Slashdot Mirror


America's Army on Linux

jojor writes "It seems that icculus.org has gotten America's Army to run under Linux, as this screenshot will attest. America's Army is UT based and free (as in beer). More games for Linux, yippeh!" Awesome. I consider America's Army to be one of the best things my government has funded within recent history.

459 comments

  1. Why? by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I aggree it is a great game, but shouldn't the government be putting that money to better use? I meen it's just a recruiting tool isn't it?

    1. Re:Why? by drunkmonk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but the overall recruiting budget for the United States military is huge, and the total development costs for the game were a rather small part of it. Think about how many man hours it saves if even 0.1% of the people who play it come to the recruiter instead of making the recruiter come to them.

    2. Re:Why? by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 0, Troll

      I meen it's just a recruiting tool isn't it?
      Recruiting is a pretty good use, certainly from the Army's point of view. Hard to fight wars if you don't have any soldiers.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    3. Re:Why? by NineBall · · Score: 5, Funny

      "A dollar spent on brainwashing is better than a dollar spent on product improvement."- The Dilbert Principle

      --
      You may not agree with what I'm saying but I'll kill you for my right to say it
    4. Re:Why? by jsav40 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I aggree it is a great game, but shouldn't the government be putting that money to better use? I meen it's just a recruiting tool isn't it?

      It is a recruiting tool but not a bad idea overall. Consider how difficult selling enlistment in the armed forces is.Every little bit of positive PR helps achieve that goal. Having served 8 years in the Army, and being old enough to remember the draft, I really appreciate the importance of having a dedicated volunteer force rather than a conscripted army.

    5. Re:Why? by C0LDFusion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is a recruiting tool but not a bad idea overall. Consider how difficult selling enlistment in the armed forces is.Every little bit of positive PR helps achieve that goal. Having served 8 years in the Army, and being old enough to remember the draft, I really appreciate the importance of having a dedicated volunteer force rather than a conscripted army.

      I agree, but maybe if they stopped chopping up benefits like the end of the various clubs, the price increases on the bowling alleys, and the re-introduction of the PX as something that actually saves you money (it's tax free, but you can find stuff for way cheaper off-base at Wal-Marts and Target), maybe they could get people interested by giving people benefits to join. Glorifying the Infantry (which, unless you are Special Forces, you probably will never be in a real combat situation) doesn't help much. Besides, most of the people I know who play this game don't want to join the Army. In fact, it sorta turns them off to the idea, because they get 0wned all the time.

      I'm joining the Air Force. As a weatherman. In a nice and quiet domestic AFB (I don't fit the physical requirements for a combat-deployed weatherman).

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      but shouldn't the government be putting that money to better use? I meen it's just a recruiting tool isn't it?

      Maybe they could put that money to use in education. Perhaps teaching the illiterate to spell words like "mean".

    7. Re:Why? by analog_line · · Score: 1

      It's also a PR tool for the American military.

      I don't personally play it, but those of my friends who do say that a fair percentage of the servers are German, with other European scattered in there.

    8. Re:Why? by ianp5uk · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a great game but as for recruitment? It'd put me off. Scares the xxxx out of me and I get killed a lot.

    9. Re:Why? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I aggree it is a great game, but shouldn't the government be putting that money to better use? I meen it's just a recruiting tool isn't it?

      I definitely think the government could have done well to spend the $7 million development costs on, say, your education.

    10. Re:Why? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      The PX turned into a big scam for people that were no longer in the service or friend and family.

      I grew up on the Reservation and a friend's mother was a nurse. Well she was technically a Lt. Commander in the Naval Reserve who made around 58K a year and was not uniformed.

      So when it was time to go shopping, her sons and thier friends would drive down to the PX at Ellsworth AFB and shop on the tax payer's dime.

      As for Infantry not getting to see combat unless they are special forces...that's not accurate.

      Most of the forces in-country in Somalia were 10th Mountain Division. In Desert Storm there were tens of thousands of Mech Infantry troops on the ground. In Afghanistan right now there are 82nd troopers. And in the coming fight with Iraq there are going to be around 30,000 non-SF combat soldiers on the ground from the Army and USMC.

      And thanks for your service weatherman :)

    11. Re:Why? by iomud · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What if they took that huge recruiting budget and instead raised pay for soldiers. I think I'd rather have more money than a guy telling me how much I'll get for college should I choose to go, over and over. If they were to pay like the private sector I think a lot more people would consider joining up.

    12. Re:Why? by SunPin · · Score: 1

      Beyond this point of greater pay, more money would make current soldiers happier and cause them to recruit automatically, even if indirectly. The current economy is perfect for military recruiting so I think their recruiting fears will be alleviated without a pay raise within the next eighteen months or so.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    13. Re:Why? by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 1

      Id love to spend 7 million dollars on My education.

      Harvard Law school Here I come!

      --
      | - | - |
    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that is probably the idea.

      In the UK we have adverts for the army, where they show a mission or training. The last words being.

      99.9% of people need not apply. Basicly they don't want some fat gamer who thinks it will be cool. They are looking for people that can preform.

    15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not relevant to this thread, though. I may think that too much money is being spent on the military altogether, but it's still not relevant - this thread's about a game that's made by the military, not the military itself.

    16. Re:Why? by floamy · · Score: 0

      If Mr Steve Ballmer's right, Linux is communism - is Linux a good environment for a US Army sponsored game?

    17. Re:Why? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you didn't hear? they DID get a pay raise...2 infact in the last few years since bush has been in the white house.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    18. Re:Why? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      heh...I have one brother who joined the AF and the other joined the marines.....oye...you don't want to know what it is like at thanksgiving :-p

      if Congressman Rengle ever gets this stupid draft thing going again, though I am to old for it now anyway, I will tell my son to enlist in the AF becasue then he will have not only a choice in what he does, but he will get to stay state side if he chooses the correct job.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    19. Re:Why? by EvilStein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, in a sick sort of way it does bring truth to the "kids who play violent video games grow up and kill people" crap. heh.

    20. Re:Why? by chazbot · · Score: 1

      These recruiters aren't paid hourly though. When my dad was recruiting for the army he would leave at 7am and get home at 10pm. He would put in "half-days" on weekends. Yeah, it sucked for him, but it didn't cost the government one extra penny.

    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What if they took that huge recruiting budget and instead raised pay for soldiers.

      Nobody in the army that I knew joined for the money.

    22. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the WORST expense of the government. Hello? We don't want computer geeks in our army. Stop being such an idiot.

    23. Re:Why? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      That's just evil.

      I like it.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    24. Re:Why? by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Raising pay for soldiers? I disagree.
      Sure, an E1 makes less than minimum wage take-home pay, but lets look at the benefits for a single soldier:
      Medical: EVERYTHING is covered. You don't have to pay for asprin or even a bandaid.
      Housing: You are given adequate accomodations, even if they are a bit crowded at first.
      Food: A Single soldier, living in the barracks is afforded 3 meals a day, free of charge. (And the food is pretty damn good)
      Utilities: All provided for.
      Uniforms: A Yearly clothing allowance is provided for uniforms.
      Transportation: Most military bases have adequate bus service, and for soldiers living overseas, many cities offer local public transportation FREE to US service members.
      Comraderie: You will NEVER find better or closer friends than those you make in the service.
      Education: Not a formal education, but I learned more about myself in basic training than I did in the 18 years prior.
      Discipline: I didn't realize it at the time, but the military taught me discipline. Specifically: self-discipline.
      I joined the Army in 1988, right out of High School. After Basic Training and AIT, I was sent to Berlin. I had spent the previous 4 years in Stuttgart (My father was Army), so I was excited to go. I made about $650 a month as an E1, and aside from buying new underwear and personal hygene items, most of that went to computer games (Amiga!), stereo equipment and beer. Anything I "needed", the military provided for me.
      I left the military in 1991 when my 3 years was up, because I had other things I wanted to do. I joined because my father was in for 22 years, and I thought I owed him that, but in the end, I was a better man. I never saw combat, I missed Desert Storm by a few months, so I cannot comment on that aspect of military life.
      My point is this: Even though soldiers are paid less in actual $$$, they are rewarded with something more valuable than money: Knowledge.

  2. The government didn't fund it ... by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 5, Insightful


    You did.

    1. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You give them the same amount whether they choose to spend it on stupid social security or a video game, so I think it's a reasonable statement. And money well spent. Gov't FPS! w00t!

    2. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by xmnemonic · · Score: 0

      And where did that money go? To the government. And who initiated and carried out the development the game? The goverment. So essentially, both the government and the people "funded" it, sometimes in ways other than monetary ones.

    3. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by prichardson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where's the mac version?

      Mac users pay taxes too. I think that the govt should support more than just the windoids.

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    4. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, but they don't want faggots in the army.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    5. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by revjcii · · Score: 1

      And when a fast food joint that you frequent opens another location do you say that you funded that as well?

      Stop subverting logic and language to make a political statement.

    6. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      No. But the fast food joint didn't use the threat of prison to get you to eat there.

    7. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. But the fast food joint didn't use the threat of prison to get you to eat there.

      I don't know. That one guy who is suing McDonald's seems to act as if he was FORCED to go there.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    8. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a government has no money except that which it forcibly takes from you. And don't get it twisted, it's by force.

    9. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by E_elven · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you'd be happy without the state/govt.-funded roads, law&order etc., but most of us wouldn't.

      Your statement includes a logical fallacy, as well.. the government is not some separate being, it's just a representation of the people.

      I've come to notice Americans still live by the misleading phrase "Don't ask what your country can do for you..", when they should be asking what their country will do for them, instead.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    10. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you funded it! You're dropping ALL logic to make YOUR political "point" if it can be called such. But that is the essence of liberalism.

      Every dollar you exchange goes to fund something. You think McDonalds takes YOUR dollar, puts it in the safe, and goes somewhere else to get the money to open a new store?

    11. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a REALLY nice thing to say about all the Germans that were alive when Adolf took over. He was just the representation of the societal Id. Everyone in Germany was just like him, right? Same goes for N Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban.... The people of Iraq have asked what Saddam can do for them, and he gives them palaces they can't get near.

      Of course we don't need any explanation on why you think ever person should just sit in line with outstretched hand asking what they can get for no effort of their own.

      The best thing about "liberalism" is that it's self-defeating. The worst thing is that it takes so much suffering to relieve its effects.

      Russia is the best current case in point. But also take a look at ancient Greece and Rome. Sometimes it cannot be undone.

    12. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by mickeyreznor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure you'd be happy without the state/govt.-funded roads, law&order etc., but most of us wouldn't.

      how do you know that? maybe private roads would work better.

      the government is not some separate being, it's just a representation of the people.

      This is woefully ignorant. The government is not a representation of the people. In theory(and according to the constitution) it is supposed to be, but in practice it is not. Just take a look at the kind of shit these people legislate. The government only represents special interest groups all fighting for a piece of the government pie, which is made up of taxpayer money.

    13. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by rleibman · · Score: 1

      Slight difference, the fast food joint doesn't have a gun against my head and is ready to pull the trigger if I don't buy their foods. Try not paying taxes, see what happens to you: they take you to jail, try resisting that, at the end of the argument there's a gun at your head.

    14. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never understood that, myself. I think a person who's been belittled, abused, slapped around, and insulted for life would make an excellent professional hellraiser.

      And if your hetero soldiers can't defend themselves in the showers, what the hell are they doing in the Army, anyway?

    15. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're right. Those stupid liberals, making everything worse for everbody.

      If it weren't for liberals with their progressive idealogies, Iraq wouldn't have chemical weapons, or even normal weapons. In fact, the most advanced weapon across the world would be a rock. Or maybe fire...

    16. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what percentage of the tax that I and 280 million other people pay did this game cost? Maybe a penny per person. That would come to $2.8 million. It was well worth that penny.

      On average we pay 300 billion to the military each year, so that would be around $1100 per person.

      I think I have heard more complaints about that 1 penny than the $1100.00 that we all pay to defend our country and dominate everybody else.

    17. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by LtOcelot · · Score: 1

      how do you know that? maybe private roads would work better.

      I'm not the one you're responding to, but I doubt that. Pretty soon we'd see something a lot like the old railroad trusts. Over time some entities would acquire the critical mass of highway ownership which it would use to squeeze smaller competitors out of business. The ones big enough to survive would either merge or form cartels, either of which would result in absence of competition and prices just enough lower than air-freight to be worth using.

    18. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And chances are every highway would be a fucking toll road. For the entire length. Privately held roads might be the worst thought ever.

    19. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Latent+IT · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, sure they did. What happens if you don't eat?

      I can hear the liberal-socialist ranting now! But if I don't choose to go to McDonalds, they couldn't have my money! Blah, blah!

      Yeah, sure, but your money for food has to go *somewhere*. And then they get your dollar.

      Like it or not, someone's got to defend the country, or you might as well go give your shiny home entertainment center to the Canadians. It's nearly as important as being able to eat, but not quite. And don't fool yourself about world peace. The only thing that will ever stop you from being attacked in the real world is the fact that, if you are attacked, extremely *bad* things will happen to your attacker.

      So they spent seven million to get hundreds of thousands of nearly army age kids to go, "Whoo! Go Army!"? Do you know what kind of return on investment that is? I'd be sorely disappointed in them if they *hadn't* done it, once they came up with the idea.

    20. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Latent+IT · · Score: 1

      That's a REALLY nice thing to say about all the Germans that were alive when Adolf took over. He was just the representation of the societal Id. Everyone in Germany was just like him, right?

      Well, you know, I'm not sure how to break this to you. Actually, why don't you just get off your duff, and read some books like Hitler's Willing Executioners? I'm sure you've been watching the television, and come to believe that everyone just wants to be just like us - all the commercials, and the sitcoms want you to believe that. But hey, is that a flag that mob of (insert nationality you listed here) is burning?

      Gee, it sounds to me like they really might not want us to 'save' them from their government.

    21. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1


      I have the option of not eating at that fast food joint.

    22. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1


      All those pennies add up.

      And this article was just about the penny.

    23. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Zigg · · Score: 1

      Toll roads aren't so bad if you don't have to pay the nearly 40 cents/gal on gas in taxes.

    24. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sorry Mac users! The Army doesn't accept people with mental disabilities...

      Just kidding... I love the Mac!

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    25. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Top 10 reasons there won't be one for Mac users:
      10.There won't be any for the Mac because "BlueBerry" Is not a camoflauge color.

      9.The military is more fartsy and less artsy

      8. The military needs people who can handle 2 buttons.

      7. Still havent forgiven Apple for there crappy woodstock imitation in the 80's

      6. The What computer?

      5. Military doesn't allow 'sandles' as appropriet combat attire.

      4. Can't find a Mac user who would cut there pony tail off.

      3. Don't Ask, Don't tell.

      2. The military doesn't want to here "Speed isn't everything" when the enlisty can't keep up with rest of platoon.

      And the Number one reason why there will be no Americas Army for the Mac: the 'Crack of Dawn' id not Noon.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:The government didn't fund it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only thing that will ever stop you from being attacked in the real world is the fact that, if you are attacked, extremely *bad* things will happen to your attacker."

      That is simply not true, there will always be people who, given enough provocation, will be prepared to sacrifice anything to harm their protagonist. Modern weaponry (ie nukes, airplanes, germs, ...) allows a few attackers to do a great deal of damage. The people carrying out such an attack don't care if extremely *bad* things are going to happen to them if they get caught. It won't be anything like the extremely *bad* things they indend to carry out.

      Leaving the only other option.... world peace.

  3. Other Games by Cheesy+Fool · · Score: 2, Informative

    Serious Sam (first and second) encounter has also been ported. Medal of honor as well. There's also supposed to be another surprise today, BF1942?

    --

    Hail to the king, baby!
    1. Re:Other Games by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      Icculus did go to Europe on contract for some work. He could have been going to do the port for DICE's BF1942. I don't doubt it, actually. He was kinda hush hush about where and why he left. I'm almost positive that he went to Stockholm, Sweden.

    2. Re:Other Games by Tet · · Score: 1
      Serious Sam (first and second) encounter has also been ported.

      I've been playing the First Encounter beta on Linux, and while there are still a few bugs to iron out, I've got to say it rocks! The thought of the Second Encounter as well has me drooling. Flamethrower, here we come!

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    3. Re:Other Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contract was for the Battle Field 1942 server. It's very unlikely that he would port the client, he hasn't had a particularly pleasent experiance porting the server

  4. Unreal 2 based by xmnemonic · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is based off of the Unreal 2 engine, it is not based off of the game Unreal Tournament.

    1. Re:Unreal 2 based by edox. · · Score: 0

      Unreal lacks 3d effects.. its look too flat

      --
      quote:port 17 udp
    2. Re:Unreal 2 based by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 1

      the epic games guys just call it "the unreal engine" since unreal 2 is based on the original unreal engine. its just evolves. hasnt been rewriten.

    3. Re:Unreal 2 based by damiam · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unreal 2 is just a later build of the UT engine.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    4. Re:Unreal 2 based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is based on Epics Unreal Engine. Not UT or Unreal 2 engine. It is a more advanced build than the UT engine, but a build or so before UT2003 and U2. BTW Splinter Cell was also based on the Unreal Engine, that was a build before UT2003, and so was Raven Shield on the Rainbow Six series.

      That is all.

    5. Re:Unreal 2 based by Glenn2372 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Epic engine code is not a part of the latest release (1.5.0). The next release is supposed to incorporate the latest engine code.

  5. Argh! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Awesome. I consider America's Army to be one of the best things my government has funded within recent history.

    Yes! Immagine all that money being used on education, safety of healthcare instead of being used as some military recruitment/propaganda toy. WHAT A WASTE THAT WOULD BE!

    Note: Not a troll, nor a flame. Might be hard to see the difference in this case but I'm actually serious, heh.

    1. Re:Argh! by madrouter · · Score: 0

      Or how about I KEEP MY HARD-EARNED MONEY, and not allow the goverment to take 40-60% of my wages.

      Oh, and awesome. Can't wait to try this.

    2. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to flame you or anything but you do realize that the game only cost about $7 million to produce (at least according to Wired). You couldn't really do anything worthwhile in education or healthcare with only $7 million. As far as recruitment for the army goes $7 million is only probably about the amount the army spends on those "army of one" recruitment ads on TV in a week so no big waste of funds there. Now if you're trying to say that spending money to recruit people into the army is a waste of money, well that's a completly different conversation entirely.

    3. Re:Argh! by dj28 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tired old argument. If we used that logic, then the world wouldn't have half of the things we have now, not to mention many of the scientific advancements. That same argument has been used in opposition to nuclear power, space exploration, military technology, and now government funded software projects. The government can do more than one thing at a time. It's called multitasking, and that's why we have multiple agencies in government. Besides, exactly how is the little bit of money spent developing this game going to help healthcare? It's a negligible amount of money. We can't destroy all government projects that don't deal with education or healthcare, or we would be working backwards. Besides, this software project created jobs, which in the end helps educations.

    4. Re:Argh! by wakebrdr · · Score: 1

      Typical whiny-ass liberal mumbojumbo. Yes, instead of using the money for a cost-effective and efficient recruiting tool for THOSE HEATHENISTIC WARMONGERS, let's dump the money into preserving the nanny-state.

      --
      Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
    5. Re:Argh! by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The military has a recruitment mission and for this mission it gets millions and millions of dollars. Have you any clue on how much advertising costs? So now the Army decided to spend of those millions on a game as a recruiting tool instead of lame Army of One and Be All You Can Be commercials. Pretty smart move, I think. It's not like that money was in a pot that was otherwise going to fund school lunches or something like that.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    6. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      liberal whiney-ass troll meet conservative jerkoff troll

    7. Re:Argh! by KDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could create and fund probably over 7 schools with that tiny budget. Every little bit helps.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    8. Re:Argh! by KDan · · Score: 1

      Result? Third party says "There's a lot of dumb stuff being said here" and each of the trolls looks at the other with a deep feeling of satisfaction that someone else understands the situation.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    9. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be able to fund seven schools but you and i both know that if the army didn't spend the money on this game it would just bought another tank or made another TV commercial.

    10. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you Americans didn't like your government to undercut private enterprise, and had rules prohibiting it. How is releasing AA for free not damaging your games industry?

    11. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead and flame him. Does he also crab that the money used to produce and display public service messages could be better spent actually providing public services.

    12. Re:Argh! by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The Army loses more money than that in the couch.

    13. Re:Argh! by KDan · · Score: 1

      So if they have a spare $7mil, maybe they should get their budget decreased by $7mil so that can be spent on more constructive things.

      What business is the army in? Protecting the country or brainwashing the country? I thought the brainwashing was the job of other governmental agencies?

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    14. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They, among other things, need recruits. Hate them all you wish, but they need troops and are using modern methods to get them.

    15. Re:Argh! by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>Yes! Immagine all that money being used on education, safety of healthcare instead of being used as some military recruitment/propaganda toy. WHAT A WASTE THAT WOULD BE!

      Um.

      Without our military, we wouldn't have this country and the freedom that we enjoy. Much less the freedom to worry about and debate education and healthcare issues.

      I wish that more people in the post-Vietnam generation would get this into their heads. Our freedom is not free. Our government puts money into the military because it's necessary to ensure our freedom, and our way of life.

      Don't believe me? Go find some dude who's come here from a less privleged country and ask him what it's REALLY like out there.

      Personally, I think we as a country should be even stronger. It frightens me sometimes to think that in our current state that we couldn't fight on more than 2 Iraq sized fronts at the same time.

