Slashdot Mirror


Germany Places Command & Conquer on Restricted List

heli0 writes "CNet is reporting that Germany has placed EA's newest Command & Conquer game 'Generals' on its restricted list, which means it may not be advertised or displayed on shelves although it may be kept under store counters and sold to adults. The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'"

961 comments

  1. LOL by JoeSmack · · Score: 1

    Are they also going to ban 90% of the rest of the games where conflict is the only option?

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conflict isn't the problem. It's that war/killing is portrayed as the only way of resolving the conflict -- in a game which is designed to resemble reality.

    2. Re:LOL by shepd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seems to me if the game has a quit button, there's an alternate way of resolving the conflict.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    3. Re:LOL by SilverSun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, we are working hard here in to put chess on the restricted list, too. Then again, one might introduce some new rule, where the black king and the white queen can sit down on G4 and talk for a while, or we might replace the knight by a new figure: "the diplomat". The diplomat can't move, but will have some really cool abilities. What exactly is not yet clear, the EU games council is still negotiating.

      Cheers, from good old Germany.

      --

      KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing

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

      When you press the quit button, all your opponents, the AIs, disappear/die. That seems to me like a mass destruction button, and the computer controlled people have no way of protecting themself from such coward actions.

      The better way of resolving conflicts is to prevent them from starting. Not buying the game is the cheapest way, not lauching the game is the most stupid.

    5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is no BAN. They have just decided that it shouldn't be sold to people under 18.

      Considering how many people lament this rather likely decision lets me wonder about the age of the general public in this forum.

      J

    6. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battlechess is on the list of restricted games ("indiziert").

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

      Are they also going to ban 90% of the rest of the games where conflict is the only option?

      Easy, make key 1 a vocal sample of "let's sit down and talk about this"... ...at which point you get killed in a hail of bullets.

      Lesson 1: when fighting dictators or computer AI, you can pretty much say that their methods and goals are the same. Therefore force is the only answer.

    8. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. Many games are on the list which, I don't know why slashdot posted the news on C&C Generals, as many other ga[Ü/ëäí*qøIlist too.

      Most ego shooters are on that list, especially those from idsoft (usually takes 2 days after release). Exceptions are Counterstrike and Unreal, which although violent, don't have killing as the only option (I think you can talk to some people in Unreal or something like that).

      This list IS stupid, as every kiddy copies the game from friends, or downloads it from the net.

    9. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as many other ga[Ü/ ëäí*qøIlist too.

      I wonder if this is exploitable.

    10. Re:LOL by SilverSun · · Score: 1
      No, it's not on the list of restricted games.

      But, as I said, we are working on it...

      Cheers

      --

      KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing

    11. Re:LOL by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at their list of restricted games. (Posted in a comment above)

      Every FPS I've ever heard of is listed.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    12. Re:LOL by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      YASPM: Yet Another Stupid Political Move. Ohhh, we are soooooo mad at the USA! We'll show them! We'll restrict their video game sales! Maybe it's only fair, because after the war Germany will have a tough time selling it's chemical components until they find another big customer.

    13. Re:LOL by Gehenna_Gehenna · · Score: 1

      You know what really irks me about this? What about [hitler] times when war IS the [hitler] only option? Do we expect the Germany [hitler] is trying to tell it's citizens [hitler] "Sorry, we beleive that you arn't smart enough to make [hitler] your own desicions without being [hitler] unfairly influenced [hitler] by a recreational activity [hitler] that only a slim minority of the population [hitler] will ever see. Fortunately [hitler] the German government [hitler] is smart enough to make these moral [hitler] decisions for you [hitler]. Don't worry, it's not a big [hitler] deal, it's not like were [hitler] burning these games [hitler] or banning them completely [hitler]. We jus [hitler] want to make sure that you don't make any purchasing decision based on [hitler] some other entities opnions or advertisments [hitler] that don't have the same moral ground [hitler] as your governments [hitler].
      /rant

      --

    14. Re:LOL by Remillard · · Score: 1

      The "diplomat" will be able to enter the opposite players back two rows and either conduct technological espionage, or will be able to subvert the other players pieces such that they change color.

      This behavior can be eliminated if the King and Queen decide to research hack-proof cryptographic bureacracies as a social development.

    15. Re:LOL by clear+issue · · Score: 1

      Any problem we have always needs to be solved through violence. It's the american way. I wouldn't even think Pres. Bush would understand the rules of chess. He would need characters like the diplomat and the spy. Even with them there would be some obvious cheating involved.

    16. Re:LOL by ErcStlkr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      George W. Bush couldn't cheat. You have to have the ability to think in order to cheat. The most he can do is druel on the board so much that the other player quits in disgust. I know, I have used that tactic many a time before and never, once, has it failed me. Ahh, and the most ironically amusing thing about me bashing Bush is that I am a Republican.

    17. Re:LOL by sdack · · Score: 0

      Very funny, indeed. But it isn't. And it is also not the time for sarcasm nor cynism. Some people still do not understand, that it wasn't the EU who started all the middle east shit, but the United States of America. And it is them who started this war against terrorism, when in fact it is again just the usual towel-head bashing for oil. The terror attack on 11.9. is only the usual "what goes around, comes around". Cause panic on an ant hill and now run it over with a bull-dozer. Congratulations to civilisation - we can watch it all live and in colour!

      These are sad times.

      Sven

    18. Re:LOL by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      >>He would need characters like the diplomat and the spy

      Clearly, he doesn't play chess.

      He plays Stratego.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    19. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the real war could use a load/save buttom, seeing how it's going lately.

    20. Re:LOL by Ryosen · · Score: 2, Funny

      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. =)

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    21. Re:LOL by mark2003 · · Score: 1

      Would one of the rules be that the Bush administration are incapable of using the "diplomat" piece?

    22. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he plays "Cowboys and Injuns"... with the whole world!

    23. Re:LOL by netsharc · · Score: 1

      I find it only fair, considering the US's YASPM (childishness) with "freedom fries" and throwing away French cheese and wine (although this is only a rumor, I think).

      Reminds me of a headline I saw yesterday; "The USA remembers the Geneva Convention". GFD, the people who've been there for one and a half years in Guantanamo are suffering a lot more than the "humiliation" of being taped on TV.

      Stupid fucking Administration, and those who suppport it.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    24. Re:LOL by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Would one of the rules be that the Bush administration are incapable of using the "diplomat" piece?

      Nah, we'd send in the diplomat piece and at the first sign of disagreement say "Well it is obvious that we are getting no where here." Then recall him and then use gps guided missles to knock out all of the other chess pieces. Then we'd put oil wells on all of the black squares because "If it's black, it's gotta be oil!" Meanwhile we realize that the other chess pieces were merely puppets for a supreme ruler sitting behind the chess board. So we drop a bunker-buster on him. By this time, the added weight of all of the oil wells causes the table to colapse injuring the white player. Which of course is now "terrorism" so we use our spy satellites to scan the area. We locate a terrorist cel operating in the closet known as "Al Checkers". A number of small black pieces are located at taken out using the gps guided missiles. But now we are in a quandry. What to do with the red pieces? Well of course we tell them that they are now liberated! But we politely ask that they only stay on the red squares, so we can put oil wells on the black squares. In exchange for that gesture, we will impose trade sanctions and trickle food in.

      But wait, I spy some more evil lurking in the closet. Apparently there is a Chinese cel of Al Checkers known as "Chinese Checkers" and oh no! I see a "Monopoly"! Time to call the FTC!

      And thus ends another day in the Bush administration.

      I hope you enjoyed this piece of politcal humor that I just pulled off the top of my head. I'm a Bush man, but this just flowed so easily. :)

    25. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people still do not understand, that it wasn't the EU who started all the middle east shit, but the United States of America.

      It wasn't the EU or the USA that started "all the middle east shit", it was GOD. Have you even read the bible? I've had enough of all you commie atheist scum posting on slashdot.

    26. Re:LOL by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      What army wants them back?

      Unless you can answer that question, then all of those "poor POWs" in Cuba are infact subject to summary execution under the Geneva convention.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    27. Re:LOL by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      YASPM (childishness) with "freedom fries"

      It's a name only. The potatoes still come from Idaho, having absolutely no economic effect on France.

      and throwing away French cheese and wine

      Difference being that it is rich resturanteurs doing that, while the German Government is doing the stuff with the games.

