifies as "being reelected to office following a war", unless of course you don't think the Second World War qualifies as a "war".

      Granted, the 1948 reelection was a damned narrow one. If Franklin Roosevelt had lived for a few more years, though, the "got us out of the Depression and kicked Hitler's ass" president would have been reelected in a walk; any fool even remotely conversant with history will agree with that. The man would have had the job for as long as he wanted it.

      Liberals aren't the problem, folks. The problem is people who believe pithy little one-liners and don't know the first thing about history.

    5. Re:More liberal bullshit by Kheldarstl · · Score: 1

      Um, wrong, do your research... James Madison Pres. from 1809-1817 Won re-election after the war of 1812.. or how about Abraham Lincoln Pres. from 1861-1865 Who won re-election after the Civil War... or even William McKinley Pres. from 1897-1901 Who was re-elected after the Spanish-American War (1898) How about Woodrow Wilson Pres. from 1913-1921 Who was re-elected after a little skirmish which they called "The Great War" and which now refer to as WWI Hmmmmmm Even Ole "Give 'Em Hell" Harry Pres. From 1945 - 1953 Won an election after a war, WWII to be precise. Your statement is blatently untrue, and should have been researched. A friendly hint, when making generalisations make sure you KNOW the generalisations to be factual, if one says "No X has ever done Y" one must be damn sure that not a single X has ever done Y, just one X doing Y disprooves your statement. Just my $.02 worth Keith

    6. Re:More liberal bullshit by Animats · · Score: 2

      No president has ever been reelected to office following a war. Wrong. Truman and Eisenhower were both reelected following a war. Truman finished up WWII and was reelected in 1948, and Eisenhower finished up the Korean War and was reelected in 1956.

    7. Re:More liberal bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I weep for the state of historical awareness in this country...
      • Madison was re-elected during the War of 1812, not afterward.
      • Lincoln was re-elected during the Civil War, not afterward.
      • Wilson was re-elected before World War I, not afterward. Wilson even ran on the campaign slogan "He kept us out of war".
      • Truman was elected for the first time, not re-elected, after World War II.
      McKinley is a counterexample to the original poster's claim. He was re-elected following the Spanish-American war (and assassinated soon thereafter). But there's no reason to be so snooty about correcting someone else's statement when you can't get your own facts straight either.

      AC.

    8. Re:More liberal bullshit by Kheldarstl · · Score: 1

      Ok, I will give you Madison and Wilson, however to quote from the linked Lincoln Biography...

      " Lincoln won re-election in 1864, as Union military triumphs heralded an end to the war. In his planning for peace, the President was flexible and generous, encouraging Southerners to lay down their arms and join speedily in reunion."

      The Civil War was effectively over by the time Lincoln was re-elected.

      Truman, Ok, technically, yes he was elected President for the first time following WWII, however he was elected VP in 1944 and served what amounted to a 3 year term (upon the death of FDR in 1945) So he was a sitting Pesident during a War who was elected after a war.

      Also, the intent of the post was not to be "Snooty" but to point out the errors in the original post. If the tone was taken as snooty, I apologise...

      Keith

  48. "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High" by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Sick little puppy, aren't you?

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  49. Good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get off your high horse. The comment makes a valid point that life in the army involves lots of routine activity such as training, not just shooting people. Plus, it's a joke. Anyway, if you read the story you'd see that the joke is closer to the reality of what these games are likely to be anyway, so lighten up and let's have less of the knee-jerk offence taking.

  50. Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) Saddam Husain has used weapons of mass destruction( WMDs) such as nerve gas against Iraqi kurdish civilians.

    2) He ejected U.N. inspectors who were making sure he complied with the peace terms stating he wouldn't continue to develop WMDs including the Iraqi nuclear program.

    3) He has launched strikes on civilian populations in Israel during the Gulf War even though Israel was not part of the military coalition. He did this in the hopes invoking an Israeli response which would gain him the support of other Arab nations.

    Now because you obviously didn't know this or understand the implications I will state it slowly:

    If allowed to develope a nuke, he's likely to use it against a civilian target. Possibly in a pre-emptive strike.

    Where is it going to happen? Who knows. Will it be trucked in or on top of a missle? Not sure. A strike against him is necessary to make sure that this doesn't happen.

    Sidenote: Informative opposing opinions != Troll, a point often lost on the moderators of this "news source".

    1. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say all the above about Israel too.

    2. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When has Israel gassed any of its own population?

      I'd like a cite, please.

    3. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When has Iraq gassed it's own population?

      I'd like a cite, please.

    4. Re:Iraq by Rupert · · Score: 2

      That's why we lock up murderers before they commit the crime, right?

      You are Tom Cruise and I clamin my five pounds.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    5. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Physicians for Human Rights:

      http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/ ch emiraqgas2.html

    6. Re:Iraq by fwr · · Score: 2

      Sigh...

      Point 1 above (that SH used WMD on his own population) is a crime against humanity and is usually punishable by life in prison after a trial in the Hauge.

      Point 2 above (that SH kicked out WMD inspectors that was part of a cease fire agreement) logically gives the coalition the right to pursue SH. SH broke the agreement, there is no agreement still in effect, logically.

      Point 3 above (that SH launched attacks agains civilian populations) is also considered a war crime.

      Now how, after reading and understanding that, do you come up with the "That's why we lock up murderers before the commit the crime, right?" comment? As the AC said, opposing opinions are welcome, but posting something like that shows either 1) a failure to comprehend anything the AC said, or 2) an obvious troll. All I can say is that if it was 2 then you obviously succeded.

    7. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are kidding, right? What, did you just get out of a 1950's bunker? They killed many thousands with Mustard and other gases, all norther Kurds who threatened rebellion and the powerbase of the Hussein government.

    8. Re:Iraq by rixkix · · Score: 1

      You almost had a complete thought there - don't forget that we lock up murderers that have already killed. Saddam Hussein has developed a pattern that he's continuing. It's more like stopping a serial killer than stopping a potential murderer.

    9. Re:Iraq by Tom · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      > If allowed to develope a nuke, he's likely to
      > use it against a civilian target. Possibly in a
      > pre-emptive strike.

      you mean, just like the USofA did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? damn, the guy really is evil!

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Saddam Husain has used weapons of mass destruction( WMDs) such as nerve gas against Iraqi kurdish civilians.

      The USA has used weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations.

      He ejected U.N. inspectors who were making sure he complied with the peace terms stating he wouldn't continue to develop WMDs including the Iraqi nuclear program.

      The USA has unilaterally abandoned the treaty with Russia controlling the number of active nuclear warheads.

      He has launched strikes on civilian populations in Israel during the Gulf War even though Israel was not part of the military coalition. He did this in the hopes invoking an Israeli response which would gain him the support of other Arab nations.

      The USA supports Israel's attack against civilian populations in Palestine. There have also been occasions (Vietnam), where the US has done the same directly

      Before deciding that the US is the "dispenser of justice" to the whole world, give a thought to these earlier actions.

      Then maybe one gets an idea of why the US is disliked around the world, and hey ... it is definitely not because they are jealous of the democracy and freedom.

    11. Re:Iraq by neocon · · Score: 0

      OK, how's this piece from the New Yorker for a start? Anyone who has any doubt that the word `evil' applies to Saddam Husseing should read this article.

    12. Re:Iraq by neocon · · Score: 0

      Sure, you could say it, but you would be lying, or repeating lies told by others.

    13. Re:Iraq by Rupert · · Score: 2

      But that wasn't the thrust of the post I was replying to. That poster was arguing that we should kill a lot of Iraqis (although presumably as few as possible) in order to stop SH from using a nuke he doesn't have yet (although undoubtedly wants, and undoubtedly would use if he had one).

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    14. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One thing you have to remember is that the chemical weapons used on the kurds where under the direction of the US government. We gave Irag those weapons and instructed him to use them on the kurds. The Kuds at the time where socialists and planning an opposition to Saddam's policies. Remember he was our friend before he was our enemy. After he used the chemical weapons on the kurds we then used it against him as well placed propoganda. Also, we knew about the invasion on Kuwait a week before he did it. We as in the public and not the US government. He revealed this to us on 20/20 in an interview with B. Walters. Then after he did invade a week later Bush stated it as a surprise. Now if he states in on TV a week before how long did the US government know about it. We knew how missles that where headed Cuba months before they even left the USSR. So, how did Saddam sneak a troop buildup on the border of Kuwait.

      Also, why was it that we stated we wanted to defend the free world and keep the world free from oppression when we wouldn't help opposition in Iraq. After we kicked him out of Kuwait many opposition groups came asking for our help and we denied them all. Kind of like how we denied Ho Chi Mihn help in defeating the french. Then what happened. He found help with from the Chinese and the USSR. Could've stopped the Vietnam before it ever happened. What a likely idea. We could've also stopped a lot of the oppression and probs with S.H. if we would've helped out the oppostition to him.

      Next time we need to check our facts and do some research before we defend with stupidity.

      See ya....

    15. Re:Iraq by MattXVI · · Score: 1

      This is a lame attempt at moral equivalence. Are you really comparing the US vs. Japan in WWII to Hussein vs. Israel (or whomever)? Please.

      --
      When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
      -Tom Jones
    16. Re:Iraq by WildBeast · · Score: 4, Funny

      War on drugs failed, now let's do war on terrorism, oh we can't get hold of Osama, let's go after Saddam.

    17. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is absolutely asinine. Everything you've said here - every single assertion - is wrong. Talk about checking your facts and doing research.. did you get this crap off Noam Chomsky's website? Or are you just a troll?

    18. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you either are a moron, a troll, or both I will try to make this as simple as possible. Japan started a war against the United States in order gain territory in the Pacific.

      1) They had invaded Manchuria and killed civilians as part of policy.

      2) They had invaded Korea also killing civilians and forcing women into sexual slavery.

      3) During the war the more often than not killed prisoners of war.

      4) They were run top down by an emporer they thought divine and the military.

      Even if the nuclear option had not been used far more lives(civilian and military on both sides) would have been lost in the invasion to topple this obviously hostile and vicious government.

      If you want to tell me that the second bomb was completely unecessary you also have to explain why they didn't surrender after the first.

      Sidenote: After I found out about the institutional sexual slavery and rape I really haven't been able to laugh at jokes about rape (tentacle or otherwise) and its prevalence in Anime.

    19. Re:Iraq by n3m6 · · Score: 1

      who can foget vietnam and orange.


    20. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you mean, just like the USofA did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? damn, the guy really is evil!



      Please explain what was pre-emptive about these. As I recall, these were used to end a war, not start one.

    21. Re:Iraq by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could have written the exact same post in 1998. Why do we have to go to war now? Because approval ratings are down and without a war going on, people might notice that Bush's fiscal policy is a complete mess.

      And why just attack Iraq? Iran and North Korea both have nuke programs. They're the Axis of Evil you know.

      -B

    22. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is that George Bush senior's negligence was almost treason?

    23. Re:Iraq by hyperizer · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Iraq was provided millions of dollars of miliary equipment from the U.S. in the '80s (to fund its war against Ayatollah Khomeini). Cheney's company helped rebuilt Iraq's oil industry after the Gulf War.

      The U.S. was convicted of war crimes due to the way it conducted the Gulf War. It's estimated that 500,000 Iraqi children have died during the U.S. embargo (even though Iraq is still America's fourth largest oil supplier).

      The situation isn't so black and white.

    24. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong about point 2. This is a fabrication by the Washington Post, which was later officially corrected by them.

      http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.htm l

    25. Re:Iraq by America+Uber+Alles · · Score: 0

      If a guy has killed many people on different occasions, wouldn't you want to stop him before he kills again?

    26. Re:Iraq by JChris · · Score: 1
      If allowed to develope a nuke, he's likely to use it against a civilian target.

      Thank goodness that has never happened.

      Oh, wait...

      It has...

      Twice...

      And the U.S. was responsible...

    27. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I think Saddam won't exactly spend a week dropping letters over the city he's about to bomb, letting them know he's coming. Somehow I don't think government is going to make everyone stay in the city. Think I'm full of crap?

    28. Re:Iraq by America+Uber+Alles · · Score: 0

      The U.S. was convicted of war crimes due to the way it conducted the Gulf War.

      Crap like that is the exact reason that Bush (rightly) pulled out from the ICC.

    29. Re:Iraq by Cally · · Score: 2

      1. Yes, the guy's a fucker. Are the US now in the business of turfing out repressive dictatorships? Cos there are a lot more closer to home than Iraq.

      2. The US forced out the head of the UN chemical weapons inspectorate because he was about to negotiate their way back into the country (which obviously wouldn't have suited the US' desire to find a pretext to bomb the crap out of them.) Oh, and did you know that the US has a unique opt-out clause -- they can deny inspections of any facility,at any time, without giving a reason.

      3. ATTACKS ON ISRAELI CIVILIANS?! Oh, the horror. What about the US killing >5000 civilians in Afghanistan? Guess you'd better start bombing yourselves then.

      And he might have nukes... so what? So do India and Pakistan, both countries seem to be prepared to use them, and they're coming VERY close to war right now. You do know about that, right? Guess that must be why Bush is threatening to bomb Karachi ... NOT

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    30. Re:Iraq by hyperizer · · Score: 1

      Crap like that is the exact reason that Bush (rightly) pulled out from the ICC.

      So as far as you're concerned killing fleeing civilians and burying alive soldiers (without even giving them the chance to surrender) is perfectly acceptable? We did the very things we accuse Hussein of doing.

    31. Re:Iraq by geekoid · · Score: 2

      you relize that he knows we would nuke him back?
      actually we would probably just blow up the damn and watch 8 feet of water wash throught bagdad.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Iraq by America+Uber+Alles · · Score: 0

      killing fleeing civilians
      So the Iraqi military are civilians?

      burying alive soldiers (without even giving them the chance to surrender)
      You're right. They should have had the Iraqi military fill out and sign release forms giving up the right to surrender. Oh, and don't forget to get them notarized!

      We did the very things we accuse Hussein of doing.
      You seem to be having some trouble with the words and .

    33. Re:Iraq by cmorriss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why do we have to go to war now? Because approval ratings are down...

      Approval ratings for Bush could scarcely be higher. According to this poll, currently 77% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing while 15% do not. I don't see his approval ratings rising at all if we attack Iraq since it is known to be a controversial move. Maybe he's pushing it because (gasp!) he believes it would be the right thing to do.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    34. Re:Iraq by InfinityEdge · · Score: 1

      1) Saddam Husain has used weapons of mass destruction( WMDs) such as nerve gas against Iraqi kurdish civilians.

      Um, no. The U.N., though they really tried hard, couldn't find any evidence that Saddam Hussain ever gassed the kurds. This claim is as factual as Dennis and Eric being members of the trenchcoat mafia.

      2) He ejected U.N. inspectors who were making sure he complied with the peace terms stating he wouldn't continue to develop WMDs including the Iraqi nuclear program.

      Um, actually they have been more than complient with U.N. inspectors. The inspectors left because they couldn't find anything. Since the orginal yahoo link is now DOA I'll include the article in a comment to this comment.

      3) He has launched strikes on civilian populations in Israel during the Gulf War even though Israel was not part of the military coalition. He did this in the hopes invoking an Israeli response which would gain him the support of other Arab nations.

      And is this somehow worse than the United States using depleated Uranium that causes horrible birth defect to the most innocent or starving everyone through sanctions?

      And as a parting thought take a look at Seven Washington Lies about Iraq.

      I call FUD

    35. Re:Iraq by JChris · · Score: 1
      The very site you reference indicates that the leaflets were dropped after the Hiroshima attack. So, yes, you are full of crap. :-)

      Even if that were otherwise, what do you think the U.S. response would be if Iraq issued a warning of an impending nuclear attack? The U.S. govt. would undoubtly point to the warning as yet more "evidence" of Saddam's "madness".
      (And G. W. Bush's campaign staff would have a party and take the rest of the day off.)