      I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/complacity is what will eventually kill this country.

      --
      Huh?
    16. Re:Argh! by ianp5uk · · Score: 1

      Not that the money is my business as I'm a Brit but what does it cost to host 340 official servers? Hopefully the Linux version will be more stable and they won't need to reboot so often! Whatever, great game chaps but would put me off joining up (too old now anyway). I get quite involved when I'm playing which means I get very tense and twitchy. It takes me a couple of hours to calm down. I hate getting shot in virtual so in reality I'd be a nervous gibbering wreck!

    17. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell is this insightful. How long is that 7 million gonna last 1 let alone 7 schools. Remember this was a 1 time charge not a reoccuring charge that would be needed to fund a school.

    18. Re:Argh! by mickeyreznor · · Score: 1

      that the game only cost about $7 million to produce

      it's easy to say only $7 million when it's not your money.

    19. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, i didn't realize we Americans were only allowed to have one game on our computers at a time. Shit, maybe i should uninstall Warcraft and Earth and Beyond...

    20. Re:Argh! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Yes! Immagine all that money being used on education, safety of healthcare instead of being used as some military recruitment/propaganda toy."

      Yeah, how dare the federal government not spend money on things that should be the states' responsibility? Federal money is the solution to all our woes, no matter what!

    21. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, i didn't realize we Americans were only allowed to have one game on our computers at a time

      No, me neither. Where did you get that impression from?

    22. Re:Argh! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You could create and fund probably over 7 schools with that tiny budget.

      Are you on crack? $7M Isn't enough to even build a single school, much less fund it.

      Every little bit helps.

      Only if you end up throwing enough little bits together. One little bit like this is totally irrelevant. If you want to save money, try the various corporate-welfare farm subsidies. Furthermore, I contend that our current problems in education aren't from lack of money-- they're from inept leadership. Here in Los Angeles, our local bureaucrat toads just poured $160M down a rathole called the Belmont Learning Center. It's built on a toxic waste dump over an earthquake fault. It'll never open. That's not lack of money, that's lack of rationality!

      Besides, this is the Army's PR budget. If they didn't spend it on this, they'd spend it on TV commercials. Would you rather the money went to programmers, or mutton-head Madison avenue suits?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    23. Re:Argh! by Catnapster · · Score: 1

      If you live in the United States, it is your money... tax money of course.

      And it's still easy to say, because the government is notorious for throwing ridiculous amounts of money at truly stupid things. IIRC, the government even lost 2 billion dollars. I don't mean their stocks went down or anything. It disappeared. (In retrospect, I guess having the government say that $2 billion disappeared is better than it saying that $2 billion spontaneously appeared, but the point remains.)

      Given a choice between simply losing $2 billion, and spending $7 million on a game that I hear is pretty good, I'll take the game any day.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    24. Re:Argh! by CounterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Are you joking? Schools cost a lot more than 7mil to run, if they are of any significant size.

    25. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, typical. What, do you think America is the only country on Earth with "freedom"?

      Other countries spend a far smaller proportion on their military than the US does, yet are more than capable of protecting their interests without outside help while maintaining a higher quality of life for their citizens.

      Obviously, you can't be torn away from your beloved CNN, so just keep on believing that America is some kind of beacon to the rest of the world...

    26. Re:Argh! by KDan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never mentioned building schools. If you have to build the school, then probably 7 million will get one school done.

      But there are other ways to open schools than raze a building and rebuild it - such as finding an appropriate building that's already there, and adapting it to the needs of a school. Might not make for a good-looking school, but sure is better than no school at all. And I was talking about funding it for one year.

      On my calculations, I was taking: hack a building into something that can be used as a school: $200k. Hire 10 decent but motivated teachers at $30k for the year, $300k. Hire a head for the school, and a part-time secretary or two, let's say $120k for the year. Bam, you still have $380k to spend on books, computers and other fixtures, and a school that will be able to take something around a hundred students through the school year.

      If you really wanted to, you could open a school for free, in your backyard (if you have a backyard). So you sure can do it with a million bucks too.

      People who know that it can't be done shouldn't get in the way of people who are doing it :-) (I'm not personally, but I know that there are people who are doing it).

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    27. Re:Argh! by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Now please name one that could take on two major fronts at the same time?

    28. Re:Argh! by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would assume that you're being sarcastic, but who knows nowadays. So...

      Without our military, we wouldn't have this country and the freedom that we enjoy. Much less the freedom to worry about and debate education and healthcare issues.

      Without _any_ military, sure. But we're talking degrees here, not a yes/no situation. Please explain how, say, cutting military funding in half would cause the US to collapse (not that we're talking about anything nearly that severe). Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance. That fact that we ignore the UN so often (think "World Court", or "not paying dues") and choose to get into wars that they do not support is part of our problem. Then again, perhaps that's part of what you meant by "our way of life"?

      I wish that more people in the post-Vietnam generation would get this into their heads. Our freedom is not free. Our government puts money into the military because it's necessary to ensure our freedom, and our way of life.

      That would be the freedom to own two SUVs while half of Africa is starving, right?

      Okay, I exaggerate slightly, but still... the problem isn't that the post-Vietnam generation doesn't think the military is worth having. If nothing else, it's an alternative to college for some people. Rather, the problem is that we know what the phrase "our way of life" really means, and we treat it as the rhetoric that it is. First, we're well aware that other industrialized countries are doing just fine without getting into wars every other year (also see below). On the other hand, we know that the "American way of life" is about having as many luxuries as money can buy, irregardless of the larger consequences (e.g. continuing poverty in much of the world, environmental damage, and for many Americans, excessive spending on credit). I love using my computer and participating in SlashDot discussions and the like, but I know that it's utterly unnecessary and that frankly the world would be better off if I didn't have this computer. You, on the other hand, seem like the type who thinks that society would collape if you couldn't buy your 16-year old a car.

      Don't believe me? Go find some dude who's come here from a less privleged country and ask him what it's REALLY like out there.

      I've lived in Canada and The Netherlands. They're both "less priveleged" than the US (as is every other nation on Earth, according to the US :), and they're both great, despite (or due to?) having smaller militaries than the US.

      And no, cutting US military funding won't cause us to become Cambodia overnight. Nice scare tactic.

      Personally, I think we as a country should be even stronger. It frightens me sometimes to think that in our current state that we couldn't fight on more than 2 Iraq sized fronts at the same time.

      This is why I assume that you're being sarcastic. Assuming that your statement is true at all, the next question is, how many enemies does the US have exactly? Why should we assume that the US is going to fight them alone? Why should the US have the forces necessary to fight multiple enemies constantly available rather than simply having the capacity to acquire them? Do you really think that the US will have zero time to prepare for the next war?

      I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/complacity is what will eventually kill this country.

      ...and some of us think that this kind of antiquated "US against the world" thinking will kill the US (not "this country", since SlashDot is an international forum). The cold war is over. Don't try to apply that type of thinking to the modern world. Instead, try thinking about what's _actually_ going on.

    29. Re:Argh! by chriso11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with a good chunk of what you are saying. HOWEVER (isn't there always a however? Anyway, moving right along) the last real defense of American liberties in war was WWII.

      The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and so on were not to 'ensure our freedom, and our way of life'. The main issue I have with the American military is neatly summed up in the old adage when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Face it, the US overuses its military, partially due to its sucesses.

      The US Military budget is larger than the next 5 largest military budgets, combined. And 3 of the five are close allies. And when was the last time there was a major US military action in more than 2 locations, anyway? Maybe the US should try less unilateral action, and rely on the resources (and advice) of our allies.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    30. Re:Argh! by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      Typical? OK, I'll take that. Sure.

      OK, so other countries don't spend the same proportions of money on their military. They have the the right to do what they will.

      A higher quality of life? Define higher quality. We could sit down, and spend hours discussing this. There are so many different ways to look at this. Voting rights, freedom of speech, access to free healthcare, class division(royalty, caste) seperation........

      The US govt isn't perfect, but at it's core I truly believe that it tries to d owhat's right for it's citizens, and the world.

      I felt this way about the USA //long// before there was a CNN propaganda machine.

      Don't let YOUR media fool you. We are not the evil empire some make us out to be. When your country is in trouble(doesn't matter who you are), there will be Americans there to help you.

      Who helps us? Who sent rescue workers to the WTC, or OKC? Who sends crews to us when WE have catastrophic earthquakes or storms, or floods?

      Almost no-one. The UK, Canada. Few others. As a side note, Fidel Castro offered to help with the 911 effort. That guy showed a lot more class than some of our European or Asian friends.

      Don't slam us. We do more good than harm, and get almost nothing in return.

      --
      Huh?
    31. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      Those countries are able to get away with that because American military presence allows them to do so.

      For years, those countries with a strong American military presence in or near them - particularly European countries - have funded quality of life services at the expense of their own militaries because they could get away with it.

      You know it, I know it, and even they admit to it when they loook around and realize how far their military capabilities have fallen behind that of the US.

      This is one of the main reasons why there has been such a big push over the last couple of years for an EU wide rapid reaction force independent of the US or NATO. The combination of a US government that is less inclined to act with European interests in mind combined with the knowledge of how wide the military gap is has them worried.

    32. Re:Argh! by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      One more thing.

      If the continental US was invaded and overrun, who would send forces to help liberate us? Fucking who?

      Again, the UK. Canada. Australia? Few others.

      But remember, we help everyone. Every fucking body. If there was another Hitler in Europe or anywhere, we'd be there dying to stop him.

      --
      Huh?
    33. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance. See, normally you'd be right, if it wasn't for the fact that the UN relies on the US to provide about 80% of their forces. Why the hell else do you think we go where we have no intrests at? Research before you post please, it just makes you look stupid and misinforms other readers.

    34. Re:Argh! by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      ). Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance. That fact that we ignore the UN so often (think "World Court", or "not paying dues") and choose to get into wars that they do not support is part of our problem. Then again, perhaps that's part of what you meant by "our way of life"?
      Are you really serious? Rwanda is a member of the UN too, but that did not save 800,000 Tutsis from being massacred by the Hutus despite advance warnings and pleas for help. In fact, if you dig into the record, the UN (deliberately, thanks to certain *cough* France *cough* member states) turned a deaf ear to the situation. Relying on the UN for military assistance is suicidal.
      I've lived in Canada and The Netherlands. They're both "less priveleged" than the US (as is every other nation on Earth, according to the US :), and they're both great, despite (or due to?) having smaller militaries than the US.
      Both of those states are NATO members are rely ultimately on the United States for their defense. They could not defend themselves without the US. That's how they pull that trick off.
      Why should we assume that the US is going to fight them alone?
      Because US allies with the exception of the UK lack the capability to even deploy their forces abroad. Also, they increasingly lack the ability to operate with US forces due to antiquated command, control and communications systems.
      Why should the US have the forces necessary to fight multiple enemies constantly available rather than simply having the capacity to acquire them? Do you really think that the US will have zero time to prepare for the next war?
      Because it takes a long time to acquire modern warfighting capability. Years. Modern wars proceed extremely quickly - "come as you are" wars since what you have on hand is what you fight with. The pace of warfare has gotten significantly faster than WW2.
      Don't try to apply that type of thinking to the modern world. Instead, try thinking about what's _actually_ going on.
      From the points you made, it seems you need to do a lot more informed thinking about modern military affairs.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    35. Re:Argh! by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      On my calculations, I was taking: hack a building into something that can be used as a school: $200k. Hire 10 decent but motivated teachers at $30k for the year, $300k. Hire a head for the school, and a part-time secretary or two, let's say $120k for the year. Bam, you still have $380k to spend on books, computers and other fixtures, and a school that will be able to take something around a hundred students through the school year.

      No offense, but this is really completely and totally wrong. You really, really, need to go take a business course at your local community college or something. First, if you pay your teachers $30K a piece, account for $50K a year. You have benefits, tax, payroll expenses, and other miscellaneous things. So that is $500k. If you think you could adapt any building to be a public school for $200K you have never remodeled a house. Your average 3 bedroom home that will be completely remodeled will be no less than $60K. An entire public school, you'd be looking at a healthy $1-$2M price tag just to get it setup properly. You also have a hard time adjusting an existing property to a school, with playgrounds, or if it's a high school parking lots, football fields, and all the necessary "school activities"

      If you are a charter school you get $6-$9K a year per student just to cover their expenses. That means that the burn rate of most schools (lets say public high schools, have enrollments >1K students) operate on a budget close to $1M a year -- without any construction or purchasing new school books.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    36. Re:Argh! by cicatrix1 · · Score: 1

      I never mentioned building schools. Original quote: You could create and fund probably over 7 schools with that tiny budget. Every little bit helps. So if creating doesn't mean building, how else to schools get created?

      --

      I know more than you drink.
    37. Re:Argh! by Pyromage · · Score: 1

      My high school was one of the best in the area (And still is). It was well funded with $29 million.

      And that school was big: about 3500 students.

      I call your post as bullshit. No, it's not a complete budget. But you could throw it at one or two districts and it would be a massive help.

      And if you want it for education, it doesn't have to go there: $7M in scholarships goes a *long* way. Maybe not far enough, but pretty damned far.

    38. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1 million dollars is nothing for a school. That would barely cover 10 teachers for a year. My old school district only graduates 250 students a year, yet its budget was $40,000,000+. 3 Elementaries, 1 Middle and 1 High School. Total of 5. $7,000,000 could fund one of them.

    39. Re:Argh! by spasm · · Score: 1

      the cost of vaccinating an american child for hepatitis B and A works out at ~$120 delivered. $7 million would vaccinate an entire generation in many states.

      saving, i might add, considerably more than $7 million down the track when the tiny percentage of those vaccinated who would have caught one of these diseases and needed incredibly expensive liver treatments and transplants *don't* catch hep B or A.

    40. Re:Argh! by drmofe · · Score: 1
      Who helps us? Who sent rescue workers to the WTC, or OKC? Who sends crews to us when WE have catastrophic earthquakes or storms, or floods?

      New Zealand sent most of its bush firefighters to assist with the wildfires in California last year.

      Your comments are idealistic and misguided. I was most amused on my last visit to the US when the local guide told me how wonderful life in America ws and then warned me not to walk anywhere...

      STF

    41. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel really brainwashed when I play AA. Thank you for saving me. That $7M is an outraged compared to the billions the DOE (you know, the other brainwashing arm of the Federal Government)
      can't account for.

      Next on the platter, banning violent video games because they brainwash children, and banning fag parades because tax dollars are wasted on increased policing and clean up.

    42. Re:Argh! by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance.

      See, normally you'd be right, if it wasn't for the fact that the UN relies on the US to provide about 80% of their forces. Why the hell else do you think we go where we have no intrests at?


      Good! Then we can cut back the US military by at least 20% (more if the rest of the UN starts picking up the slack). Sounds like you're supporting my point.

      Assuming you're right, of course. Going to supply me with a reference for that "Fact"?

      Research before you post please, it just makes you look stupid and misinforms other readers.

      If you're going to disagree, come up with a more intelligent argument! You're giving out information which basically agrees with me even though you claim to disagree with me, point to an obscure "fact" without supplying a reference, then claim that _I_ look dumb? Please.

    43. Re:Argh! by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you really serious? Rwanda is a member of the UN too, but that did not save 800,000 Tutsis from being massacred by the Hutus despite advance warnings and pleas for help. In fact, if you dig into the record, the UN (deliberately, thanks to certain *cough* France *cough* member states) turned a deaf ear to the situation. Relying on the UN for military assistance is suicidal.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Hutu-led Rwandan government the one _doing_ the killing (see summary here)? I agree that the UN should have done more, but comparing this to what would happen if the US was attacked makes no sense.

      Either way, time for a reality check. Small African nations are not treated the same as nations which are important enough to be members of the Security Council. It's sad but true. You say below that the UN is dependant on the US for defense, yet you also think that they wouldn't come to our aid? If nothing else, our economic ties to the rest of the world would assure that UN nations would come to our aid, at least in a defensive war (an offensive war is obviously another story!)

      Both of those states are NATO members are rely ultimately on the United States for their defense. They could not defend themselves without the US. That's how they pull that trick off.

      Defend themselves from who? Who exactly is going to invade Canada in the near future? Remember where I said that you should think about "what's _actually_ going on"? This is what I'm talking about. The enemies of the UN are a few individual nations, not a superpower (a la the Cold War). Some nations actually act like this is the case.

      Besides, I've argued that the US military could afford to shrink. I didn't say that it should go away entirely!

      Because US allies with the exception of the UK lack the capability to even deploy their forces abroad. Also, they increasingly lack the ability to operate with US forces due to antiquated command, control and communications systems.

      Personally, I think that is so wrong it's laughable. You really think that no other military in the world is capable of sending troops abroad except the US and (conveniently) it's one major ally?

      So, why do I think you're wrong. Here's a list of UN peacekeeping operations as of Mid 2002 and the percentage of US troops involved in each. Notice that the US supplies an average of 1.5% of troops to these operations. If this article is correct, then even some smaller nations supply thousands of UN Peacekeepers. There's my proof that other nations can deploy their forces. They could do it last year, and I assume that they can still do it now!

      Now, where's your proof to back up your claim that only the US and England can deploy forces abroad?

      Because it takes a long time to acquire modern warfighting capability.

      Actually, I agree with this whole bit, but I was talking about the US gearing _itself_ up for war, by calling up reserves (or instituting a draft), building more weaponry, etc. We're talking about two different things here.

      From the points you made, it seems you need to do a lot more informed thinking about modern military affairs.

      I hate to tell you this pal, but unsubstantiated claims and misunderstanding what I'm talking about aren't exactly convincing me to listen to you.

    44. Re:Argh! by kaisa_sosey · · Score: 1
      If its just another tank or another TV commercial than i would say they don't need the money.

      Lets build schools ;-)

    45. Re:Argh! by kaisa_sosey · · Score: 1
      3. Or would you rather not spend the money at all ?

      Let them produce bullshit, because otherwise the bullshit would be worse. What kind of arguing is that ?

    46. Re:Argh! by KDan · · Score: 0

      Once again, you're thinking of the wrong kind of school. Start from the idea that you can build a school for free with volunteers, then add the $1mil into it, and it's easy to build a school for $1mil. No one said it had to be a posh TV-series-set-in-Beverly-Hills type of school. Go to Afghanistan and you'll see how easy it is to build a school for $1mil!

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    47. Re:Argh! by Timmeh · · Score: 1

      If we're going by his figures we'd actually cut back by at least 25%, as 20% is one-fourth of 80%. Just nitpicking.:P

    48. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it would be nice if we didn't need a military, wouldn't it? While we're dreaming of Utopia, imagine all the money being spent on healthcare going to buy a Beowulf cluster of....

    49. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm the original Can I ask you a question AC)

      First, it is understandable and perfectly acceptable to love your country. The issue is not this.

      I think many countries would be happy to offer assistance in the situations you described, if the US actually asked for assistance. From what I know, the US has not done so. Also, from what I remember, many European countries offered assistance (at least my country did) but the US declined.

      On the other hand, it is understandable that the US declines help. If you think for example countries like Armenia they have a much harder time coping with an earthquake (for example) than the USA who has a big military, a national guard and other such organizations on call, not to mention a lot of resources. The US can handle it. But if they need help I'm sure they would get it.

      Also, from what I've understood it's not the people of USA that are being hated, it's the acts of the government who uses power-politics as a tool of business and the big corporations who exploit the already poor. Also, the disregard for the "feelings" of other countries plays a big role too. It's that arrogance that most find repulsive.

      Some people do associate US citizens with the foreign policy of the US government, and that is not a good nor constructive approach.

    50. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The US is not 'part of the UN'. The UN is a cooperative organization between sovereign states, funded by those states, and used by by those states for their own purposes.


      The UN has no budget of its own, and no army. When the UN wants to take action, Koffi Annan has to call around begging for soldiers and funding, and it is the US that usually steps up.


      Canada, the Netherlands, and most of Europe do not have large armies precisely because the US does; we have a pact called NATO that binds us to protec them in case of attack.


      Whether it is right or not, we have noone to turn to if we need defending, because we are the ones who defend everyone else. Noone else has stepped up to the responsibly of 'world cop'.


      I consider myself a liberal, but mindlessly spouting second-hand enviro mumbo-jumbo does not add anything to the dialog.

    51. Re:Argh! by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Actually, less priveleged countries (I assume you're talking about dirt poor countries, but anyway) usually have enormous militaries because they've been fighting for so long. They spend ALL their money on the military and as such, have none to spend on anything else. Our freedom is not free, but we don't need to go around picking fights. We were considering not letting the weapons inspectors finish their jobs so we could attack.

      You are right though, a lack of understanding and complacency probably will kill this country, but it will not be through military means.

    52. Re:Argh! by Issue9mm · · Score: 1

      I can't believe I'm wasting my mod points by pointing this out, but just to clarify, to the U.S. government, the Vietnam War was never classified as a war, but an overseas operation.

      So, technically, every time you hear someone refer to "the Vietnam War", they're wrong. The U.S. government doesn't officially acknowledge that a war ever took place in Vietnam, despite how many of its members disagree.

      -9mm-

    53. Re:Argh! by KDan · · Score: 1

      As a final argument in this thread, if the other people quoting astronomical numbers of schools that can be built for $7mil are not enough to convince you, check this link.

      Dunno about you people, but if $5mil can build a hospital and 4 teaching clinics, I'm pretty sure it can build a lot of schools too.

      So a big narf to all those who think that schools have to 20 zillion dollars to be worth building.