      GFD, the people who've been there for one and a half years in Guantanamo are suffering a lot more than the "humiliation" of being taped on TV.

      Oh, you mean the guys who were captured fighting for a islamic extremist and hyper-mysogynist terrorist-supporting regime? The same guys who threaten to rape the female soldiers guarding the facility? Oh, you mean the same guys who fought for a regime that forced a female UN envoy to wear a burqa and wouldn't allow eye contact during discussion?

      Seriously, I think we should let them go. In Antarctica. I mean, if you wanna stick up for these guys, cool. It shows the quality person you are. These guys made a decision to fight. Honestly, I personally think that if one side refuses to act according to the Geneva Convention, that we should be allowed to without getting fingers waved at us. I don't hear anyone in Europe condemning Iraqi or Taliban violations. It's always complained about when it's anti-American.

      I think we should be allowed to perform weltanshauungskrieg-style psychological warfare. I think we should capitalize on the billions spent on MK-ULTRA. Fuck up their heads. They want to play dress-up and kill our soldiers, we should be allowed to mess with their mind so they can't even find their asses with both hands.

      Wahh wahh, some asshole bastards who oppress women, religious freedoms, and hundreds of other kinds of people aren't given luxury suites and 3-course meals! The world is ending. Bump that. Go grab an AK and fly to Afghanistan, if you feel more kinship with them than the American soldiers out there.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    28. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Perhaps. This is counterbalanced by the French ability to filibuster.

    29. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What passes for edjumicashun these days in Old Europe?

      The British, French, and not least, the Turks, have all had a bit of fun in the region.

      Heck, there was no "Iraq" before the British created it, so they could put their buddy Faisal on the throne of something.

    30. Re:LOL by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah yeah, if it's our guys we whine because they get shown on TV, if it's the enemy, let them die.

      I don't understand what the big deal is, the Iraqis seem to be treating the POWs just fine, but then again I don't know what sort of propaganda the US media is feeding you. "Oh my God we were so worried about you, did you feel humiliated being shown on TV like that?" would be a question they least expect when they get back.

      From their point of view, the US is this evil Islam-killing imperialist power. Sure it's not true, but try to convince them. It would be as hard as getting you convinced that the US is an Islam-killing imperialist power.

      So, who's right? Who knows. When both sides believe they're right, we got conflict, and that's what we have.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    31. Re:LOL by quax · · Score: 1

      On what levels does your mind opertate? How can you be a Bush man and come up with that kind of stuff?

    32. Re:LOL by quax · · Score: 1

      As another poster was already pointing out, this kind of blacklist has always been around and it only affect kids (18yrs).

      In Germany we are much more sensetive to exposing kids to violence while being much more relaxed about pornography in comparison to the states.

    33. Re:LOL by quax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My "<" had been swallowed. I find this very offensive. Here's the corrected version:

      As another poster was already pointing out, this kind of blacklist has always been around and it only affect kids (< 18yrs).

      In Germany we are much more sensetive to exposing kids to violence while being much more relaxed about pornography in comparison.

    34. Re:LOL by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah yeah, if it's our guys we whine because they get shown on TV, if it's the enemy, let them die.

      I didn't whine about our guys. I just said that if you don't hold one side to the Geneva Convention, then you don't hold the other side to it, either. It's that simple. It's like holding one side to a armistice treaty while allowing the other side to drive through the capital of their enemy.

      I don't understand what the big deal is, the Iraqis seem to be treating the POWs just fine

      Of course, you've seen the rooms they sleep in and what they are fed. That's how you can make a valid judgement.

      but then again I don't know what sort of propaganda the US media is feeding you.

      Propaganda. Ah, yes. We come from the continent of the "Guardian" or the various news sources that start contain the words "Socialist Worker" in there. Yeah. You guys have the most partisan news sources of any other continent of the world. Either extreme left, or extreme right. I used to live in Germany. It's hard to find a middle of the road publication.

      "Oh my God we were so worried about you, did you feel humiliated being shown on TV like that?" would be a question they least expect when they get back.

      About 50 years ago, there was a conflict known as the Korean war. In that conflict, US/UN soldiers were captured as POW's. They were then forced at gunpoint to "admit" to the usage of biological weapons on the Koreans. While there was no evidence of it, they forced soldiers through brainwashing or other torture to turn against their government on television. Can you imagine that shame? That you were broken by the enemy, you were so weak that you couldn't hold up like many of your fellow countrymen. And then you went on to do the work of your enemy, the same ones who killed your fellow countrymen. THAT'S the humiliation worried about by many. Most people aren't saying that being put on TV by itself is humiliating, but rather that the act of having to make statements, or being used as a tool of an enemy government (for, as you've mentioned before, propaganda. POWs are easy ways to say "Ha ha, look! We're kicking some ass, too!")

      Concerning convincing them, I'm sure supporting Israel doesn't help us, and I'm honestly against supporing Israel, but like many of us out there, our governments listen to us only to a certain degree.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    35. Re:LOL by johnstein · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what the big deal is, the Iraqis seem to be treating the POWs just fine,

      If it's ever proven that they executed those British POW's by shooting them square in the forehead, that wouldn't be defined as "just fine".

      you are right that it depends on the source... but this source was Al-Jazeera. But perhaps they were only trying to "inspire" the iraqi troops and they made the whole thing up. However, I, like you and 99% of the people on this planet, don't know... but you hit it right on the head, "... When both sides believe they're right, we got conflict... too bad none of us know the "actual" truth... at least then we would all be playing on the same "field", purely arguing our viewpoints based on the same facts, not arguing our opinions based on our selected, and often questionable, "facts".

      -John

      --
      "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results"
    36. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize of course that Emmanuel Goldstein is a parallel to Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the russian revolution. He severely fought Stalin's corruption of socialism, until exiled, and was one of the founders of the fourth worker's international, dedicated to preserving Marx/Lenin's ideas and restore Soviet to true socialism. He was subsequently murdered by one of Stalin's agents in Mexico 1940

    37. Re:LOL by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Thank you for responding to my .sig; it urges me to continue such pursuits.

      Perhaps you should check my journal to see my opinions on AC's?

      I am actually very familiar with Trotsky, and I like his works very much, as he is unlike the modern left-wing movement. Rather than appealing to touchy-feely emotion, he makes logical points for his positions. Sadly, I disagree with his conclusions about the results of practical communism/socialism.

      I was using the name Emmanuel Goldstein in the context of him being the enemy of English Socialism (Ingsoc).

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    38. Re:LOL by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      On what levels does your mind opertate?

      Years could be spent trying to figure that out.

      How can you be a Bush man and come up with that kind of stuff?

      Sarcasm can come from any one. I just pretended I was Al Jazeera. (Evil Grin) :P

    39. Re:LOL by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I saw something (in viz I think) ages back: politically correct chess - 32 grey pawns, all on the same side.

      Back to 'Command & Conquer', I'm quite surprised it isn't part of the school syllabus in Germany.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. That and 1000 other games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Games are violent.

    Get over it.

  3. fp? by smic · · Score: 1

    anyways
    that is stupid, the ratings on games is pointless almost, i find it more offensive for a war game to get a teen rating, but a game like DOA xtreme vollyball gets mature
    i think we got priorities mixed up
    i sell videogames all day at work, and i think war game are more damaging then big breasted bimbos vollyballing

    thats just my idea

    oh ya fuck the war

    1. Re:fp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the Xtreme Volleyball gets a mature rating is because theres a code to take those bikinis covering those big busts with no censor whatsoever! just an easter egg thrown in.

    2. Re:fp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow: war is ok, naked girls are not ?

      Stop sex between your parents and the world dont get so many stupid people !

    3. Re:fp? by PsyQ · · Score: 1

      In Germany and other non-American countries, DoA Xtreme Volleyball is rated what the US authorities would call "teen". Seen anything between 13+ and 16+ as a rating for it depending on the country.

      Not every country is as afraid of sex as the USA, and not every region is as afraid of violence as Europe :)

      (I don't think anything can shock the Japanese anymore, by the way.)

    4. Re:fp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same remarks for movies etc ....

    5. Re:fp? by justzisguy · · Score: 1

      This is getting pretty OT by now, but I just think of this great idea from George Carlin. Someone said that they'd rather have their kids see two people making love than killing each-other. George Carlin wanted to extend that by replacing the word kill with fuck. Think of all those old movie cliches..."Okay Sheriff, we're gonna fuck ya now. But we're gonna fuck ya slow."