    36. Re:Iraq by InfinityEdge · · Score: 1

      Copyright 2002 Agence France Presse
      Agence France Presse
      January 25, 2002 Friday

      SECTION: International News

      LENGTH: 320 words

      HEADLINE: Baghdad dismisses US charge of violating NPT

      DATELINE: BAGHDAD, Jan 25

      BODY:
      Iraq accused the United States on Friday of adopting a policy of double standards over armaments, rejecting Washington's claim that Baghdad has violated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
      The latest US allegation "confirms our grievances about (Washington's) selectivity and double standards," said Samir Khayri, Iraq's representative at the United Nations in Geneva, quoted by the official INA news agency. Khayri was reacting to remarks by US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton, who accused Iraq and North Korea on Thursday of violating the NPT.
      "Countries such as North Korea and Iraq must cease their violations of the NPT and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to do its work," Bolton told the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.
      "Further, I caution those who think that they can pursue nuclear weapons without detection: the United States and its allies will prove you wrong," he said.
      "The US representative accused Iraq ... but did not refer to the Zionist entity (Israel), whose nuclear arsenal threatens security and stability in the Middle East," Khayri retorted.
      "Why doesn't the United States ask (Israel) to adhere to the NPT and open its nuclear installations to international inspection?" he asked.
      Iraq, on the other hand, has opened its installations to the IAEA, Khayri said.
      An IAEA delegation is expected in Baghdad, which joined the NPT in 1972, later on Friday on a routine inspection mission.
      The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was renewed indefinitely in 1995, establishes five recognized nuclear weapons powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- and restricts other countries to the civilian development of nuclear energy.
      It does not include India and Pakistan, which have since declared their nuclear weapons capability, or Israel, which is strongly suspected of having nuclear arms.

      LOAD-DATE: January 27, 2002

    37. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And why just attack Iraq? Iran and North Korea both have nuke programs. They're the Axis of Evil you know.

      Who's to say we won't, in due course, take action against Iran and North Korea? Bush is just starting off with the low-hanging fruit.

    38. Re:Iraq by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Insightful
      War on drugs failed, now let's do war on terrorism, oh we can't get hold of Osama, let's go after Saddam.

      Oh, Saddam wants to stop selling us oil, well let's kill the democratically elected Venezualan President and shut down OPEC.

    39. Re:Iraq by coding_ape · · Score: 1
      So I suppose two wrongs make a right, then? They killed prisoners of war, which justifies us firebombing an entire city. Great logic, that.

      Moreover, the Soviet offensive into Manchuria was the main reason for the end of Japanese resistance, according to Japanese records. The atom bombs contributed, but if wasting entire cities would have won the war, then Japan would have surrendered after Yokohama, Tokyo, etc. were razed.

    40. Re:Iraq by Miksa · · Score: 0
      From the title

      Translations of Two Leaflets Dropped on Japanese Cities Shortly after the First Atomic Bomb was Dropped
      August 6, 1945


      Notice the "shortly after"
      --

      Begging for modpoints since '03
    41. Re:Iraq by hyperizer · · Score: 1

      So the Iraqi military are civilians?

      You need to do some more research. There were Time and Newsweek articles about fleeing civilians being killed on the "Highway of Death."

      According to a Time magazine article March 18, 1991, cars, buses and trucks full of Palestinian and Iraqi refugees (families and all their possessions) were also hit.

      I've done a bit of research in this area.

    42. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good grief. So the US can go to war with Iraq, in which case it gets tried in absentia and convicted of war crimes by some kangaroo court. Or the US can impose sanctions and get blamed for the deaths of people living under a crazed dictator who demands to trade "Oil for Nukes", not "Oil for Food". I suppose you would say we could also lift the sanctions and let Mr. Hussein go on his merry way. Yeah, Kuwait probably sated his appetite for conquest. Thank you Neville Chamberlain...

    43. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know what really caused the Japanese to capitulate, and I don't think you can hold the US gov't responsible for reading (or failing to read) the minds of Japan's wartime leadership. You have to judge America's actions on the basis of what its leaders knew at the time. And -- whether or not it succeeded in doing so -- the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was intended to bring the war to an early close; thereby saving hundreds of thousands of American lives, and likely millions of Japanese. In that context, it was a reasonable and morally justified decision.

    44. Re:Iraq by nlh · · Score: 2

      3. ATTACKS ON ISRAELI CIVILIANS?! Oh, the horror. What about the US killing >5000 civilians in Afghanistan? Guess you'd better start bombing yourselves then.

      Perhaps you didn't follow what's been happening on the planet for the past few months. Saddam bombed the Israelis -- WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE CONFLICT -- for the sole reason of provoking anger.

      The US bombed the hell out of Afghanistan because the ruling regime was harboring terrorists who attacked our country. Also, if you recall, we didn't start bombing them until well after they repeatedly told us they would not hand over Osama.

      If you'd like to complain about the loss of civilian life, perhaps you should register that complaint with the Taliban.

      Saddam Hussein needs to be taken out and you know it.

      --noah

    45. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your poll sucks. Not because its current ranking is flawed, but because it does not take into account the over 20% slide that Bush has endured. Take a look at http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm and the perspective changes a bit.

      He was the most popular president in the history of the US since Gallop started taking the poll during FDR. That point was shortly after the attacks of September 11th. Now some will point out that prior to that day and the subsequent events his approval rating was in the fifty percentile margin. Americans rally around the president when their country is at war. There's still a good 14 months till we see the massive build up for 2004 federal elections. Boots on the ground in Iraq, probably ten months tops. Are the two related, probably not. What is related is that Bush Sr. was almost assasinated by an Iraq financed hit. If it was any other president, you can be sure Bush would go for it. Since it was his father, doubly so.

    46. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking idiot!! Iraqi civilians fleeing from KUWAIT?!?!?!? Show me a single photo taken from the alleged "Hiway of Death" of a woman or child's corpse. Just one will do. Can't? Why does that not surprise me. The facts are that those soldiers on the road did not surrender. They did not leave their weapons behind, but were retreating with their weapons. As such, they were still combantants. Considering their cowardice in attacking a small, unprepared neighbor to steal their oil, I think they got better than they deserved.

      I noticed your "tribunal" was not sanctioned by any international body, did not allow the "accused" to present evidence in their defense, and performed their wonderful work in one day in front of an audience. This reminds me of the mock MS trial some ABM'ers dreamed up, with Lewis A Mettler (of LAME fame) presiding. And where are their charges against Iraq for launching missile attacks on the civilian population of nation not involved in the hostilities in any way? Or what about the environmental terrorism carried out by the Iraqis? Why no censure for those acts? Can you say "Kangaroo court?" You are a poster child for PC liberal "education" run amuck, and your flimsy rationale for your mindset shows how easily your small mind has been manipulated with hate and loathing of all those who tower over you; morally, financially, physically, and mentally. Go get a job. I'm sure your Mommy is tired of you hanging around. I know I am.

    47. Re:Iraq by nlh · · Score: 2

      This garbage is laughable. Be gone with your trolling and your psychopathic made-up facts.

      If I had a dime for every single allegation of "The US provided X weapons for Y dictator" ...

      nlh

    48. Re:Iraq by InfinityEdge · · Score: 1

      Um, wrong.

      The Taliban offered to extradite OBL to a third country to stand trial for 9-11. The US rejected that in place of bombing the fuck out of Afgan civilians and "misplacing" both OBL and all his closest aids. Joy.

      Oh and don't forget that the administration had informed the Taliban as well as German, and Russian intelligence during the summer of '01 that they were going to attack Afganistan during mid-October. This is a confirmed fact. Guess what, the U.S. bombed Afganistan right on time.

      Show me one shard of evidence that Afganistan or Afgans had anything at all to do with what happened on Sept. 11.

    49. Re:Iraq by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Why the hell has this been modded insightful?
      Good god, if this isn't O/T, then what is?

      --
      No Comment.
    50. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like that fake rich guy from the Big Lebowski. LOL...

    51. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civilians dying in a war! Oh the humanity!
      It happens. Civilians have died in every war, whether it was done on purpose (Hiroshima, May-lai) or done by accident (Kosovo, Afghanistan).

      Civilians dying in a war is NOTHING new. War is horrible - it's supposed to be.

    52. Re:Iraq by saviorsloth · · Score: 1

      you care to take a guess where he got most of his money and weapons? i'll give you a hint. it starts with united states of, and ends with america.
      why? because then we hated iran (that whole hostage thingy had us a bit peeved still) and they were at war with iran. once again, america's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea that led us to give mujahadin in afghanistan millions of dollars of equipment, including stinger missle launchers to fight the soviets. many of these mujahadin later became the taliban. d'oh.

    53. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      counter points:

      1) Saddam Husain has used weapons of mass destruction( WMDs) such as nerve gas against Iraqi kurdish civilians.

      "U.S. stealth fighter-bombers obliterated the Amiriya bomb shelter in Baghdad on February 13, killing 600-1,000 civilians. White House officials and some military briefers in Washington scrambled either to condemn Hussein for placing civilians 'in harm's way'..." Harms way being a bomb shelter? Where else should they have gone as we bombed them?

      "5,000-- 15,000 Iraqi civilians died during the war, and 4,000-6,000 civilians died ... The bitter reality is that the numbers of civilians who die in the war's broadening wake will soon dwarf the number of Iraqis, Kurds, and other refugees who died in the civil strife after March 1"

      2) He ejected U.N. inspectors who were making sure he complied with the peace terms stating he wouldn't continue to develop WMDs including the Iraqi nuclear program.

      "UNITED NATIONS, Feb 3 (IPS) - The United States has quietly struck out the names of Cuban and Iranian nationals from a U.N. arms inspection team due to probe U.S. chemical weapons facilities."
      ...
      "Ironically, the U.S. is exercising the same right it refuses to concede to the Iraqis,'' an Asian diplomat told IPS, ''The United States may have the right to do so under the existing Convention, but it is interesting to note that Iraq is virtually fighting for the same principle.

      This is power. They must lie and cheat and steal to keep it. Our powerful leaders are little different then their powerful leaders.

      3) He has launched strikes on civilian populations in Israel during the Gulf War even though Israel was not part of the military coalition. He did this in the hopes invoking an Israeli response which would gain him the support of other Arab nations.

      Before you start getting all high and might about other countries killing civilians I have two words for you to consider - Hiroshima - and - Nagasaki. and before you tell me that it was done to end the war in the pacific:

      "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
      - War Department in 1944; United States Strategic Bombing Survey

      Wars are dirty. There is no honor or glory in them. Solders die protecting the rich and powerful not me, the citizen. because of WWII people seem to think that the military is beyond reproach. That it saved us from a dictator. Did it?

      You should know that the US is not above any of the dirty tricks employeed by other nations now and historicly. We are a mean bunch of bastards and our military is impressive. We have more to fear from our own then we do from any outside force.

    54. Re:Iraq by X.25 · · Score: 1

      1) Saddam Husain has used weapons of mass destruction( WMDs) such as nerve gas against Iraqi kurdish civilians.

      No, he didn't. You would know that, if you bothered to check very straightforward answers from generals, not check the CNN.

      2) He ejected U.N. inspectors who were making sure he complied with the peace terms stating he wouldn't continue to develop WMDs including the Iraqi nuclear program.

      If you bothered to check, you would notice that he didn't eject UN inspectors, but few individuals who were caught planting radio transmitters/interceptors in sensitive areas. Whole team later decided to withdraw from Iraq. What's even more funny is that fact that all the details were VERY WELL explain by the leader of that mission, who happens to be an American. But you wouldn't know that, of course.

      3) He has launched strikes on civilian populations in Israel during the Gulf War even though Israel was not part of the military coalition. He did this in the hopes invoking an Israeli response which would gain him the support of other Arab nations.

      Right. The twat also invaded Kuwait, which was much worse offense than launching 'strikes' (one only got through). But of course, what is invasion of Kuwait comparing to SCUD in Israel? First he should be hanging because of what he's done in war with Iran, then for Kuwait, and last for the SCUD. But of course, as a 'humanitarian', you wouldn't care about Kuwait people.

      If allowed to develope a nuke, he's likely to use it against a civilian target. Possibly in a pre-emptive strike.

      You consider yourself to be 'knowledgeable'? You have absolutelly no clue, my boy...

    55. Re:Iraq by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      Intentionally blowing up dams is a violation of the rules of war.

    56. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humm... Approval ratings are very high, higher then with our previous presedient.... And I thought congress was in charge of budget(demcrate majority)... Wow, you posted something total incorrect!
      -James

    57. Re:Iraq by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      Since when is Congress controlled by the Democrats? The Senate is now controlled by the Democratic party, but all budget-related bills must, by law, originate in the House of Representatives, which is still under the control of the Republicans. Wow, you posted something totally incorrect!

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    58. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

    59. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but can you provide examples of these? When did the US use WMD on civillians?

    60. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    61. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is Bush's fiscal policy a total mess? The US economy is coming back into line after the lightest and easiest cyclical recessions ever. Yes, the tech sector is still a mess. But that's because it was allowed to boom in a stupidly unrealistc way through 2001. And Bush's approval ratings are phenomenal - they're only down on post 9/11 figures. Something, let me assure you, it gives me very little pleasure to post.

    62. Re:Iraq by Tom · · Score: 2

      Yes, I'm comparing them. Because the comparison is so simple: Killing people isn't the right thing to do. Period.

      If you want to feel morally superior to someone else, start by acting differently.

      But hey, the last war made a great economic plus for the US (you fought, we europeans paid). Maybe starting a new one is a good way to end the recession.

      In case you didn't pay attention to what's NOT written in the history books: The vast majority of wars - and I say that just to avoid having said "all" and someone can point out the single exception - is started more for national/internal than for international/external reasons. That is doubly true for the USofA after WW2.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    63. Re:Iraq by Tom · · Score: 2

      let's see...

      1) The US firebombed Tokio in Japan and Dresden in Germany (and a bunch of other cities), knowing fully well that their targets were civilian and that the damage to the war industry was at best negligable.
      Killing civilians has been part of warfare for a very, very long time.

      2) There are quite a few documents about US attrocities during WW2 here in europe. Not every half-american kid born shortly after the war was a love-child.
      Now as to the scale of such operations - most of them are a product of propaganda. Read up on Yugoslavia. There were quite a few news articles about organized rape, genocide, etc. - it didn't make the news that when UN inspectors arrived, all of the big headlines evaporated.

      3) During? How benign. Thousands, and I'm speaking many thousands, of german POWs didn't return from russia. Several thousands died in US prison camps at the rheine. And that was after the war was over.

      4) So? Just because you don't like their culture means they are a somewhat inferior type of human beings? I thought that them holding the same views about the koreans should've made your list of "why japs are evil", but seing that you hold similiar views, I'm not surprised.

      Finally, why did the US throw the bomb even though effectively wasting a couple cities didn't help and there was no reason to believe razing a few more would make any difference?
      Here's my guess: a) they wanted to give this cool new toy a test run, and b) they couldn't stand russia getting the credit for ending WW2, and the nukes would be sure to be given ample space in the history books.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    64. Re:Iraq by Tom · · Score: 2

      which was a trap laid by FDR, much like the germans started the war by "shooting back".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    65. Re:Iraq by Tom · · Score: 2

      it pre-empted an invasion, didn't it?

      actually, it didn't, the russians were already steamrolling all over the japanese forces on the mainland and Japan would've been a communist colony long before the US got there.

      so, point granted, it wasn't pre-emptive, just downright powermongering evil.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    66. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dresden was an entirly English job you twit, it was revenge for the Germans turning Coventry into a pile of rubble.

    67. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powermongering? Like that's something Europe would never do. Seriously name one nation in Europe that hasn't tried to take over the world, commited genocide, or impose its culture over another people.

    68. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriouly saying that the Germans were an innocent victims in WWII?????? There would be about 6 million people who'd beg to differ if they weren't systematically murdered by a nation of hatemongers.

    69. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great beat down AC.

    70. Re:Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, you have the most appropriate domain for your e-mail.

    71. Re:Iraq by Tom · · Score: 2

      let's see... Ireland, Finland(1), Norway, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Belgium, Poland... if you limit things to, say, the past 250 years the list grows a little.