      NARF! :-)

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    54. Re:Argh! by ProfessorPuke · · Score: 1

      So, technically, the U.S. government is wrong. It's "official acknowledgements" don't change the truth. That "police action" in Vietnam was thousands of times more violent and costly than the 1991 Iraq conflict.

      Conversely, there is no such thing as a "War on Terrorism" or a "War on Drugs", whatever the government says.

    55. Re:Argh! by ProfessorPuke · · Score: 1

      But remember, we help everyone.

      Tell that to Rwandans or Kurds.

      Hitler in Europe or anywhere, we'd be there dying to stop him.

      You mean like the Russians and British did? For each US soldier killed in WW2, 2 British and 50 Russian ones died.

      Those two countries contained & attritted Germany so that the US could spend a few years ramping up for a triumphant knockout punch. America paid in dollars, not blood.

    56. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a USian tax payor, I am absolutely fine with the fact that I paid somewhere between 7 and 14 cents to have this game made.

  6. What the fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It's a recruitment tool for the imperial forces. And It's a terrible game. Keep it away from linux.

    1. Re:What the fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn Eurotrash.

    2. Re:What the fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking redneck piece of shit.

  7. Go Army by Kurt+Russell · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe they can stop those evil-DDoS-doers!

    1. Re:Go Army by (rypto* · · Score: 1

      No man.. DDoS just kills machines
      Bt gun kills human :(
      Im frightened to live in this world
      What if some1 kill me 2morrow askin me if u played Army game on linux?

      war is on .gov not in US

      --
      #3 pencils and quadrille pads.
    2. Re:Go Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you should learn how to type. That didn't make much sense.

    3. Re:Go Army by (rypto* · · Score: 1

      I know.. I didnt mean to make any sense ;)

      --
      #3 pencils and quadrille pads.
  8. Haha... misread... by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 1

    When I first read this I thought "now, I can understand the slashdot linux zealots talking about Microsoft doing evil things against Linux, but the US army?"

    And then I debated, should I check "post anonymously" or not... :)

    (no karma bonus was a no brainer...)

    --
    sig.
  9. How did they do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish there were some instructions as of how to do this as I didn't find anything on their site...

    Could someone shed some light on this?

  10. Violence in video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Though most of the slashdot community may not agree with this, I think this is another sign that playing violent video games hardens the player and desensitizes him to violence. (Disclaimer: I play plenty of UT and Quake3)

    I've heard several comments (on TV) from veteran soldiers that have worked with the younger generation of recruits about this. Many feel that many of the new recruits do not have any remorse or feeling for the other soldiers or the innocents in battle. However, most of the comments were talking about soldiers during the gulf war, before the John Carmack revolution...

    Granted, correlation does not imply causation; but even I can tell that I have been desensitized to violence to some degree.

    1. Re:Violence in video games by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait till the recruits are in a real battle, watching the faces of the people they kill, having that nagging thought that they killed another human who probably didnt even want to be there fighting. No game I've ever played could ever prepare you for that.

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    2. Re:Violence in video games by Exiler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh it's like the last few generations comic books, cowboys and indians, etc. There's NOTHING different except for the medium.

      --
      Banaaaana!
    3. Re:Violence in video games by curiuz · · Score: 0

      It's true! Colonel Kurtz had his men play GTA3!

    4. Re:Violence in video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree with you, but on the other side of the equation, what about x number of years ago when the country was more agricultural/agrarian (please excuse spelling), not that we were ever that agrarian, but when more people raised and slaughtered their own food and when hunting was more common. Didn't that also desensitize people to violence?

    5. Re:Violence in video games by C0LDFusion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've heard several comments (on TV) from veteran soldiers that have worked with the younger generation of recruits about this. Many feel that many of the new recruits do not have any remorse or feeling for the other soldiers or the innocents in battle.

      Well, here's the thing: Gamers talk shit. All the time. Of course, these l33t h4x0rz are going to talk shit about how cool they are and how many people they are going to kill if they get in. So, if they judge on that, I can see why they make that judgement.

      Also, when you're in a battle, you're pumped full of adrenaline and feeling the "fight or flight" and if you choose to fight and you kill someone, the odds are you won't care about it until it's worn off. If they are making judgements based on reactions in battle, I can see why they make that judgement.

      But unless they are spending time with the "younger generation" who are in their homes crying in their hands, weeping because they realized that they ACTUALLY destroyed a life, and it sunk in that someone's father, son, or brother was killed in battle by them...unless they spend THAT time with them, it's impossible to make that judgement. And you can't have that reality sink in before a fight, during a fight, or the hours directly following a fight (when your buddies are slapping you on your back for the "good job" you did). It's when you sit down, and you go over it with your mind over and over and over again...that's when it sinks in.

      I don't speak from experience on this, but I've talked to Vets, and I know when I've done something bad that I thought was okay at first, that it didn't sink in until I'd actually thought about it.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    6. Re:Violence in video games by jcsehak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but even I can tell that I have been desensitized to violence to some degree.

      Have you now? When was the last time you saw someone get shot?

      I guarantee you, if you see someone get shot or beaten, or even do it yourself, you'll feel the same way about it as if you never played video games. Have you even got in a fight recently? Doubtful.

      --

      c-hack.com |
    7. Re:Violence in video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh it's like the last few generations comic books, cowboys and indians, etc. There's NOTHING different except for the medium.

      There is one important difference though. In books and movies and TV, the hero is invincible -- he can prance about in the open while being fired on by machine-guns and not get hit simply because he is righteous in some way. In FPS games, one realizes just how easy it is to die, and just how often the cause of your death can be through blind chance. In that respect at least, I think FPS games are a much more realistic, and therefor healthier, depiction of violence than say Holywood movies.

    8. Re:Violence in video games by Cranky_92109 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've played America's Army quite a bit, and I'd have to say that this particular game is realistic enough that it made me think MORE about the real consequences of armed combat. That is no small thing because I spent six years in the Marine Corps.
      About 1/2 the maps are ones where the teams fight with MILES simulation gear, and all the maps are 'one life to live' so when you peek around the corner and get killed, you have a few minutes to think about what would have happened in real life. This game is almost a simulation, and it is very well done.

    9. Re:Violence in video games by pdboddy · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much more a video game could desensitize you compared to what you can see on TV, read in the newspapers, etc. The world itself is a hard place, everyone is desensitized to a degree. Think about it, how many homeless people do you walk by on a downtown street, people asking for change? I know I used to give change to them, but after a while you become desensitized, if I gave change to all of them, *I'd* be there next to them asking for change too. So a little bit of you is switched off, and for the most part, I'll bet most people ignore the bums except for the odd one or two... What I would say these video games do is hammer in a reflex motion, you see movement, you turn, pull trigger... do this over and over enough times in a game, and chances are you'd react the same way in real life. Add to that fact that quite a few people could probably load, cock, aim and fire a gun with nothing except from what they've learned watching TV... Chances are, you would react, turn and fire... but you'd react the same way most people do, turn and be violently ill.... if you were to shoot and kill someone in real life.

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    10. Re:Violence in video games by Tugar · · Score: 1

      Wait till the recruits are in a real battle, watching the faces of the people they kill, having that nagging thought that they killed another human who probably didnt even want to be there fighting.

      When you are advancing on a position, or someone is advancing on yours, it is unlikely that you will be considering whether or not the other guy wants to be there or not.
      Your only thoughts will be on your training and getting out of the situation alive. If your enemy doesn't want to fight and die, he gets to surrender. If he doesn't surrender, he gets to die.
      Can't get any simpler than that.

      No game I've ever played could ever prepare you for that.

      I doubt that the developers of "America's Army" were trying to prepare anyone for the experience of looking a guy in the eye while shoving a bayonet into his gut. There's no way to simulate the smell you get when his bowels loosen up or the stench of a lacerated liver when it's exposed to the air.
      But if there was, the first company to produce such a simulator would probably make a billion dollars selling the game to 15yr old Play Station afficiandos.

    11. Re:Violence in video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit! You mean war involves killing people?! Bugger, I (like most Americans) didn't realize that! Fuck!

      On the other hand, since when has desensitization not been a desirable trait in a soldier? Sure sure, we don't want cold-blooded murderers running around, but it's always been good practice to make sure your army isn't going to soil themselves when they see their mate get shot.

    12. Re:Violence in video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vetrans commenting on TV do not a phenomenum make. In fact, I'd wager that Civil War recruits were infinitely harder than today's as they had infinitely harder lives and didn't have the luxury of gathering their food from golden-arched bags. It's more correct to say that TV journalists skewed perceptions by only airing those comments that fit the slant of that particular story-of-the-day.
      In any case, you disprove your own argument: ....before the John Carmack revolution.

    13. Re:Violence in video games by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      watching the faces of the people they kill

      With all the robot planes, smart bombs and high-tech weaponry, it's doubtful that many soldiers will ever see the people they kill.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    14. Re:Violence in video games by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      ...with the exception of Tarantino movies or screenplays based on Shakespearean tragedies, in which just about everybody usually dies. ;)

      WRT to FPSs, it really depends. In Doom/Quake-like games, for instance, the combination of ubelievably good armor + healing powerups is a bit unrealistic. Hell, you might be able to take an anti-tank rocket and live. In the MechWarrior games, unless you're pretty darn close and are fighting against fairly odd designs (like, say, a 100-ton mech armed with four or more Ultra AC20s on group fire...) you can usually take some shots and still limp away.

      On the other hand, in Tom Clancy-based games, getting shot once ==> you're quite possibly dead. And since the AIs in those games tend to be darn good shots, that places a bit of emphasis on being a bit more careful such as using grenades / flashbangs rather than pretending that you can simply run in and bang-bang-bang.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    15. Re:Violence in video games by soren100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The examples of violence you mention are extreme examples. Violence happens all the time, just in more subtle ways, and not so subtle ways, the desensitization means *you just don't notice it*

      -- when people get shot in movies, you aren't horrified, you enjoy it and pay to go see it again, that was entertainment, not violence! when you say a mean comment to someone, you don't realize the harm you caused, when you hear that the air force bombed a wedding party in Afghanistan or an innocent village, you don't care.

      When WH Bush wants to go to war with Iraq to distract you from the state of the economy, you agree that we should "stop the terrorists", you don't worry about the American soldiers dying or the consequences to their families or the innocent Iraqis -- you just agree that we should "support the President".

      When you hear about Enron cheating their employees out of their life savings, you have compassion, but you don't care enough to get active and make changes.

      When you see a mentally ill homeless person on the street, you don't care. Bottom line -- violence is all around you, and you don't care -- you're like a fish in water -- you just don't notice it, or care enough to really do anything about it. If you were not desensitized to violence, you would be horrifed every time you saw someone hurt or killed in a movie or game, even though you knew it wasn't real. You would not consider it entertainment, just as the people watching gladiators fight in Rome considered it entertainment. It didn't bother them either -- they paid to see it too. You, my friend, are just one step away.

    16. Re:Violence in video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pff. First, most of the things you listed are untrue of me specifically. But I know you were using the indeterminate "you", so let's get down to brass tacks.

      It is literally impossible to live in a world without violence, without unpleasantness. So take it as given that you will see or be involved in unpleasant incidents. When such a thing happens, you can cope or not. I'd rather be able to cope. So any horror that I feel must not be incapacitating. That puts a cap on empathy right there: I must be at least a little desensitized.

      After that, it's just a matter of degree. How much empathy should I keep knowing that every bit will draw me away from my own concerns? How often can I afford to be distracted, and how much can I give up to help others?

      The answers differ according to each person's situation. Someone who is barely making ends meet can't afford to help others much. His choices are 1) sacrifice more of his time, attention, or money, 2) become depressed because he can't do anything to help, or 3) become more desensitized.

      A person can only choose the first option so often before he has to stop. At that time, if he's smart, he'll avoid the second option and go straight for the third. Ideally, he'd occasionally test his situation by "testing the waters" with a sacrifice of some sort, and see if it turns out well enough.

  11. Oh, great... by P.+Niss · · Score: 1

    First it was the Iraqis, then it was the North Koreans, now we have to worry about the fucking Armericans? And they're already running combat simulations on Linux? Shit, guess it's time to go hide out in Montarna or Nevarda or something.

    1. Re:Oh, great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'rm ar rearlly sophisticarted Slashdort usrer. Ir purt extrra 'r'rs irn mry worrds.

    2. Re:Oh, great... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

      Im guessin yar arr an anal typo bitch too. That's ok :)

      --
      You need a FREE iPod Nano
    3. Re:Oh, great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck. The Americans you really want to worry about are already in Montana and Nevada.

  12. Great to hear... by shftleft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being an avid AAO Player, and an avid linux user, I'm glad to hear that someone has gotten the client running under Linux. As exciting as that is, I'm more disappointed that the linux server software hasn't been released to the public yet....*sigh

    WOLVERINES!
    Team RD AAO
    shftleft on AA

    --
    People who have witty things here blow.
  13. Recruiting by Kjeks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slightly off-topic, so mod me down if you wish.
    It's weird that after a billion years of human evolution, we still solve conflicts by killing each others. The only thing that has evolved is the method used.

    I think it's sad that young people are encouraged to kill other people, and the army even sends out computer games to recruit people!
    Why not spend more money on *preventing* war, in stead of *fighting* war?

    There should be an political army as well as a millitary army, but then again, it won't be so "fun" to not be able to kill other human beings.

    -"Killing people with bow and arrow is primitive. Killing people with nuclear bombs is civilized."

    --

    --
    Will work for bandwidth.
    1. Re:Recruiting by OldBen · · Score: 1

      Not off-topic at all, IMO. It's a dangerous piece of propoganda that lets a young man or woman imagine that they're taking part in the military while safely ensconced in their home. As the old saying goes, too bad there isn't a reset button in real life. Too bad we think it's "cool" that this is running on Linux, or anywhere else. Too bad that the one time we see a violent video game that is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO INSIGHT YOUNG PEOPLE TO REAL VIOLENCE, we celebrate it. Wake up people, and don't go die and kill for oil.

    2. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the world is that people are evil. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." While you and me, as relatively dispassionate, well-fed, and educated observers, can condemn people who still fight and kill, there are a hundred others who, either out of presumed necessity (ie I'm starving, what the heck, I'll kill the guy for his food), or out of greed, etc. (ie I have food, but I WANT his too), will find justification. - what a run-on sentence!

    3. Re:Recruiting by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      War is bad. It makes Baby Jeebus cry. Film at 11.
      Honestly, why does stuff like this get marked up as "insightful?" Good grief.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    4. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's weird that after a billion years of human evolution, we still solve conflicts by killing each others.


      wtf?? dinosaurs lived between 200-60 million years ago. so apparently we have been around long before and after them.

      hell, the earth is only 4billion years old right??

      are you using the Genesis version of history again??
    5. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not spend more money on *preventing* war, in stead of *fighting* war

      Many would argue that having a readily manned and equiped military is itself a means of preventing war. A potential attacker is less likely to attack if they stand to incur unsestainable losses and thus no war would begin and nobody would die.

      I think it's sad that young people are encouraged to kill other people, and the army even sends out computer games to recruit people!

      The idea that they are encouraged to kill is just wrong, people in the military are taught how to kill should they ever be forced to do so in the defense of the nation (their use in the current world situation is a diffent matter from the reason to have a military). Boiled down to its simplest premise, they learn to kill so that civilians like us will never have to. As to your opposition to recruitment, I think we would both agree that its far better than its alternative, a draft.

      but then again, it won't be so "fun" to not be able to kill other human beings.

      You seem to have some deep seeded preconceptions of people in the military which are very wrong, I have not met a single person in the military who has actually killed someone who thought it was fun to do so. Of the members of the military i have met who have not killed someone; none look forward to the day they get to kill someone with glee though some look forward to the day they will be able to fight for their country it, as far as i can tell, has nothing to do with the oppertunity to end a fellow human being's life.

    6. Re:Recruiting by wakebrdr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why not spend more money on preventing war instead of fighting war?

      This may come as a suprise to you, but there are people in the world who want to kill you and me just out of spite. We who sit around on Saturday mornings sipping tasty caffienated beverages sometimes have a hard time relating to those in the 3rd world raised in highly religious environments where they are taught that all their problems are because of us, and the only way to fix it is with an AK or a suicide bomb.

      When you try to act on this problem, you end up making the productive members of society give away huge amounts of their earnings because the only way to *prevent war* on a planet with limited resources and swelling population is to redistribute wealth. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." This leads to socialism or communism. People are not naturally inclined to work for the service of others. It is not natural for people to sacrifice the fruits of their labor for some larger social goal. Surely you learned something from the collapse of the Soviet Union, yes?

      So sorry, but the old saying rings true: The best way to keep the peace is to prepare for war.

      --
      Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
    7. Re:Recruiting by bruthasj · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Why not spend more money on *preventing* war, in stead of *fighting* war?

      I don't mean to shave my beard, throw out my peace sign and stop puffing on my bong, but just because the U.S. stops "killing", doesn't mean that people we care to protect will stop "dying". Just look at this crap: Human Rights.

      Since these guys are hiding behind a wall of "government", then it requires war to stop crime. Yeah, announce all of your U.S. conspiricies in reply to this message, but that doesn't boil down to reality. The reality is that some people irresponsibly wield a destructive weapon and have gathered so much hatred for others that they are so willing to use it at anytime. This needs to be stopped, whether the country has oil or not. BTW, did Serbia have oil?

      Anyway, I'm probably gonna get shot down on this one, especially with /. and all. So, if anyone has the same opinions as I do, help me out with more links.

    8. Re:Recruiting by workindev · · Score: 1

      Why not spend more money on *preventing* war, in stead of *fighting* war?

      What do you think Bush is doing? We have not fired a shot yet in Iraq (besides the no-fly zone incidents, but those have been happening for 8 years). We have been rattling sabres loud enough for months now that even Saudi Arabia is talking about forming a coup to oust Saddam Hussein. I would say that the money being spent now on military build-up and war prep is doing a great deal to prevent war.

      There should be an political army as well as a millitary army, but then again, it won't be so "fun" to not be able to kill other human beings.

      Its sad if you think this is true. I dare you to find any person in the military that wants to go to Iraq and kill people. I have a close relative in the Marines and the last thing that he wants to do is kill people.

      The simple fact is that the world will always have its share of Hitlers and Husseins. If nothing were done about these tyrannical leaders, we would have much more death, fighting, and suffering.

    9. Re:Recruiting by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      There is a political army. they're called "Diplomats"

      And just so you know, being prepared and well equipped to fight a war does in fact keep it from happening. Point and fact--you're still here. No one nuked anyone else in the cold war because each side knew the other could toss it right back at them.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    10. Re:Recruiting by xamel · · Score: 0

      *sigh*
      Finally, someone who honestly makes sense!

      ^-^

      --
      GOD DAMNIT , MODERATE ME!
    11. Re:Recruiting by DF5JT · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I think it's sad that young people are encouraged to kill other people, and the army even sends out computer games to recruit people!
      Why not spend more money on *preventing* war, in stead of *fighting* war?"

      Because that would be unpatriotic, Anti-American, Anti-NRA, which makes you a German (or French) Islamic fundamental terrorist supporter from the old Europe.

    12. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military army doesn't start the wars.

      It's the political army of elected officials that starts all these messes.

      When the electorate gets sick of intervention and entangling alliances, they can vote in politicians that share their views.

      The majority of the electorate has the advantage of not having fought the wars they ask to have started on their behalf. The ones who actually do our dirty work seem too foolish and apathetic to want to change direction.

      We don't need more armies "political" or otherwise. We just need take responsibility for the government we elect. We do get the government we deserve.

    13. Re:Recruiting by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      actually, most of this forum is off-topic. this is about playing the game under linux, not wether AAO should even exist.

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    14. Re:Recruiting by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I haven't known military personnel who explicitly say they want to kill people, but I've known many who said that they wanted "action" and were bored. Especially if they are actually deployed, since much of the work at that point is just - waiting. The fact that "action" consists of killing other people goes unsaid.

    15. Re:Recruiting by hism · · Score: 0

      "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." 8^)

    16. Re:Recruiting by stubear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll help you out here. For all those "this war is about the U.S. getting oil" conspiracy theorists, read this article. I wish the internet had turned out different. People should be using it to read and learn. Instead they are using it to shout at the top of their lungs things which are false and need correcting. The internet has not improved the individual, it has acutely focused "group think" and our world is quickly becoming poorer for it. Jingoism and hatred for others is wrong, especially if it is unfounded and based on lies and propaganda.

    17. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you ignorant fucking simpleton
      everything is so sweet and simple in your world isnt it ?

      your a moron

    18. Re:Recruiting by Badanov · · Score: 1

      I think it is necessary to show the term of the ceasefire signed by Iraqi Armed Forces 12 years, which they have cnsistently broken and which gives us all the reason we need to wreck the Iraqi mobocracy using military force.

      --
      Dawn of the Dead
    19. Re:Recruiting by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that killing someone doesn't actually resolve the conflict. Say, for example, that Frog is debating income tax with Toad. There are two conflicts: one is the conflict between viewpoints, and the other is the interpersonal conflict between Frog and Toad. Say in the middle of the debate, Frog kills Toad. Only the interpersonal conflict has been resolved, and even then it was by default, not by an actual victory. There's no more conflict because there's no more person. On the viewpoint side, the killing may end up being counterproductive for Frog. This is the principle behind nonviolent opposition as I understand it. Remove the interpersonal conflict as irrelevant, and only the ideas remain.

      Your mileage may vary :)

      Ravi

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    20. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dubya, is that you?