    6. Re:fp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah F#$$ you!

    7. Re:fp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyways
      you are obviously a master of important issues, like war and peace. It's nice to know someone is up to speed on the latest video game porn.

    8. Re:fp? by filbert009 · · Score: 1

      f the war eh....I dont agree with bush pushing us into this as quickly as he did, HOWEVER, I dont have the data he did. I never spoke out regarding the war negativly because the guys over there fighting for your FUCKING FREEDOM asswipe, need a solid homefront to look back to. DAMMIT STFU and move along

  4. How about George Bush? by cperciva · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we put George Bush onto a Restricted list? He certainly portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.

    1. Re:How about George Bush? by saskboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd mod you as insightful, but the troll mods you will no doubt accumulate would outweigh me. Michael Moore may be outspoken, but he makes the same point you do. Games don't kill people, people kill people.

      Games don't help unstable people, but they don't twist stable, healthy people looking for a fun evening with friends.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    2. Re:How about George Bush? by ude · · Score: 1

      Heh.. I agree on that. Let's put him in the _list_!

    3. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.
      Not "people kill" people but "agressive reigns supported by parts of their manipulated people kill other agressive reigns _and_ their poor suppressed people".

    4. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we put George Bush onto a Restricted list?

      Well George would probably object to being kept under the counter. And besides, he can't be bought by adults, corporations already own him.

      And if you missed the joke, it should be moderated as "Funny", not "Flamebait"

    5. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it shouldn't, because it's not funny. Sorry.

    6. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did or did not Bush give inspectors a chance?
      Did or did not Bush give the United Nations a chance?
      Did or did not Bush give Saddam Hussein a chance?

      Whether or not you agree with this war, spreading disinformation does nothing more than discredit your position. War definitely was *not* the only option Bush considered--it was the last option.

    7. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush did not give inspectors a real chance. Iraq was dismantaling two banned missles that were found while Bush proclaimed to the world that weapons inspections were not working.

      Bush did not give the United Nations a real chance.
      See above.

      Bush did not give Saddam Hussein a real chance.
      48 hours (and cutting it short by a few hours) is by no means enough time for a man to vacate his country.

      Bush has considered war since say one, and it has been his only choice. He humored the world with the false hopes of other options.

    8. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Games don't kill people, people kill people.

      Ever seen Happy Gilmore the movie? I like that giant's shirt it says: "Guns don't kill people... I kill people." Just thought I'd mention that for old times sake... good movie...

    9. Re:How about George Bush? by withnothingtodo · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. It absolutely WAS his first choice. But he had absolutely no international or domestic support for such a war and his attempts to link Iraq with Al Queada were (and still are) obviously dubious and simply playing on American emotion. He and his neoconservative cabinet were DRAGGED kicking and screaming to the UN by Colin Powell and the rest of the world. His questions of relevancy at the UN coupled with his rhetoric of "regime change" at home revealed his true intentions and ultimately plan of first choice: war with Iraq to ouster Saddam. If he were truly interested in the disarmament of Iraq only, we would never have heard this sort of rhetoric. Once inspectors started, Bush continued to reveal himself. When Iraq was found to have missles, some of which were able to travel past the 90 mile range-limit set by the UN (by only about 20 or 30 miles, keep in mind--certainly not far enough to create an "immediate threat" to us in the U.S. and barely far enough to create an immediate threat to their neighbors), Bush cried fowl and even while Saddam began to DESTROY the missles said that his having the missles is proof that Saddam lied, can't be trusted and therefore must be bombed. Seems to me inspections WERE working. Further, the inspectors found ZERO evidence of a nuclear arms program. And this is not to say that they simply didn't encounter any--on the contrary, they investigated SPECIFIC CLAIMS the President had used as evidence for war with Iraq and found them to be FALSE.

      So you tell me, now: you really think war wasn't Bush's first choice?

    10. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It made me laugh. Sorry. (Not the parent AC)

    11. Re:How about George Bush? by Sabbath.sCm · · Score: 1

      "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- Salvor Hardin

    12. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If every US information sources are owned by pro-war people, you are probably the most misinformed people, and you can't even know it.

    13. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you're finding that violence doesn't solve your problems, then you are obviously not using enough violence." - Anon

    14. Re:How about George Bush? by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Well, in the US almost all the news and media outlets are owned partially or wholy by big corporations known as "media conglomerates." It is in their best interest to make money. They make money when people watch what they show. War is probably the best way to get people to watch for extended periods. You do the rest of the math.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    15. Re:How about George Bush? by sapone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Did or did not Bush give inspectors a chance?

      A chance to do what? They were conducting their inspections, and hoping to be done in a few months.
      So far, they had not found condemning evidence.

      > Did or did not Bush give the United Nations a chance?

      A chance to do what? A chance to say "yes Mr. Bush, please go and drop those bombs and stuff on evil Iraqi children, don't mind there is no reason at all since you cannot prove anything about the mysterious invisible weapons of mass destruction"? Yes, the UN had that chance.

      A chance to peacefully settle the conflict between the US and Iraq, by letting the inspections come to an end, either by finding condemning evidence, or finding nothing at all (which I personally consider much more likely) - NO.

      > Did or did not Bush give Saddam Hussein a chance?

      A chance to do what? To break his own vows, step down and yield the country to the arbitrary demands of the US? With regard to UN, he was complying admirably well, destroying missiles etc. Even if they exceeded limitations in theory, w/o an explosive warhead, etc, by an unproven value, while aggressive forces were accumulating around Iraq's borders. In the face of a looming war, Iraq disarmed against all military reasoning, trying to avoid war... but alas, the war had to be. One last unfulfillable ultimatum (Saddam Hussein had _vowed_ not to leave the country). BOOM.

      Drop bombs. Kill civilians. All hail America.

    16. Re:How about George Bush? by Hast · · Score: 1

      I think it was Heinlein who commented that (from a book in the Foundation series by Asimov for those not in know) with this:

      "Only the incompetent would wait until violence is the last refuge."

    17. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Did or did not Bush give inspectors a chance?

      Probably not as much as they needed. However, Iraq only complied when *caught*. They knew those missible were against the ban, yet they didn't start destroying them *until* they were caught. That is not cooperation in any sense of the word.

      >Did or did not Bush give the United Nations a >chance?

      Actually 1441 gave the US all they needed. They only went back to the UN after Britain requested it. I hope the US turns their back on the UN and keeps on going.

      > Did or did not Bush give Saddam Hussein a >chance?

      Yup. 12+ years of chances. All the while is saying "stop or I will say stop again."

    18. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It absolutely WAS his first choice.

      Finishing off what his daddy started appears to have been his motive from before he took office.

      Once inspectors started, Bush continued to reveal himself.

      He was never behind the idea of inspection anyway. Remember the Iraqi's actaully wanted the inspectors back last summer, they even went as far as inviting the US Congress to send anyone they wanted to Iraq.

      When Iraq was found to have missles, some of which were able to travel past the 90 mile range-limit set by the UN (by only about 20 or 30 miles, keep in mind--certainly not far enough to create an "immediate threat" to us in the U.S. and barely far enough to create an immediate threat to their neighbors), Bush cried fowl and even while Saddam began to DESTROY the missles said that his having the missles is proof that Saddam lied, can't be trusted and therefore must be bombed.

      Turns out that the reason they went a bit further is that the test missiles didn't have warheads fitted...

      Further, the inspectors found ZERO evidence of a nuclear arms program.

      Just evidence of a long defunct program.

      And this is not to say that they simply didn't encounter any--on the contrary, they investigated SPECIFIC CLAIMS the President had used as evidence for war with Iraq and found them to be FALSE.

      The inspectors were none too happy about what happened.

    19. Re:How about George Bush? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > They knew those missible were against the ban,

      That has been subject of dispute, Iraq being of the opinion that when fitted with guidance systems and warheads, the missiles would not violate range limits. Nevertheless, they destroyed them upon the UN's request.

      Furthermore, the existence of these missiles is - even if their not very significant exceeding of range limits was intentionally - by no means a justification for war. It is at best a pretext, and a very weak one. The problem is that Bush and his Administration decided to go to war first, then started looking for a justification. When they did not find any, they went to war anyway.

      > Actually 1441 gave the US all they needed.