      (1) unless you count Linux. :-)

      disclaimer: I'm not a history buff, I may be wrong in one or two of the examples.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    72. Re:Iraq by Tom · · Score: 2

      no, you idiot. I'm saying the US was no innocent victim in Pearl Harbour.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  51. Re:"Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings Hig by tobe · · Score: 1

    Thick little puppy, aren't *you* ?

  52. Sim Army by pubjames · · Score: 2
    So is Sim Army going to contain:

    1) Running around and around for hours.
    2) Getting bored playing cards.
    3) Spending hours cleaning your kit.
    4) Getting shouted at and humiliated by someone you hate.
    5) Sitting on your bunk, waiting.
    6) Cleaning your kit again.
    7) Going in to town on Saturday night and getting completely drunk and throwing up
    8) Letching at women and the desperate machismo of oversexed young men who don't know how to communicate with the opposite sex.
    9) Institionalized racism and sexism.
    10) Cleaning your kit again.
    12) Unquestioningly following dumb orders.
    13) Being a guiniepig for experimental drugs with horrible side effects.
    <sarcasm>
    Or is it going to be all fast action shooting and strategic planning, just like real life in the army?
    </sarcasm>
  53. Entertainment by Massacrifice · · Score: 1

    It was only a matter of time before this happenned. The US military has been using the entertainment industry for so long, now that games are bigger than movies, they have to follow suit. That's where the kids are, and they need fresh meat to grind.

    --
    -- Home is where you eat your heart out.
  54. Think about it by Dalaram · · Score: 1

    You seem to misunderstand the point of the game. Think about how many army commercials you have seen. The army is starting to get smart as to what my generation is looking for in the military. They are playing music we listen to in the commercials. They are creating products directly to us. As a marketing strategy, this is briiliant. Th best way to get people interested in your company/product is to cater to the subscriber/consumer

    --
    all my .sig are suck
    1. Re:Think about it by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      Oh, no, we all understand the point of the game. We're all aware that it's just an interactive commercial for the military. What you seem to misunderstand is that's what we're making fun of.

  55. America's Army is by the MOVES Institute by Professor · · Score: 5, Informative

    The America's Army videogame suite, Operations and Soldiers, were built completely by the MOVES Institute, not by Epic Games. We licensed the Epic Games engine for Operations. For more information on the games and imagery from E3, see http://movesinstitute.org

    Michael Zyda

  56. The action based one done using Unreal Tournament. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was according to the article in Stars and Strips newspaper.

  57. The army really has too much money... by miklernout · · Score: 1

    They state, keeping a straigth face, that when they recruite 300 youngsters with this campaign it will be succesfull.

    Small calculation: 7.5 million $ for a result of 300: that's 25.000 $ a head !!

    They should hire me as a HR consultant: i would do it like the in the old times, cheap and efficient: pick up drunks in bars and make them sign in exchange for not getting kicked to death... :-)

    --
    ----
    --
    [insert witty one-liner here for your own pleasure]
  58. Sure to succeed by sg3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This idea to use games to convince impressionable kids to join the army is a good one.

    Looking around, all the people of my generation have one of a few careers:

    * Alien-attacker, particularly where you have three bases to hide behind
    * Ever-hungry giant mouth eating never-ending supply of pellets
    * Race car driver on tracks with a lot of popup
    * Professional princess rescuer, particularly when you can jump on a lot of mushrooms
    * Cubical worker

    That last one is the least suprising. I remember as a kid, me and my friends would never stop playing "Cubical Worker!" It was the most popular game in America at the time, which is why everyone seems to have grown up to do it for a living.

    > The Army expects by September to spent about $7.5 million on the program

    Whew! I'm glad we're spending $7.5 million on this project. With this new Republican leadership manning the purse strings, we've got so much money, I was worried there was no way we'd be able to spend it all. This is a great example of how to get rid of it.

    What was that? A $100 billion dollar deficit ?

    Wait... which party was for big government and likes to waste money?

    --
    Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    1. Re:Sure to succeed by Storm+Damage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The AP article quoted a high-level Army recruitment officer saying that if they get 300 recruits out of this campaign, it will pay for itself.

      That means the Army spends $25k in marketing and advertising for *each* recruit they get.

      I wonder what would happen to enlistment if they gave up the high-profile dramatic ads in lieu of a much more simple campaign, modestly marketed in 5-10 second spots and in simple type in newspapers, magazines, and high-school posters:

      "Join the Army. $20,000 signing bonus. Paid cash"

    2. Re:Sure to succeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they paid it in cash, they would have lots of people with no skills or motivation signing up. from talking to recruiters I know, enlisting kids with no hgh school degree or other training is easy. the real money is spent on enlisting kids headed to college. for each college bound recruit the army spends close to $40k for things like tuition and living expenses.

      do you really think getting rid of the GI bill and handing out greenback will get you enough people withthe mental skills to navigate a submarine? i doubt it.

    3. Re:Sure to succeed by brad3378 · · Score: 1

      > The Army expects by September to spent about $7.5 million on the program

      With all due respect,
      Advertising is very expensive.

      I mean, Geez - $7.5 Million would buy what?... two or three superbowl slots? For a little perspective, With the population of the United States at around 300 Million, This works out to about 2 1/2 cents per citizen. IMHO, a worthwhile investment to recruit reliable people to operate Multimillion dollar equipment like an $8.1 Million Cargo Plane. or billion dollar aircraft carrier. Do you want the best people you can find? Or do you want to have people that weren't even accepted into college?

      Also, Consider the cost to exposure_time ratio. Instead of viewing a 30 second commercial, potential canidates will likely be spending HOURS and HOURS of time on their computers. I don't know about you, but I don't usually decide my future upon a 30 second commercial (Although I love the one with the Godsmack tune ;-)

      It is a well known fact that the military has been having difficulty recruiting people in recent years. They're doing all they can to fill the empty spots, and they're being very creative about it. Heck, It looks like they're even teaming up with VH1 to start a show called Miltary Diaries (or something like that).

      The point here is to create a little bit of excitement about joining the military. If you get enough people talking about it, many will start asking questions and talk with their recruiter. Yes, The military still wants Athleticly gifted recruits, but the new military is evolving into a thinking man's war - Not the brute force approach we've come to expect from some 3rd world country.

      Lastly, Don't make this a political issue.
      (off the Record, I did not vote for Clinton or Bush. ) Your $100 Billion dollar deficit figures are misleading. What makes you think that republicans spend more money than democratcs would have? You convieniently neglected to mention President Clinton's $288 Billion Military Spending. " Yes, Virginia! - Democrats like to spend money too! - And this was well before Buzzwords like Terrorism and economic recession gained recent popularity. Give these guys some credit. I think it is an excellent tool to increase recruiting numbers in an overweight slacker society - Although we may need to wait a few years and see the numbers to see who wins this argument.

      --

    4. Re:Sure to succeed by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      On the record, Clinton did not run in this last election.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  59. Reference quipping at it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. We've seen the movie, this is slashdot.
    2. Your connection between this 1980's movie and a free video game as recruitment tools is tritely contrived and obtuse in general.
    3. While I am insulting you, you should take this as an opportunity to examine why people might consider you're trite. (Look it up if you need to, even if you *think* you know the definition).
    4. The reason I am insulting you is so I can hone in on my harse criticism skills which is contingent on my abilities to identify fallicies and thier roots and to expose the fallicy for the crap thinking it is... The fact I decided to berate you shows how great of a quipper I am! I've obviously ignored all the rules which suggest brevity and gone for the neverending Monty Pythoneque type verbal trashing followed by a bunch of silly-talk.
    5. Really, I am as stoic/objective as prior rational suggests

    Have a Great Day!!!

    I wish I was a troll

    1. Re:Reference quipping at it best... by peter303 · · Score: 2

      Troll maybe. Coward yes. No self-respecting person would put their name to such drivel.

  60. Your Tax Money At Work!! by FortKnox · · Score: 2

    First, I originally heard that the only way Epic is tied to this game is by selling the Unreal Engine to the US Military.

    Second, the US Army needs to take a lesson from my father, when he taught me this when I was 16. When you budget your money, you get out a piece of paper and make two columns. Mark the first "NEEDS", the other "WANTS."
    Where do you think the game will go?

    Also, how can they dare compete in an industry where tried-by-fire veteran game designers can fail miserably (ie - Diakatana)??

    Mark this one down as the year's dumbest use of money... (Don't get me wrong, I'm a big gamer, I just think the US Military could use the money elsewhere).

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Your Tax Money At Work!! by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Quick question: what's the US army's current recruitment budget (i.e. money for advertising etc. for recruits). Then look at this is a part of that budget, and ask whether it's worth it.
      Certainly there's a lot worse one can do with $7.5m so far as recruitment advertising goes.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    2. Re:Your Tax Money At Work!! by fwr · · Score: 2

      I would think that traditional methods of advertizing, such as TV commercials, are quite more expensive than making this game (I heard $7.5M somewhere). So, if you have your stack of cash and you are putting different advertizing methods into those two columns AND you took into account the return on investment you believe you will likely get, I'd think that these games would go in the NEEDS column and not the WANTS. In the WANTS column I could see nightly TV commercials on every cable channel playing concurrently (so that no matter what channel you turn to you can see the commercial), but I think that would be the "year's dumbest use of money."

    3. Re:Your Tax Money At Work!! by SEE · · Score: 2

      Hmm. The U.S. Army needs more recruits, having missed its recruitment goals for several years now, and the game is a tool to get recruits.

      Whether it will be an effective recruiting tool, of course, is an open question. But it is definintely an attempt to fill a NEED, not a want.

  61. "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High" by deanj · · Score: 1

    "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High"

    Ah, no. That should be:

    "Sim Invading Iraq So The Psychopath Doesn't Eventually Build Nuclear Weapons"

    dork.

  62. Re:"Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings Hig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about Sim Murder-by-any-other-name-is-still-fucking-murder?

    That's right, starving those children and blowing up that hospital sure showed the madman in the palace, didn't it?

  63. You speak a very eloquent truth. by gaudior · · Score: 2, Troll
    The fact is, nearly all of the tech-elite teens and twenty-somethings have a deep 'loathing' of the military. They inherited it from :

    • Their Hippie parents
    • The others of there parent's generation who were shattered by their experience in Vietnam.
    • The fact they they have been given everything, without struggle.
    1. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      and then there are those of us who hate the military cause they stripped my father of any pride and strength he had left, and then didn't even acknowledge his death....yeah go US!

    2. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by fwr · · Score: 2

      Hmm, may be that explains why I'm quite different than the usual crowd on Slashdot, at least when it comes to the military and politics.

      * My parents are going on 70, and are certainly not hippies
      * My Dad served in the Navy for 23 years, plus one of my five brothers, and one of my three sisters. None had shattering experiences.
      * Being one of nine children, I wasn't given anything and earned everything I now have, which is probably quite more than the "tech-elite teens and twenty-somethings" that were given everything.

    3. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by radish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then of course there are those of us who don't hate the _existance_ of a military, but do hate it's self perpetuating nature and do hate it's use to kill innocents in countries far away simply to boost the ratings of a brain-dead president. If I thought any of the recent operations would actually do anything to protect the interests of the US population (or any other part of the West, as I'm not american) then maybe I'd support them, but history will show them to be little short of expensive, pointless, wastes of time and lives.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by DarkZero · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget number 4: War movies don't look like Captain America taking on the Nazi forces with his bar hands any more. They more like the real thing. The real thing that leaves people with nightmares, flashbacks, and deep psychological scarring.

      Oh, and possibly number 5: First Person Shooters. Once you've seen yourself go down in two seconds among a hail of enemy fire, you start to laugh at the idea of entering a similar situation in real life, only with one hit point instead of one hundred.

    5. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by Anarchofascist · · Score: 2

      ... those of us who don't hate the _existance_ of a military, but do hate it's self perpetuating nature and do hate it's use to kill innocents in countries far away ...

      I have a very simple moral pendulum which I use (and freely license you to use) to judge the rightness and wrongness of faraway wars.

      Soldiers killing civilians - always bad.
      Soldiers killing soldiers - excellent! Always good to see fewer professional killers in the world.

      --
      Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    6. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by zulux · · Score: 2

      If I thought any of the recent operations would actually do anything to protect the interests of the US population

      Are you really that selfish? Maby the "War on Terrorism" won't help protect me or my frinds, but it has removed the Taliban from power with a much lower civilian death count (~5000) than a traditional cival war.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    7. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by rark · · Score: 2

      What does your pendulum say when the soldiers being killed are fourteen year old (or younger) boys pressed into service or drafted (or otherwise not *choosing* to be in the military)?

    8. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      You forgot one final reason:

      Cowardice

      A lot of people justify their cowardice with namby-pamby rationalizations to make their guilt go away. "Oh, our President's on a publicity trip", or "We have no reason being there", "Military people are just a bunch of murderers"

      Heaven forfend people be forced to replace their Birkenstocks with jungle boots, or eat MREs instead of tofu. It boils down to the fact that they haven't the stones to consider their own safety and comfort secondary to someone else's. Fortunately for them, there are people who do.

    9. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      history will show them to be little short of expensive, pointless, wastes of time and lives.


      Tell that to the Afgan civilian population, who would still be under a brutal, oppressive government were it not for the actions of a brain-dead president.

    10. Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      Are you talking about Clinton or Bush? Clinton's policy of OOTW (Operations Other Than War) got our soldiers killed handing out food, and doing police duty - items that can arguably classified as NOT IN OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE.

      Bush is using the military in a very focused manner (as opposed to committing the entire force structure) to root out terrorists in a now-friendly country (Afghanistan). Terrorists, may I remind you, who in one attack, killed 4000+ civilians in a major US city, some of whom were foreign nationals. Of course, I'm an American citizen, so maybe my viewpoint is a little biased...

      Your country has a military, doesn't it? What does it do to justify it's existence?

  64. Games ideas. by aaron_33 · · Score: 1

    So hopefully extra bonus points to killing allies. And the army can release enemy skins, depending on who they're bombing at the moment. wicked. Free download of the 'afganistan' map. Then you could get lovely cut scenes at the end of each level; 'Well done solider! You've helped democracy!'. Scumbag terrorist killed: 400 Democracy points gained: 23 Allies killed: 103 etc, etc. Alot of clever countries have used cartoons / games for propagada sucessfully before. Kudos America.

  65. Re:"Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings Hig by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 2

    Having a clue-free day, are we?

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  66. Should have seen this coming... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    *SMACK*
    *SMACK*

    And for good measure,

    *SMACK*

  67. operation flashpoint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seemed pretty realistic, no railguns, megahealth, etc... had to work with your teammates to get the mission accomplished...

  68. Notice this? by Cheezric · · Score: 1

    Did you happen to notice on the cd order page that at the bottom it says they will only send it if your between the ages of 13 and 34? Once you sign up you will never get rid of the army following you. Something to think about. *cough*bigbrother*cough*.

    (PS All the 80's movies references seem pretty accurate. I think it's very much like The Last Starfighter.)

    -Eric
    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
    -Albert Einstein

  69. Seriously, though.... by SPYvSPY · · Score: 2

    ...here's an American thanking you for your hard work on my behalf. Cheers (and here's to a world where everyone pulls his own weight and doesn't bitch about it).

  70. Submarine Sim by bubblegoose · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here is the new Sim being designed by the Navy to simulate Sub duty:
    HOW TO SIMULATE SUBMARINE LIFE AT HOME
    Surround yourself with a few people you don't like. Close all windows and doors tightly, close curtains. Seal any openings to the outside world with a proper vault. Unplug all radios and TV sets to cut yourself off completely from news, football games, Saturday Night Live, the Muppet Show, etc.

    Hourly monitor all operating home appliances, if not in use, log as secured. If using the bathroom, do not flush toilet for first two days to simulate smell of blowing sanitaries and venting inboard. Then flush daily.