    21. Re:Recruiting by pdboddy · · Score: 1

      I think your tone might change if a couple of buildings downtown your city were reduced to flaming rubble, and in one of them was the remains of someone you cared about. I'd bet you'd be there demanding your president do something to the bastards who had done that.
      I know up here in Canada we held our breaths wondering what the US would do in the immediate aftermath. I know a few friends in Military Intelligence were surprised a few countries in the Gulf weren't reduced to glass parking lots... but saner heads prevailed.
      You have to realize that someone has to be in the military. And your military has to be strong, or you have to have strong friends. Because if you don't, someone else will steam roller over you. How many examples do you need before you realise this?
      Do you even know half the pressures your president is under? How he has to balance what he thinks is good for the country against the hotheads who say "nuke em all and let whatever god they worship sort them out" and the softies who want to ring the country in a steel wall, and bury their heads in the sand to shut out the cold harsh realities of the world?
      War is hard, brutal and definitely not "civilized". The people who fight in them have to be hard, and that is what the training is for. It's not like there are people in the military who wake up one day and realize, "What, I have to *kill* people?!?". They know what they are signing up for, and that they might go out one day and not come back.
      If you aren't in the military, at least support the fighting men and women. If you don't like it, you have plenty of means to try and change it. Vote, protest and rally. If you don't want to do that, find some other country to live in...

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    22. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's really a surprise that the US didn't kill masses of innocent people in a few countries in the Gulf, a very tough inspection regime is necessary for the United States. I don't think anyone can allow that they have access to weapons of mass destruction if they may react to a terrorist attack by committing even much larger terrorist attacks against people who aren't connected to the first terrorist attack. I know that the US has always resisted inspections, even of biological weapons, but if such stories are true, there has to be international pressure on the United States to allow coercive inspections that make sure that either all hotheads who say "nuke them all" are removed from influencial positions or the United States gives up all weapons of mass destruction. The rest of the world can't allow such hotheads to sit on the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, the risk is too big.

    23. Re:Recruiting by praksys · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the State Department should follow the DoD's lead and develop a First Person Negociator game.

      I can just see it now. You get to sit on your arse for hours at a time listening to mental North Koreans saying things like "This seating arrangement is tantamount to a declaration of war!" or whiny Europeans endlessly complaining about how the US never asks them first when they want to start bombing places like North Korea.

      Play that game for a few hours and you will start to see the merits of violence.

      All I'm saying is, give war a chance.

    24. Re:Recruiting by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I haven't known military personnel who explicitly say they want to kill people, but I've known many who said that they wanted "action" and were bored. Especially if they are actually deployed, since much of the work at that point is just - waiting. The fact that "action" consists of killing other people goes unsaid.

      As a veteran, I can say that most of the desire to see "action" is concentrated in those who haven't seen it yet. I found I like boredom better, as do most people.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    25. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People still make war because it works. Demolishing an opposing force eleminates that threat forever. That it's not a pleasant truth is no argument against its validity.
      In the end force will cease to be an option only when neither side has a reasonable change of avoiding unacceptable damage. The US could invade Afghanistan because, well, what could they do about it anyway. As the two greatest and bitterest enemies of modern history, America and the Soviets never went to war because the potential consequence was complete mutual destruction. Again, not a pleasant truth but valid none the less.

    26. Re:Recruiting by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Ah. So it's not that the war is all about the U.S. getting Iraqi oil, it's about the U.S. getting Iraqi oil and stopping France and Russia from getting it. Well, that's much better, then!

      The only "revelation" in that article is that other governments' middle-east policies are based around greed for oil, too. It's rather sad that the author, in an egregious abuse of logic, uses this fact to discredit the idea that the U.S. is mostly concerned with oil as well. You need look no farther to see who succumbed to group-think and propaganda.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    27. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No help here. An article in Harpers a couple of issues back outlined in detail exactly to what extent the US's effective veto on imports to Iraq were being used to block items essential to the rebuilding of that country's infrastructure. You were, in effect, using mid-level bureaucrats kill innocent Iraqi citizens by the hundreds of thousands over the past decade. Believe all you want that you're going in as White Knights, the truth is very different.

    28. Re:Recruiting by Luckster7 · · Score: 1

      People are not naturally inclined to work for the service of others. It is not natural for people to sacrifice the fruits of their labor for some larger social goal.

      I disagree. Have you ever heard of Open Source? If people are treated fairly and with respect this is natural. Yes, I believe human nature is good and people generally want to help others.

      --
      Deuteronomy 13:06-9
    29. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if EVERYONE decided not to kill people we would be fine....but that is never going to happen! How many murders happen in this country? And if we all lay down our guns, don't you think Iraq, Iran, China, or for that matter Cuba, (or any small government with *ambition*), might pick theirs up...then what do we do? We will be their slaves because we don't want to kill people!

      Lets face it, sometimes two cultures are in direct opposition...it is a fact that one cannot except the other, there IS only ONE resolution (well OK really 2 but its the same idea). One of these two group must die. Its not PC, nobody want to say it but...IT IS TRUE. The fight for parts of the middle east dates back at least 3500 years (documented), and the current players have been fighting for 2000 years...non-stop. The Muslims and Judeo-Christians cannot coesist, as long as there are those dedicated to the techings of their religons. Debate all you want, but the truth is Muslims will always attack Judeo-Christians and vice-versa...who is offense and who is defense has only changed with times, but the battles have never stopped...acording to sum, since the beginning.

      Have fun! And remember, if you kill someone, make it worthwhile.

    30. Re:Recruiting by rokka · · Score: 1

      >From each according to his ability; to each >according to his need."

      Errr, I think you just described the open source model here... hmmm, guess I'm a commie then.

      --
      I could be wrong. I'm always wrong...
    31. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be an political army as well as a millitary army, but then again, it won't be so "fun" to not be able to kill other human beings.

      Uhh yeah, It's called the State Department

    32. Re:Recruiting by sheldon · · Score: 1

      We who sit around on Saturday mornings sipping tasty caffienated beverages sometimes have a hard time relating to those in the 3rd world raised in highly religious environments where they are taught that all their problems are because of us, and the only way to fix it is with an AK or a suicide bomb.

      Mountain Dew is the key to world peace?

    33. Re:Recruiting by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Open a history book. Study, say, the five thousand or so years of recorded history; I think you'll find that just about any atrocity that you could think of, and probably more. For instance, in 260 BC a victorious army from the kingdom of Qin buried alive some four hundred thousand soldiers of the defeated kingdom of Zhao. Raping, dismembering, torture, you name it -- humanity has committed it.

      Then realize that sometimes it doesn't matter what "generally" is true. Even if 99.9% of people are "nice", they don't matter at all if they do nothing to stop the 0.1% who aren't. Shot once or shot a thousand times, you're quite possibly still dead.

      And if you expect some multinational coalition to save the innocent... go ask the surviving residents of Srbenecia how well protected they were by the Dutch "peacekeepers" that stood by and let the Serbs take away their neighbors.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    34. Re:Recruiting by enjo13 · · Score: 1

      Ya, your absolutely right. A simple history lesson confirms it. The end of WWI (probably the worst war in history in terms of pure suffering of its combatants) was greeted with a lot of optimism. People felt like the horrific sights of that war would effectively discourage anyone from ever doing it again. It was, as the world liked to call it 'the war to end all wars' after all.

      Certain countries in Europe (primarily) really bought into that concept. While they built some defenses (the Maginot line in France for example), they centered their foreign policy on completely diplomatic solutions. This made it very easy for Hitler to not only come to power, but effectively take over Europe as the governments of that day favored appeasement over any use of force.

      That worked out well...

      The same applies today. While we should always look for diplomatic solutions to our problems, we should never abandon force at all costs. In some cases it's simply neccesary.

      ***HOT POLITICAL OPINION***

      I feel the need to attach a disclaimer to this. Just because we have the force, doesn't mean we should use it. History also teaches us quite a bit about the folly of that.. Vietnam, Korean War, Waterloo, and beyond. With the war hawk we have for a president right now we are moving into absolutely terribly waters. Bush quite simply has no business commanding the most sophisticated and powerful army in the world... He doesn't understand the human cost, not to mention Americas political standing in the rest of the world. In short, I support a military and recognize the need for it. The thing is, I only support actually USING it for clearly justifiable means. The cynic in me beleives that Bush is simply trying to hedge his political position (distract people from the fact that we haven't actually caught much in the way of actual terror LEADERS) instead of any real belief in Iraqs ability to inflict harm on anyone. That my friends is scary.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    35. Re:Recruiting by geek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh shut up. Your conspiracy theories fall on deaf ears. People are tired of anti-US liberal idiots like you.

    36. Re:Recruiting by Drakonian · · Score: 1
      This may come as a suprise to you, but there are people in the world who want to kill you and me just out of spite. We who sit around on Saturday mornings sipping tasty caffienated beverages sometimes have a hard time relating to those in the 3rd world raised in highly religious environments where they are taught that all their problems are because of us, and the only way to fix it is with an AK or a suicide bomb.>

      Interesting, I had a discussion about this yesterday at lunch. I think that is an extremely ethnocentric viewpoint. You make it sound like you (your government) isn't at all responsible for this, and it's purely due to their psycho religion. Here is a thought - how different are we from those people?

      Here is the scenario that was described to me. You are Iraqi and have 7 kids. One of your kids gets sick. You go the hospital, but they won't give you any antibiotics because they are sanctioned off. They tell you your kid has a viral infection, they'll be fine. You go home... the kid dies. People in your family are getting sick and the hospital can't help them. More of your kids die. Other people's kids are dying. Eventually this builds up in your head that this is the fault of the Americans - they are sanctioning you off. At what point do you snap? At what point do you not see any other way out?

      Not to troll or anything but just some thoughts.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    37. Re:Recruiting by pdboddy · · Score: 1

      The US isn't sitting on the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, Russia is.

      The US has been, in my opinion, the most careful with it's arsenal, and it's the only country in the world to use a nuke in a war.

      The US doesn't sell it's weapons of mass destruction to other countries (though it might sell certain components to friendly allies), both to prevent other countries from getting WMD, and the fact that the US doesn't need the money. Can you say the same for Russia, or China? India or Pakistan?

      What I meant in my original post when I said some were surprised when the US didn't drop a few nukes, is the fact that the US has consistantly and constantly said it would respond to attacks with WMD in kind. Since the hijackings and attacks on Sept. 11th, 2001 were a new kind of terror attack, a response that included use of tactical nukes wasn't out of the question. Especially considering Afghanistan's cave systems.

      And, if they were to use nukes in Afghanistan, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the US might have used the opportunity to remove a bit of resistance in the Gulf.

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    38. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe seems to be having a good time with their various Socialist governments.

    39. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We who sit around on Saturday mornings sipping tasty caffienated beverages sometimes have a hard time relating to those in the 3rd world raised in highly religious environments where they are taught that all their problems are because of us, and the only way to fix it is with an AK or a suicide bomb.


      I'm sorry? George W. Bush says that "God is not neutral in these conflicts." George W. Bush ignores protests occuring in every major city that oppose his war, but steps out of the White House to applaud pro-life nutbars leaving white coffins on his doorstep.

      America is a strictly religious environment.

      And the fact of the matter is, they're taught that North Americans are the cause of all of their problems because we are the cause of all of their problems. The reason that you can afford to wear Nike shoes, drink Coca-Cola and drive your SUV up to the mailbox is because most people in the world go without medicine, sanitation, education, food or clean water to give it to you.

      You can't oppress a whole culture for generations. Things are going to get a lot worse for us in the near future. And you know what? We deserve every bit of what's coming to us.

    40. Re:Recruiting by t0qer · · Score: 1

      When you try to act on this problem, you end up making the productive members of society give away huge amounts of their earnings because the only way to *prevent war*

      I live in the bay area, not quite a warzone, but parts like oakland, east palo alto, ect are pretty bad..

      During the boom, the murder rates in these places drop to pretty much nil. Why? Because when people are well off, they don't fight, they have too much to lose.

      After the crash, both EPA and Oaklands murder rates went right back up.

      Civilization is the answer, not war. Giving people something productive to do instead of sitting in their house all day dwelling on their problems is how you *prevent war*.

      If all these AK toting kids were givin jobs at the oilfields, and were paid what an american was paid, then there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately American run oil wells in the Saudi nations employ imported Americans, not naitives.

      Basically if you wanted to end war with these people, give them something to do OTHER than think about war. They need to have too much to lose so they don't want to risk losing it in a war.

      These people are desperate, the war on Iraq is just a ploy so GWB can get peoples attention off our current domestic situation, and line the pockets of his oil buddies in texas with Saudi dollars. Sure we only use %2 of saudi oil, but we process %20 of it for export into other countries. It's the texan refineries pushing for this war and not the people.

      It would be interesting to see slashdot actually run a poll on this. I'm curious how many other slashers don't want this war. Too bad Rob is too much of a chicken shit to do it though.

    41. Re:Recruiting by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Have you ever heard of Open Source? If people are treated fairly and with respect this is natural."

      You mean "If people get fame and mindshare for what they do this is natural." They're still getting paid, just not with money (at least not directly).

      If OSS is nothing more than people writing code "for the good of humanity," they'd all be releasing their code under the BSD license instead of GPL.

    42. Re:Recruiting by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Violence is the most effective form of persuasion known to man. Seconded only by shame.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    43. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, you have it all figured out, don't you. Moron.

    44. Re:Recruiting by superyooser · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      It's weird that after a billion years of human evolution, we still solve conflicts by killing each others.

      It wouldn't seem so weird if you didn't believe in evolution. The persistent, evil inclination of human nature throughout our existence (post-Eden) makes perfect sense from a biblical worldview.

      To play devil's advocate, maybe evolution has determined that killing your enemies is the most effective method of preserving your DNA's posterity.

    45. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For instance, in 260 BC a victorious army from the kingdom of Qin buried alive some four hundred thousand soldiers of the defeated kingdom of Zhao

      Do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe you - well actually it's true, I don't believe you. You'd need a big hole to bury that many people, and what did the captured soldiers do in the mean time? Stand around saying "Cool, we are going to be buried soon!". I think not. Something is wrong with your story.

    46. Re:Recruiting by titzandkunt · · Score: 0

      "...People are not naturally inclined to work for the service of others. It is not natural for people to sacrifice the fruits of their labor for some larger social goal...".

      You seem mighty keen on natural behaviour - Do you eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?

      T&K.

      --
      Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
    47. Re:Recruiting by Splab · · Score: 1

      You might wan't to try to look out the window instead of seeing what is on the weather channel...
      Why do you think US goes to war? Has nothing to do with terrorism, its oil prices and heavy industries. Who makes the tanks, what makes them move and who paid for the Bush campaign?
      Also while were at it, the reason these poor souls are being taught to hate the west is the west it self, if we hadn't so utterly crushed Iraq and stopped food supplies books etc. the world would have been different. If we hadn't just turned our heads away from Afghanistan (how the hell do you spell that in english?) the world trade center would have been there.
      Remember when you are pointing, three fingers are pointing your way.
      Ohh yeah, one more thing, who gets to use their hard earned money on fugitives? US? HA! no! It's us europeans who gets to do that, well lucky us. Someone really ought to stand up and tell the US to go fuck them self. Yeah and that means everybody. You have the power to stop the war, its a of comfort vs. justice...

    48. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if we hadn't so utterly crushed Iraq and stopped food supplies books etc. the world would have been different. If we hadn't just turned our heads away from Afghanistan

      If Saddam hadn't gotten so greedy and invaded Kuwait, nobody would have gone to war there. And we didn't "utterly crush Iraq", since they still had the ability to murder tens of thousands of Kurds after the war. Not to mention the fact that they still have the ability to fire on US planes on a daily basis. Not to mention that Saddam is still in power there.

      And Afghanistan? Don't you remember that the US helped those bastards in their fight against the USSR? The exact same ones that bombed the WTC? The US is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

    49. Re:Recruiting by wakebrdr · · Score: 1

      Oh please. Nothing to do with terrorism? I'll admit Bush comes off badly when public speaking, but all first-person accounts indicate he is a pretty sharp guy. He is trying to do what he thinks his constituency wants him to do: go after terrorists. I don't know where you get this stuff about "oil prices and heavy industries." He is plenty wealthy on his own, and is not doing anything out of greed.

      You are seriously underestimating the guy. I don't agree with him on a lot of stuff, and he certainly could be a better public speaker, but I doubt he's the greedy warmonger simpleton you think he is.

      --
      Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
    50. Re:Recruiting by Starcub · · Score: 1

      The cynic in me beleives that Bush is simply trying to hedge his political position (distract people from the fact that we haven't actually caught much in the way of actual terror LEADERS) instead of any real belief in Iraqs ability to inflict harm on anyone.

      The Kurds, Kuwait? Let's not forget this guy is a proven terrorist both inside and outside of his own borders. He doesn't develop weapons as a deterent, he develops weapons to use them -- and he has.

    51. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we DO have a State Department responsible for US Foreign Policy, and thousands of Foreign Service officers acting as diplomats, and hundreds of Ambassadors.

    52. Re:Recruiting by Spellbinder · · Score: 0

      in some newspaper i saw an article about bush stating somewhat like:"It is more terrible to raise children then to go to war!!! And I had it both!!"
      below there the paper wrote that he acctually lied .. he should have claimed to have been in vietnam but he was reserve at home in teh states :p

      --


      stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
    53. Re:Recruiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if I were an Iraqi citizen with seven kids, I would blame the psycopathic scumbag ruling my country for the death of my child. I would have a hard time blaming the US for trying to keep my leader from getting WMDs. The only thing I would hate the US for would be for not rolling M1A1's into Baghdad twelve years ago.

  14. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So where's the instructions? Does this article have a point? I mean it mentions that someone got the game going but that's it.

    "Worst article ever"

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Re:Government Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    US Population: roughly 350 million Cost of developing the game: $7 million Your share: $0.02

  17. Troll reminds me of bake sale bumper sticker by Fastball · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Your troll reminds of of a bumper sticker I saw some time ago:

    Wouldn't it be nice if money went to schools and the air force had to have a bake sale to buy a bomber?

    I wondered if it was Al-Qaeda or the North Koreans that liked pound cake...

    1. Re:Troll reminds me of bake sale bumper sticker by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the Al Qaeda and North Korea are happy with underfunded, understaffed schools creating an illiterate, uneducated population.

    2. Re:Troll reminds me of bake sale bumper sticker by PsndCsrV · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure that the Al Qaeda and North Korea are happy with underfunded, understaffed schools creating an illiterate, uneducated population.

      On the contrary, an illiterate and uneducated population is more likely to follow it's leaders with passionate ferver... even if that leader is suggesting some pretty hair-brained ideas. Whereas, an educated population would be likely to question the motives, consequences, etc. of said idea. Sooo... if I were Al Qaeda or N. Korea, I'd be hoping that Americans are educated, so they don't blindly follow GW Bush to war...

      --
      Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.
    3. Re:Troll reminds me of bake sale bumper sticker by superyooser · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Some of the uneducated population blindly follow G.W. Bush to war.
      Some of the uneducated population blindly protest the war.

      The educated are likewise split on the issue of war. It doesn't matter how much one has learned, but what one has learned.

  18. Not a complete waste by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

    No, definitely not a flame, but not entirely accurate either. I wholeheartedly agree that more money should be spent o education (maybe then my spelling wouldn't be so atrocious {sp?}). But as it stands, the gov't already spends millions of dollars in military recruitment. All those commercials you seee on tv don't come cheap. And all the free t-shirts, water-bottles, etc. that they give out around the US cames at a price. Recently, the Navy came over my high school and brought along a hydrolic flight simulator. As you can imagine, it smelt like ass by the end of the day and recruited no one. Long story short, the gov't should spend more on education and the likes, but it's not happening anytime soon (just look at that retarded missle defense (is that an 's' or a 'c') system we're building. In contrast, however, the game didnt cost much to develop and little to maintain. And more importantly, its proven to be an excellent recruitment tool. All in all, this is one of the wisest decisions the systems made in a good while (in my opinion anywho). Plus, I love the game ^_^

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
  19. A political army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the SA, the SD, and the SS of the Third Reich?

    Oh yeah, great idea, that.

  20. Answer by Fastball · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Look, the civilized world, the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, and even France, among other equally important, civilized nations have a lot (maybe more, maybe less) at stake when they go to war. If you recall, the U.S. did next to nothing (that we know of at least) after the original WTC bombing, its embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S. Cole. You can turn the cheek all you want, but it doesn't stop anybody from slapping you.

    If you're lucky, sometimes the threat of force is enough to prevent an attack. If not, you do what you have to and you do it decisively. Look, I appreciate your views and however you arrived at them. You have good intentions.

    Unfortunately, there are enough fractured souls in this world who will stop at nothing to lash out, often violently, and sometimes catastrophically. There always will be. Blame it on the human condition.

    As shitty a deal as it was for those Japanese who suffered the atomic bombs at the tail end of WWII, something important bloomed from it. We understood just how destructive we as humans can be. And so far while ideologies, politics, and cultures have clashed, the civilized world at least has enjoyed a mostly peaceful, prosperous time. It took a while and a bunch of lives in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan to name a few to get where we are now, but right now ain't so bad.

    Can you imagine what it would be like if the third world, the Middle East, all of Africa, and some spots across Asia join the fold? I can, I really can, and what a great time that will be. But we'll never get there watching on the sidelines. When the world can rid itself of despot rulers and give people like the Iraqis a future beyond Saddam Hussein's despotic predestination, we'll be closer to preventing war than anyone can imagine.