      That is simply untrue. 1441 was only agreed upon by the security council because it did not include the automatic application of force by any country. Why do you think a security council with a majority of members opposed to war would have ratified a resolution that authorizes war?
      The traditional phrase for UN backed military action used in resolutions is to authorize "ANY MEANS NECESSARY" to enforce compliance. 1441 only threatens "serious consequences" of an unspecified nature (i.e. yet to be agreed upon) in the case of "a material breach" (which has not been declared to have happended by the UN).

      > Yup. 12+ years of chances.

      It is not America's job to give chances, but the UN's. What exactly did Iraq do to your country that you think you must wage war? War between countries is ONLY justified in self-defense, see UN charter. Only exception to the rule is UN backed action.

      Anyway, 12+ years of chances to do what exactly? Destroy WOMD? Well, they didn't find any.

      > stop or I will say stop again

      Stop doing what?

      Sebastian

    20. Re:How about George Bush? by repsychler · · Score: 1

      1441 was only agreed upon by the security council because it did not include the automatic application of force by any country.

      Yeah, the UN would hate to have to do anything as ridiculous as actually enforcing their resolutions. It's much easier to just keep bitching about it. How many people have to die under Saddam's bootheels before France decides that taking care of this problem is more important than their oil contracts?

      --
      Duffman can never die! Only the actors who play him!
    21. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the UN would hate to have to do anything as ridiculous as actually enforcing their resolutions.

      Yup. The US is desperate to enforce all those UN resolutions Israel has broken.

    22. Re:How about George Bush? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Yeah, the UN would hate to have to do anything as ridiculous as actually enforcing their resolutions

      The inspections were working flawlessly, no WoMD were found. No resolution called for a regime change.

      What exactly are the US trying to enforce?

      > How many people have to die under Saddam's bootheels before France decides that taking care of this problem is more important than their oil contracts?

      Well, how many people have to die under the American bootheels, until American oil barons have all the Iraqi oil contracts they covet?

      You cannot arbitrarily invade countries of whom you say they treat their citizens unfairly. Humanitarian concerns have not played a great part in the war debate, and very few people are as naive as to believe that the architects of this war are concerned with the Iraqi people.

      I don't even believe that since 1991 there have been any atrocities that would have justified the atrocities of war. Furthermore, nobody asked for intervention. Even the Iraqi opposition is very wary concerning America and its motives.

      Sebastian

    23. Re:How about George Bush? by t0qer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Rad how out of 380 comments, his is the only one modded +5.

      Props to the mods.

    24. Re:How about George Bush? by humming · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, hi, I love the show, love hearing people's opinions,
      that's what made this country great. People. And opinions. And
      stuff. Most of all, guns. I've had it with people whining about
      'guns kill people,' guns don't kill people, death kills people.
      Ask a doctor, it's a medical fact. You can't die from a bullet.
      You can die from a cardiac arrest or organ failure or a major
      hemorrhage, small piece of metal ain't the problem. Besides, I
      only use my machine-gun in the safety of my own home and car. I
      ain't hurting nobody. And countries that don't have guns ain't
      American."

      //H

      --
      I'm too stupid to preview.
    25. Re:How about George Bush? by kuiken · · Score: 1

      So if the US is now gone enforce UN sanctions unilatral, whats the next stop, Israel ?
      They have about 62 UN resolutions they are ignoring (some since the 70's)
      They have Nukes
      Their civil right record isnt to clean
      And they sure as hell are destabilazing the whole region.

      --

      42
    26. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And they sure as hell are destabilazing the >whole region.

      Oh and I suppose it has nothing to do with the Palestinians? Please.

    27. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The inspections were working flawlessly, no >WoMD were found.

      Please, tell me you are not really that ignorant? Iraq didn't even account for the WoMD that we know they had after 1991. They were not in any way cooperating. It is not cooperation after the fact. If you seriously believe the Iraqi scientist didn't know the range of their own missiles, you are very naive.

      >Well, how many people have to die under the >American bootheels, until American oil barons >have all the Iraqi oil contracts they covet?

      The U.S. has stated over and over that the oil of Iraq is for the Iraqi people. It is ignorance to say this war is about the oil and only shows yours.

    28. Re:How about George Bush? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > The U.S. has stated over and over that the oil of Iraq is for the Iraqi people.

      And since the oil is for the Iraqi people, they must export lots of it FAST to finance the rebuilding of their country, thus lowering oil prices world wide and giving US economy a boost as a certainly not intended side effect. And of course there will be licences to non-Iraqi companies to make use of all that oil, incidentally a lot of American ones, like the one, Haliburton I think, that was once led by a certain Mr. Cheney, or the ones that paid for Mr. Bush`s campaign.

      Of course it's not only about the oil. It`s also about American hegemony and all the paranoia and fear that the collapse of two buildings in New York has induced. I believe that many American believe in the myterious WOMD that are only half a world away and thus endanger their precious suburban idyll. Well, that`s paranoia, it`s your right to have it, but it`s not your right to start a war based on it.

      > Iraq didn't even account for the WoMD that we know they had after 1991.

      I think Iraq _said_ they had been destroyed. How exactly can they account for their destruction in a way that you would believe it? Should they make up proof?

      > If you seriously believe the Iraqi scientist didn't know the range of their own missiles, you are very naive.

      An aberration from the allowed range of up to few dozen miles when shot without payload and guidance should certainly have been avoided, but equally certainly is not a reason for war. The missiles were being destroyed when the US invaded. Leaves one to wonder: what exactly do the US want.

      BTW, between the US and Iraq, there is quite a big ocean. Missiles that exceed their allowed range of 150km by a few dozen more still don`t hit America. No justification at all for "self-defense".

      Why focus on Iraq at all? Because it`s rather a subjective thing, paranoia and hatred, than one guided by objective reasoning.

    29. Re:How about George Bush? by rking · · Score: 1

      "Only the incompetent would wait until violence is the last refuge."

      Is that supposed to mean that any one who wasn't incompetent would use violence even though they had other options open to them, or what does it mean? Can't say that it makes any sense to me.

    30. Re:How about George Bush? by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      ..or domestic support for such a war.

      You can say this until you are blue in the face. The facts however, prove you to be wrong. Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it any more correct.

    31. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq was dismantaling two banned missles that were found while Bush proclaimed to the world that weapons inspections were not working.


      You mean two missles that they "didn't have"??

      48 hours (and cutting it short by a few hours) is by no means enough time for a man to vacate his country

      I can be out of the USA (a MUCH bigger country!) in less than 6 hours... by land transport, not to mention airplane.

    32. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize, of course, that all of Moore's movies are comedies, don't you? They're all a big fucking joke.

      So stick one in your bong for Bowling for Columbine, and smoke it.

    33. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, the clock is ticking. You still have little over 4 hours left.

    34. Re:How about George Bush? by kcelery · · Score: 1

      Since when did G.W. Bush become so considerate to Iraq citizens. But, let's say he cares. Spending $100b, forming a coalition of four nations, creating the biggest dispute among NATO, millions of oppositions in the west, possibly thousands US casualties.... G.W.Bush did that all for the Iraqis???

    35. Re:How about George Bush? by Master+Bait · · Score: 1
      Yah, but repeating the lies about Iraq caused more than 40% of Americans to actually believe that ban man Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    36. Re:How about George Bush? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Hrrmm, is Iraq American already? Or why do the people all have guns and fend off invaders?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    37. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The existence of their missiles wasn't the reason. I'm pretty sure under the resolution Iraq was allowed to keep missiles under a certain range. However when you talk about extending the range of a missile just another 30 to 40 miles makes a big difference between it being a local threat and acheiving a ballistic trajectory if aimed a certain way, let's say straight up to acheive a suborbital trajectory. It's a reason why during WWII we started getting really nervous when nazi germany started developing their sucessor to the V2, which later I think became our Atlas.

    38. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't. Besides, in the US we have access to this thing called the internet, which helps us to obtain information from sources other than local media. You should try it some time.

    39. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yah, but repeating the lies about Iraq caused more than 40% of Americans to actually believe that ban man Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack"

      Now you are grabbing at straws with those numbers.

    40. Re:How about George Bush? by The+Phantom+Buffalo · · Score: 1

      death kills people

      Actually, lack of oxygen to the brain kills people.

      small piece of metal ain't the problem

      The small piece of metal initiates the events leading to the brain's lack of oxygen. So, the small piece of metal probably is the problem.