    Wear only approved FBM coveralls, or proper Navy uniforms. No hats, special T-shirts, etc. Cut your hair once a week ensuring that you make it look like hell. Work 18-hour day intervals to ensure your body really gets confused. Listen to the same cassette over and over until you can't stand it anymore, and then put in one that you can't even listen to without acute nausea setting in. Set your alarm to go off just as you fall asleep, with alarm set at loud, or buy a special alarm clock with various settings, (i.e., "Man Battle Stations, Fire, Flooding in the Basement").

    Prepare food with a blindfold on to simulate what real submarine cooks do. Then take the blindfold off and try to get your dog to eat it. Then break out a can of tuna and/or peanut butter.

    Cut your bed in half, and enclose all but one side using the dimensions of a small casket as a reference. When not in bed, make up blankets properly so no one will see or care.

    Periodically, for want of excitement, open main power breaker and run around yelling, "Reactor Scram", until you are sweating profusely, then restore power. Buy yourself a snorkel and mask, and again, periodically, just for want of nothing else to do, put it on and pretend you're in a smoke filled room with no way out. For added variety, hook up the garden hose and pressurize it.

    To enable yourself to handle anything, constantly study wiring diagrams and operating instructions for various home appliances (stove, refrigerator, can opener). For no reason at all, at specified intervals (monthly, weekly, etc.) tear one item apart, just in case it was going to break down.

    Paint everything around you gray (Navy FSN gray, no substitutes) or off-white. To be sure you are living in a clean and happy environment, every Friday, set alarm on loud for a short but hated drill sound, then get up and manned with only a bucket and sponge and greeny, clean one area over and over, even if it was already spotless. Then make out a discrepancy list.

    Once a day, after normal programming hours, plug in TV and watch one movie being careful that it is (a) at least five years old, (b) made long enough prior to showing to be sure that you've seen it at least once before, or (c) be so bad you have to install a seatbelt in your chair to keep you there until it is over.

    Since no doctor will be available, stockpile Band-Aids, aspirin, and Actifed as these are proven cure-alls. Practice if necessary on your dog (surgery, dentistry, or death).

    When commencing this test simulation, lock your family, friends, and anything that means anything to you outside. Tests will run for at least two months with no end in sight.

    --
    I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
    1. Re:Submarine Sim by jea6 · · Score: 1

      You are gifted. I'd mod ya up if I could.

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
  71. The Marines used DOOM for this a while back by qurob · · Score: 1


    1997, anyone?

    Not Space Marine Doom

  72. Funny? by SPYvSPY · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's frightening that people think this is funny. Not only are you pissing all over the dead Canadians' graves, but you're also taking a high moral ground that I doubt you can defend. When's the last time you did anything perfectly? Poster and mods: Get some perspective.

    1. Re:Funny? by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Just because it's serious and tragic doesn't mean that it can't, from a surreal viewpoint, be funny.

      Oh, and when I mess up, my company loses money. When people's lives are at stake you need to think a little harder about why those Al-Qaeda terrorists have maple leaves on their packs.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    2. Re:Funny? by kubrick · · Score: 2

      When's the last time you did anything perfectly?

      Today. And besides, the last time I fucked up badly, people didn't die because of it.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    3. Re:Funny? by fwr · · Score: 2

      A little more info on the maple leaf pack toting Al-Qaeda terrorists please?

    4. Re:Funny? by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Presumably it was AQ that the US thought they were bombing?

      <rant>
      Why formkeys? What kind of stupid category is that?
      </rant>

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    5. Re:Funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What maple leaves?

      The only non-Canadian people I've heard accused of putting maple leaves on their backpacks are American tourists.

  73. Re:Is this news or editorial? - BAH its funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry but that "sim invading iraq" was just so damn funny i almost fell outta my chair.

    Hey, if I wanted CNN i would go to CNN. I say gimme a bunch of smart ass anti establishment jokes any day.

  74. Screenshots by amembrane · · Score: 2, Informative
    27 screenshots are here

    That new Unreal engine is just amazing, I can't wait to see all the modded games people make with it.

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  75. Too Violent for the youngins' ?? by CHUD-Wretch · · Score: 1

    Not when it's OUR brand of violence!
    (which is now considered ART, BTW)

    I wonder how many parents will complain about these games...
    I mean killing drug dealers is ok by parents,
    and killing terrorists is even better.

    But if you were to say, kill a cop,
    or fly a plane near a building...that's a whole different story!

    Something tells me parents will not "Boo!" when these games start coming free
    in cereal boxes and their kids start collecting military trading cards and wearing camo to school...

    I wonder what the rating will be...
    "Mom? When do you think I can get some trigger time with some real warm bodies?
    Not 'till you're 18, son!"

    --
    "Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them."
  76. Spare us Hippie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High"

    It is sickening shit like this that needs to be put to an end. You have the right to make quips like this because soliders in the field stand guard over your freedom and right to do so.

    Iraq was about Oil anyway, another thing you need to keep the lights on your computer puming away on your fav liberal PC porn and /.

    I swear, there needs to be a genetic scan pre-natal style that discloses and eliminates idiots, liberals, and radical religious beliefs. The world is all gaffed up thanks to you...

  77. *Groan* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spare us the I want it for free shit. And why in gods name would they spend extra tax dollars to make it run under shitty linux when only 1% of computer users even use this tripe at home.

  78. ABSA-FRICKIN-POSI-LUTELY!! by FortKnox · · Score: 2

    It all comes down to one thing: Is the game fun?

    I'm totally in agreement with what a "true hard-core gamer" enjoys. Things like NES emulators were made for the "true hardcore gamer," cause you can still have a fun game in just 8-bit graphics!

    But, as I've written before, "realism" has to be balanced with "fun." Having complete realism usually takes away from the fun. This is why I think the game will fail...

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  79. Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High by zaphod · · Score: 1

    Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High

    How about Sim Lob Missiles at Aspirin Factories to Side Step Scandals? Or Sim Do Nothing And Let The Terrorist Win? Or Sim Babble and Whine About Things I Cannot Possibly Understand Due To My Years of Taking Drugs.

    I cannot believe in today's world there are people who don't understand that there are evil people out who want to kill all freedom loving people. You are truly a disgrace.

    We gave peace a chance and it didn't work. Now it's time to give war a chance.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
  80. Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Rating High by lkaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the better statement is "Not Invading Iraq to Keep Cheap Oil."

    Iraq has a murderous dictator in charge who has waged genocide against his own people and is developing weapons of mass destruction. If we really were a country that believed in freedom and good will towards men, we would have bombed the shit out of Iraq years ago instead of letting millions die at the hands of Sadam.

    Since people tend to believe in hollywood so much, just look back to Spider-man and the message that everyone was touting as being so grand, "Great power comes with great responsibility." We sure as hell have the power but we're just sitting around on our lazy asses so that we only have to pay $1.25 a galloon to drive the /. PT Crusier.

    --
    int func(int a);
    func((b += 3, b));
    1. Re:Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Rating High by albanac · · Score: 1
      Iraq has a murderous dictator in charge who has waged genocide against his own people and is developing weapons of mass destruction. If we really were a country that believed in freedom and good will towards men, we would have bombed the shit out of Iraq years ago

      You can't see the internal contradiction in this at all, can you?

      "Great power comes with great responsibility." We sure as hell have the power but we're just sitting around on our lazy asses so that we only have to pay $1.25 a galloon to drive the /. PT Crusier.

      I don't think anyone this century has been rash enough to accuse a government of having responsible agendas. Governments exist to self-perpetuate. Fnord.

      ~cHris

      PS: if you don't get this reference, please reply and query rather than modding a joke a troll.

    2. Re:Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Rating High by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2

      I hear the guy in charge of Uzbekistan is just about as bad as Sadam, but since he helped agreed to let us do our thing in Afghanistan, and there's very little oil in his country, we don't give a rats ass. Our priorities are absolutely fucked. We haven't done shit for african countries either, except step in once things are almost beyond repain.

    3. Re:Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Rating High by lkaos · · Score: 2

      You can't see the internal contradiction in this at all, can you?

      It's only an apparent contradiction if you believe that "bombing the shit out of Iraq" means carpet bombing raids such as those of WWI & WWII. As demonstrated by actions against Afganistan, modern bombing techniques rely on precision bombing (also referred to as surgical bombing) which results in very low civilian casuality with high tactical effectiveness.

      Even with civilian casualities, one has to way these casualities against the number that would die if we do not remove Sadam. We could have prevented millions from dying and if that meant that we would have killed a thousand or so, well, don't the ends justify the means?

      Let's be clear, this isn't about an idealogy. I firmly believe that people should be free to believe whatever they wish. This is about a man who is committing crimes against humanity. He is a war criminal and needs to be removed.

      I don't think anyone this century has been rash enough to accuse a government of having responsible agendas. Governments exist to self-perpetuate. Fnord.

      Democratic government is merely an extension of the people. Many folks like to treat government as a being in itself, and would like to see government as being evil. The truth is that the lack of responsibility is not due to a deficiency in the government, but in a deficiency in the governed. That is why I am petitioning people, instead of the government.

      BTW: I have no idea what your reference is...

      --
      int func(int a);
      func((b += 3, b));
    4. Re:Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Rating High by cjsnell · · Score: 2


      We should have bombed the shit out of Iraq years ago? I know I was only in high school in 1991, but I swear I recall that we bombed the living shit out of that place once already.

    5. Re:Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Rating High by Shadarr · · Score: 1

      The US still needs to learn the lesson that bombs don't win wars. The US has dropped a lot of explosives on a lot of countries, but only when ground troops go in (usually another country) is any sort of objective achieved. However, in the War on Terrorism there aren't any clear objectives, so it all evens out.

    6. Re:Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Rating High by albanac · · Score: 1

      The 'Illuminatus' trilogy, by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. It's a bit complex. Fnord denotes that the preceding concept is to be viewed as disturbing by the un-illuminated populace. It was a joke.

      Invading Iraq will not solve problems. Bombing Iraq will not solve problems. Killing Saddam Hussain will not solve problems. Surgical bombing does not work, as illustrated (in but one example) by the bomb destruction of a BBC transmitting office in Kabul by bombs aimed at a site nearly half a mile away. Politics has no answer for religion. Fanatics cannot be controlled, and if you intend to kill all fanatics you are yourself a fanatic.

      Need I go on? I quote, as I did in one of my previous posts on a related subject, the /.er who said of the 9/11 attacks, "I can't believe this is happening here. This belongs in, I don't know, Beiruit or something".

      The national and cultural paradigm this (frequently heard at the time) comment is illustrative of is a terrifying thing.

      ~cHris
  81. A quick recomendation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try Ghost Recon or the UT Mod Infiltration. Much more accurate (and complicated) with real world physics and ballistics, as well as damage.

  82. Site for the download. by robdeadtech · · Score: 2, Informative

    AmericasArmy and GoArmy.com will have links to the download. BUT NOT CURRENTLY! The game is still in beta so don't even bother. We've been testing it for months as I work for the web group who does goarmy.com The game is truly awesome.

    --
    Heil Sig! -Rob
  83. first call at zero-dark-thirty by wiredog · · Score: 2

    Geeze. You had it easy. When I was in the Army we got up at zero-dark-hundred.

    1. Re:first call at zero-dark-thirty by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      You guys in the Army got to go to bed? In the Navy, you were awakened your first day in boot camp. After that, you were never allowed to go to sleep. Why do you think we're all so nuts? :)

    2. Re:first call at zero-dark-thirty by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      In the Navy, you were awakened your first day in boot camp. After that, you were never allowed to go to sleep. Why do you think we're all so nuts? :)

      That would explain why the former squid at a previous job put away an entire pot of coffee every day...:-)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  84. Waiting for the alternate by LittleGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blah blah blah games blah blah turn the youth of America into violent hoolums blah blah blah parental restrictions blah blah blah Army blah blah ...

    Army?? Blah blah blah?!? Uncle Sam??

    Blah blah blah games GOOD! blah blah patriotic blah blah blah defeat evil blah blah blah WTC Guliani Let's Roll FDNY et al....

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    1. Re:Waiting for the alternate by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      For some reason that post immediately made me think of Eddie Izzard...

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

  85. Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking as one of the millions who has served and stood on that wall so you could post useless shit like that, I didn't find it funny in the least.

    From a political standpoint, it wasn't even close to accurate either, but hey, that's what you get when you surf porn and smoke dope all day while punching the liberal ticket.

    1. Re:Dickhead by pistaugh · · Score: 1

      Could you please explain how your standing on a wall has defended anyone's right to post anything?

      If you have in fact defended his right to post stuff, then why are whining like a simpering republican bitch about it?

      Why are you reading these posts anyway? You might miss something important on Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson's discussion groups.

      Mindless talking asshole. Go read a book.

    2. Re:Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pat Robertson is a media whore. Limbaugh is a media darling whore, but with some damned valid points in between his potshots at liberals.

      Liberals are worse.

      Both are political bitches.

      I have stood that wall and he has the right to post. With every post he belittles the men and women who serve to give him that right... somehow that doesn't seem right, but he can thanks to 'Us'.

      If we didn't stand that proverbial wall, taking orders and performing them as we swore to do, dying in the name of freedom (so to speak... I have only been shot at once in my twelve years of service), this country would not exist and neither would that poster's right to do what he wants. Remember, as much as you seem to hate it, the US stands for the concept and actions of freedom and all the hope that gives to people both under it's flag and outside it's borders. Standing that wall ensures that no one will take that right away, whether there is an immediate and quantifiable threat or not.

      I read three books a week and have my masters.

      Next...

  86. Speaking as a solider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You swear an allegiance to this country and it's principals, to the leadership and their right to order you into harms way.

    Don't be little the millions serving and whom have served so you could post innacurate and decidely liberal crap like this.

    Slunk on back to your moms basement and hack away some more at your linux box while posting on like minded liberal PC message boards and leave the soldiering and real world realities of international poltics to those far more qualified than your sorry ass.

    1. Re:Speaking as a solider by Mant · · Score: 1

      Gotta love the irony:

      Speaking as a solider
      by Anonymous Coward

      Slightly more seriously, I think 'at what point do we want out armed forces questioning thier orders?' is a valid question. Military forces simply won't function if orders are not obeyed, but historically unquestioning following has lead to some very bad things. 'I was only obeying orders' has been used as a justifiction for many horrors.

      Mant

    2. Re:Speaking as a solider by pistaugh · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound like you are defending anyone's right to do anything.

      Sounds like you're a jackass dickhead troll.

      Go read a book, shithead.

      "be little" Keeerist.

    3. Re:Speaking as a solider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say that following orders is right. Officers are given the duty to not follow orders if they violate certain codes of ethic and law, and soldiers are given the limited duty to do the same. However, orders start at the top and teh civillian leadership should loose their heads twice over for every soldier who does his duty and follows orders only to be cut down later.

  87. You have been recruited... by Saxerman · · Score: 1

    ...by the Star Leage to defend against Xur and the Kodan armada....

    --

    A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

  88. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SIM-Michael-the-slashdot-editor-is-a-complete-tree -hugging-jackass

  89. You are kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too much pot this morning, right? Forgot to pack your liberal presskit and pamphlets before going into work and are pissed in general that the president we have doesn't hump the interns, smoke dope, make bumb deals in the Middle East that leads to open warfare, runs money laundering scams, has whores trucked in by government and tax paid staff and/or law officals, cover's up his wifes paid murders, and in general is a communist puke who didn't deserve the title, let alone the office.

    Go home, get out your illicit handgun, put it in your mouth, pull trigger, and remove your misery from our lives... please.

    1. Re:You are kidding, right? by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      Bush and Ashcroft have proposed some policies that would seem to violate the Constitution. Secret milliary tribunals ring a bell? Not exactly condusive to the right to a fair trial. Some would claim the treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray violates the Constitution as well. And Ashcroft's little comment about how those who speak out against Bush are helping the terrorists? Not to mention many of the more rescent examples under the guise of national security. Read the Constitution and the newspaper, then try and tell me Bush is doing a good job protecting the Constitution.