    1. Re:Answer by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      If you recall, the U.S. did next to nothing (that we know of at least) after the original WTC bombing, its embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S. Cole. You can turn the cheek all you want, but it doesn't stop anybody from slapping you.

      Iraq has been bombed in one way or another almost every single day in the last few years. You call that turning the other cheek?

    2. Re:Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IRaq lost the war and signed specific agreements.
      If he keeps violating these agreements and doing things he is not supposed to do he and his regime will get bombed.
      BTW. Do you realize that , despite what you think, you are defending one of the most brutal regimes of the XX century.
      This is not about people of Iraq, US military is more concerned about their safety then Sadam is- it is about his regime and his power.
      Keep up good work - I am sure he appreciates your help.

    3. Re:Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just don't get it, do you? The problem is that as long as there is such a huge differance in wealth between different parts of the world, there will be people who will try to change that with all means possible. All the weapons in the world couln't change that. This is no defence of terrorist attacs, just the reason why they will keep happening until the world undergoes some major changes. I don't think it matters shit wheather USA turns the other cheak. (Except for all those who will not die from the bombs, but you won't care about those becase they're not American citizens, right?) The only way to prevent further attacs is to remove the motivation of those who does them.

    4. Re:Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IRaq lost the war and signed specific agreements.

      You know, in contract law, an agreement you sign under duress isn't valid. Funny how people take that for granted and still expect Saddam to keep to an agreement that we MADE him sign.

      That doesn't mean that he hasn't done terrible stuff. Just that a lot of things he's bombed for are perfectly alright for any country BUT Iraq.

      And as for the argument that the US has the interests of the Iraqi people at heart ... Well, let me just say that one cracked me up. Anyone who says he believes that is either a fool or a liar. We'll see just how much support the Iraqi people get after the war in rebuilding their country. I say we're heading for another Afghanistan.

    5. Re:Answer by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Iraq has been bombed in one way or another almost every single day in the last few years.

      I call them surgical strikes against military targets. Not the whole sale slaughter of civilians (ala WTC 9/11).

      What most countries REALLY hate about us is that we do indeed have the power to go around bitch slapping the hell out of 99% of the world but we don't.

      To a radical (of any nation) that's as much a hereasy as giving equal rights to the "lesser" skin colors or the "lesser" gender.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    6. Re:Answer by Cyno · · Score: 1

      But why do we still call ourselves humane? Its hypocritical. Our bitchslap to Afghanistan killed more innocent people than died at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon combined, including the terrorists. The last strike on Iraq caused the deaths of over half a million innocent civilians. Those deaths could have been prevented by a civilized, humane society. Something we are NOT.

      The humane way to help these people is provide them free transportation and citizenship within our country. Give them the freedom we base our killing on. The power of any nation is its population. You don't think our GNP grows on trees, do you? But to have a valuable population you got to education them, so I think this rules out the US as a potentially humane society.

      We got the money but we don't love eachother enough to care.

    7. Re:Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who decides whether the agreements are violated? The United States are hardly qualified to do this. There were inspections for years and quite a lot was achieved. Certainly, Iraq didn't co-operate perfectly, but infiltrating the inspection teams with spies and Madeleine Albright's statement that sanctions wouldn't be lifted, independently of the results of the inspections are also grave violations - they led to the crisis when the US and Great Britain bombed Iraq - because of the imminent bombings without international backing, the inspection teams had to withdraw (that's what is known now as Iraq's "throwing out" of the inspectors).

      Indeed, Saddam Hussein is responsible for terrible crimes - most of them happened in the 80es, mass murder of Kurds with gas and use of weapons of mass destruction in the war against Iran. At that time, the Iraqi regime was supported by the US and other Western powers as a "stabilizing force" in the Middle East, they provided him with weapons and military intelligence (National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 141). If that was the real concern, one would expect the US to have acted against Saddam Hussein's regime then.

      Any war will demand many civilian victims, and the Iraqi people will hardly be grateful for that kind of concern for their security. Yes, there are theories that as soon as enough bombs are dropped on Iraq, the Iraqis will topple Saddam Hussein, but that contradicts all historical evidence, attacks from outside that claim many lives strengthen dictators' grip of power.

      If the US occupy Iraq, what will their alleged interest for the freedom of the Iraqi people mean? A government dominated by the majority of Shi'ites, alliance with Iran? The US will hardly allow this because Iran also belongs to the "axis of evil". A fundamentalist government? Independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, which will lead to conflicts with Turkey? There is no indication that the US would accept these possible consequences of democracy in Iraq, they would be very happy with a dictator if only that dictator allows access to the oil and helps strengthen American strategic dominance in the region.

    8. Re:Answer by FattyBoeBatty · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about?

      If you recall, the U.S. did next to nothing (that we know of at least) after the original WTC bombing, its embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S. Cole. You can turn the cheek all you want, but it doesn't stop anybody from slapping you.

      We did next to NOTHING? Are you kidding? The only problem is that the US had no smoking gun to know exactly who's ass to kick. As it turned out, the Taliban made like a legitimate suspect, so we went in and completely destroyed them. We ripped out the leadership of Afganistan and replaced it with one of our choosing. Since then we've just been itching with anticipation at the thought of beating the crap out of anybody else that comes forward. We still may have overlooked the villian? Fine, Iraq supports terrorism -- maybe they had something to do with it. Now they're about to have their ass handed to 'em in a doggie bag.

      I agree that war is a terrible thing. Peace is always better, and you made a good argument for it. But don't start to twist the facts around: The US has already done quite a bit and is still ready to go head-to-head with ANY country or group that would be brave enough to take credit for 9/11.

      -Fatty

    9. Re:Answer by geek · · Score: 1

      "Our bitchslap to Afghanistan killed more innocent people than died at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon combined, including the terrorists."

      Prove that or shut your liberal ass up. That kind of pathetic FUD does nothing for your stupid cause but make you look like the anti-US liberal fanatic you are.

    10. Re:Answer by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Are you insane?

      "The last strike on Iraq caused the deaths of over half a million innocent civilians."

      Please show me your proof.

      As for integrating them into our own society, we barely have enough jobs to give our current citizenry, I somehow doubt we can afford to support a whole country.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    11. Re:Answer by abmurray · · Score: 1

      We did next to NOTHING? Are you kidding? The only problem is that the US had no smoking gun to know exactly who's ass to kick. As it turned out, the Taliban made like a legitimate suspect, so we went in and completely destroyed them. We ripped out the leadership of Afganistan and replaced it with one of our choosing.

      Yeah, we did all that LAST YEAR. The original post was referring to the original WTC attack back in 1993...and the several embassy bombings in the mid to late 90's. As well as the USS Cole bombing.

      We may have lobbed a few missles at military installations in Iraq a few times, but nothing substantial.

    12. Re:Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even a good troll.
      Thanks for playing.

    13. Re:Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to prevent further attacs is to remove the motivation of those who does them.

      I'd rather my tax dollars stay in my community than fund some socialistic programs in other countries run by despotic leaders - I work for my benefit and that of my community. If these people keep thinking the way to make their lives better is to attack those who are sucessful, instead of attacking the problems within their own society, then we need to end them. If it comes to that, it's either them or me - and they're going down before they have a chance to aim.

    14. Re:Answer by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Prove that or shut your liberal ass up.

      Is this what you were looking for? No? Let me spell it out for you:

      More than a million and a half people died in Iraq as a direct result of those sanctions. The great majority of the victims were infants, children, elderly and chronically ill persons. UNICEF reported in 1997 that 4,500 children under the age of five were dying each month from hunger and disease, making 500,000 the number of small children killed by the blockade.

      What do you think of your almight US republic now? Like killing children, don't you? Ignorant fool.

    15. Re:Answer by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 1
      Can you imagine what it would be like if the third world, the Middle East, all of Africa, and some spots across Asia join the fold? I can, I really can, and what a great time that will be. But we'll never get there watching on the sidelines. When the world can rid itself of despot rulers and give people like the Iraqis a future beyond Saddam Hussein's despotic predestination, we'll be closer to preventing war than anyone can imagine.


      And that's exactly why it is so sad that the United States supplies despotic morons like Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction. (Yes, even after Halabja!) Until weapons inspectors are sent to the US and put a stop to the american sell-weapons-of-massdestruction-to-the-random-dict ator-who-happens-to-be-enemies-with-someone-we-don 't-like program, we will not have world peace. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

      Although to be fair I have to note that the US is not alone in this dirty business. Every one of your four examples "civilized nations" have done their share of arming Iraq.

    16. Re:Answer by Cyno · · Score: 1

      And as for integration into our society.. What excuse do we have for our current situation? Why aren't there enough jobs? Because we're too stupid to invest in "companies" that provide "jobs". Besides, the number of jobs doesn't matter. What matters is the work that needs to get done in order to make all the products that we wish to buy. Most of the hard work these days is done by machines or computers. If we applied that to the rest of the work most people wouldn't need jobs. But like I said we don't care, we don't love eachother, we couldn't go to work knowing someone had the day off, could we? And that's too bad.

    17. Re:Answer by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry, you were refering to afghanistan. Everything I've read suggests between 3000 and 3500 innocent deaths from the bombing. Care to explain your opinions on this topic? Feel free to provide links to information.

    18. Re:Answer by ProfessorPuke · · Score: 1

      There were substantial responses- not wholesale invasions, so they had little effect, and possibly made things worse.

      In response to the bombings of the WTC and African Embassies, the US funded multiple assasination attempts against Osama bin Laden and his friends.

      They also launched airstrikes and cruise missile attacks at him (including one on the night of Clinton's impeachment, which killed nothing but innocent civilians). The USS Cole attack was in self-defense, since it had been launching those missiles. The Sept.11 airplane attacks were probably invented as a way to duplicate the US's cruise-missiles on the cheap.

  21. Re:Government Funding by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

    hmmm, you really should calculate based on the tax paying public, not the population. although the point remains the same.

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
  22. Actually it is money well spent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let us not forget that Americas Army Ops and Soldier are costing us less than a single main battle tank! We go thru lots of those every year due to non-combat incedents, so trust me this is cheap.

    My personal opinion? How much is it worth to you to teach your **future soliders** proper movement techniques and command and control at the squad level. These techniques keep our soldiers alive, and the soldiers of the future our currently our children.

    Note that this game has zero gore.

    1. Re:Actually it is money well spent. by E_elven · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How much is it worth to you to teach your **future soliders** proper movement techniques and command and control at the squad level. These techniques keep our soldiers alive, and the soldiers of the future our currently our children.


      Me, I'd prefer no wars but it seems to be the losing opinion these days.

      Note that this game has zero gore.


      This is good how? "Oh, I died, let me just repop." They're recruiting people for war. I personally think they should include a device that gives 10000 volts every time you get killed.
      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    2. Re:Actually it is money well spent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Me, I'd prefer no wars but it seems to be the losing opinion these days.

      No wars has always been a losing opinion. You just haven't read enough history.


      That being the case, at least you should know how to fight one.

    3. Re:Actually it is money well spent. by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      Me, I'd prefer no wars but it seems to be the losing opinion these days.

      More like the unavailable option. It doesn't work by schoolyard logic: it only takes one bad government to have a war.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    4. Re:Actually it is money well spent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't even take a formally recognized Government. Just a group of assholes with weapons.

  23. Great. yah. by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    I'd hardly call this a simulation... This is one sloppy game if you've actually played it... Counterstrike a truely free mod is far better.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Great. yah. by Boone^ · · Score: 1

      Counterstrike is a free mod to a game that costs $$ (or as a standalone $$ title). America's Army, however, is free to download, install, and play, no previous purchase required.

      AA gives you the advantage of post-1997 graphics without any of the online cheats seen in Counterstrike.

    2. Re:Great. yah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention more realistic physics and game play.

  24. You're not going to believe me, but... by DarthWiggle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what law and lawyers are for. Think about it. 99% of the stuff people go to civil litigation for nowadays is stuff that might have resulted in a duel in the past. Encroachment on property? Bang. Breached contract? Bang. Fraud, deceit, misappropriation of village wheat. Bang.

    Now we just sue the hell out of each other and nobody gets killed.

    Nation states evolved from the personal fiefdoms of kings, but, at some point, the rule of law stopped counting. Oh, that's right, presidents and kings aren't bound by law.

    My bad.

    1. Re:You're not going to believe me, but... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Nation states evolved from the personal fiefdoms of kings, but, at some point, the rule of law stopped counting. Oh, that's right, presidents and kings aren't bound by law."

      Um... how exactly are presidents and kings supposed to be tried in a civil court? And if you do manage to find a court that rules against them, how do you intend to enforce the court's decision on an unwilling participant (say, Milosevic or Hussein) without, oh, I don't know... sending in the military?

      You know the people who complain about the US being the world's "police force?" There's a reason why they use that phrase.

    2. Re:You're not going to believe me, but... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      ...
      CADE. I thank you, good people- there shall be no money; all shall
      eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one
      livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their
      lord.
      DICK. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
      CADE. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that
      of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? That
      parchment, being scribbl'd o'er, should undo a man? Some say the
      bee stings; but I say 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once
      to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. How now! Who's
      there?
      ...

      -- William Shakespear (Henry IV Part II, Act IV, Scene IV)

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  25. It's close enough. by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

    I can only think of a few reasons people look forward to the day they can fight for their country.
    1) Prove their worth. "My father fought. My grandfather fought. It's my turn to become a Man."

    2) Honor and glory. There's a lot of propaganda about that. Most of it, actually. Fight for honor and glory. Of course, there are people who have pointed out flaws in that thinking, too.
    At worst you are the murderer when you kill, and at best the dispenser of justice - a hangman of nations. There is no honor in that.

    3) To bring our viewpoints to other nations.
    I've heard this one a lot. We need to "teach" those ignorant morons about life by killing some of them.

    4) To dispense justice.
    A nation is doing horrible things to itself, our nation, or other nations who can't defend themselves, and we must stop it from happening.

    Actually, I've never heard anyone actually SAY the last one and hope for war. It's not a very good reason to hope for. Numbers 1-3 are selfish reasons. But I think that explains most of it.

    Let me say, though, that everyone that I know who is in the military and DOESN'T want to kill people or go to war has given me reason #4 for why they might have to eventually.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  26. Free as in beer? by azav · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Will someone please tell me just what "free as in beer" means?

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:Free as in beer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Free" in the English language has two meanings. The first, "free as in beer" means getting something without having to pay. "free as in speech" refers to freedom. Its often used to refer to software licenses. For example, software may be "free as in beer", meaning you can get it without charge, but Open Source software is "free as in speech" meaning you have certain freedoms as to what you can do with the software (copy, redistribute, make modified versions etc.). Software can be "free as in beer" but not "free as in speech" (eg. shareware)

    2. Re:Free as in beer? by ptr2void · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Free as in beer? by webworm · · Score: 1

      You can find more information about Free Software (free as in freedom) on:
      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

      Also note Free Software isn't the same as Open Source software:
      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-soft ware-for-fr eedom.html

  27. Re:The government didn't fund it ... (MOD PARENT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Normally comments like that should be flamebait, but that really was very funny. Mod that one up!!

  28. Re:what about worse crimes? by SparafucileMan · · Score: 0

    Hey so you think that this part of the Military's grand plan Orson Scott Card style? I mean, it would be great if they could hook up, say, a team of Special Forces soldiers to a computer in a way that some 12-year-old kid, you know, one of those kids with lightning-sharp reflexes, direct the troops. A human-warrior simulator, to be precise, and this kid, well, we all know how good little kids can be at video games, right?

  29. Don't use it under linux by gmuslera · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The game is perfect for mindless windows drones, that give excelent don't-ask-why soldiers.

    The place for linux users will be in the strategy field, and soon Army will release a Linux only strategy war game for us.

    1. Re:Don't use it under linux by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      Wow. How mature and insightful, to assume that everyone who uses Windows must be a mindless drone. And so original too....

      Some people choose to use Windows, after evaluating the pros and cons of each option. It's not always because that's what Dell sells you - Windows has advantages and disadvantages just like any other platform, and it is sometimes the right choice.

  30. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I consider America's Army to be one of the best things my government has funded within recent history."

    That explains a fukking well why the rest of the world thinks america is nothing more that a bunch of violent loonies. Thanks!

    A moron with Linux still is a moron.

  31. Government Funded Racism by dhaberx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody else seems to have commented on this, so I will. Has anyone noticed that on one of the desert missions you play the American's and of course you must fight the "terrorists" who are obviously arab. It's pretty sick that our tax payer dollars are being used to promote these racist ideals. They encourage children to play these games, and we all know that a lot of the people playing are very young. Does anyone else see something wrong with calling arabs terrorists and letting you be an American that kills them in a tax payer funded game. What are we teaching our children here? I wrote a letter complaining a while back but received no response. I hope that others out there will complain to the dev team and have the racism removed from the game.

    1. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found only one email address: privacy@americasarmy.com .. Anyone found others? There's always the forums, but that's a little too easy for themt to ignore.

    2. Re:Government Funded Racism by supergiovane · · Score: 1

      About 12 years ago, when I bought an Amiga 500, I found on an Italian computer games magazine the review of a game called 'Persian Gulf Inferno'. I remembered that the main complaint was about the stereotype involved in a Rambo-ish main character shooting arabs all over the game, with a very high level of violence. The game received a bad rating for this reason (added to the fact that it was a boring game, according to the reviewer). Just a memory.

      --
      Signatures are for stupids.
    3. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Blah blah blah racism blah government blah blah liberal blah whiny blah blah save blah whales blah rats blah trees blah blah vast right wing blah for the children blah blah takes village blah blah

      Life is real. Terrorists are real. Arab terrorists are real.

      I suppose that only blonde wealthy white people with an American flag and a Republican elephant on their arm would be suitable to use as bad guys, right?

    4. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I suppose that only blonde wealthy white people with an American flag and a Republican elephant on their arm would be suitable to use as bad guys, right?"

      They seem suitable enough to be used as the "good guys", so why not?

    5. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We aren't going to be solving any problems by stereotyping groups. Sure there are some "bad" arabs. And there are some bad republicans, and some bad christians, and some bad members of any group you choose to attack. We aren't helping anything by generalizing or teaching people the answer is to kill these "bad" people. When it comes down to in they aren't really bad at all. Like many of us they have strong ideals that are being threatened, and like too many of us they are willing to fight for or even die for their beliefs. Teaching children the generalization that arabs are terrorists and that we should shoot them isn't quite the solution.

    6. Re:Government Funded Racism by Trickster+Paean · · Score: 1

      From what I recall, a number of the maps like that are based off actual missions that the Army performed in Afghanistan. In fact, a number (greater than one) of the development team spent time in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. The mission isn't meant to be racist - it's meant to be a representation of what happened over there.

    7. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull.. That's so far disconnected from the point. They didn't have to make them arabs. It's not realistic. Go on those servers and you'll find that they are full of people making racist comments. This is a recruiting tool, not a military simulator. There is no benefit in making those people look arab. In any case, anyone who has ever played the game and seen the maps knows they are not real places or even modeled off them.

    8. Re:Government Funded Racism by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Has anyone noticed that on one of the desert missions you play the American's and of course you must fight the "terrorists" who are obviously arab."

      Not one who studied geography much, are you? When you think of the stereotypical Hollywood desert, with your rolling sand dunes and the like, you're thinking of either the Middle East or the Sahara region. Places in the world where the vast majority of countries have Islam as the state-sanctioned religion and Arabic as the only official language. The other deserts don't look like that (with scenery ranging from the southwest US to Antarctica).

      "Does anyone else see something wrong with calling arabs terrorists"

      Um... how does the game say that? Are there no Arab civillians in this particular mission while there are civillians in all other missions?

      If anybody is showing predjudicial bias, it's you for assuming that the game is written that way out of some sort of policy of racist bias.

    9. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are these terrorists obviously Arabs? Because they're in a desert?
      Are you saying that any terrorist in a desert is Arab?

      I think you have racism mixed up with some of your own prejudices.

    10. Re:Government Funded Racism by $lashdot · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they didn't respond to your letter because of your own racism.

      1) You did not complain about the lack of so-called "arabs" in the other combat scenarios. This means that you cherry-pick racial situations.

      2) *You* made the racist assumption that the "terrorists" must be "arabs." That's a hell of leap given the blurry skins used in the game. I'd like to know what real, hard evidence you had that the "terrorists" weren't persian or turkomen or semites or armenian, or any other middle-eastern group.

      --Ross

    11. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never played the game. Look at the people, their clothing, their skin, their faces. Don't be such a moron. They are obviously arab.

    12. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wrote a letter complaining about this ......

      The response is on its way via special delivery Black Helicopter. Sit tight sir and please keep your hands in clear view.

    13. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a moron. They are so obviously arabs. Look how they are dressed. Look at their skin, their faces. you obviously haven't played the game.

    14. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Play the game and you'll discover that you are completely wrong. The game surely isn't designed to be realistic, but it is definitely designed for those people to be arab.

    15. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I suppose that only blonde wealthy white people with an American flag and a Republican elephant on their arm would be suitable to use as bad guys, right?

      No, but by your 'arguement' they would be the only good guys.

    16. Re:Government Funded Racism by geek · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but those pesky Irishmen in the desert appear much more dangerous than those Arabs.

      Just give it a rest. Terrorists are Arab these days. Thats a fact.

    17. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      hmmmm... let's see there are billions of people you will kill an American OR European on sight. Are you that nieve?