    41. Re:How about George Bush? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1
      So if the US is now gone enforce UN sanctions unilatral, whats the next stop, Israel ? They have about 62 UN resolutions they are ignoring (some since the 70's)

      Every time somebody repeats this old saw, I feel compelled to try to educate them. The short answer: the UN has never passed a binding, enforceable resolution against Israel. Those resolutions that the UN has passed have all been the diplomatic equivalent of gentle suggestions. To explain this, I will shamelessly copy-and-paste from an old post.

      There are three kinds of resolutions that the UN can adopt: General Assembly resolutions, and two kinds of Security Council resolutions. All three of these are defined by the UN Charter.

      The powers of the UN General Assembly are defined in chapter IV of the Charter, "The General Assembly." Article 14 says,

      Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

      So the General Assembly can adopt resolutions that are essentially recommendations. These resolutions are not binding on the membership, and there is no authority granted in the UN Charter either to the membership or to any agency to enforce them. The most famous General Assembly resolution was 181, the resolution in which the UN proposed its partition plan for Israel and Palestine.

      The Security Council has the power to pass two different types of resolution. The first is defined in chapter VI of the UN Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes." Article 36 says, in relevant part,

      The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

      These resolutions are just like General Assembly resolutions: they're not binding, and no authority is granted to anyone to enforce them.

      The other type of Security Council resolution is defined by chapter VII of the Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." Article 39 says,

      The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

      Article 41 gives the Council the authority to impose non-military means to resolve threats to peace:

      The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

      Article 42, the big one, gives the Council the authority to use military force to enforce its resolutions.

      Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

      And, finally, Article 43 places on the membership of the UN the obligation to enforce Security Council resolutions when called upon.

      All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace

      --

      I write in my journal
    42. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freddy needs a nanny...

    43. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who make sweeping generalizations are stupid.

    44. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      twirlip just kicked your ass.

    45. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the UN has never passed a binding, enforceable resolution against Israel.
      Gee, I wonder why.
    46. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If every European information sources[sic] are owned by anti-American people, you are probably the most misinformed people, and you can't even know it.

    47. Re:How about George Bush? by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll play. Name three independent, objective and accurate sources of information available on the Internet.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    48. Re:How about George Bush? by workindev · · Score: 1

      The inspections were working flawlessly, no WoMD were found. No resolution called for a regime change.

      The inspections were not working. UN inspectors were not assigned to go and find all the clever places that Saddam hid his WMD -- They were assigned to verify that the weapons we know they have were destroyed. This was part of UN resolution 687 and the 16 resolutions passed later as Iraq failed to comply. Iraq was to destroy its arsenal of WMD in the presence of UN observers and provide material proof that they did not have the capability to produce any more.

      For example, going into the first Gulf war, Iraq admitted to having 25,000 liters of Anthrax, enough to kill the entire world population 3 times. You don't just dump 25,000 liters of Anthrax in the dumpster out back and claim its gone. It requires detailed proceedures to destroy and Iraq could not prove to anybody that they did it. Not even France is claiming that they did.

      Well, how many people have to die under the American bootheels, until American oil barons have all the Iraqi oil contracts they covet?

      Freeing Iraqi oil will only do one thing -- cause oil prices to plummet. Ater the first Gulf war oil was selling at less than $20 per barrel. If the "oil barons" were truly motivated by profit alone, they would be on the streets protesting this war more than anybody else. By maintaining the status quo and not going to war, the "oil barons" would continue to sell their oil at $35+ per barrel. Any argument that this is a war to get George Bushs' oil buddies rich is based on emotion and not logic or facts.

      You cannot arbitrarily invade countries of whom you say they treat their citizens unfairly. Humanitarian concerns have not played a great part in the war debate, and very few people are as naive as to believe that the architects of this war are concerned with the Iraqi people.

      From the get go this war has been about disarming Iraq. Nobody has claimed that the only reason we are doing this is to liberate the Iraqi people because it is not. That is, of course, a fringe benefit of ridding the world from a ruthless dictator who is hell bent on destroying the US.

    49. Re:How about George Bush? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing anywhere actually. However, you can average out overall bias by drawing from multiple sources. If the english al-jazeera sight wasn't slashdotted, it would be such a site.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    50. Re:How about George Bush? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If their neighbors could mind their own business, there wouldn't be any problem. If you want flaunted UN resolutions to be enforced, include the Arabs as well. Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    51. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehe, you just made a sweeping generalization.

    52. Re:How about George Bush? by javiercero · · Score: 1

      "The U.S. has stated over and over that the oil of Iraq is for the Iraqi people. It is ignorance to say this war is about the oil and only shows yours."

      Hahah hahah ahhhahahahah buahahahaahh hhahahaha buuahahahahhaha hhahah haha hahh ahrhehhhhe hehehehhhheheheh ahahahahaha RHR RH HHRH AHAHA AHRH RHHRHRHRHRHHHHHEEEEEEEEHHEHE

      Sorry, I needed that laugh man! Pretty good one you pulled on us. So you are OK with the fact that the US destroys someones countrye, and then it uses that country's national resources to pay for the destruction that they US generated.... Man, ain't that just logical? But it is their oil right, only that they will see no profit from it... since they will have to spend all their money rebuilding their economy.

      I am sure you are just a moron that is all happy because the US is killing them Iraquis so that they don't die....

    53. Re:How about George Bush? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      1441 is a Security Council resolution. Member states are *obligated* to enforce them.

      The resolutions concerning Israel are General Assembly resolutions. Not only are member states not obligated to enforce them, they aren't even *allowed* to enforce them.

      And yes, I know that as long as the US is a member of the Security Council, no Security Council resolutions concerning Israel will be passed.

      Not that this info will keep you from imitating a broken record.

    54. Re:How about George Bush? by operagost · · Score: 1
      Since when has Moore ever made a valid point? He's the original troll, the troll all trolls emulate, the proto-troll. He even pulled out the old "Bush stole the election" fallacy at the Oscars, when the votes WERE all counted and Bush still won. Really. Look it up. This is despite the fact that ABC reported that Gore had won and the polls were closed in Florida about 15 minutes before they really closed.

      There was a lot of booing in that theater considering it was full of left-wingers.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    55. Re:How about George Bush? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      >> Iraq didn't even account for the WoMD that we know they had after 1991.

      > I think Iraq _said_ they had been destroyed. How exactly can they account for their destruction in a way that you would believe it? Should they make up proof?

      Of course they're telling the truth. And when they were destroying all these weapons, they just *forgot* to invite the inspectors? The inspectors that were the reason they had to destroy the weapons? Please. Do you think the US takes Russia's word for it (or vice versa) when we're decomissioning nukes and ICBMs?

      They were required to destoy the weapons in the presence of the inspectors. They didn't. That makes it their problem, not anyone else's.

    56. Re:How about George Bush? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      No, he did it because he felt it is in the best interest of the US. That the Iragis will (hopefully) benefit is just frosting on the cake.

      It appears that Bush believes that by creating a democratic, secular, Muslim mid-east country, it will compel other Muslim mid-east countries to reform. When it's in the national interest, the US is quite capable of nation-building (see Germany and Japan for examples).

      Terrorists are created because corrupt, tyrannical Arab states keep their citizens from hating *them* by getting them to hate the US. The US props up those tyrannies (you could argue that any nation that buys oil from them props up those tyrannies; France and Russia have been propping up Iraq for a decade). Having a secure, prosperous, free Iraq may change that.

    57. Re:How about George Bush? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      Yah, but repeating the lies about Iraq caused more than 40% of Americans to actually believe that ban man Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.

      Would you care to cite sources that provide that figure? I'm not aware of anybody who thinks this. As far as I know, the two arguments are:

      1. There is a possibility that an Iraqi diplomat met with one of Bin Laden's operatives and that something might have been exchanged. There no information on whether that something had anything to do with what happened in the US.
      2. If Iraq does possess weapons of mass destruction, there's a good chance that sometime in the future they may provide terrorist groups with some of these weapons.

      If you survey Americans to find out whether they think Saddam *could* have had anything to do with 9/11, you might get 40% positive responses. However, that's a far cry from asking people if they think he *did* have anything to do with it. I think most people would answer this question: "I don't know. Maybe."

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    58. Re:How about George Bush? by workindev · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Bush and his Administration decided to go to war first, then started looking for a justification. When they did not find any, they went to war anyway.

      The decision to go to war was made by Saddam Hussein 12 years ago when he refused to obey UNSEC 687. His defiance of 687 and the 16 other resolutions has given the UN security counsel members all the justification they need.