  90. Anyone remember.... by crazyeddie · · Score: 1
    "Greetings Starfighter! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada..."

    Maybe if I win they'll give me my own B-2 so I can land it at my local airport to pick up my girlfriend...

  91. USMC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As in "Full Metal Jacket"

    "The Marine Corps does not want robots. The Marine Corps wants killers. The Marine Corps wants to build indestructible men, men without fear."

    Still true today. Improvise, adapt and overcome. Hard for robots to do that. Hey, there must be a reason that clones are better soldiers than droids...

    Semper fi.

    1. Re:USMC by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for keeping the ./ standards high - we wouldn't want a story to go by without at least some difference of opinion -
      KDE vs. Gnome
      Linux vs. BSD
      Gates vs. Logic
      Army vs. Marine Corps....

      ;)
      Ooh Rah!

      --
      My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
  92. Based on UT, not UTII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just to clear things up... the new Unreal and UTII are not completed yet.

  93. Take your "freedom," mister, I want to be alive! by Interrobang · · Score: 1

    I just finished reading _Johnny Got His Gun_ again this weekend. I can't say it better than Dalton Trumbo, but "freedom" is a pretty nebulous concept, and I'm damn sure I'd rather be alive before anything else.

    Frankly, I think that anyone who really wants to start a war has an awful lot of justifying to do, and the last several wars I've been around to see just haven't done it for me. I mean, the old white men who stay safe at home during all these messy little conflicts don't really seem to care about all those people's lives they're callously throwing away, do they? Is life actually worth words we can't actually precisely define?

    So take your nebulous ideals and enjoy them for yourself, but don't get annoyed with me/us because we're opposed to the very *idea* of war, which seems to me to be a stupid and useless way to try to solve problems. (Hey, the last war didn't work; let's try it *again*!) Any other human endeavour that proceeded that way would have died out millennia ago.

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting substantially different results.

    "Better Red Than Dead" Interrobang

  94. Your views will change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Believe me... At some point in time, you'll outgrow the games.

    Then you can do First Person Shooters LIVE! d;-)

    Now THAT's friggin cool. In the US you don't even have to join the army! :*)

    I hear the polygon count is absolutely amazing... The gore looks %#&%"! authentic.

  95. War! Never been so much fun by kubrick · · Score: 2

    I think the idea is that they are trying to get away from the whole 'cannon fodder' stereotype -- where any individual soldier is merely one more target in a wall of human targets, and nothing more.

    <REGGAE>
    Go to your brother
    Kill him with your gun
    Leave him lying in his uniform
    Dying in the sun....
    </REGGAE>

    Did you ever play Cannon Fodder, or Cannon Fodder 2? Great games by Sensible Software, also authors of the best football (soccer) game ever. I can't recommend these games highly enough.

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
    1. Re:War! Never been so much fun by platypus · · Score: 2

      Yeah! Sensible Soccer

      You're absolutely right, this really is the best existing soccer game. Too bad it has a bit of a problem on post 1998 puters.

      I loved it. It hadn't much to do with real soccer, but it showed that game design is what matters, not realism ...

    2. Re:War! Never been so much fun by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Funny- I thought of that game too... I wonder if the British Army would ever try it? At the moment I think Brits are a little too worried about catching the lurgy and being accidentally shot by americans.... I know one incentive over here is military funded university-its a pain in the UK to afford uni.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  96. K5 by inerte · · Score: 1

    Kuro5hin also has a discussion about this.

  97. Well Done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see you did your time in the boats! Too funny! Very true!

  98. I saw this on the simpsons... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2

    yvan eht Nioj!

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  99. Didn't we learn this lesson yet? by telstar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't we already give terrorists the keys to the castle with Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000? Now we're showing them how to drive our tanks and humvees, and perform tactical raids?

  100. Still better than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sim - We are so liberal and uninvolved although we are supposedly world military and financial leaders we sat back and did nothing while a madman killed his own people with chemical weapons and invaded all the surround countries and eventually detonated nukes in our own capital because he could thanks to us not doing a damned thing.

    See, it's your fault (and the people like you) that it ends up with us bombing targets in a remote fashion and ending up with civvy casualties while we embargo basics to force the people to act since we can't go in ourselves and do it right. We can't go in and do the job, nor even assasinate that evil bastard, because it is not PC and liberals would be up in arms over it, smoking pot and chanting on the whitehouse lawn while inventing aids and presidents like Bill Clinton who guts the military and ensures that folks like me serving end up having to take foodstamps to get buy if I have a family.

    1. Re:Still better than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is starving innocent people better than not starving innocent people in any marginally consistant ethos?

    2. Re:Still better than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when were ethics and morality consistent? They are not... they are devices of convienence for society, religion, and government, nothing more... good to see your college education wasn't wasted *snideness*.

      Take anothe toke from the bong and leave the adults to themselves if you please...

  101. What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sim My Lai Massacre?

    Sim Bomb Cambodia Back To The Stone Age?

    Sim Patriotic Bullshit?

    1. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about

      Sim Liberal Trash Spitting on the People who give them the right to be Liberal Trash, even while the world laughs at their liberal asses?

  102. Oh please by amacbride · · Score: 1
    According to my unscientific poll (sample size = 1), Gulf War Navy vets thought the comment was fuckin' hilarious. Military and ex-military personnel are not of one mind on things like this, so don't presume to speak for all.

    I suspect we're all going to get to watch "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High", whether we want to or not.

  103. NES Games rock by Wind_Walker · · Score: 2
    I still play Contra on my NES emulator. I also built a MAME cabinet (like the one Taco has) and I play old-school games almost exclusively on that thing... Pengo, Pac-Man, Popeye, Strider, Donkey Kong, Burger Time, Bump n Jump... only once in a while do I play Mortal Kombat, or any other *realistic* games.

    As for true realism leading to failing games, I'm not sure that I agree. I'm playing Medal of Honor: Allied Assault online quite a bit, and I exclusively play Objective matches where if you did, you're dead until the next round starts. In that respect, I really enjoy the realism, because it gives death a meaning. If you want to play the game for a while, don't charge in immediately. Set up traps, go in groups, etc. Anything to keep yourself alive.

    As for the Army's game, I'll wait until I see a demo of it. If it's well done, and if it really simulates reality, then I'll at least give it a try. Hell, it's free, why *wouldn't* you try it?

    1. Re:NES Games rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mortal Kombat, or any other *realistic* games.

      If you think Mortal Kombat is realistic, then you need to get out more.

    2. Re:NES Games rock by farfolen · · Score: 1

      i believe his stressing of realistic (like so *realistic* )was meant to convey sarcasm. if you dont see that it was, YOU need to get out more.

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    3. Re:NES Games rock by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      I think he just meant like here's how realism can ruin games: in Medal of Honor Allied Assault, imagine you had to go to the bathroom every once in a while. Doesn't that sound realistic than not ever having to go to the bathroom? Or maybe you should have to eat too. And since you have diabetes you have to maintain a certain blood sugar.....

      Realism that just for realism is not fun. But it is nice when certain facets of gameplay can actually parallel real life.

      Like most games can be reduced to a basic gameplay "topology". Like the sets of rules and their interaction with each other. Kind of like the Magic card game. The rules kind of make sense water is powerful against fire or something like that, but you can strip out those details and say "element a is powerful against element b". It's much more fun when the gameplay topology actually mirrors real life.

      So yea, realism is good, but only when it fits into an already designed gameplay structure. You don't want to add things like going to the bathroom just to be more realistic.

  104. Marine Corps Mod for Doom by thumbtack · · Score: 2

    About 5 years ago there was a mod from the Marine Corps for Doom. Check out the story on Wired. I play it and it was actually more interesting than the original Doom. Me, I'm still waiting for Unreal Doom Quake, with Asia Carrera Skins.......

  105. Fuck Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High. You're really funny. Very clever. Asshole.

  106. Re:Spare us Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeebus, you sound like Hitler. I think you need to see life from His sandals.

  107. life reflecting art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just like the movie Toys, except without L.L. Cool J and the andriod sister.

  108. Probably the minority but, by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    To all those complaining about the realism vs. fun of the game, there are some of us that do prefer games such as Operation Flashpoint, Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear and others that are basically "get shot or you're dead", ie, Realism is WHY we think they're fun.

    These games almost always require more thinking, tactics, better reflexes and good communication as opposed to Quake et. al. And you still get to blast the crap outta something sooner or later.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  109. Sim invade Iraq to keep approval ratings high? by srpayne · · Score: 0

    You can't be serious. We have an insane tyrant willing to GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE and you are suggesting that Bush wants to take care of this problem just to keep approval ratings high? Are you insane? I suppose you are like much of Europe in the late 1930's. "If we ignore Hitler, he'll just keep to himself of go away." Well, if we continue to ignore Saddam, more Americans, Brits, Jews, and others will die. But I suppose you have a point, let's let Iraq develop some bio-chemical or nuclear weapons, give them to terrorists and watch a few more thousand innocent people die. That way Bush's approval rating will certainly be high when he kicks Saddams ass.

    --

    F******* LOUDER! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! --Ozzy Osbourne
  110. Journalism by mrm677 · · Score: 2

    and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High

    Please keep your snide unpatriotic comments to yourself when posting a story. Some of us have pride in our country and military. This remark belongs in a comment, not a posted story.

    1. Re:Journalism by bmf033069 · · Score: 1

      "Unpatriotic"...Whether you agree with that statement or not, could you possibly entertain the thought that having a dissenting opinion and expressing it is patriotic in and of itself? I would rather have someone thinking about what may be best for a country rather than falling in lock-step with some patriotic propaganda machine.

    2. Re:Journalism by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      The remark belonged in a posted comment. Although slashdot.org is not an official news outlet, it has taken on the role for millions of people and should be somewhat responsible. Would the New York Times post something like that on its front page? No, but it may appear in an editorial inside the paper.

    3. Re:Journalism by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2

      I, for one, am glad that people of great insight like michael, are offering their intelligent commentaries so that we will konw what the truth is. I suspect that michael's team of expert intelligence gathering personnel have come across some damning evidence implicating President Bush, otherwise a snide, self-serving comment like the above would just prove his ignorant self-righteousness.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  111. Everyone should relax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why so many are upset with Michael's editorial comments. Everyone knows he's an idiot, and I don't let idiots get me all fired up.

  112. Military VS Foreign Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just think its amusing that people confuse the military with american foreign policy. Not everyone in the military agrees with the decisions the US makes (invading iraq... yada yada yada), or understands why it can be a bad idea. However, it works the opposite way as well. A lot of people think that "just because the US wants to invade iraq (or whatever; pick your global scheme) it must be ok, so lets support the military for this? I can't wait until the day when the american citizens start to think for themselves , and make up your own minds about war, and understand why its not such a good idea. Lets not work towards creating new terrorists? more people that hate us because we killed their father/mother? it isn't the answer. And just because you are or were in the military doesn't mean that you should blindly agree with the decisions of our government... You joined the military for a reason (most likely free college money) and now you are swimming in unexpected patriotism, and it makes you feel good about yourself. Get over the hype, think for yourself... We all know why the military wants a game like this; I though propaganda was illegal?

  113. Where Fun = Ease = Limited Challenge ??? by JohnDenver · · Score: 2

    I agree with you insofar as most gamers probably don't want "true realism", however everybody has thier own definition of fun.

    Take the Sims for example: Pointless to many, but the slow moving, not so mentally taxing, simulation is fun for millions of people. Nobody thought this was what the gaming community wanted, in part they were right. The traditional gaming community didn't want it, the people who had reasons to hate other games DID want a doll house game.

    This seems to be on the other end of the Spectrum, for people who want a REAL challenge to see if they can survive the Army's simulation of REAL battle. Y

    You're not interested to see how well you would par, or how quickly you can become the master of simulated modern warfare?

    Sure, it goes against balancing ease with reality, but some people find overcoming the challenge to be fun.

    --
    "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
  114. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets see, we have numerous and taxing peacekeeping missions underway all the time, thanks to the US army and other services. We have hostage rescue all the time. We have reserves and guardsman throwing sandbags and keeping order after disaster. We have Panama, Korea, WWII, WWI, etal.

    What is your point?

    1. Re:Really? by radish · · Score: 2

      My point? err... Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Korea, Vietnam, Iran. I'm sure there are plenty more, I don't pretend to be a military historian.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah.
      US had absolutely no interest in Afghanistan.
      Of course they did not.
      It was all done to boost presidents ratings - including 9/11.

      Man, aren't we lucky idiots like don't get to run the world and are mostly confined to places like /.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, you did not mentiond WW 2?
      Was that because US was saving your ass and therefore that war was fully justified ?

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Korea = South invaded by Northern communist dictator with the support of China and Russia. UN decrees support for south and US and many other forces work to stop N. Korea. China invades and adds to the mess. Call it a conflict if you want, but it was war and the US was in the right to defend a smaller nation against despotic rulers and aggression.

      Vietnam = Militarily it could have been over in a year. But, it was a political war and wrong in many ways. Not that the N. Vietnamese leadership and military were school marmes, they were nearly as bad as Pol Pot.

      Irag = Aggressive nation lead by despotic leader who is a murderer even before he stole the reigns of power. He has performed mass murder, used weapons of mass destruction, and invaded his neighbor to escape a debt his country owed and which he spent on palaces instead. Sure, we got into the war for those reasons and for oil, but we were not all wrong in the end analysis, there for you made yet another bad example.

      Iran = ? When did we fight there? The hostage rescue, executed by brave but underequiped and trained men sent in by a liberal president who oversaw the gutting of our military that resulted in that fiasco? Is that what you meant?

      Haiti = ? Again, what war? That was a peacekeeping mission to one of the most insane and unstable countries in the world. The politices were all screwed up, to be sure, but I dare you to pick a better side to support given what was going on. Read up and think about it before you name names... you will see my point.

      I don't pretend to be a military historian... I am one, so I am sure that you get my point, or at least you could if you did some reading and dropped those liberal defensive shields first.

    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Vietnam = Militarily it could have been over in a year. But, it was a political war and wrong in many ways. Not that the N. Vietnamese leadership and military were school marmes, they were nearly as bad as Pol Pot.



      how ironic, it's the post VN-war gvn. that stopped
      Pol Pot's genocide

  115. DOD games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    written in ADA?

  116. Real? Get Real, get shot in the arm and... by Shivetya · · Score: 2

    Sorry, real as it gets?

    Get Real. Someone hits you in the arm or leg with a AK47 M16 or any other weapon and you will be damn lucky to be firing back, let alone mobile.

    CS is as real as pac man is. The Army has the right track, too many stupid people playing CS think its a close representation of real combat. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  117. -1 by Gannoc · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.

    Fuck you.

  118. realism ! = a good game by GePS · · Score: 1

    I know many people who are frustrated with these games where you have to take hundreds of hits before you are taken down. [The rare exception is Delta Force.] In real life, a single well placed bullet will end a soldier.

    I for one am not against not dying when I'm hit in the chest with a rocket, as long as the same goes for my opponent. It's all about game balance.

    However, I know many people who are also frustrated with games where you take a rocket to the chest and don't die.

    And I respect none of their opinions, because they obviously don't know what makes a good game. Often enough, realism is thrown in to gameplay so as to draw people in to buying it, but has a negative long term effect. Take the following example: In counter-strike, if a bullet strikes you in the head, the damage modifier is so high that you're almost bound to die. "cool!" say the ignorant masses, "That's like what it would be in real life! That's awesome!".

    This, in actuality, is probably the worst aspect of counter-strike. Take that multiplayer games are meant to be a test of skill against skill (a pretty obvious assumption to affirm, so I won't go in to it here). Seeing as bullet placement has a random aspect to it (another realism aspect), one sees the inevitable conclusion: sometimes, without any act of great aiming, people get shot in the head and die. Thus the contest is won via luck, and not skill. This is completely contradictory to the statement that multiplayer games are meant to be a test of skills, and subsequently this kind of realism hampers gameplay.