    18. Re:Government Funded Racism by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Terrorists are Arab these days. Thats a fact.
      Sure they are.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    19. Re:Government Funded Racism by Sinical · · Score: 1

      Er, how many potential enemies do we have who live in desert countries? I mean, are you complaining that the non-desert guys are European-looking?

      "Hey, goddamn it, I'm playing an arctic mission and no one is wearing a turban! How racist to assume that all combatants in an arctic environment would be European!"

      Seriously, dude, get a grip. If we're killing people in a desert, it's likely to be desert-dwelling people, and these people are usually of a certain coloration and style of clothing.

      Also, feel free to make your own game where you fight only Whitey in every single environment you could encounter. Good luck.

    20. Re:Government Funded Racism by taxman_10m · · Score: 1
      Hold on there Charlie Chan!

      The map is in a desert. Last I checked, arabs live in the mideast, which is one big desert. And in particular, the terrorists that flew planes into the WTC came from the mideast and were arabs.

      Reality isn't racist, ignoring it is.

    21. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best post ever. LOL,

    22. Re:Government Funded Racism by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      Has anyone noticed that on one of the desert missions you play the American's and of course you must fight the "terrorists" who are obviously arab. It's pretty sick that our tax payer dollars are being used to promote these racist ideals.

      Prejudice is nothing to do with it! Of all the Taliban in Afghanistan, just one (John Walker Lindh) was white! Of all the hijackers on Sept 11, not a single one was white!

      Now I'm not saying that whites aren't terrorists (just look at the IRA) but the fact is, right now the US is facing threats that originate from one fairly homogeneous racial group.

    23. Re:Government Funded Racism by kaisa_sosey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if those blond people shoot at similar looking people than it would make the kiddies wonder why they have to shoot at all. I would appreciate that ,-)

    24. Re:Government Funded Racism by gkanapathy · · Score: 1

      So somehow in the video game, you're able to tell the differences between Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks, Baluchis, Uzbeks, and Tajiks? Because, you know, I have trouble telling from CNN footage. What are you doing, checking their passports?

      Other missions have other racial groups, but I'll be dammed if I can tell the Russians from the Ukrainians, or the Kazakhs from the Mongolians.

      And let's face it, most terror groups are not as multi-ethnic as Sesame Street.

      Tool.

    25. Re:Government Funded Racism by kaisa_sosey · · Score: 1

      Damn, and i thought everyone is a terrorist these days...

      It's always good to get the real facts from guys like YOU.

      ps:

      1. stay away from television
      2. learn one more language (no programming language,a human language)
      3. travel
    26. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stupid moron posts by racist white fags.

    27. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make the enemy otherly-abled alternate-sexuality womyn of color if that's more to your moral pref's.

    28. Re:Government Funded Racism by dhaberx · · Score: 1

      Wow.. You slashdot people sure a bunch of ignorant fools. First off it should be made clear that anyone who has played the game is certain those people are arabs. Look at them, you'll lose your doubt quickly.

      Secondly, You are all arguing that it's realistic, or that we really are facing a problem with arabs, or that there really are arabs in the desert. Whether these things are true or not you are missing the point entirely.

      I thought you slashdot people would be smarter than that. The issues isn't reality. It's about a racial bias that has been building up in the United states today. This is a real problem that exists now. A lot of arabs are being treated unfairly and being considered dangerous or evil by millions of americans. Many of the targeted arabs are also americans with that ancestory. I know I've seen a lot of bias and people being treated horribly in the real world. Maybe some of you people need to get out more often and see what really goes on. I've also seen people making a lot of racist comments on the servers.

      This brings us back to the real point. What we are really talking about has nothing to do with reality. This is a recruited tool and it is very targeted at children. We are living in a time where many arabs are currently being treated unfairly by people here in America where many of us are living right now. Then this game comes along and reinforces the stereotype. It throws some arabs terrorists at us and gives us a mission that involves killing them. Sure, there are worse things in the world, but is this really necessary. Remember, this is targeted at children. All I'm saying is that when they made a decision to include those arabs on those levels they were being sort of irresponsible. The are reinforicing a dangerous stereotype that has been harming many people in there day to day lives.

      I hope that there are at least a few people out there on slashdot that leave there houses and have seen that racism is a real thing.

    29. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ha ha! What an appropriate picture you've linked to represent the KKK! Did you notice that the Klansmen have Arabic writing on their sheets and they're dressed up like Islamic suicide/homicide bombers? The KKK lives on in Palestine, s/white/arab.

      McVeigh - the dying gasp of the white supremacist movement... thought to have acted in conspiracy with Osama bin Laden and with a possible Iraqi connection according to an NBC affiliate reporter. And here's why the FBI missed the Islamic connection. Hint: It's knee-jerk political corrrectness. "What?? Arabs commit terrorism? Who's ever heard of such a thing? I bet it's those right-wing extremist Montana militia NRA gun nuts. Yeah, those guys are the real threat."

      Muhammad and Malvo - close enough. Both are both Muslim and dark-skinned. Again, political correctness had us chasing after supposedly disgruntled, anti-government, white, middle-aged men as suspects in spite of evidence indicating otherwise.

      Liberal dogma: White man evil. Colored man good. No matter what.

    30. Re:Government Funded Racism by Timmeh · · Score: 1

      As compared to stupid moron posts by homophobes, which are somehow better?

    31. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was meant to be a joke. Laugh!

    32. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha!

    33. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a recruiting tool, not a military simulator. There is no benefit in making those people look arab.

      Yes there is. There is a lot of bent up anger in this country directed at the people who killed 3000 Americans - and all 19 of them were arab. I don't think it would be as nearly of an effective recruiting tool if the missions were unrealistic. The military is trying to appeal to the group of people out there who want to strike back, and who are they most likely going to strike back against? That's right man, arab terrorists!

    34. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We aren't helping anything by generalizing or teaching people the answer is to kill these "bad" people. When it comes down to in they aren't really bad at all. Like many of us they have strong ideals that are being threatened, and like too many of us they are willing to fight for or even die for their beliefs.

      Oh, I see. These people are merely misunderstood. Maybe next time I see some sleeper cell about to do an attack I should tell them that they are good people, and that I love them - and give them a hug. NEWS FLASH PEOPLE!. These radical people don't give a hoot about you or I - they only care about those who follow their radical beliefs. The rest of us are like dust to them - we are worthless. Therefore, these people must be dealt with like the cancer they are.

    35. Re:Government Funded Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is it racist to target men of middle-east descent for more thorough screening at airports? Or is it just common sense? When 4 year old girls are being screened for guns, then we have simply let political correctness overtake logic.

    36. Re:Government Funded Racism by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, they should like all those netherland terorists.

      The fact is, a great many global terrorist come out of the middle east region of the world.

      Now if you where an FBI agent, then you would see 'local' terrorists.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    37. Re:Government Funded Racism by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      And we all know the real problem is the Amish. The terrorists are Arabs, it's not "the Arabs are terrorists". As anyone in the US knows, many of our Arab "friends" has government news headlines full of blatant lies about Israelis eating human blood in their pastries and other such nonsense. I'm not a racist, but I know where our real friends are. Kuwait, Turkey, South Korea, etc. Get the silly chip off your shoulder and realize that the world isn't against the Arabs. It's just that for some Arabs, it's them against the world. It's a pathology that causes destructive behavior. Just because you're not willfully inviting people to blow up stuff in your country doesn't mean that you hate the race those people happen to be born to. Look to the world's conflicts right now, and how many involve muslims. The simple fact is that Islam is being hijacked by militants in some areas. It happened to Christianity too. It will continue until peaceful muslims publicly reject terrorism. I haven't seen that happen in large numbers quite yet. BTW- if the US goes to war in the next decade, most likely it will be with an islamic nation. Want to know why? Most of the states in the middle east are run by rather unscrupulous people. Like the house of Saud. Totally unreasonable people. It's not their race, it's the culture that causes the problem.

    38. Re:Government Funded Racism by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      Except a real patriot does so in a military fashion- in other words, we don't stroll into pizza parlors and blow the place up with a TNT vest. If I was to fight back against a force I felt was threatening my way of life, I would target the aparratus that feeds it. I would NOT involve every-day citizens. That tactic leads to failure and international condemnation. The Palestinians are facing this because of their tactics. The IRA found no international sympathy because of this as well. Instead of proclaming these motherfuckers as heroes and martyrs, look at them through the lens of the rest of the world. Their tactics are repugnant, so it doesn't matter WHAT their cause is or who they're fighting. The fact is they fight in direct contradiction to standard models of honor. Terrorism is different from warfare. In warfare, you wear a uniform that identifies you as a combatant. You do not put on civilian attire for combatant roles. Scout, surveillance and intelligence gathering, sure. To fail to identify yourself as a combatant in warfare is dishonorable. It is also dishonorable to deliberately attack civilians where military targets exist. If the Al-Queda organisation had declared war on the US and then blew up the pentagon and other military targets it would be an act of war, and legitimate. Instead, they targeted civilians AND the pentagon. I really think the WTC was the primary objective. This is why the "racial stereotype" exists. In most middle east conflicts, collateral (civilian) damage is huge, and deliberate. Saddam didn't just gas the Kurds because they were massing against him. He gassed one village to subdue all the others with TERROR. That's why it's called terrorism. It's the attempt to force the actions of your enemy by holding his population hostage. I am a veteran. I understand the concepts of warfare. This is different.

    39. Re:Government Funded Racism by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1, Informative
      Not very good examples.
      • The first is ancient history. The US took it upon them to eradicate that one.
      • The second one? A fluke. They happen. Hardly an occurence of "terrorism happening" such as being under a constant threat. One guy. One catch. It stopped.
      • The third one? A guy who recently converted to islam. I'm not saying that he did these things because he was islamic. I'm just saying, read your posts before you click submit, especially for undercurrents such as the third example could contain.


      But as for who has killed the most Americans and American allies because of religion, I think those wacky arabs are at the top, with, as another poster pointed out, Irish desert nomads coming in a distant second.

    40. Re:Government Funded Racism by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1
      -----------
      1. stay away from television
      2. learn one more language
      3. travel
      -----------

      Hmm... Sounds like a trap! You just want to kill him. Terrorist.

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. kuro5hin by lpret · · Score: 1
    I hope your an avid fan of Kuro5hin, because many of these types of issues are discussed there.

    In fact, I would encourage you to develop this idea and post it on k5.

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  34. Dude that game sux, by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    I spent all weekend downloading it and finally got it to run under windows. But alls I could do was use the shooting range. It was slow and buggy and crashed every few minutes.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

    1. Re:Dude that game sux, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I had the same problem!

  35. Ratings system by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

    The first thing I noticed on the game was the rating in the lower left corner of the screenshot. Rated T for teen. Blood and Violence.

    This struck me as amusing. Since that's all it said, it could easily be read as saying that "this is especially recommended for teens, since it contains blood and violence."

    --
    The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
  36. The wierd thing about this game is... by sbaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that you always get to play as the Americans.

    It's a networked multiplayer thingy - and when *YOU* play, you
    are always "the good guys" - so who is out there playing "the
    bad guys" ?

    The answer is that both sides *think* they are playing the
    good guys - but the graphics show you as a US soldier and your
    opponent as some kind of terrorist or something...one man's "Protect
    the Diplomat on the way to the peace conference" is another man's
    "Free the Kidnapped Diplomat before he's executed".

    What's more subtle is that all the high-tech weaponry that you
    have is also being used by your competition! Not exactly
    a realistic situation in "the real world".

    Aside from that, I think this is a VERY dubious way to attract
    testosterone-laden video-game-addicted teenagers into the military
    - and I'm horrified that taxpayers are shelling out for this.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by MrEd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      when *YOU* play, you are always "the good guys" - so who is out there playing "the bad guys"? The answer is that both sides *think* they are playing the good guys


      Wow, a realistic war game! I suppose they didn't intend the irony...

      --

      Wah!

    2. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wierd thing about this game is...that you always get to play as the Americans.

      That's just too wierd for me - I can't deal with that. I need to be a terrorist like I am in real life.

      What's more subtle is that all the high-tech weaponry that you have is also being used by your competition! Not exactly a realistic situation in "the real world".

      Yeah, it should be the modern US Army vs. Hannibal and the Elephants. That would be a real world situation, especially if the Elephants went potty every now and then. We'd have the best trained people in the world.

      - and I'm horrified that taxpayers are shelling out for this.

      But I am delighted in taxpayer support for stabbing unborn children in the head and calling it a matter of choice.

    3. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "What's more subtle is that all the high-tech weaponry that you
      have is also being used by your competition! Not exactly
      a realistic situation in "the real world"."


      In combat in "the real world," you have to plan for the worst-case scenario. That scenario involves an enemy with technological parity (if not superiority).

      The Australians hold a war game every once in a while where the scenario involves staving off an aircraft carrier battlegroup. Is the only country in the world that has such a naval formation going to attack Australia any time soon? No. But if you can hold a US carrier battlegroup, you can defend against anything.

    4. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      I'm horrified that taxpayers are shelling out for this.

      I'm horrified that taxpayers are shelling out for new nuclear weapons, missile defence shields, bombs, bullets, tanks, the dubious 'war on drugs', tax breaks for the rich, mediocre public education, prison construction, Total Information Awareness, and a whole lot of other things.

      Frankly, I'm thankful for a nice free video game!

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    5. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the bad guys always look like someone from the Middle East: Olive skin, beards. The Good Guys (TM) are white or black.

      Because we all know that America's Military only consists of white and black people, and all people from the Middle East must be terrorists.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    6. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by Sam+Gibson · · Score: 1

      Except NOT. There are only about two stages where there's "middle east: olive skinned" bad guys. Most of them look paramilitary or something.

    7. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I am horrified we HAVEN'T used all those nukes we've shelled out tons for. Hell, I was hoping they would drop a couple of our spare nukes (the really big hydrogen bombs -- no atomic pussy crap) on those rags heads hiding out in Tora Bora. Fuck I say kill them all and let God sort them out.

    8. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thank you. This proves that America is not attacking anyone because of the way they appear, which seems to be your contention.

      I've never seen someone refute their own point so succintly.

    9. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why when I play battefield, I never play as Americans or the Allies.

    10. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by TC+(WC) · · Score: 1

      But if you can hold a US carrier battlegroup, you can defend against anything.

      What about 2 US carrier battlegroups?

    11. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...

      I played the game a bit and well... BOTH sides are americans, training for combat.

    12. Re:The wierd thing about this game is... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      MOD THIS UP for gods sake!

      THIS guy is correct.

      The game pretty much has the feel of having two american armies attacking each other in different scenarios. There are no towel-headed people, or anything like that. Sure, the colour differentiation looks like black and white people, however if you notice there are some that do appear Asian. (have to get a closeup shot, you know.. when your dead and waiting for 4 minutes to play again lol)

      It's a fun game.. I enjoy it. I downloaded it to see what it was about, and it's really enjoyable! mind you, the basic training part gets a bit annoying since you can't do squat unless you get past that, but other than that, it's a great game. It reminds me alot of the Navy Seals: Covert Operations mod for Quake 3. Though, more realistic IMHO.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  37. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

    I commend you on your logic (seriously) but its been disproven before. Some folks you might want to check with on this: Christ, Ghandi, Dr. King, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the people that followed them.

    As for the "punch in the face" there are even whole systems of martial art designed to combat a punch in the face that don't involve punching back.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
  38. money.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see i live in mass, usa, and cuz of thing called money the next morning i wake up and start up my car and get on the roads to the highways... i come to a very bad driving experiance ...it seems the state did not dispatch any salt-twellers after the snow finished. well now i ask why?.... cuz the state has no money.... how the hell does that happen cuz U.S.A ain't that poor.. but u know what they got lotta $$$ to spend on shit while no money for real pppl tryin to make a livin and payin da f**kin tax that fuels this countrys reserve.... and whoever da f*** said this country made gr8 innovation... well arsehole all the gr8 inventors are born somewhere else in europe or in asia or in africa or south america.. and the govt. makez a swell use of them by usin my f**kin tax money.. so be sure what u talkin abt wen sayin this country makes good inventionz... E.G > linus torsvald is frm europe not america .. FYI.... and now he is beein used by $$$ to make more gr8 sh*tz.. try beein born somewhere where the poverty is buddy... ur just lucky beein born here given all da oprtunity.. so have some sympathy for ppl overseas.. who have done nothing wrong but tried to make a livin...

  39. nah by tom+enterprise · · Score: 0

    you would probably be funding some bureacrats pocket. people like you need to step up to reality.

  40. Oh, *really*? by jakobgrimstveit · · Score: 1

    What about this image, then - does it imply that we've got Solaris 9 running under Linux?

    Right.

    I don't say that it's 100% certain that they haven't got the game Americas Army running under Linux, but what about actually getting someone to comment this as well? Some news source or something?

    --
    Jakob Breivik Grimstveit
    "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by."
  41. Re:Other Games - Those are all on his resume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same guy who hosts that page has those ports on his resume of games he was contracted to port to linux. -Eric Jaakkola

  42. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by Jadrano · · Score: 5, Funny

    When you meet a follower of the current US administration's doctrine: 1. Punch him in the face as hard as you can 2. As long as he hasn't fallen to the ground repeat step 1 3. Tell him that it was necessary to punch him because otherwise he might have punched you or gained the abilitry to punch you in a few years 4. When he is getting up again, this shows that you were right, the likelihood of him punching you in the future rises again. Therefore continue with 1. Repeat all this until he admits that the idea of pre-emptive strikes was not meant to be used by anyone else, is actually the same like the "right" of the stronger and doesn't make sense as a general principle.

  43. government funding by Patrick13 · · Score: 1

    Awesome. I consider America's Army to be one of the best things my government has funded within recent history.

    Funny, I would have thought that the internet would have been one of the best things funded by the goverment in recent history...

    --
    ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
  44. I once killed a man just to watch him die... by algernon7 · · Score: 1
    But then I got distracted and missed it.

    Ah, well. You don't care about my problems any way.

  45. You just wrote the next Reform Party commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    congrats to ya kdAN

  46. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by Fapestniegd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    sed -e 's/punch in the face/damage or disable opponent/'
    But you can't gain ground without doing damage, or disabling your opponent. So all you can enforce is the status quo.

    As for your examples, two of them were killed, and only through wars and acts of civil disobedience were their causes furthered.One is in exile only protected but the might of the country he is in. And one was protected by the threat of outside military forces or revolution.

    Do you honestly think that passive resistence would ever work without the threat of military action or civil disobedience? The whole premise of passive resistance is predicated on the fact that at some level *someone* will protect them. Or that they will become martyrs and start a revolution.

  47. Republican Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    350 million people divided by 7 million dollars equals 2 cents per person.

    Is our children learning?

    1. Re:Republican Math by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1
      350 million people divided by 7 million dollars equals 2 cents per person.

      I don't know if you are trolling, but the math is absolutely correct. To calculate the cost per taxpayer, you would divide the cost (7 million) by the population (350,000,000) and come out to $.02 I'm guessing you are a Democrat?

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
  48. A political army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't even do it. No Soviet Russia jokes.

    I think the last thing that this country needs is a bunch of political officers running around.

    As for the anti-war sentiment, life is cheap. I can't tell you how cheap, as I can't remember offhand the dollar value that various auto manufacturers put on a single life when calculating whether or not to send out recalls.

    That's the way 'it is'. Should it be that way? Depends on who you ask. Does it have to be that way? Until medical science advances a hell of a lot further, yes, it does. The need for conflict is part of humanity. We thrive on it.

    As for preventing war, the US is trying to do just that. Stow the 'Waah Dubya is going mad with power!' party line. We went to Somalia to prevent war. We went to Bosnia to prevent war. The Middle East is one seething craphole of violence, and we've been in and out of there trying to prevent war.

    Guess what? People die when you try to prevent wars, and sometimes, war comes anyway. So it has since the dawn of time, and so it will as long as there are pretty rocks and shiny metals to lust after.

  49. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Repeat all this until he admits that the idea of pre-emptive strikes was not meant to be used by anyone else, is actually the same like the "right" of the stronger and doesn't make sense as a general principle. "

    Of course it does not - one has to follow well tested and proven model of World War 2 where millions where slaughtered before people were able to stop Hitler.
    Of course an initial preventive war was contemplated in 1936-7 by Poles by they were refused help from ( guess who ) French and....
    the rest is history.

  50. but how? by lloyd+elliott · · Score: 4, Insightful

    has anyone who has read this article tried to run this under linux yet, and have they had any luck? there seems to be nothing on icculus except the screenshot. I tried to wine the installer, but it choked. this news item would have been much more worthwhile if it included some kind of procedure for getting it to work (isntall on a windows machine, and copy over the binaries, then wine?)

  51. Can I ask you a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should you "fight on more than two Iraq-sized fronts at the same time"?

    1. Re:Can I ask you a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's the "axis of evil"... No, the real reason is Bush is looking at his history book, and saw that Germany could of won if either the Americans/British were defeated or if Russia was. The germans attempted to fight both at the same time, which wasn't the best.

      Bush doesn't want to tell you this, but Iraq could be taken over in a week. Iran and the rest of the middle east may get in the way. They would be dealt with next, we're already over there, why not? And by then some other countries may try and stop us, but they won't be able to. Because we have enough military power to fight on 4 or 5 fronts. They are all underestimating our military.

    2. Re:Can I ask you a question? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>Why should you "fight on more than two Iraq-sized fronts at the same time"?

      If someting the size of WW2 breaks out again (for the sake of this discussion, please forget who causes it), we'd have to.