      That is simply untrue. 1441 was only agreed upon by the security council because it did not include the automatic application of force by any country. Why do you think a security council with a majority of members opposed to war would have ratified a resolution that authorizes war?

      Sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the UN charter. The 17 UNSEC resolutions passed against Iraq were all passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter, which requires enforcement by one or all members of the security counsel.

      1441 only threatens "serious consequences" of an unspecified nature (i.e. yet to be agreed upon) in the case of "a material breach" (which has not been declared to have happended by the UN)

      It is not that hard to figure out what "serious consequences" means in the context of resolution 1441. And, yes, Hans Blix did say that Iraq was in material breach after they submitted an incomplete report on 12/8.

      12+ years of chances to do what exactly? Destroy WOMD? Well, they didn't find any

      They were not looking for WMD! They were looking for the proof that Iraq was required to provide that they destroyed the WMD that we know they have. Do you honestly think that Saddam secretly destroyed his WMD over the last 12 years (including the 4 years when the UN inspectors were kicked out of his country) and never told us that he did even though he knew he was required to do so? Do you think he would have killed his weapons chief if he had nothing to hide?

      "If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
      -President Bill Clinton in 1998

    59. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bush was winning the election how come the Supreme court had to rush to stop the count? Ah... and there is the whole thing that Gore still managed to get 500,000 more votes than Bush. But then again that has to be "fuzzy" math for you right wingers....

      You saw people booing, I saw plenty of people cheering and clapping. I guess you also have to pretend that people are with the unelected fraud.

    60. Re:How about George Bush? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      I don't really agree with the way Moore said what he said, but he was correct in stating most Americans didn't vote for Bush. Yes, Bush got most of the votes - in Florida. Nationwide, Gore had actually received more total votes, but due to the way the electoral college system is currently set up, Florida swung enough electoral votes to Bush for him to take the election. When you consider the number of votes Gore got, as well as the number of votes the independent candidates got (I'd have to imagine something like 5-10% nationwide), then saying that the majority of Americans overall did not vote for Bush is actually an accurate statement.

      It was a VERY close election, and while the nationwide tallies leaned slightly toward Gore, the electoral college system decided the race in favor of Bush. It's the reason why you heard so much talk of the electoral college system being inadequette in the months directly after the election. Personally, I think it needs reform, but I also believe that going with individual tallies would just lead to a situation of Florida^n. A large part of the problem is almost all the states (there is an exception or two) award their electoral votes in an all-or-nothing manner, even if a candidate won the state by just a few votes (ala Florida). If states allocated the votes proportionally, say by districting the state up into the number of electoral votes the state has, then Florida would never have been an issue in 2000. It's definitely an interesting situation with many possible ways of approaching it since the constitution only defines the electoral college system, not how the states handle their individual votes.

    61. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The short answer: the UN has never passed a binding, enforceable resolution against Israel. Those resolutions that the UN has passed have all been the diplomatic equivalent of gentle suggestions.

      Every time a binding, enforceable resolution against Israel has been suggested, the US has veto'ed it...

    62. Re:How about George Bush? by scudco · · Score: 1

      Clinton didn't win the popular vote... but I know what vote he did win... the same one GW won... double standard or Americans suddenly interested in politics?

    63. Re:How about George Bush? by mrfunnypants · · Score: 1

      "Name three independent, objective and accurate sources of information available on the Internet."

      Doesn't exist, if you believe anyone is independent your as foolish as you sound, however just four opposite sources:

      www.gulfnews.com
      www.jpost.com
      www.cnn.com/www .foxnews.com
      www.morgenpost.de

      the point isn't to believe one independent source, the point is to believe multiple sources and extract the information from them. Something you obviously have never done, per se your comment.

      --
      "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
    64. Re:How about George Bush? by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of tongue in cheek? Man, everyone is so serious around here.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    65. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an Iraqi diplomat met with one of Bin Laden's operatives and that something might have been exchanged. There no information on whether that something had anything to do with what happened in the US

      And whats your view on the 'shrine' to 9/11 that was found- a mural showing a pland striking one of two tall buildings?

    66. Re:How about George Bush? by kuiken · · Score: 1

      Every time a binding, enforceable resolution against Israel has been suggested, the US has veto'ed it...

      yeah but Veto's dont matter anymore now

      --

      42
    67. Re:How about George Bush? by Hast · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think that was his point. But it was a while since I saw the quote, and unformtuantely I didn't save it in my "big file of quotes".

      I don't really agree with the quote though.

      When I think of it it might have been from the book Starship Troopers, in the beginning with the warmongering teacher.

    68. Re:How about George Bush? by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      I just found a site that explains a lot.

      The US military just made a casualty of the truth.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    69. Re:How about George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He even pulled out the old "Bush stole the election" fallacy at the Oscars, when the votes WERE all counted and Bush still won. Really. Look it up"

      The votes that were counted obviously didn't include the votes which would have been cast had a large number of people not been removed from the electoral register fraudulently. Really. Look it. You dumb fuck.

  5. This shouldn't come as a surprise. by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article says Electronic Arts believe it has something to do with what's going on in Iraq right now.

    If this is the case, it's plain ignorance.

    Many games are put on the restricted list in Germany, and this one isn't really a shocker. Perhaps if Timmy the Tooth: Decay Demolisher II was placed on this list there might be some questions behind the reasoning, but a war game? Not a surprise by a long shot.

    1. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by John_Renne · · Score: 1

      Indeed lots of games are banned in Germany. Another option is to substitute blood for some green substance (only aliens could have green blood).

      --
      /(bb|[^b]{2})/
    2. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Are they sure it's not just because it wasn't developed in Germany?

      Check out Iraq's recent trading partners - Germany, France, and Russia are in the top 5 (France is #1). All three have been accused of making illegal and "under the table" deals with Iraq. Wonder why they were opposed to war? Maybe cause they were making lots of $$$ off the current gov't there.

      Naww...couldn't be. Such pure, noble, promoters of peace couldn't have an ulterior motive, right?

    3. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by logic7 · · Score: 1

      If this is the case, it's plain ignorance.

      The decision had nothing to do with iraq. In fact, the games has been banned about three weeks ago and one of the reasons was that C&C players where encouraged to kill civilians for profit in the GLA campaign.

    4. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      Another option is to substitute blood for some green substance (only aliens could have green blood).


      Yeah, so if in a game you see a character to hold an "alien" (human shaped) baby by the foot, pierce it with a red hot pin and then smash the convulsing body on a spiked wall it's ok. IF it bleeds green.

      Anyway things that bleed green are not like us ... so that's ok.

      Or is it ?
      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    5. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 1

      This is actually the reason that the Klingons have pink blood in one of the movies (where it is zero gravity and it floats around)- the entire purpose of it was to avoid an R rating.

      If one looks at today's standards, many PG-13 movies of today would have been rated R fifteen years ago.

    6. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Ashen · · Score: 1

      This is from Investors Business Daily-

      "The Swedish think tank SIPRI recently broke down arms sales to Iraq from 1973 to 1990. Tops over the 27 years were: USSR - $25 billion, France - $5 billion, China - $5 billion, U.S. - $250 million. That's right: The armorers for the butcher of Baghdad turn out to be the three biggest opponents of ending his reign of terror."

      Germany is probably not on the list because I don't think they are allowed to posess a lot of weapons, right?

    7. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by CoolVibe · · Score: 1
      Anyway things that bleed green are not like us ... so that's ok.

      I wouldn't know. I'm colorblind.

    8. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      a war game? Not a surprise by a long shot.

      But C&C isn't a violent game, particularly. I don't know if you've ever played it, but it's more like speed-chess than anything else. There's no blood and gore, no dismembered limbs, no gratuitously grotesque monsters. And banning it makes about as much sense as banning chess.

      I can imagine it now, chess being banned because it reinforces the idea that some people are just pawns and hence "expendable" and that powerful people like royalty can go anywhere they want and kill anyone. Not only that, it contains the idea that what you are determines pre-set paths that you must travel on, crushing the creativity of our children!!!

    9. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by kusma · · Score: 1

      Germany is not on the list because it does not sell arms to crisis regions.

    10. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Germany is not on the list because it does not
      >sell arms to crisis regions.

      That's right. Cunningly, they sell them to places like Jordan and Syria, and THEY sell them on to Iraq, Palestine etc.