    And if that's not too extreme of an example, try this out: Imagine a colonial wars FPS. Muskets that take 45 seconds to reload! If your powder gets wet you can't fire! Really smell all the gangrene on your fellow soldiers! Guns Randomly Explode!

    So, to conclude, don't say that realism will make a game good, it often works the other way around.

  119. video games increase IQ? by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Its a well-observed effect that scores of Americans on IQ tests have been rising about three points per decade since mass IQ tests were given to soldiers in WWI. This is called the "Flynn effect" after the sociologist who observed this. (IQ tests are now re-centered to make 100 "average" everage few years, like SAT now are.) This effect extends across every ethnic group. An average soldier during WWI would be considered slightly retarded today. The cause of this effect is attributed to the richer visual stimulation of new media like TV and video games. Modern people don't seem to have better factual knowledge than a century ago (wathc Jay Leno's streetwalking clips). But they seem to solve IQ test problems better.

    1. Re:video games increase IQ? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "wathc Jay Leno's streetwalking clips"
      I can't watch those, they depress me.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  120. Next up, Sim War Crimes by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2

    Finally I can imagine that I'm strafing Korean civilians or at My Lai!

    Nobody worships the military more than a peacetime civilian population with no personal experience of war.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Next up, Sim War Crimes by tritiumsys · · Score: 0

      What about Sim Beat the Shit out of the Treasonist Bastard?

      As we all know, the attacks on 9/11 were in full compliance of international law.

      Both of my teachers that participated in Vietnam stressed the horrible aspects of war and in no way make war look glorious. Even my physics teacher who stood on alert durring the Cold War piloting a B-52 loaded with 'nukes makes sure that we know that he doesn't belive war great. However, both understand the necessity and importance of a strong national deffense. While the "Let them go off and die" statement has been made numerous times, I hardly doubt that many people can state they don't love their freedom.

  121. But games can't be protected speech, right? by Geckoman · · Score: 2

    I have a great deal of respect for the military, but if using games as a recruiting tool doesn't qualify them as political speech, then what would?

    If a candidate released a game that revolved around disrupting protests by groups campaigning again him, would that do it? Might be kind of a fun game. Like GTA3, except with special interest groups....

    So the government can use games for recruiting, but apparently some Luddites still think they can't be used for communicating an opiniong?

    Yeah, that makes sense....

  122. Then again by theolein · · Score: 2

    some of us don't. Not everyone here on /. is American and even those that are could use some humour every now and again.

  123. Re:"Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings Hig by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 1

    See Tom Cruise movie coming out later this summer..

  124. Re:Real? Get Real, get shot in the arm and... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

    My point was that its the "real"-est GAME out right now. No need to get hostile. You'll notice my point was that being able to fire back was one way they curbed "realism" for "fun."

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  125. Re:Nope by L1nUx+h4x0r · · Score: 0

    And in those days, the King's word was law, so, after looking around and finding there not to be a single woman in the room, each man dropped his trousers and pulled his own chain.

    --
    The GPL makes software more like your mom. Free and open to all.
  126. Unintentional Slashdot effect by peteypooh · · Score: 1
    Having seen this posted on Slashdot, perhaps legions of geeks will sign up for a tour. Just because they saw it on Slashdot, which seems to be a good enough reason for us to believe any news or purchase any product (while we belittle people who do the same thing when Microsoft says something.)
    Actually, could be a really good thing...

    All the good equipment runs on Unix-based systems, especially anything where security is important.

    You won't have to whine about job security.

    You'll lose some weight.

    You won't be in a cubicle, perhaps the modern day version of shovelling shit in Louisana.

  127. Armored Aibo's with attached Rocket Launchers. by Baka*Exp+2 · · Score: 1

    Once the army is staffed by gamers can this be far behind? And would it be a bad thing? (disturbing yes.. but bad?)

  128. Bweare the Click-through license!! by BenJeremy · · Score: 1
    Tommy downloaded the cool new Army RTS, West Point Maneuvers(TM) but too quickly clicked the "I Agree" button.

    Two days later, the e-mail from the recruiter came:


    Congradulations Tommy Johnson <tjohnson34@aol.com>!
    Your proficiency with artillery units has qualified you for any MOS in Gunnery and Armor fields! Of course, you may decide to select another position, but your bonus is awaiting you in your pre-selected professional path.

    Report to your local recruiter's office to finalize your enlistment arrangements. As per your agreement when installing this game, you are only signed up for a 6 year hitch, but that may be extended at your option, pending your physical results and ASVAB test results.

    Welcome to the Army, Soldier!
  129. It is the soldier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the soldier, not the reporter,
    who has given us freedom of the press.

    It is the soldier, not the poet,
    who has given us freedom of speech.

    It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
    who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

    It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
    who has given us the right to a fair trial.

    It is the soldier who salutes the flag,
    who serves under the flag,
    and who's coffin is draped by the flag
    who allows the protester to burn the flag.

    This is my one regret about my service: that people have no friggin idea what we do. 98% of that is OOTW (operations other than war).

    1. Re:It is the soldier by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

      American soldiers have been involved in atrocitied. Sometimes the soldiers didn't know who they were killing and were merely following orders. Other times, the soldiers have just been bad people. More often the solders have sought to protect women and children. More often those the soldiers shoot are enemy combatants and those who wish to bring harm to the United States and our allies.

  130. MOHAA is real to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I play MOHAA with realism mod turned on and no respawns. It's quite realistic and fun at the same time.

  131. You have been recruited by the Star League by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    Hey...you never know...

  132. Please no... pron spam is bad enough. by Baka*Exp+2 · · Score: 1

    But Military Recruiter spam would be a whole new level.

  133. With Free SpyWare? by ClickNMix · · Score: 1

    Is no one else thinking that sending out 1.2 Million CDs with a free game is a great way for the DoD to silently get people to put trojan type software onto their systems...

    Call me paranoid, but the world could just be that messed up.

    --
    I saw the light at the end of the tunnel... But it was just someone with a flashlight bringing more work.
  134. Iraq and video games. by theolein · · Score: 2

    I am willing to risk a lot of karma points on this one, because I find it absolutely amazing that a load of people get so worked up about a comment that should be, IMO, thought provoking if anything.

    Firstly I am absolutely against militaries of any nation glamourising wanton killing and making life seem as cheap as it is at the end of a barrel of a video game. I am probably stupid but I see a difference between a game company making a game for the market and that same company making a propaganda tool for the military (again, irrespective of what nation it is) because that is what this is: a propagnada PR tool.

    I am very much against things like this because they make life cheap and they don't provide anything like a real picture of what a soldiers life is like (vis. the sim's comments "in the mess" etc) or why those wars are being fought (i.e. the ratings comments).

    I AM NOT claiming that Saddam Hussein is a nice guy who should retire after his term of office and go and live in palm beach, but I very much do wonder why it seems like the god given duty of american politicians to drum up support, which is not forthcoming from anywhere outside the US, for the destruction of his fairly f*cked up regime? Especially since it was previous American administrations that allowed him to get as powerful as he is today and actively supported him in the early stages of the Iran Iraq war.

    This game doesn't ask you to think why those previous administrations didn't give a flying f*ck about gassed Kurds because those same administrations were of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that an independant Kurd nation would dangerous to the stability of the region. This is the point: no administration cares about freedom loving peoples or anything like that. Saddam's regime while definitely having built AND USED WMD in the Iran Iraq war on Iranians (where, again, no one gave a damn) is much more of propaganda demon, IMO, than he really is. The Gulf war was fought about oil, not about, freedom or WMD.

    These games don't mention things like this or even ask you to make up your own mind or *search* for more information. That's why I dislike them.

    FWIW, I worked for the USAF for two years in the '80s.

  135. Nothing surprising. by sekensirazu · · Score: 1

    Apparently, even the brightest of you can't see through this. Some people respond with vengeful "You'd better respect our servicemen!" messages, while others reply with half-ass comments about cleaning bathrooms. I'm not particularly thankful for our military service-people. If they want to go get their asses blown up, hey, cool! I know I'm gonna die some day, and it may not be fun, but I'm not gonna do it for some government. You people watch too much TV. No wonder they're using video games: they have a captive audience. America sure is interesting. ::yawn::

  136. What took them so long? by TomDLux · · Score: 1

    I've wondered for some time why the military doesn't make available simplified versions of their flight simulators, tank simulators, navy bridge simulators. That way, teens would arrive at the recruiting office having already devoted thousands of hours developing the skills the military needs.

    More subtle would be developing games that aren't obviously military in theme, yet develop skills wanted by the military. Wait! That's what these games do, isn't it? Focusing on obedience, dedication, hard work at priorities set by others...

  137. Ummm... Free games from the Defense Department.. by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

    Go on... TRY to convince me it'll be free of spyware!

    And another thing: shouldn't the Defense Department be working on more pressing matters at this time??

    ARGH!

    --
    Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
  138. This is probably redundant by now but... by Drath · · Score: 2

    Yeah Yeah, We all saw the Last Starfighter

  139. Tasteless question by theolein · · Score: 2

    If someone made a game, where you would be "playing" the "other side", planting bombs in buildings or flying planes into civilian buildings or perhaps even blowing yourself up in a shopping mall or doing mission training in a remote montainous country, would you play it?

    A lot of games enable you to play both "sides".

  140. Re:Ender's Game!/Smack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smack as they should. If you want to read perhaps the best SF, then read Asimov (Foundation series, Robot Series). The foundation series is officially the best SF series of all time (no joke, check the book cover for proof).

  141. Games.....? by Baka*Exp+2 · · Score: 1

    This was a story about games yes?

  142. To better relate to my Army experience.... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 2

    SimPMCS

    We were ALWAYS checking the condition of our equipment that would never get used between check intervals (weekly). I figured all Army equipment mearly dissolved to nothing in free air if left alone.

  143. It will not suck at alll by kko · · Score: 1

    and I can bet it'll be a hit among us Day of Defeat lovers...
    But the real question is: will they make it a MMOFPS? Imagine thousands vs thousands of players staging a world war!!!!
    That would surely beat HL's limit of 32(?) players on a given server...

    --
    No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
  144. Amusingly, this was part of why I joined by WillSeattle · · Score: 2

    I actually joined the Canadian Armed Forces (Army), in part, due to my desire to create more accurate weapons simulations for Traveller and other RPG games.

    In fact, during my service (was a Sargeant, in various engineer, infantry, and HQ units) I used my knowledge of practical military experience to develop better simulation methods for road, bridge, and boat building and demolitions for fantasy and SF RPGs.

    One of my games even came to me after a six-week bridge building exercise in the Chilcotin mountain range in B.C.

    So - while I understand why people might be upset by this (I'm no fan of Bush, even though I'm more of a Texan than he'll ever be) - you can't say this is that insidious.

    And don't kid yourselves - some people in our administration (mostly combat-avoiding REMFs like Bush and Cheney) may be promoting this war for the wrong reasons - but it is a war we must not only fight, but win.

    In fact, it infuriates me that we are prosecuting the war with attention only to the military side and ignoring actions such as cutting off their money flow for aid, education, supplies, training, and volunteers in such "allies" as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are helping create the very terrorists attacking us, while they pretend they're not.

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  145. ok ill bite... by nege · · Score: 1

    Can we mod this news story down to "-1, flamebait"? That sure seems to be what it is here....

  146. Sense of humor please by ctimes2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm with you and Michael - I'm a rifleman (no longer serving) in the Corps [Obligatory disagreement with your '*' :)]. I had a LOT of fun for those 8 years, learned a lot, basically enjoyed the hell out of it.

    Personally I got a kick out of the 'coming soon' titles, and didn't find them offensive at all. Of course, I'm not sensitive about the mess-hall crack because we don't get mess-hall-medals in the corps (*snicker*!).

    While I appreciate the respect Zeddicus and Livin4Golf have for the military and those who serve, you guys have got to lighten up a little. There is a lot of mindless BS that goes along with serving - and no one likes to feel like they've sandbagged.

    Ctimes2

    --
    My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
  147. Don't be fooled by knock offs. by bigfrigginfrogman · · Score: 1

    I've been playing Iraq's Army and it's just not the same.

  148. Is it just me.. by techwolf · · Score: 1

    "The Army expects by September to spent about $7.5 million on the [game recruiting] program -- less than 1 percent of its total recruitment budget."

    or could we find better ways to spend $7.5 MILLION, like maybe educating kids?

    -techwolf
    --
    I don't do this for karma, I do it for cash. It's much better.
  149. RE: Invading Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny joke about invading Iraq :(

    I thought we were attacking Iraq to keep our population numbers high you traitor! Maybe you forgot that Iraq and Iran were money people involved in killing thousands of people in NYC. Guess they were one guy short.

    Show some respect for the dead and the men who will have to go where you will not have to. This time they will be greeted with NBC weapons.

    I hope the game simulates American hating journalists from the left criticising its soldiers and heroes while they are wearing biological/chemical defence gear in the summer heat while they are trying to figure out how to feed your family back in the US. Then young people will get a firm understanding of what its like to be a soldier today.

    Your comment is ignorant and shameful, and just shows that you are spoiled by the gift of liberty that my ancestors bled to give you.

  150. The battlefield of the future by YodaToad · · Score: 1

    I can see it now, all those soldiers running around the battlefield looking for ammo pickups and the quad damage.

  151. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel has attacked a foreign country much less powerful then itself, Lebenon.

    Israel had occupied for more than a decade another countries land, in Lebanon

    Israel continues to occupy a people against its wishes.

    Israel has used chemical weapons in wars.

    Israel has an active bio chemical weapons program.

    Israel has a proven nuclear weapons program with over two hundred war heads.

    Israel has defied every UN resolution against it.

    Israel carries out extra judicial killings.

    Israel fires missles and other explosives over civilian areas.

    Forget Iraq, lets attack Israel. But then again we might be called anti-semites for doing that.

  152. (OT)Canadian raising by yerricde · · Score: 2

    "Army of aboot Eight"...

    Actually, the Canadian pronunciation of "about" is closer to "a boat" than "a boot". (Read More...)

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:(OT)Canadian raising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Canadian pronunciation of "about" is closer to "a boat" than "a boot"
      If so, then Americans really have a strange way of saying "boat" ... b - ow (like in ouch) - t.
      I don't think one of those would float.

  153. Post/Soapbox by Fooknut · · Score: 1

    One thing that I see frequently here is the stupid snide comments by posters/slashdot admins.

    This one is "...and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High."

    The post is good, the info is good, but the un-needed political whine just removes "good" from the whole thing. No matter what the slant, I'd like to get decent info without biased whining on either side.

    On the game side of the story, I think this is the most common sense ideas anyone has had in years. The military is expensive and doesn't generate money, so why not use the obvious skills in the military to make money? Just like Tom Clancy getting into realism gaming, the Army probably has a lot of great gaming ability in there somewhere.

    And Epic... well they've proven themselves.

    --
    The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
  154. Hey - dem's fightin words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You want us to come and burn the Whitehouse down, again?

    :-P

    1. Re:Hey - dem's fightin words! by farfolen · · Score: 1

      technically that was the british army regulars, which normally came from england instead of being recruited from the local population.

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    2. Re:Hey - dem's fightin words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. British commanders, maybe, but definitely Canadian militia!

    3. Re:Hey - dem's fightin words! by farfolen · · Score: 1

      what history book are you reading from?

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    4. Re:Hey - dem's fightin words! by WillSeattle · · Score: 2

      He's right, it was Canadian militia transhipped by British Regulars and Marines with British transports.

      And don't forget what happened the last three time the US invaded Canada - each time the US lost territory and suffered massive casualties against the Canadians, only to have the British give it back to the Yanks.

      Try actually reading a real history book sometime, not just propaganda.

      -

      --
      --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
    5. Re:Hey - dem's fightin words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Canadian one, not a bastardized American one. What history book are YOU reading?

  155. Missed one by shrikel · · Score: 1
    Does this remind anyone else of the war-room scene from Toys or Ender's Game?

    What about The Last Starfighter?

    --
    Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  156. Is there a connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So THAT'S how the feds are going to get Magic Lantern onto your machine. Government sponsored/created software.