      And we'd get involved, even if it didn't affect us directly, to protect our friends or to stop a threat.

      Hopefully though, it will never happen.

      --
      Huh?
    3. Re:Can I ask you a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be underestimating our military but you are overestimating it.

      We cannot fight wars on 4 or 5 fronts. We probably can't even fight on the 2 fronts that our current military doctrine calls for.

      Military recruitment has been dropping steadily over the last ten years and we are having to use a significant number of reservists because of it. Combine that with the fact that our forces are dispersed to more parts of the world than probably any other time in history, and it's obvious how foolish your statement is.

    4. Re:Can I ask you a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the US fought on two fronts at the same time from 1942-1945 - NorthAfrica/Italy/France and the Pacific theatre. Sure, we were stretched, but we relied on our British, Canadian, and Australian allies.

  52. AA is worth it just to watch censors squirm... by Nice2Cats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ...in places like Germany, where they have banned games such as "Quake 2" for for violence, and forced "Tomb Raider" to have blue-blooded animals, and changed the translation in "Command and Conquor" so that the soldiers are all robots. But they haven't touched AA yet -- image the diplomatic fun if Germany banned a game that the U.S. government produced.

    Ah, censorship. It will make you look like an Dummkopf every time...

    1. Re:AA is worth it just to watch censors squirm... by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Why would the US care? It's a military recruitment tool, and I doubt the US Army is expecting to get many new recruits out of Germany. Of course, the Germans have their own answer to the cost of military recruitment, don't they? Yes, forced conscription. So they ban violent videogames, and draft people into the army. Utterly bizarre.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    2. Re:AA is worth it just to watch censors squirm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To get the facts right: Violent games do not get banned in Germany. The just may not be sold to children under 18 and must not be advertised for. So, violent games are treated like hardcore pr0n.

      If you don't like the recoloured blood: Buy the stuff in the Netherlands!

      As far as forced conscription is concerned: German males at the age of 18 can opt for a 10 month military service *or* a 13 month civil service. The German basic law states: "Noone can be forced into the armed serivces against his will."

    3. Re:AA is worth it just to watch censors squirm... by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      Define "forced." What if the civil service term were 2 years? 8 years? Please, tell me what is the dividing line at which point the longer civil service term changes from an "option" to a "punishment for avoiding military service."


      Even putting that aside, Germans are at least encouraged to join the military, so I think that my point still stands.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    4. Re:AA is worth it just to watch censors squirm... by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      ...in places like Germany, where they have banned games such as "Quake 2" for for violence, and forced "Tomb Raider" to have blue-blooded animals, and changed the translation in "Command and Conquor" so that the soldiers are all robots. But they haven't touched AA yet -- image the diplomatic fun if Germany banned a game that the U.S. government produced.

      I don't know if you've seen the German version of the movie Starship Troopers, but it's dubbed so instead of Carmen saying "Hiroshima was destroyed" she says "Washington". I don't recall there being a diplomatic incident over it, tho'.

    5. Re:AA is worth it just to watch censors squirm... by jesco · · Score: 1

      The fact that the civil service term is longer is indeed some sort of 'punishment' or - euphemistically phrased - a motivation to join the military. However, the term durations of both correlate with each other; I think I remember a supreme court-ruling that says that the civil service may not be significantly longer than the military one.

      Still, nowadays only a fraction of young adults get drafted in the military anyways. You only need to attend civil service if you wan't to be 100% sure that you don't get into the army.

      Im my opinion, though, they can scrap that whole concept. It's just plain injust and out of date. I mean, where'S the justice than men must choose between military/civil-service and woman don't. And what do we need a military with roughly 50,000 well-trained/equipped troops and some more 200,000 (+500,000 reserve) with neither good training nor good equipment for. German politics, ah, don't get me started....

    6. Re:AA is worth it just to watch censors squirm... by psych031337 · · Score: 1
      There seems to be some misunderstanding to the concept of "banned games" in Germany, and while the concept may be highly disputable, it is a far cry from being censorship...

      Germany has an instance for checking and handling books, videos, games and other media that might be considered harmful to the youth (Bundesprüfstelle für jugengefährdende Schriften). It is is not pro-active, that means it does not require each new release to be checked. When some game is "banned" (indiziert) it means that some over-worrysome parent has submitted this special release to be checked. Games that are particularly bloody will get on the Index, just like movies like "Faces of Death" or "Evil Dead".

      If Quake is on the index, it means that it was obvious to the testers that the only way of archieving goals is killing humans.

      Tomb Raider was not forced to have blue-blooded animals. The software company did it on their own behalf (see below for the why).

      Same goes for Command & Conquer.

      If the game/movie is indexed it means the following, just the following and nothing more:

      dealers have to check age at all sales/rentals of said game (18+ is required)

      advertising of this game is not allowed anymore

      the game may not be displayed publicly in shops anymore, but it is still legal to sell/rent it in any amounts the dealer wishes

      AA not being indexed means that no one has submitted it for checking as of now. It is interesting to know that, though. Even if it was indexed, it would have about no effect, as the game itself is not sold anywhere in Germany. It would be nice to see the govt try to force an mandatory age check onto the AA distribution servers for downloads from Germany... hehe.

      To me, this system makes far more sense than the public outrage ensuing over Shakira music videos and the like. And it is far from being censorship, because "banning" and "censoring" implies that no one is legally able to get/own/use these products.

      Ah, americans bragging about "old Europe". It will make them look like a Dummkopf every time.

      --
      +++ath0
  53. Can I ask you a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you willing to die tomorrow? Think real hard about it. Because that's what war is.

  54. but how well does it run? by jdkane · · Score: 3, Insightful
    icculus.org has gotten America's Army to run under Linux, as this screenshot will attest

    That screenshot attests to the fact that there is a picture of America's Army main menu on a Linux box. That doesn't mean the game runs or runs well. Always the skeptic.

    I would be interested in hearing more from people who have actually tried to run it.

    1. Re:but how well does it run? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      And, let's not forget a somewhat more interesting point:

      Ever heard of WindowBlinds? It's a GUI theming engine for Win32. And there are probably 3-4 different themes that look like the original QNX Photon.

      I can, quite easily, run AA on Windows, and make a screenshot. Then I can take it, GIMP it, and put it into a themed window. Or, I can take the screenshot from within AA on windows, and if I'm running WindowBlinds, it will look like it's running on linux.

      Not to say I doubt that it could be true; I imagine it really wouldn't be too difficult to hack it to work as a UT2003 mod. But in any event, a screen in a window means little; espescially an opening menu!

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:but how well does it run? by bogie · · Score: 1

      Well if it gives you any comfort, UT2003 runs about 40% slower on linux than on windows at the same resolution and settings. The UT engine was designed from the ground up as a Direct3D thang. OpenGL is only and afterthought, ie hack. Even more interesting was UT2003 is really just an offshoot of Unreal Championship for Xbox. Orginally there was going to be NO game for the PC. So keeping in mind UT2003 for linux uses the OpenGL hack, only came about because they were already doing an OS X port, the OS X versoin was ported from a PC version that was originally supposed to even be made. Seeing all this, I gu

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  55. Not excatly true by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

    Serious Sam the First encounter is in beta - the second isn't available linux yet (but they are working on it).

    Medal of Honor? I've heard about a linux server but not a linux client. Do you have any info to back this up?

    --
    Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    1. Re:Not excatly true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medal of Honor is only as server for Linux.

    2. Re:Not excatly true by floamy · · Score: 0

      Um facts to support this? go to www.icculus.org. read the last few news headlines.

    3. Re:Not excatly true by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

      I did (before it got slashdotted) it said *server*.

      --
      Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    4. Re:Not excatly true by treke · · Score: 1

      Read it again. He is porting the client

  56. dear santa, by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

    next year, instead of that new powerbook, i want THAT!!

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  57. Exactly! by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

    A million posts about politics (with +5's all over the place), but this one *which is on topic*, is at the bottom (with a score of 1)!

    I too want to know how they did it - I find *nothing* on the site other than the screenshot...

    --
    Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    1. Re:Exactly! by lloyd+elliott · · Score: 1

      i don't really care who made it, but allegedly it works under linux, i've tried to wine the installer, but got this error message: err:virtual:map_image Standard load address for a Win32 program (0x00400000) not available - security-patched kernel ? /usr/bin/wine.bin: could not load 'Y:\downloads\ArmyOps150.exe' as Win32 binary Wine failed with return code 1 Anyone with a windows box care to copy over the installed binaries and try to wine them? Although the linked site seems to be in the buisness of porting things, i'd be suprised if they did anything more than just use wine to get that screenshot... also, we only have one screenshot there people! so the menu works, who knows if he actually got the engine to load....

    2. Re:Exactly! by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this misses the point. Since the game is based on the unreal engine, and since the unreal engine runs in linux, I think the idea is to run the game natively in linux, not using wine.

      --
      Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
  58. Not just a recruiting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't just a recruiting tool. The military is spending more money in computer aided training, and have been spending money on having games developed for the PC since the days of DOOM. The marines had a mod made with the DOOM engine years ago to help train its troops. Everyone here complains how the government spends money and we don't see anything in return, well this game serves 3 purposes. Recruitment, training tool for troops, and the public gets a fun game to play even if they are not interested in signing up.

    I'll go out on a limb here and say that this was probably the best spent tax money I've seen in quite a while.

  59. Oy vay! by hessian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Let's be good sheygetz and go die for Israel!

    The propaganda may be good, but no thanks. Death to all insane religions & their followers!

  60. Letz Kick it Up a Notch ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay you code monkey jar heads I know you are reading these posts, so here is an idea I just have to set free.

    You take a massive multi-player online role playing game (first person shooter) and code a bunch of weapons that when fired, access scripted hacks that get executed against game objects like computers. But the game objects (networks, 'puters etc.) are actually real world targets.

    So instead of that Morpho-ray that turns you into a chicken you have a hack-gun that runs various exploits on targeted information systems. Update the hack-gun exploits on a central game server to keep pace with the enemy's counter measures and you've got a cool new thing.

    Eventually, you could map a real world network then model it into the online game and entice thousands of loyal teenagers to login over the web and cruuise the internet looking for enemy communications while they think they are just playing the latest version of Tribes or Counter Strike.

    - Cheers, NebuChudNezar

    1. Re:Letz Kick it Up a Notch ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, I suppose that you think teenagers are RELIABLE?

      Because I'm one too...

  61. An even better option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "This is good how? "Oh, I died, let me just repop." They're recruiting people for war. I personally think they should include a device that gives 10000 volts every time you get killed."

    Or they should give all the soldiers the ability to respawn during war. Problem solved!

  62. my probably already said thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what is it with the republicans? Is it just W, or is it the whole party?

    If the Unreal 2 engine is only a later build of UT (like someone ^ said), then why is it so hardware demanding?

    I have played it before, and I honestly didn't like it. I've spent weeks on training missions in the real world with the local militia, and we only used paint-balls. Those were some of the scariest weeks of my life.(also the lack of sleep, crappy rassions too.)The game does little to project the realism of real world warfare; you're just sitting on your butt at home, staring at a monitor, and the fridge is only a room or two away.(considering that you have a fridge) You could even pause the game whenever you wanted and take a nap, ready to frag again when you're awake.

    If I wanted a good army game, I'd play Ghost Recon, even though it isn't on Linux(I don't think).

    By the way, why isn't half-life on Linux yet? Or is it?

  63. MOD IT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all the humor on this site has to be clean?

    1. Re:MOD IT UP! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      No, but it does need to be intelligent.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  64. Complacency won't kill us -- bombs will. by Heisenbug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/
    > complacency is what will eventually kill this country.

    This may not be the right place to have this argument, but -- I sometimes think it is the attitude that we should be able to fight the rest of the world all at the same time that will kill this country. I'm sorry -- that is killing it.

    We wouldn't have to fight a war by ourselves on even one Iraq-sized front if we were able to convince another military power it was worth doing. As it is, we haven't even managed to convince the Republicans in the Senate or more than 40% of Americans.

    Yes, it would be nice if we could outspend the entire world militarily, instead of only the next 12 countries -- but you know what? If we took 5% of the current budget, and doubled the budget for diplomacy instead, we might not need to.

    You want a little science fiction? Here's one way I can envision our country getting killed: we react to North Korea's nuclear program with threats of war instead of diplomacy. North Korea, being even more aggressive, and having a worse grip on long-term consequences, than Bush, does not back down. Finally their only choices are to admit defeat or rain conventional-weapon hell down on Seoul -- and they make the wrong choice. We can't stop them with the troops we have there. Now Bush has a choice -- does he let millions of South Koreans die, or does he use nuclear weapons?

    Well, what do you think?

    Of course nuclear weapons do not, in themselves, signify the end of the world. They do mean, however, that from that point on, we actually have to outspend the rest of the world combined -- because who's going to be on our side if we give them a choice?

    The trouble is, I don't think we can do it -- and I sure as hell don't think it's a good idea to try.

    I agree that we need a military -- but I think the only way that we as a free society can coexist with one is if we question its actions at every step of the way. Right now, I have some serious questions, and they're not just about some computer game.

  65. Agreed by eniu!uine · · Score: 1

    I myself am very much a product of violent television/movies/video games, and real life will always be another matter. I've had four vale tudo fights and each time I stepped into the ring/cage I still had the same adrenalin dump etc. In my opinion the only way to numb yourself to violence is to consistently commit violent acts. Of course sport violence is in another realm than actual murderous rampage.. you hug afterward for instance.. instead of say.. cutting off an ear.

    1. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you hug afterward for instance.. instead of say.. cutting off an ear."

      Unless your Tyson... In which case you have the guys ear for lunch.

  66. Re:Why? - Military Pay by tarogue · · Score: 3, Informative

    How much money do you really think an 18 y/o fresh out high school needs?

    Base rate for an E-1 w/ under four months service (as of January 2003) is 1,064.70 per mo. That means that as soon as you join, you get get paid over $1,000 a month gross income with no expenses (besides taxes). All that money is yours to sepnd how ever you want. No rent to pay, no food to buy, no utilities to pay.

    And very few people ever get enlisted as E-1 anymore. E-2 starts at $1,290.00, E-3 is 1,356.90, and E-4 is 1,502.70.

    That's all base rates. Then you can add in cost of living allowances, basic allowance for housing, etc., it adds up to a lot of money. And if you fill out the right paperwork, you won't pay any state income taxes.

    --
    Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
  67. When in Rome, kill the dangerous Romans by Valen+Faerlwynd · · Score: 1

    When was the last time American troops went to the middle-east and were shot at by something other than arabs? Last I checked, the camels were still unable to hold guns. Makes sense, doesn't it? Who would want to shoot at you in the desert? Certainly not Scandanavian terrorists, or Eskimo terrorists. No, it's the arabs. Besides, it's just a sign of the times. If this game had been made twenty years ago it'd probably have been russian forces.

    Love and Peace,
    Valen

    --
    "The best compliment a girl ever gave me was 'Your hair smells nice.' I hate being the platonic friend." -Valen
    1. Re:When in Rome, kill the dangerous Romans by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Oh, maybe the last time the Iranians shot at them -- probably during the mutual loathing of Reagan and Khomeini.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  68. No comparison... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    If we used that logic, then the world wouldn't have half of the things we have now, not to mention many of the scientific advancements. That same argument has been used in opposition to nuclear power, space exploration, military technology, and now government funded software projects.

    But this isn't a great scientific achievement like
    Nuclear Power, Fuel Cells, or Space Exploration, it's a just a video game.

    By comparing the two, you're belittling some of our nation's great scientific and govermental achievements.

    Besides, this software project created jobs, which in the end helps educations.

    But it's still a waste of money.

    $7 million could be spent on a project which would benefit a larger number of people and still create jobs.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:No comparison... by cicatrix1 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not a waste of money. GOD. THIS MONEY CAME FROM THE ARMY'S ADVERTISING BUDGET. If it wasn't spent on this, it would be spent on probably 1 more commercial. THIS IS WAY more bang for the buck, comparitively.

      --

      I know more than you drink.
    2. Re:No comparison... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      And again, that money spent on military advertising could be spent on something more productive that benefits a greater number of people.

      Not sure about you, but I'm not thrilled by an Miltary force full of people who joined because they played a video game or saw an Ad on TV.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    3. Re:No comparison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, let's just conscript people like every other country on earth. Who needs a volunteer army!

    4. Re:No comparison... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that everyone in the Army joined because they saw an Ad or played a video game?

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  69. Aren't we clever? by bomb_number_20 · · Score: 1

    In the future, when you post comments that are not your own work, you should give credit where credit is due.

    --
    That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
  70. No one gets killed. by eniu!uine · · Score: 1

    If by no one you mean about 11,000 in the US by gun violence alone. Sadly, most of them are not lawyers.

  71. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great Britain and France also didn't help Poland when it was actually attacked, and Chamberlain's misguided "Peace for our time" wasn't about failing to attack pre-emptively, but about failing to provide the protection to allies to which they committed themselves earlier.
    I don't think that it is that well proven that even earlier attacks would have been feasible - it could also have helped Nazi Germany gain apparent legitimacy. Since the other countries failed to act much later, when German expansion had already started, I don't think this provides much arguments for or against pre-emptive attacks.
    Still, at some time in the 30es, there might have been compelling reasons for a preventive war because Hitler's criminal intentions were quite clear. The new doctrine of the US administration is, however, very different from that. George W. Bush's National Security Strategy submitted on September 20 says the U.S. "has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union [..]", the U.S. military will "be strong enough" to to dissuade any potential challenger from "pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States." That's about dominance, and if that had been the principle in the 30es, we can't know if really Nazi Germany would have been chosen for attacking or perhaps another rival.

  72. Good Training by core+plexus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We used a laser system called MILES, which was actually pretty cool. It could sense a hit or near-hit, and like shooting at a tank with real ammo using an AK or M-16 does nothing, so too does the MILES system work. One time when I was playing the part of an infiltrator I 'killed' 40 infantrymen with just my dirty old AK.

    The purpose of the game is to teach you about teamwork. If you try and run it like an UT fragfest, you'll get killed, just like usually happens in real life. The game would bore you to tears if it used the "Hurry Up And Wait" standard of military ops, as well as the BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) when orders are changed. In real life it is very scary to operate for extended periods of time in hostile terrain, without support, but as a game it would no doubt be very boring. There's just no way to capture to lack of sleep, sand in your asscrack, bugs crawling over you which you cannot swat away or you'll be detected, or running into a damn yapping little dog at night in a hostile city.

    In a related story: Front-line troops disproportionately white, not black

    1. Re:Good Training by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      They didn't get that shit running on Linux, haven't you ever heard of screenshots.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    2. Re:Good Training by lostchicken · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's just no way to capture to lack of sleep...

      Really? I get a pretty good sense of a lack of sleep from computer games all the time...

      --
      -twb
  73. but we can play it however we like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and have US friendly fire catch some of their own for a change.
    war is terrible, but being terrible at war is worse.

  74. Question... by eniu!uine · · Score: 1

    Did anyone from /. actually get the game running under Linux? I know that the binaries are free as in monetarily, but is it actually freeware? Do we have the source? Can we create other first person games with it.. like ones with butterflies and fairies where the object of the game is to collect as many mushrooms as you can?

  75. Re:Government Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You US Americans always make yourselves bigger than you are. There are only 280 million of you.

    http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

    Rumsfeld sucks.

  76. Open Source Model? Not at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

    Open Source doesn't have anything to do with communism. Skipping the whole non Free/free software issues and pretending its all GPL, its still different.

    You don't give AWAY your code. You give a copy. Note to BSD licensee's you do give away your code - if someone else uses it, its not yours, not so with GPL, but I digress.

    The Freee software movement doesn't lose anything by sharing its code. They wrote it in the first place because they needed it. They already obtained the value required for the effort they put in it. They gain incremental value from the possibility that someone else will use it and add a feature they'd like but is not worth it to them personally to develop.

    Here's an example.

    You need a video filter, say to remove a logo from the an old version and put the new one in. You need it enough that your willing to write your own custom filter for it. Its slow because you only need to remove it from one short clip, so you don't bother to optimize it.

    Energy expended, code created, value obtained.

    If you share it, someone who needed it for a different reason, say removing UPN logo's from BuffyTVS tivo'ed files, may need to remove it from dozens of hours of footage. They may optimize your code. They don't lose any thing (skip the "potential" please, their weighting of that value is all that matters) by sharing the optimization code.

    Everyone _involved_ gains.

  77. Re:Government Funded Racism--not by mack+knife · · Score: 1

    they do a good job of mixing up the ethnicities. in insurgent camp, they appear arab. on bridge or mountain pass, they are "terrorists", ostensibly eastern european males. in weapons cache, they are terrorists of vague ethnicity.

    i don't think its racist to consider that some--not all--conflicts in the foreseeable future may involve people of arab descent.

  78. Fun game, or big threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it may be an entertaining game, I think America's Army is a big threat to freedom.

    It's an obvious ploy to get kids to "learn" that war is fun, and that "we" are the good side without any question.
    I can't help but think of another organization that tried to teach kids that war is fun in a similar way, not too long ago in Germany's history.

    America's Army smells quite a bit like a modern version of the Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend) to me (and no, I'm not trying to be a troll. This is a serious concern.)

    1. Re:Fun game, or big threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite right... The more I think about it, the more I think September 11 was Bush's Reichstag burning...

    2. Re:Fun game, or big threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this guy up.

      Do people believe that the US government / military really just thought "Oh, this will be a fun and enjoyable game for Jimmy and Sue to play on the weekend! Let's let them share the happy happy joy joy fun for free!"? If so, I am afraid they might be sadly mistaken.