    11. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by high · · Score: 1

      Here is the link:
      http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_da ta.html

      And directly to the numbers:
      http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_ Ind_IRQ_Im ps_73-02.pdf

    12. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Likewise, quite a few PG-rated films from the 70's would be rated R today due to nudity/sexuality.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    13. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      i dunno. the original C&C had foot soldiers being torn in half by cannon fire. Maybe you got the gore free version.

      I felt so sad for those poor bastards. they were so small. only a few pixels big.

    14. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm from Germany and followed this discussion. The game got banned a few weeks before the Gulf War started. So there is no correlation between censoring the game (they got quite some got points in that nevertheless).

      I think its really _very arrogant_ from EA to blame the war for the censorship of their game. Seems they went on the patriotic band wagon to put pressure on German authorities. Seems they achieved their goal when you look the /. -discussion...

    15. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      No, they'd be rated PG-13. Who needs accuracy, when you can just add a new split-the-middle movie rating every 5 years?

    16. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by hatstandman · · Score: 1

      This depends on your point of view. Just about everyone of the next generation above me (who i've spoken about it with) consider C&C, Quake, Unreal to be excessively violent; I don't. I've watched kids play similar, more graphic games without any concern (which I find a bit much).

      Maybe there's no correlation between this and the acceptance of war or its usefulness to resolve issues (it's certainly final), but perhaps it shows that there's being an effort made to change this point of view.

    17. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      You can't sell Nazi stuff in Germany. They restrict the sale of violent games, but more importantly, they restrict the advertisment or even DISPLAY of items, even to adults.

      I can see why their government, and others, do not want the US in Iraq. How afraid are they OF freedom? WHERE is that line between freedom and tyranny? It seems that the German government would do better to worry less about this trivial crap. Any government that tries to limit what its citizens see, hear or play in order to "change" them should be treated as suspect.

      Not a bash at all, I don't care WHICH govt. was doing this, it still shows contempt for its citizens. Its like "you are too stupid or too easy manipulated, so we wont let you see this". I don't think I would like being treated that way by my government.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    18. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany is not on the list because it does not sell arms to crisis regions.

      "arms" as opposed to "components"?

    19. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, looking back that far, there was no PG-13, so they didn't have a whole lot of choice.

    20. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It seems that the German government would do better to worry less about this trivial crap. Any government that tries to limit what its citizens see, hear or play in order to "change" them should be treated as suspect.
      Just as long as you recognize that the US government has been doing plenty limiting of what we see.
    21. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps if Timmy the Tooth: Decay Demolisher II was placed on this list there might be some questions behind the reasoning, but a war game?"

      The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker seems to promote running baddies through with their own sword instead of holding hands and singing Kumbaya. And let's not forget the constant lack of negotiations between Mario and Bowser.

    22. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Ashen · · Score: 1

      actually according to the data linked to below, germany did sell weapons to iraq, just not on the same level as the other countries.

      so much for your idealism, eh?

    23. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1
      Indeed lots of games are banned in Germany. Another option is to substitute blood for some green substance (only aliens could have green blood).

      Hm. Killing people like us is bad, but killing other kinds of people is fine. Why does this policy - especially from the German government - worry me...?

      I've always felt that there are some - usually quite obvious - cases where killing someone is justified. Self-defense, for example, or situations like that. A few weeks ago, I saw a British MP claim that invading Iraq would somehow be illegal - at which point, I remembered the incident in the UK a few years ago, in Dunblane:

      Thomas Hamilton decided he'd had enough, and went into the local primary school with a couple of pistols and a load of ammunition. He went into the school gym, and opened fire. Now, under UK law, if I had been standing behind him with a weapon (gun, knife, whatever) and I killed him, that would be illegal (murder). (UK law recognizes self-defense, but this case doesn't count.) Illegal - but would anyone try to claim it would be wrong? In this case, I'd say the illegality is simple a "bug" in the law.

      Anyway, back on topic: sometimes killing is wrong, sometimes it's right. What kind of message does the government deciding that to kill something is totally wrong, even if you're only pretending - unless the ones you kill have different-colored blood, in which case it's fine?!?

    24. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Herkules · · Score: 0

      I belive that most of this is accapted as a good thing by the people =)

      And most of the ida with the games are about children and what you want to influens them.

      About "Nazi stuff" i hope you understand the guilt and the problem of this for the Germans.

      I think most of the laws in Germany mirrors the walues of the Germans.

      --
      CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
    25. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, games like "Age Of Empires" were not banned from germany.
      I guess it is because in "age of empires", your are using catapults, bows and similar things. In C&C, you use today's weapons to fight your virtual war...

      And somehow, the people responsible for the ban think that killing by a bow is better than killing by a nuclear weapon. Very coherent reasoning.

      Perhaps, of course, they don't ban AOE because it's from Microsoft ;)

    26. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I belive that most of this is accapted as a good thing by the people =)
      And most of the ida with the games are about children and what you want to influens them.
      About "Nazi stuff" i hope you understand the guilt and the problem of this for the Germans.
      I think most of the laws in Germany mirrors the walues of the Germans.


      While I understand that Germans have a strong distaste for Nazi-ism, for good reason. The question thus remains: Does an individual have the right to be a "Nazi"? In Germany, it appears no, since the Nazi party is outlawed. It is legal in America. So is being communist, socialist, facist, aethist, anarchist, muslim, quaker or pacifist. Since we are not over run with communists, socialists or quakers, I am guessing that the problem is the individual and his actions, rather than his affiliation.

      Outlawing a group doesn't make its opinions go away. Never has.

      Personally, if someone IS an Fundamental Islomist, Seperatist, etc. I want to KNOW it. So yea, keep it legal, keep it honest, so the nuts don't have to hide. They are easy to see.

      Thus my preference for genuine freedom of speech. There is no perfect system, but the closer to total liberty the better.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    27. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Herkules · · Score: 0

      I belive "Nazi-ism" like opineon is as legal as in the US put ther cant be any "NAZI" partie.

      Ofcorse far right praties can be created.

      =)

      --
      CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
    28. Re:This shouldn't come as a surprise. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I belive "Nazi-ism" like opineon is as legal as in the US put ther cant be any "NAZI" partie.

      Not true. there is no limitation to any group as long as the group does not seek to overthrow the government by force. Even then, the organization is NOT illegal, only the actions.

      If you do a little research, you will find that many of the so called war "protests" here in the states are actually funded by communist parties. Ask most of the protestors, they don't even know whats going on with the war.

      I think it was Patrick Henry who said (roughly) that if you BELIEVE in free speech, you must be willing to fight to protect the speech of someone you strongly disagree with. That is still alive in America, in spite of a few pinheads claims.

      So yes: KKK, Nazis, Communists. I want you to be able to form organizations. It makes it easier to know who you are.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  6. Reminds me of ... by cOdEgUru · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Americans and their Freedom Fries

    1. Re:Reminds me of ... by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 1

      Don't you like your freedom fries?

      I wonder if we'll see less german beer commercials on US tv...

      --
      --------
      Free your mind.
    2. Re:Reminds me of ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. Freedom fries are still easy to obtain and very visible... Germany is sweeping this one under the rug..

    3. Re:Reminds me of ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmmmmmm....freedom fries. : )

    4. Re:Reminds me of ... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      How does it remind you of that? I for one have yet to see anyone call them freedom fries, and the government of America would NEVER pass a law forcing people to do so.

    5. Re:Reminds me of ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorant fuck, learn something about Germany before you make judgements.

    6. Re:Reminds me of ... by tabby · · Score: 1

      when I first heard of this... wtf, they are called chips damn it!!!! stupid americans...

      --
      I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
    7. Re:Reminds me of ... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      During WWII Hamburgers were called "Liberty Steak" and Frankfurters were called "Liberty Sausage".

      Goofy? No doubt. Rare or new? Unfortunately not.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  7. The impact of this decision by Harald74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else wants to bet that sales will soar?

    GTA3 was in the news here in Norway a lot when it was released. Different agencies and ministers connected with children all wanted to ban it. Result? Top seller in Norway that year...

    --
    A)bort, R)etry or S)elf-destruct?
    1. Re:The impact of this decision by JeffSh · · Score: 1

      I'd like to think GTA3 is the top seller because it is a superior game. It truly is a well designed, and fun game. Crediting it se;;omg well to publicity over its controversial nature is a bit short sighted, I think.