  157. This is rather ironic. by Scoria · · Score: 2

    With bills such as the "Violent Video Game Protection Act" (Slashdot | CNN) becoming more prevalent in Congress, it is certainly interesting that this project was approved. I suppose that a "violent video game" is acceptable in the eyes of our government provided it propagates military propaganda. The inherent trivialization of human conflict and death is irrelevant, as long as little Billy applies to be a soldier.

    If these inane bills are enacted, only first person shooters sponsored by the government will remain uncensored. Interesting.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  158. It's not just that you're an AC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    *Crap flushed*


    It's also the fact that you resort to insults and childish name-calling to get your "point" across. As far as I am concerned, that automaticlly invalidates anything you might have to day. Now, feel free to prove me right by spewing more grade-school profanity by way of reply.

  159. Along with Toys and Ender... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Try Earthweb by Marc Stiegler. It starts out with nearly the same concept; The US Government/Military funding arcade games in order to harvest the the talent it needs to save the Earth from an apocalyptic menace (aren't they all?). It also introduces some cutting edge techno-social premises that I've only just now been seeing here on /. Oh, did anybody happen to mention The Last Starfighter? It's all actually not a bad concept until you find out that perfect soldier you were looking to recruit with a perfect virtual combat record is only thirteen. "Keep an eye on that one, Agent Jones..."

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  160. This will fail.. by geekoid · · Score: 2

    ..even thought people know a soldier is risking there life, they hate to have that thrown at them.
    That said, I'm looking forward to a game with this much realism. I know a game that requires thinking I will excel at. Runnning around in a pattern and shooting spawn point is nothing but a pretty version of Pac-Man.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  161. Wow... why do you live here then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, why in the hell do you live in our country, accept it's citizenship and the numerous benefits and freedoms that come with it?

    A nation exists through the political will of it's people to define itself constantly and to defend it's existence in the face of those who would other wise seek it's destruction or removal.

    While the US may have gone astray of the political will of the people in recent years, thanks to liberal policies and the entrenchement of both sides in the power that is politics, this is still a great nation well worth fighting for. People like you make me sick

    1. Re:Wow... why do you live here then? by sekensirazu · · Score: 1

      I live here in relative silence because it's pretty damned hard to fight against 260 million other idiots who believe in the same trite propaganda-fed banter. That doesn't mean I don't take a shot at disagreeing with you when I get the chance. I'm glad I make you sick. Maybe you'll do some mental vomiting and get rid of the PSAs in your head. People like you breed people like you. Besides, the one thing you never realized is that for every one of us willing to fight for a cause, there's someone else willing to fight for the opposite cause. And, if you were able to get past your socially encouraged church-bred self-righteousness, you'd see that they're as convinced as you are about their points of view. Therefore--since you apparently need some cognitive assistance--as long as you're willing to fight for your country, you're willing to oppress a conviction of equally personal import (to someone else.) If you ever want to evolve past Survival of the Fittest, you have to start critically thinking. Or, you always have option 2: breed and consume. It's your right, but your children will get blown up because someone else thinks like you... hence army video games. If you want more information, I can provide it. :) Don't be afraid to ask. I'd be glad to help.

  162. Life is Cheap Pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We like to decieve ourselves and think that our own lives and the lives of others is not cheap... that it is precious and worth making every effort to value and keep safe from harm.

    The reality is that people are only worried about themselves and the ones they 'love' (love being a many faceted concept). Some people, a minority but still a significant number, place a love type valuation on Nation and Religion and Race and extend the idea of defense of life to those entities as they exist.

    However, I didn't see 5.5 Billion people jumping on the next available ship or plane to go to Rowanda when millions died under the machette. that's because it is removed and not important to you/me/them. That's because life is indeed cheap, and history is strewn with more examples than can be recounted in a room full of books of how this is just so.

    1. Re:Life is Cheap Pal by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      Life is cheap? Then why did it take billions of years for life to develop on this planet. Why isn't life on every damn rock in the universe? Life is probably the most precious and rare thing in the universe. You need to take a look around and realize that on Earth we are spoiled with life. Maybe appreciate that fact and come to the conclusion that life is not cheap but rather very damn expensive.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  163. The Catch by America+Uber+Alles · · Score: 0

    Here's the catch (from the article):

    "Those who do not successfully complete Green Beret training, which as always includes becoming a paratrooper, are reassigned within the Army."

    I bet that most recruits won't be able to finish the program and will end up grunts in the Army anyway.

  164. This kind of make me sick... by Valen0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The DoD is going full throttle on the recruitment deals now... First it was giving the Army access to public school registration records for recruitment purposes and now it's games... Now I wouldn't mind a game that was realistic, but this new game will probably glorify the Army (As Seen on TV(tm)). And I'm sure they'll definatly be a whole lot of "JOIN TODAY TO LIVE THE ADVENTURE" signs and such in the game as well... That's the type of recruiting that makes me sick... Selling it as the best thing in the world and then not living up to face value. If they're going to try and sell it, I'd wish they would at least do it realistically.
    On another note, there doesn't seem to be very much information on the site:
    While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.americasarmy.com/
    The following error was encountered:
    * Connection Failed
    The system returned:
    (111) Connection refused
    The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.

    --
    -Valen
  165. A Catch-22 by doomedM · · Score: 1

    The Military's recruiters biggest targets are people in high school. These games are probably primarily targeting this group of people too. Most high school students are under the age 18. I belive just about every shooter and every game that has blood and gore gets that MA-18 rating that children under 18 are not allowed to play. Is the government going to tell us that its okay for children to play this violent game but not others?

  166. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least with the first two they're being rather honest about army life. As for "invading Iraq", I don't think that will ever get around to happening.

  167. Modded down as a troll. Bloody hell. by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 2

    Moderator makes comment implying that the President of the U.S. would attempt to boost his ratings by going to war with Iraq.

    Iraq. You know, Saddam Hussein's playground. The place where the ruler gets to gas his citizens, invade his neighbours, and sponsor international terrorism.

    I point out the sickness of the implication and *I'm* modded down?

    Sick, I say. Sick.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  168. Remonds me... by karlm · · Score: 2
    Of the (true?? I think I read this for my computer systems engineering class) story about the australian company that wrote battlefield simulation software. They were preparing to show off the stuff to some American military personaell,so they decided to add some brand recognition by adding cangaroos to the demo. They only had a week or two to get the demo going, so they took a standard infantryman object, subclassed it, changingthe graphics, upped the speed alot, and upped the tendancy to panic alot.

    Durring the demo, the helicopters spooked the kangaroos as planned, and they ran off at lightning speed, only to regroup and come back at lightning speed and fire stinger shoulder-launched andti-aircraft missles back at the helicopters. A good example of how code reuse without thought can get you into trouble. At least the visitors thought it was funny.

    --
    Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  169. It would be innacurate if it's all fun. But... by jchull · · Score: 1

    Will there be mods like for Half-Life and Unreal? Then it will become popular, when a good DM mod comes out.

    I served 4 years in the Army, painting rocks and pulling weeds and picking up cigarette butts. It was insulting after spending 18 months in training and getting poked and investigated just to be another gardener.

    1. Re:It would be innacurate if it's all fun. But... by elgonzzo · · Score: 1

      What, may I ask, did you do to spend all you time doing this sort of stuff, get cought on a drug test or was you job just that boring? And what where you supposed to be doing?

      I was a helicopter mechanic and do you know what I did most of the time I was on duty, fix copters... ok, probably close to half was stuff like PT, cleaning the hanger, sitting on my cot while complaining about being on a field exercise, or sitting around on guard duty doing more of the same.

      All in all, the Army wasn't half bad. It helped pay for the education that has me talking with you fine fellows and I learned quite a bit about myself. If you're young and stupid like I was, I would still recommend it.

  170. Or as I like to call it... by kentyman · · Score: 0

    "Sim Hey michael Keep Your GD Commie Opinions Off The Front Page"

    --
    You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
  171. why not interface the game to soldier robots ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you send the robots into the battlefield and the gamers could control them.

  172. Public Service reminder: reply to original poster. by 1vision · · Score: 1

    The Army using sims to recruit. It seems that the person who wrote this story is afraid that Army sims will hypnotize the general public into mindless soldiers. Pity. I find it hard to believe that the Army could come up with any game more graphic in violence and scope also addictive then what is available now.

    Sim blister, Sim clean latrine, The original poster must have a maid to clean his bathrooms and a cart to move around back and fourth. I hope anybody who ever joins the Army, or try out the "Army Sims" are not fooled into thinking that the Army will clean your latrines and do your laundry. I hope people are not fooled into thinking that in the Army you don't have to walk, run, jump, climb ie get blisters.

    If anyone is considering getting hypnotized will consult me first so that I can remind them that the Army involves doing many mundane tasks that they currently do for themselves now, (at least most of us, apparently the original poster doesn't, hence his need to remind everyone else that they will start doing so upon entering the Army).

    I will say that I don't think the Army can come up with a sim where you or you see your friends die a horrible death at the hands of the enemy and then later you can't do anything to them when you capture them because of people, in the U.S. or other decadent nations, like the original poster would protest, whine etc.

    Also the last statement, about approval ratings: Lets leave Iraq alone and hope he the muslim nations all of a sudden stop preaching hatred to their young people in their schools and Sadam will stop threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction. After all they were peaceful cultures before we interfered with them.

    Finaly, I hope the Army fails and eventually the Army dissapears due to lack on enrollment. After all some people, societies, cultures are not worth saving. If some of the men and women of the current armed forces new these people they would probably all leave. But don't let that worry anyone, after all who needs the Army right?

    By the way I'm out of work web/java developer - veteran who has a longer memory and apparently a better education than the oringal poster.

  173. Shareware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First one is shareware, to get the complete game you need to enlist.

    Added features: Real weapons, realistic explosions, life-like A.I., and a buzz cut.

  174. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isreal, has NEVER used chemical weapons in open warfare (the Mossad is another issue).

    Israel has less than six nuclear warheads, all very large and bulky. One for each arab capital, most likely given to them by us.

    Isreal HAD a limited military sponsored bio and chem weapons program. It has been terminated.

    Israel has done most of the other stuff you said, though you don't put some of them into context and they look worse than they really are.

    In general, I do agree that we should just drop any support for Israel at this point... it's been the biggest mistake the US has ever made in international politics.

  175. Sim Standing Guard in the Rain by Sivar · · Score: 2

    Sim Standing Guard in the Rain will be a downloadable photograph with instructions that read: "Watch this photo for four hours and /DO NOT/ fall asleep!"

    --
    Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
  176. Re:Take your "freedom," mister, I want to be alive by chairmanKAGA · · Score: 1

    I agree with you to a point but many would prefer to have freedom or death. Then again, when a .44 caliber gun is against their head we'll see if they are sure then if they want death as their freedom was taken away.

    --
    "Allez Cusine!"
  177. I hope they have the wit for GOOD propaganda by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    With Epic on the job, I've no (or at least little) doubt the gameplay will be good, easily worth what I'll be paying for it. :-) That said, I just hope the propaganda is not blatant "The Army rocks, join the army, the army is your friend, being in the army is cool and fun." That's an idiotic approach. Far better is simply to emphasize the realism of your games in press releases, then make darn sure the games are fun and have a good storyline, which will encourage the player to identify with their side of the game - in this case, the military. Subtlety, that's the ticket. Oh, and maybe some ad banners in-game. Those I could deal with.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  178. Cheaper ways to recruit by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they want to recruit people to the armed forces, there are cheaper ways:
    0) if you go in the army for 2 years, it's legal for you to smoke pot.
    1) Same as above, plus free t-shirt, $5 bucks, free beer, poster of an attractive pop star, etc...
    They might not get the folks they want, but they'd sure get a lot of 'em!
    sir_haxalot

    --
    stuff |
  179. X45A Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can it be coincidence that the military is developing unmanned attack vehicles at the same time they are developing and promoting war games with realistic physics? Just yesterday, Boeing conducted the maiden flight of the X45A UCAV, an unmanned attack airplane that is designed to be shipped into a conflict region and flown in advance of manned aircraft. You can read about that at msnbc.com.

    But as for these games, what better way to train people to control these vehicles than by getting young people to play them and master them in virtual form. Some day would you even know the difference if your networked war flight sim was really just a sim, or if the mission you thought you were flying virtually was actually being flown in some remote theater of battle.

    If you really think about it has some very disturbing aspects. For one, imagine the level of detachment this allows a person. If you are flying a plane or driving a tank in the real world, seeing the innocent people living near your target might cause you to have second thoughts about hitting that target because you might kill innocents. But would you think twice about blowing up civilians in a game if that's what your mission called for? Probably not. It's just a game after all, right?

    Now, of course if you knew the game you were playing was tied to events in reality, again, your morality might give you pause. But what if there was just a 1 in 100 chance that the events in the game were real. 1 in a 1000? At some point, you might stop worrying about it because you think it's just a game again. But imagine hundreds and thousands of 'soldiers' reporting for duty every day, with the only job being playing these war games for hours. It seems like a good way to commit acts that might be considered atrocities to the world without the moral and ethical concerns for the low level personnel.

    It's kinda scary.

    1. Re:X45A Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle by thunderbee · · Score: 1

      It's been said already, but: Ender's Game.
      A must-read :-)

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
  180. Like Bill Hicks said.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wanna hear my opinion on gays in the Military?
    *sigh*
    All right, here's what I think about gays in the Military.

    ANYONE who is STUPID ENOUGH to want to be in the Military should be allowed in, OK?


  181. Bad humor... by SonicRED · · Score: 1

    michael's extremely unfunny and lame attempt at humor following the submitter's comments completely undermines all the good that our military does for us.

  182. SimRealArmyLife by MorePower · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm the only one, but I would love to play a game that simulates the real experience of Army life (I am an Army veteran myself). I imagine something like The Sims, you have to devote time to making your bunk, shining your boots, cleaning up your locker, cleaning the latrine, waxing the floor etc; and still make it to the morning PT formation on time. Or maybe a point and click adventure game where you try to get all the correct authorities to sign the paperwork you need (but the all won't sign it until you do favors for them or bribe them with something they can't get themselves but your job gives you access to). It would be great fun! Uh but I guess not much of a recruiting tool.

  183. Re: USMC Answering Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for calling The United States Marine Corps.... (you can find it here. ... ...you will be connected to some disgruntled, passed over seargeant at the recruiting station in your nearest strip mall... P.S. Being a dirt soldier is for wimps. Real men join the Navy. :)

  184. Re:Israel by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    Well, Lebanon was occupied by Syria at the time, and continues to be right now. It was also hosting (and continues to host) groups dedicated to attacking non-combatants, which I find a useful definition for terrorist. The invasion may have been brutal, it may have been a bad idea - dunno. But there's not a country in the world who would have put up with what was coming from Lebanon had it the means to stop it.

    Blowing a terrorist's head off with a cell phone bomb may be extra judicial, but contrast the care taken with the Engineer's profession - preparing for indescriminate slaughter of non-combantants. There is no moral problem here. None. They made sure it was him on the phone before detonating.

    Israel has acted with a restraint one can not expect from its enemies. That's the difference between Israel and Iraq. How much restraint would the arab armies show were the relative positions of power reversed?

  185. Open Source/Microsoft views issue... by gerardrj · · Score: 1

    The game is produced by the US Army, a Governemnt entity. According to the rules of IP, a Gorvnment entity can not hold a copyright or a patent on any works produces for it directly, or under contract.

    This is the real reason they are giving it away... the law says they have to.

    But, that makes this game a version of open source/free software. Some IP lawyer would have to rearch more to find out if the source couls would have to be released also under the non-copyright/full disclosure laws.

    That further leads to the question of how Microsoft will respond to the Government using public money (tax dollars) to produce software they intend to release for free in to a market that Microsoft would like to dominate (see Xbox and their growing library of games for PC).