      After studying the particulars of this game and its web site (including its FAQ), and also the effects of some other notable regime/government/military - youth "programs" in the past... this "game" comes at a cost. That cost is the subtle influencing of young minds.

      Every free, civilized and respectable nation needs clear, unbiased, rational, level-headed and also compasionate thinking from all of its citizens. This game does not achieve that objective. Never underestimate the effect this kind of tool can have on the minds of the young. The young today are our men, women and leaders tomorrow. I find this deeply concerning.

    3. Re:Fun game, or big threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to think of it, you may be right...

      I love this game for myself (I'm 23, and I know that a game is not necessarily an image of reality), but it's something I definitely won't let my son play when he gets a bit older.

      Other than promoting violence, the fact that all opponents are Arabs is promoting the "all muslims are evil" thought, which is just as dangerous as the "all Americans are evil" thoughts some muslim extremists are having.

  79. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by aftk2 · · Score: 1
    "has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union [..]"
    I can't find this phrase at either CommonDreams.org or on the Whitehouse's page. Was this actually stated? I'm honestly interested.
    --
    concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
  80. gun violence in the US is pretty low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More people kill themselves in the US each year than are killed by others.

    And that doesn't even count suicides that are classified as accidents. Single Person, Single Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for example.

  81. Re:Government Funded Racism--not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I partially agree with you. It wouldn't have hurt the game to not have made them arab. I'm not concerned about reality but instead of the effects these games have on people. You've been on these servers and seen that many of the kids playing constantly make racist remarks. I've seen way too many people acting on their racism towards arabs in the real world these days (and sometimes ignorantly generalizing it to people from India.) Their is a problem in the real world today. Sure we are having conflicts with certain arabs, but way too many people are generalizing it to all arabs. This game isn't helping at all. It's calling arabs terrorists and allowing you to kill them. It's promoting a dangerous generalization and it's targeted at our children. Isn't there something wrong with that?

  82. Typical Liberalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what about all those who DO have to pay taxes, you weasel?

  83. Pixie Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Althought the UBA would get magic corporate funding so you can increase spending while not cutting other programs, or changing one variable in a complex system not readily understood without chaning anything else.

    Ahhhhh. thats some fine crack he's a smokin.

  84. Poverty and War? by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

    the only way to *prevent war* on a planet with limited resources and swelling population is to redistribute wealth.

    I don't think that'd work either -- I'd argue that poverty is a symptom rather than a cause.

    People can be as happy and well-fed as you please, and still want to kill each other -- not to mention the presence of several thousand years of legacy interethnic hatred.

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...
  85. more dubious than ... by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

    You seriously think this is more dubious than offering free cash for college?

    1. Re:more dubious than ... by espilce · · Score: 1

      yes.

      Here's why: war is fucking stupid. The purpose of war is to kill others and take what they have from them. The purpose of college is to educate people so they can spend their time doing something constructive, rather than hurting others. I would much rather see money being given to people who want to learn than people who want to kill.

      --
      :q!
    2. Re:more dubious than ... by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood. I meant the money for college program that the army uses to recruit people. Somehow I think it is a tad more enticing than a videogame.

    3. Re:more dubious than ... by espilce · · Score: 1

      ah. I certainly did misunderstand that. I agree that they are both rather dubious methods of enticing people to join the military. However I think the video game is quite a bit worse than giving people money to be spent on their education because it targets a different audience: younger children (say 15 years old and below) who wouldn't necessarily be thinking about joining the military at that point in their lives. I doubt anyone can argue that the younger a child is, the easier it is to shape their opinions. This video game explicitly tells them that war is cool, America Is The Best, and the best way to help your country is to join the army and kill people. It's propaganda, nothing less. It's like cartoons shown in the U.S. during World War II, only more blatant, and less funny.

      --
      :q!
  86. Recruiting Pale Gamers by Angry+Black+Man · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what amount of actual gamers and linux users could make it through basic training?

    --
    the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
    1. Re:Recruiting Pale Gamers by variable26 · · Score: 1

      ummm.. you can set your skin tone in the settings of this game......

  87. Modern PX's are a ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have to agree with your statement about the PX. I went there with my brother (USAF) last year. Very few things in the modernday PX (BX/VX) are cheaper than the same things found in civilian stores.

    It wasn't always this way. Of course PX's didn't always resemble a seedy Wal-mart. If the military really wants their soldiers to keep in better shape they should remove the food courts. Some of those places make McDonald's look like a health food store.

  88. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by Jadrano · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find the original document on the Internet either.
    It is quoted on quite a number of news pages, e.g.
    commondreams.org
    shm.com.au

  89. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by Stonehand · · Score: 1

    Boy, you chose some winners there.

    Christ --
    Yeshua was arrested and killed. Has few actual /practicing/ followers, despite how many claim to. Charity? Willingness to forgive? Injunctions against greed and usury? Loving the sinner? Avoiding gluttony and pride? Yeah, right.

    Ghandi --
    Assassinated. Only got some modicum of success because of all the colonial powers, the UK was possibly unique in having a conscience. Strife continues in India, in case you haven't noticed.

    Dr. King --
    Assassinated. Ideals practically dead, with most prominent "civil rights" advocates demanding special status for people that just happen to look like them and insisting on seeing everything through the prism of race.

    The Dalai Lama --
    Exiled. Has completely failed to win autonomy for the Tibetans. Has nothing more than some minimal celebrity value these days.

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  90. No it doesn't... by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

    This page (http://www.icculus.org/) only shows "# MOHAA Spearhead Linux server ALPHA1 (posted 2002-12-31 18:49:50 by icculus). " (same for BF1942 in an older news article).

    If you know different, post links - otherwise, don't spread rumors - it deosn't help linux.

    --
    Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    1. Re:No it doesn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MoH: AA was running in Linux. It was the icculus.org day 2 surprise. it hasn't been posted on icculus.org yet, because they are at lwce

  91. Re:Why? - Military Pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're responsible for personal care expenses, like hair cuts, razors, shampoo, tampons, etc. You do have some expenses.

    Part of the problem with military pay lies in career service, or people who enlist that already have families. That tiny paycheck doesn't cover much for a family.

  92. People still play AA? by Winterblink · · Score: 1

    I'm impressed. I got in when they released it and played it until they airborne add on was released. At the time a LOT of people were playing it. However, BF1942 came out around that time (the demo) and a shitload of people vacated AA to play that. With so many good games having been released since that time it's surprising anyone has time to play AA at all (especially since UT2003's come out). Anyway, just an observation. I'm wondering what the actual number of active users playing AA is now.

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:People still play AA? by Professor · · Score: 1

      America's Army has 1.3M registered players, with 800K of them having completed Basic Combat Training in the game. We see about 500K missions played everyday, with 600K on Saturdays/Sundays, about 40,000 hours of game play per day. If you compute that at minimum wage, it is about $100M lost per year due to AA:O game play.

      So, yes, America's Army is still played and we add new missions about every 40 days.

      Michael Zyda, Director
      The MOVES Institute
      http://movesinstitute.org

  93. Nice by jago25_98 · · Score: 1


    - just a reminder to question/disregard screenshots

    - interesting PR idea lock-n-loaders, as a non-american what am I meant to think of this?

    - excellent work on the conversion, I and all appreciate, thanks :)

    - but it's a shame we always have to do this conversion stuff ourselves? (re: Tactical-ops fiasco etc; legal agreements on linux support and biting off too much than can chew) (Sirex has just sent Ravage a little bug report on the free version installer script I believe: http://www.icculus.org/~ravage/tacops/)

    - remember to stop all running service (/etc/init.d/) and possibly restart X with no window manager. Test GL too

    Off topic:

    Try MutantStorm - http://www.pompom.org.uk/
    Good linux game, not free but worth a look, especially with twin analogue joypads.

    Nice bit of news though :)

  94. Finished below by bogie · · Score: 1

    Seeing all this, I guess I understand why the linux version is so slow. I know people who say it run O.K. for them, but in my experience I just don't bother and stick with RTCW since it a)has excellant performance under linux and b) was designed from the ground up to be openGL

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  95. Re:Why? - Military Pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still good pay given the skills of many enlistees.

    But, I'd be more than willing to increase their pay.

  96. You are a complete idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get your GED already, lazy hippy!

  97. Games on Linux are good, but I'm still waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civ III.

    *ducks*

  98. You are right! by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

    I finally found it here (mohaa client in linux):

    http://icculus.org/news/news.php?id=1122

    Cool!

    --
    Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
  99. Re:government funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the quote said "within recent history". Do you know what recent history is the person who wrote that? They could 5 years old. The internet would not be recent history to them. The government should spend more money on education for idiots like you.

  100. Re:government funding by Patrick13 · · Score: 1
    History n. - The aggregate of past events or human affairs.

    I would say something that has happened within the past 20 - 30 years definitely qualifies as "recent history".

    I suppose, now your argument will be that this supposed 5 year old (who by the way is CowboyNeal), was referring to his web browser's history cache?

    The government should spend more money on education for idiots like you.

    me says "boohoo". Use your handle and flamebait like a man.
    --
    ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
  101. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up!!!

  102. Mod parent troll!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent troll!!!

  103. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

    well, I'm prepared to follow in their footsteps. peace is something worth trying for. And while the people that followed them may not be large in number they are out there living with those ideals. I can't control christians that say one thing and do another. As for tibet, time will tell. We've been using force with china for years and they're still communists. perhaps in some instances neither force nor peace will solve our problems and they will simply always be problems. force hasn't solved anything in Israel either and peace was on the road to solving the problem. I think in the end it will.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
  104. Re:government funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You still don't get it. I'm glad your smart enough to use a dictionary. I guess you are just misguided, not a complete moron (I hope).

    But you're still missing the point. Did you look up recent as well in the dictionary? The phrase is "recent history", not history. So yes, it would be a huge overstatement if he had said that it was the largest development in the internet's history.

    He also qualified it with "I consider", which means its his opinion. So that you are disagreeing with his opionions is quite silly. They are his. No amount of bitching on Slashdot forums will change that..

    As to the 5 year old mark, that was a gaffe on my part. I was assuming it was posted by the article submitter (I ignore the editor's comments, they are usually flamebait/group-think anyway).

    As for posting under my username, that would be really hard since I don't have one. I belong to a different reality (I call it real life) where one's handle (and user id) does not have any significane on my gender, or how manly I am. You should come and visit this brave new world. Oh wait if I saw you I would probably laugh at you.

    Ok. In conclusion, I'm a troll without a user name. Recent history is relative. Sorry for making personal attacks (damn, I guess I'm not a good troll).

    Have a nice day.

  105. You're a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The definition of imperialism is taking over a country and then taxing it - the US in its history has never done that.

    1. Re:You're a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mock you.

      Think about most of South America.

  106. The Cost of America's Army - it actually saves $ by Professor · · Score: 1

    The development of the America's Army game cost about $7M. if it had been developed in a company instead of the MOVES Institute, it would have cost $15M to develop.

    The project actually has the potential to SAVE the US Army from $700M to $4B PER YEAR in recruiting and strategic communication costs. We will know the savings over time. It provides a more immersive experience than say a single TV commercial, which costs about the same to produce and get played.

    At the moment, America's Army has approximately 1.3M registered players, with 800K of those players having completed Basic Combat Training in the game. The game has won several awards and is fun to play! So go to http://americasarmy.com and downlaod!

    We will be at E3 once again this year so stop on by!

    Michael Zyda, Director
    The MOVES Institute
    http://movesinstitute.org

  107. This is moronic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can three different answers on the same thread be modded as informative?

    Come on mods, are you basing your judgement on the content and how factual it is by checking the facts yourselves?

    1. Re:This is moronic. by almightyjustin · · Score: 1

      Informative != Correct

      --

      Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.

  108. AA at recruiting centers? by lucasw · · Score: 1

    The army should be setting up lans running AA at their recruiting centers, hosting tournaments, matches against or teamups with real soldiers, and so on, so anyone can come in and play for free and come into close contact with more direct propaganda/recruiting efforts. Instead they're just targeting the much smaller community of users with adequating computers and broadband (and wouldn't those users have enough money/education to not make them infantry candidates anyhow?).

    Granted, that would cost a lot more than running a few servers and supporting game development, but probably be more effective.

    1. Re:AA at recruiting centers? by Professor · · Score: 1

      Read http://americasarmy.com for information about the America's Army tournaments! We do all these things as time progresses.

      Michael Zyda, Director
      The MOVES Institute
      http://movesinstitute.org

  109. Re:Government Funded Racism--not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen way too many people acting on their racism towards arabs in the real world these days (and sometimes ignorantly generalizing it to people from India.) Their is a problem in the real world today. Sure we are having conflicts with certain arabs, but way too many people are generalizing it to all arabs. This game isn't helping at all. It's calling arabs terrorists and allowing you to kill them. It's promoting a dangerous generalization and it's targeted at our children. Isn't there something wrong with that?

    Yes, from an ideal world perspective something is very wrong with that. The problem today is that while arabs in this country shout out constantly in anger about being stereotyped, they continue to do virtually nothing in helping us track down the terrorists in our midst. You can condem terrorism all you want in written statements, but how about telling the FBI about a group of young men at the mosque who seem to be ultra radical, talk about blowing things up, and seem happy whenever the events of sept11th are discussed? The arab community now has something hanging over their heads, and it can be only lifted with actions of the arab community - not just rhetoric.

  110. Re:but how? Native Port, Not Yet Released by eddison_carter · · Score: 1

    It is a native port, but it hasn't been released yet.

    --
    I always prefer to start the year off with a bang - or, to be more precise, a series of loud hums, a crackle or two, and
  111. Re:Oh, *really*? It's called VMWare by eddison_carter · · Score: 1

    Read the title bar, it says it's VMware, so it could easily have been running under Linux.

    --
    I always prefer to start the year off with a bang - or, to be more precise, a series of loud hums, a crackle or two, and
  112. Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, I don't seem to understand this liberal method of thinking. Am I right that we in the US are to look out for the interests of the US? If something we need to do will burn others, then should we just stay at home and pray?

    Countries act in their own best interests. Always have, always will - so get used to it and quit living in your liberal dream world of peace and harmony.

  113. Try 442 schools by thelexx · · Score: 1

    According to the donation page at Cambodia Schools project, $7M dollars would fund no less than 442 schools, including construction, for two years. Build 'only' 221 and they could be funded for 158 years at current rates. These are the kinds of projects that our nations 'small change' should be involved in, as they create a huge positive change in the long run (goodwill for potential future trade, etc), not creating yet more appetite for death.

    --
    "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  114. "Good Training" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if this is supposed to be funny, or maybe we're from different generations, or maybe it's the old story about Americans, sarcasm and irony.

    "Good training" falls somewhere between "cocksucker" and "expendable" where I come from. When shit happens, it's supposed to toughen you up for when the bad guys attack. For example:

    "Man, I got a fucking ticket for speeding on post."

    "Hey, that's good training."

    Food poisoning and sunstroke are good training too.

    1. Re:"Good Training" by core+plexus · · Score: 1
      At first, I thought it was sarcasm, until I was in the shit.

      Using your example: "Man, I got pulled over by the MP's for speeding on Post"

      "Yeah?"

      "Yeah, I talked my way out of it, but I was ready to make a run for it if I needed to"

      "That's good training, man, FTA"

      "FTA, Brah"

      I wasn't a leg, so others mileage may vary.

      Then again, sarcasm is a great way to deal with extreme stress. I can joke about grey matter splattered on me, if only because that is the way I deal with it.

  115. what about that site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of links to the things you need to develop & package games for linux.

  116. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the actual developers... who'da thunk?

  117. Re:government funding by geekoid · · Score: 1

    he's 12, this IS recent history.

    Just trying to be funny, he's probably 13.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  118. Not Racism... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    Dude, did it enter your mind for a minute that maybe the maps were based on an existing training facility?

    MILES gear depicted in this game is used at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin [www.irwin.army.mil], in California. Which is, by the way, in the desert.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    1. Re:Not Racism... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Grr. I've been trying to find the episode of Modern Marvels that featured the center. It's not available for sale yet on the History Channel's website.

      My brother was in OPFOR when they shot it, and is in a few scenes. (He is the 6'4" blonde in the crowd scenes.)

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  119. Realistic Training Environment by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    As I said in my previous reply, the army trains in the desert because they need clear radio channels and to be AWAY from populated area. Kind of a tall order in the United States. And they have been training there since the 1980's. The OPFOR was originally playing the part of the Soviets, but since we are buddies with them they now play the Kraznovians. (A made up country by the way.)

    If you don't believe me that the real NTC is in the desert, get the Video tape[A&E's Online Store].

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  120. Re:Argh! (Cambodiaschools) by mattr · · Score: 2, Informative
    Completely wrong! And thank you thelexx!


    For less than 10,000 dollars U.S. you can build an entire school with your name on it. And you can add solar panels, thus powering communications where there weren't any before,for just a little extra.


    While it sounds inevitable that this would happen (use video games to recruit) and it's been done before (the movie was called Starfighters or some such, an interstellar race was fought by teenagers recruited through coinoperated game machines), anyway you're wrong and that much (or even a lot less) can do a world of good.


    You could also do a world of good in the U.S. by funding open-source education.


    If you want to buy a school in Cambodia, or assist, contact me or the address (Bernie Krisher should be listed there) on the web page.


    Disclaimer: I support this project.

  121. When's it coming out? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    I just wanna try the game out... I don't want to have to install Windows in order to run it, and it appears that Wine just hates it with a passion.
    I can't wait until it comes out for Linux. Political crap aside, it's a cool thing.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  122. Read slashdot.org everyday! by Professor · · Score: 1

    I believe most of our team reads slashdot everyday, including myself.

    Michael Zyda
    Director, The MOVES Institute

  123. Re:Government Funded Racism - NOT AT ALL by Professor · · Score: 1

    The America's Army staff reads all posts in the forums everyday! We get lots of good ideas from the AA:O playing public.

    And, if you play through all the levels, you will find that the bad guys are of a variety of racial backgrounds and are not a majority of any particular race or nationality. I do believe that they all have beards and wear old Soviet-style BDUs.

    Racism, in general, is not tolerated by me personally, by my team or by the US government.

    Michael Zyda, Director
    The MOVES Institute
    http://movesinstitute.org

  124. A short discussion on German censorship by Nice2Cats · · Score: 1
    Ah, mein Freund, you forgot to mention a few important details:

    1. Censorship in Germany is on the federal level -- all states have to respect the decisions of the BPJS (now BPJM, by the way). When Bavaria says "this is evil", Hamburg follows. The blockage in the U.S. is on a communal level. When Dumbass, Texas bans something, San Francisco says "up yours".

    2. Since the laws were changed this year, the BPJM can decide whom to ban on their very own, and there is basically no more recourse unless you want to spend a very long time in court. This is a change you might want to check out.

    3. Censorship is an intregal part of the German constitution, as the first article is the protection of human dignity ("Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar"), and beats the article about "no censorship". The U.S. constitution puts freedom of speech before everthing else. German Courts can and do decide to ban the possession of certain materials because it "violates human dignity".

    4. Roughly four of five German speakers are Germans. If something is banned in Germany, it basically ceases to exist in German, because it is not worth publishing it for Austria and the Swiss alone. If something is banned in your community in the U.S., you can still get it in Great Britian, Australia, India, New Zeeland, etc. As the writer's group PEN has pointed out, the "Indizierung" in Germany is usually the kiss of death.

    Yes, four out of five Americans bragging about the U.S. make fools out of themselves, especially when it comes to privacy, the legal system, and other places where the U.S. is stuck back in the 18th Century. But with censorship, the Land der Dichter und Denker has long since turned to the Land der Scheren im Kopf. The blood turns blue over here before the law even forces it to.

    Schöne Grüße from Berlin.

  125. not a troll. by Quix0te · · Score: 1

    "America's Army" is the most blatent piece of propaganda in support of military agression I have ever seen. And you all lap it up!

    The USSR's propaganda was never so sophisticated.

    Some honest questions to anyone who has played this "game": who are the "bay guys" in the game? Are any of them white? Do you actually see even a hint of the realities of the human costs of war represented in the game or is it just all stars 'n stripes and gratefull, smiling colonial populations?

  126. Why No Mac Version (flamebait)(Super Flamebait +2) by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

    Mac users are known to be homosexual pacifists. No market for FPS games in macland. They all live in Berkeley, CA. They're vegetarians and drink organic coffee instead of Mountain Dew. All Mac users also drive Volkswagens and wear Berkenstock sandals. They like Chai tea and they wear berets. They all save Christmas (OOPS I mean "the holidays") with their powerbooks and a "cord". They're all currently saving their money for solar powered cars and hate nukes. They're all named Reggie or Sam. Boys and girls, doesn't matter. Reggie or Sam. Regina or Reginald, Samuel or Samantha. Same thing. All Macheads wear pants made of natural hemp and they spent their formative years 100 feet off the ground chained to a sequoia. Their favorite words are 'Fascist' and 'Corporate Interests'. They hate George W. Bush and want Hillary to run for president. They lust after the Segway HT. Mac-heads brag about what Mac they first owned. Incessantly. They use AOL where possible. Starbucks is the source of their sustenance, and their first job. Are you pissed off at me yet? Anyway, Macintosh users like widgets and hate products made from petroleum. They don't mind dropping 3k on a system. They need macs. Sexually. Like in the 'insert tab A into slot B kinda way.
    Mod this one offtopic flamebait funny OK?