    Hmmm. Microsoft vs. the Army... perhaps Redmond will get bombedto ashes after all. :)

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  186. It's a game, for pete's sake by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    I will quite readily admit I am an "anti-gun" nut, but I see no problem with these games. They're games, not guns, and I'm got no problem with guns in the hands of the military. In fact, I'd like to see them get newer, better guns. It's guns in the hands of Joe Schmoe that worry me. That said, I think all sysadmins should be issued Uzis - the one perk of a grim, bleak existence.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  187. Alex Rogan? by waspleg · · Score: 1

    so are they going to use the game as a recruitment tool in the same way as the games in teh last starfighter were used? will uncle sam come knocking on my door because i've been a first ranked sniper for 6 mos?

    and you thought games that paged you were bad

  188. Not so by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Every combat soldier in Afganistan right now volunteered for the duty, according to the Air Force Reserve Lt. Colonel that came in to talk to my high school french class.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    1. Re:Not so by swillden · · Score: 2

      Not surprising. The same is not true of our soldiers in Bosnia, for example.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  189. A lot of it's in fun by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Roblimo and Micheal, as previously mentioned, were in the military, and I also know that there are more than a few military and ex-military people who read and post to /. So maybe a lot of it is just in fun?

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  190. Myth II Soul Blighter with WWII plugin PlaysBetter by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    Myth II SB with WWII p[lugin plays better and you get the modern war plugins to simulate real wars and redesign the game for different world locations..

    maybe Army should have bought Bungie before MS swallowed them up!

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  191. My informants report differently... by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    They have secret plans in the works.

  192. real life by DEFFENDER · · Score: 1

    "brian washing", "its just a game to play", WHAT???? i dont get it. these people keep YOU and you Q III server safe at night, and make no mistake when you go to the store next week and buy a pack of gum. be glad that there is someone that just stopped some crazy from blowing you up with a homemade bomb. you people dont seem to get the point of all this. when.. i say again WHEN the next bomb rocks the US and you all feel "real sad" you can know that these poeple are tying to save lives. YOUR SONS, YOUR DAUGHTERS life. get over yourselves. people like you.... im done and when...when the us has to stop another attack and we dont have enoough personal to do it dont you DARE come back to me. peace, i love you all but shut up.

    --
    Careful what you say around me.. I will assume you mean it.
  193. Coool! Hope its like the The Last Startfighter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was a cool movie for the time!

  194. Military vs. Government by Cpl+Laque · · Score: 1

    As a former Marine I've noticed a few things. Most of the time when people criticize the Military they really mean to criticize the Government. We in the Military don't decide who to attack and we only get to decide there where when and how on a very limited scale. That is stuff decided by the President and staff. The reason most of us even enlisted is to serve our country. Not serve the Republican not serve the Democrats but serve the American People and their intrests. YOU, the American, the voter decide what we go off and fight and die for. What I am trying to say is when the Military has to go and kill people(because that is really our primary function, bockades and humanitarian stuff aside) and you don't like that we are there then you better let the right people know you are pissed off about it because some Private has no control over the sitituation other kill or be killed.

  195. Someone should check this out... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Here's where I got the quote on the Naval PostGrad school link to the game....
    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-921144.ht ml

    Quoting the story;
    "Commander Brian Osborne, a Naval Post-Graduate School student who developed the software engine for "Soldiers" as his doctoral thesis..."

    So it seems at least part of the game was independantly developed, unless this story is in error. Most academic theses are available to the public; I would think that's also true of the NPS, although I could be wrong. If the public COULD get the source, that would certainly be very interesting to have a look at....

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Someone should check this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are not getting the source you nazi bastards!!!

    2. Re:Someone should check this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The source for the "Soldiers" game, the 2D version, may or may not be released. The source for "Operations", the 3D FPS game, will definitely not be released, since the engine was licensed from Epic Games, and doesn't belong to the Army. Not to mention the Army wants to be able to control the content.

  196. Paying for your own competition? by EnglishTim · · Score: 2

    I would be a bit pissed off if I was an American games company that was developing a similar game, having to compete with a product paid for at the taxpayer's expense and distributed for free in competition with my own product. Hell, I'd be mighty pissed off knowing that the sales tax from my games could be going to help create a direct competitor.

    1. Re:Paying for your own competition? by neocon · · Score: 1

      Civilian death toll from 11th September: ~3000
      Civilian death toll from bombing of Afghanistan: ~3200

      The numbers you are citing have been thoroughly discredited -- see the bit on civilian casualties at the end of this article for details.

      At any rate, this is beside the point. In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. Surely you can see the difference?

  197. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't call a 1% share fast growth... what is that, up from .25% or something? Get a grip hop head... linux is dead but just won't admit, like you.

  198. America's Army @ LANParty.com by mickey+knox · · Score: 1
    There's a decent article written by one of the volunteers at LANParty.com about America's Army: Operations (there ARE two different games). Here's a blurb about it:
    One of the first articles about this awesome game, brought to you by LANParty.com!
    It sounds like a conspiracy, doesn't it? A game funded by the government, made by the Army, and given away to the public for free. The kicker is that it is totally and completely free. When you think about it, it's not terribly surprising. If you want to reach the youth of America, go where the youth go: video games.
    See the entire article here.
    --
    Andrew 'Mickey Knox' Gearhart
  199. Where you goin otto? by funkmastermike · · Score: 1

    Ymra Eht Nioj!

  200. Re:"Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings Hig by X.25 · · Score: 1


    Ah, no. That should be:

    "Sim Invading Iraq So The Psychopath Doesn't Eventually Build Nuclear Weapons"

    Jesus, brainwashing over there reached really scary limits. Fantastic results, really. Wonder what will be the next step...

  201. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah go ahead defend Israel the most RACIST country in the world. Sometimes I am appalled by you jews, you pretend to be liberal and all but you support any wrong that israel does and want to anihlate any enemies it seems to have including infants, women, old men. Most of the problems us has with arabs and muslims would go away instantly if us stopped supporting the racist, terrorist country.

  202. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Israel has acted with a restraint one can not expect from its enemies. "

    You call killing kids hiding behind their parents restraint. How about I come over to your house shoot your kids and kick you out and then offer you back twenty-two percent of the house if you get on your knees and beg. Blinded by Racism? I can understand, every zionist is.

    "Lebanon was occupied by Syria at the time, and continues to be right now."

    They have no problems with that why do you have a problem with it. If you care about Lebenon so much how about attacking Syria, or may be cat got your balls.

    "There is no moral problem here"
    How about blowing up top floor of a five story building filled with civilians just to kill a "SUSPECTED" terrorist and risking over a hundred civilian lives. Is there a moral problem with that. Probably not because you are blinded by RACISM. You are a racist and a moron.

  203. Re:Army of One - Somalia by WillSeattle · · Score: 2

    Actually, the Canadian Armed Forces decommissioned that entire parachute regiment.

    And cashiered some of the officers.

    Those of us serving at the time were proud that they took swift and decisive action in getting rid of bad apples.

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  204. "Standing Guard in the Rain" by evilpaul13 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Maybe that would actually go over big... afterall, people loved those Tomagotchi's/Gigapets/whatever watch sized beeping LCDs.

    And of course who could forget the sheep?

  205. Re:Israel by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's pretty much the Arabs who are advocating genocide. Eliminating Israel is the preferred goal of a majority of Arabs, no? Only a fringe of Israelis are determined to hold on to all of the West Bank. Look - the Palestinians are under the guns of the IDF right now. What's holding the IDF back? What is preventing them from killing every Palestinian?

    If the shoe were on the other foot, would anything hold back Hamas and the PLO? I don't think so.

    I'm not denying that Israeli forces have committed some atrocities. It does not look to me that it's policy. Detonating bombs in crowded pizza parlors DOES seem to be Palestinian policy and one supported by a majority of Palestinians.

    By the way - I'm not Jewish.

  206. Typical Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The web site says that it will ship, for free, a copy of the game CD to anyone between the ages of 13 and 34... this is the same government that wants to restrict the sale of FPS (and other) games to minors because they are violence incarnate, and can only breed killers.

    So I guess the message is, "violence is bad, unless we have you on a government leash"... or maybe it's just that the government doesn't actually believe its own hype about the influence of 'violent' games.

    Or maybe it's just doublethink.

  207. Not to nitpick BUT... by cats · · Score: 1

    If we give the military all the weapons and the citizens get none of the weapons then we run into a problem when the government decides to overstep it's boundaries.

    Besides, Joe Schmoe, as you so eloquently put it, IS the Army. I enjoy target shooting and hunting and I think if you do not want to own a weapon, that is your right. But please, do not go and try to take my right to do something I enjoy in a safe and perfectly normal manner away from me.

    Guns and rifles and any other tool that can also be used destructively are harmless in and of themselves. They require education and a healthy respect for safety, but I strongly disagree that I should not be allowed to own a rifle because you feel uncomfortable about it.

    It is all the idiots out there who leave loaded unlocked weapons around for their kids to play with, or point weapons at people they do not intend to shoot that are a real problem.

    I think requiring mandatory education for anyone possessing a gun is a much more reasonable solution.

    Can't pass the training that proves you are capable of handling a firearm, then sorry you do not get to have one. But I think most people are able to learn the responsibility assocated with a firearm. If they weren't, we would not have a military or a police force (and yes they are exceptions to the rule in those cases, I've seen that first hand.)

    Peace.

  208. Re: USMC Answering Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sing with me now!

    In the Navy,

    You'll get assraped on the seas!

    In the Navy,

    Large men will have you as they please!

    In the Navy...

  209. There is some good in this... by NerveGas · · Score: 2

    I read on the blurb for Soldiers:

    "Adjust your soldier's personality and watch how it changes his decisions"

    There are some very healthy lessons to be learned from that:

    - That your decisions don't have to be knee-jerk reactions.
    - That your decisions have long-reaching effects on your life.
    - That if you want a good life, making the right decisions early is the best way to make it happen.

    It seems that there are fewer and fewer chances for children to learn those lessons as time goes on. The thought of a million kids, each taking responsibility for making the most of their own life.... it seems too good to be true.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  210. "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High" by cyberlync · · Score: 1


    I realize this is slashdot but it still disheartens me to see such blatent and obvious editorial bias on what is essentially a news site. Oh well back to microsoft bashing.

    --
    I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
  211. Give me a break by oliveloaf · · Score: 0

    You people are lame, the comment about "sim invading iraq to boot aproval ratings" was funny. Get over it, I was laughing my ass off, and thoroughly enjoying the article until the flame war began. Give it a rest, the old adage fits well here, if you don't have something nice to say, find another news site(ok, so thats not exactly how it goes, but close enough). I seriously doubt anyone took any of micheal's editorial comments seriously, but if they did, that's their problem, not his.
    sheesh

  212. Very True, ask the guys from Blackhawk Down. by sideshow · · Score: 1

    You know, this isn't necessarily a gaffe. Although a bullet has lots of kinetic energy, because of its low mass it doesn't have a high momentum. Also, bullets tend to pass through people rather than lodging in them so they may not transfer all their momentum.

    They guys one the ground were special armor piercing bullets. They pass right through regular people. They hit a guy 10 times and he just keep running because he didn't know he was shot. It'd better to have the guy really know he got shot so he'd freakout and try to save himself insted of staying and fighting.

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  213. I'm impressed... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Normally this sort of comment would have been labelled "flaimbait"... Maybe there isn't a script making moderations after all... Nah, it's gotta be. You just got lucky.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  214. The problem is by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    The problem is that a person of average intelligence would be able to pass any "gun resposibility" course you might teach, but simply choose not to apply that knowledge once they are permitted to own a gun. Or, a person might pass the course, and then decide to use their gun to harm another human being. I have no doubt that you, sir, are responsible and sane. But is the benefit you gain from being able to own a gun - recreation - worth the consequences we face, should someone who should not have a gun get one? It's not "fair", but I would be willing to see millions of Americans deprived of their - admittedly - safe and responsible sport, if anti-gun legislation could keep just one gun out of the hands of a murderer or idiot. And the most effective anti-gun legislation would be one that completely bans guns for non-police or non-military use.

    Frankly, your shotgun, rifle, or handgun would be next to useless against a government armed with missiles and assault weapons, should it choose to run amok. So that argument is just plain moot.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  215. You forgot about the addon to Soldier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Operation Hurry Up and Wait

  216. Echelon inside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me paranoid but you won't catch me installing a piece of software made by a branch of a far right government in my computer.

    I don't wan't want to be a direct part of Echelon.

  217. Who's stopping weapons inspectors? by pompomtom · · Score: 1

    The Bush administration....

    Read about the removal of Jose Bustani... it's Bush that's creating the situation here...

    --

    Buckets,

    pompomtom

    "There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
  218. Do you really want these games "phoning home?" by MMHere · · Score: 1

    So you install some DoD software on your very own PC. It's got complete access to your PC, likely some of your internal network, and even more likely to the internet.

    Are you going to slap a packet capturer on your LAN so you catch the game when it phones home, and says to DoD: "Little Johhny is an excellent marksman; recommend acquisition. Beware, however, his tendencies towards same-gender attraction."

    Well, do you?

  219. Why must you Marine Bash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States Marine Corps is the finest group of men ever set forth on our soil. Unlike the Army or the Navy, everyone in the Marine Corps is a soldier. You must qualify on rifle, you must go to Marine Combat Training, and you must be trained in hand-to-hand combat [well starting a few years ago when they required tan belts].

    I find it sad for people to speak of the Army as an "elite fighting force". The Army has some very nice special forces; but overall they are a bunch of potato peelers who are best at sticking around Kosovo 5 years after the last conflict.

    [23 Year USMC; stations including Okinowa, MCAS Yuma, MCAS Beaufort, MCRD Parris Island [Nothing better than 3rd Bn Kilo Co], 29 Palms, and a one year stint as admin at NAS Jacksonville]

  220. Re:Modded down as a troll. Bloody hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you were modded down because you applied a +1 rating to a comment that really was little more than drivel.

  221. Cool by KinkyClown · · Score: 1

    This really looks like a nice game. I am a Delta Force fan so this game is right up my alley. As soon as the game is open for download it shall be played by me... And yes is does remind me of the Toys movie. As soon as I have seen the movie I was waiting for it to become a reallity... why the hell do we send old people (yes 30+ is old) while you could send an indistructable robot army controlled by youngsters that have superior reflexes?

  222. Re:Take your "freedom," mister, I want to be alive by Minnesota+Kid · · Score: 1

    True freedom is somewhat nebulous. That doesn't mean its not worth dying for. Try reading some books like 1984, A Handmaid's Tale or Farenheit 451 and tell me that there's nothing about freedom worth dying for.

  223. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree. I think that if the Palestinians had a powerful military, money, and were occupying Isreali land, I think the palestinians would be in the same place where Isreal is today and vise-versa.

    There is anger and hostility on both sides.. Both sides would like to see the other anhiliated.. Both sides have killed many civilians.

    People will use whatever weapons they have available to defend themselves, even if those weapons are themselves.

  224. Greetings StarFighter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    well no one else has referenced it so far :P

  225. Re: USMC Answering Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sailor and a grunt are at a pisser
    the grunt finishes and leaves without washing his hands
    the sailor yells "hey, in the navy they teach us to wash our hands"
    the grunt says "in the marines they teach us not to piss on our hands"

  226. US army by Kamamura · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's very important to invade every country that might have possibly develop some dangerous weapons. Or might have come out with dangerous ideas. Or might have too much oil for their own good. Or whatever...

    ... and it's important to understand, that US Army is good, because by controlling world largest media, it can proclaim it very loudly. Other countries' armies are bad, because they don't shout so loud. The media campaign about Yugoslavia was full of lies - they hit one tenth of targets they claimed, they killed many civilians and impoverished those, who survived.

    Bombing Yugoslavia did not achieve anything. Albanians referred to the US army as "convenient air suppurt" and did not waste the opportunity to carry on their personal vendetta. Now the area is unstable in the very same way, only with the balance of power reversed.

    You know, Soviets or US - what's the difference? The power will eventually corrupt anyone. The greatest danger always comes from the one who is strongest at the moment!