    2. Re:The impact of this decision by larien · · Score: 1

      Well, it probably didn't harm it. People have an urge to find out what "they" don't want you to see. The preface of "Stupid White Men" in the UK tells how Michael Moore asked to be able to read from it as the publishers at the time wouldn't print it. The people there were eager to find out what was so bad that it had effectively been banned by the publisher.

    3. Re:The impact of this decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a game is put on that list, most retail channels stop distributing it. Even the copies that were already on display are sent back. You'll find buying the game difficult, even if you are an adult and therefore allowed to buy and play it. Piracy of restricted games soars, sales plummet.

    4. Re:The impact of this decision by jdfox · · Score: 1

      GTA3 was the top seller for many weeks in the UK too, but it hadn't been banned. It just sold well, that's all.

    5. Re:The impact of this decision by kuiken · · Score: 1

      Here in Belgium the gov wanted to ban postall 2 because you had to kill gay ppl. The gay organisations laughed at it and said they didnt see the point since you get to kill everybody and there is thus no discrimination :)

      --

      42
    6. Re:The impact of this decision by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Result? Top seller in Norway that year.

      GTA3 (PS2) was a top seller in every country you could get a PS2 in. For many people (Including me) it was a large reason for buying the PS2.
      Then GTA3 (PC) was released; again a top seller (although not as much as the PS2 version).
      Then GTA3:Vice City, solely on the strnegth of GTA3, outsold the original GTA3.

      Both games achieved game of the year awards from almost every public reviewer.
      GTA3 is vastly superior to pretty much every game released at the same time as it. Although the graphics weren't as good as they could be, nobody cared, because the gameplay, plot, and freedom you have as a player far outweigh the graphics. The fact that the younger gamers are finally realizing this, at least for a brief moment, is, I feel, a Good Thing(tm).

      I have many games that Rockstar Games has distributed. They distribute amazing games, plain and simple.
      Has anyone here ever played State of Emergency? If you want a game to go on a mindless killing spree to clear your mind, throw away GTA3 and GTA3:VC and get this game, its fantastic; much more fast paced and the music gets you more pumped.

      N+1 Cheers for Rockstar!

    7. Re:The impact of this decision by sdack · · Score: 0

      This is not new. Same with Quake and Doom. So what are you trying to tell us?

      a) Indexing a game is good for its marketing.
      b) Others are stupid.
      c) You wish to self-destruct.

      Sven *ego-shooters are fun*

    8. Re:The impact of this decision by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      Different agencies and ministers connected with children all wanted to ban it. Result? Top seller in Norway that year...

      It was the top seller in Canada too, which had very little to do with the people who wanted to ban it. It was just a good (read: popular) game.

      --Dan

    9. Re:The impact of this decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats not really true. most retailers will take the games of the display, but you can still buy them if you go to the counter and ask for it. you dont even need to be an adult, as a minor i could still buy most restricted games

    10. Re:The impact of this decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the heck did this get modded up so high? What kind of funky logic is this: "GTA3 did great in Norway because everyone wanted to ban it"? Did it ever occur to the moderators that GTA3 did great in Norway because it did great everywhere else (i.e. because it is a great game)? This should have been modded "-1 Asinine".

    11. Re:The impact of this decision by playagame · · Score: 1

      is that germans are probably the second biggest market for c&c games. i play generals and all the other c&c games and i am involved in the community and A LOT of germans are boycotting this game.... because of the war and the insensitive nature of it's content. not because of the restricted list. also who cares if the war started after this game was on the restricted list the conflict did not.

  8. 3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 1

    and we still have wars.

    When will people realise that some things (i.e. war) are in our nature and will not change anytime soon.

    1. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by cperciva · · Score: 1

      ITYM 10 thousand years of human civilization. Humans may have existed for longer than that (depending upon exactly how you define "human") but cities certainly didn't.

    2. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by JanneM · · Score: 1

      And from the beginnings of civilization up until around the end of the last century, slavery was common and accepted in many parts of the world.

      Actually, the number of wars, and the proportion of people affected by them, have been at its lowest level ever for the past fifteen years. Barring any loose cannons on the world stage, it is entirely conceivable that war really could be abolished in the long term.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITYBM 30 thousand years ago.

      modern humans were dominant by that time. small camps easily existed even before that...

    4. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know they had violent video games back in WWI & WWII.

    5. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit less than 3m years.

      Still, I believe that we, humans, need wars. It's in our nature. Apart from the pain and suffering, wars have proven to be of considerable benefit to our civilisation. There's nothing better than a war to consolidate a starving economy in a country. As an example, look at how germany fared between WW1 and WW2. Also, remember that many important inventions are offspring of a military research project. Again, remember WW2. It gave us radar, IR optics, jet aircraft, rockets (as well as new language phrases like 'concentration camp' but that's not my point).

      Be certain that expansionism and military interests will bring mankind to other planets and possibly other systems. That is, if Powers that Be don't miscalculate Space vs. Weapons advancement. And at this point I must say that recent events in Iraq have lessened my faith in the wisdom and cunning of those in charge.

      At any rate, we need wars. Wars are good for us. Not for the individual, but they are of benefit to the society. That definitely says something basic about human psyche and culture, something not nice at all but IT'S LIKE THAT. At some point in the future we may find better ways to live and prosper, but we just are not there yet.

      And maybe when we do get there, when we will be able to live in peace and harmony with our environment, soon (about next Wednesday) the Bugs move in, kill off this breed which 'ain'ta gonna study war no more' and the universe forgets us.

      And while I'm quoting Heinlein, remember that line from Starhsip Troopers (motion picture): "To ensure safety of our solar system, Klendathu must be eliminated!". Sounds familiar? Why, yes! It's what Bush says about Iraq! No wait... it's what Germany said about Poland! No, wait...

      Would you like to know more?

    6. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea you keep on believing that.

      you have a short memory. that's exactly the reason wars break out again.

    7. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea... Who is going to "bar" the loose cannons? Perhaps, warriors? Or maybe the U.N. with their endless ammounts of useless press releases.

    8. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will people realise that some things (i.e. war) are in our nature and will not change anytime soon.

      you mean like slavery was "in our nature" for hundreds of years

    9. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of people who are still slaves. Some were never paid for. And most of them are women.

      if you don't believe me, look up "honour killings" on the internet, and then ask yourself if you don't want a massive cultural change in Iraq.

    10. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Ashen · · Score: 1

      No war has ever been fought between two capitalist democracies. Long term solution to war? Create more capitalist democracies. :)

    11. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by master_p · · Score: 1

      Yes, but until recently humans did not fight with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Now that weapons are so much more destructive, the primitive war instincts must be suppressed or redirected to something else. Otherwise, we are doomed, sooner or later.

    12. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Still, I believe that we, humans, need wars. It's in our nature. Apart from the pain and suffering, wars have proven to be of considerable benefit to our civilisation.

      > At any rate, we need wars. Wars are good for us. Not for the individual, but they are of benefit to the society.

      You know, Hitler had a similar philosophy. It's darwinism applied to social development. These ideas were the ideological foundation for WW2, which most people agree, was not a very good thing.

      Prosperity and economic growth is possible without killing people.

    13. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prosperity and economic growth is possible without killing people.

      How?

    14. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Humans have been "civilised" for only about the last 10,000 years, and it began in what is now Iraq.

    15. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by sapone · · Score: 1

      > > Prosperity and economic growth is possible without killing people.

      > How?

      The same way it is possible when killing people, just leave out the killing bit. Human bodily fluids are of no vital importance in any industrial process, thus you need not extract them. Period.

      Switzerland has led a remarkably peaceful existance while sustaining a rather high standard of living...

      Why do you think war is necessary for long-term economic stability?

    16. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · · Score: 1

      Again, remember WW2. It gave us radar, IR optics, jet aircraft, rockets

      It also gave us <Homer doing Mr Burns Impersonation>Nuclear Power</Homer doing Mr Burns Impersonation>

      Which gave us the Simpsons.

      So to recap, war is good for society as can be seen in the Simpsons and other fine art like Starship Troopers.

      --

      He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
    17. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 1

      This would only work if humans (and humans collectively as a "country") developed the same sort of peaceful battle mechanism as certain animals.

      Specifically, when two males come into conflict, rather than fight 'till one of them dies; they simply face up to each other, take a few parameters and decide who would win. The one that would loose then turns around and buggers off.

      Now if you extended that to countries, you would effectively have our only "super power" simply walk all over every other country and colonise the entire planet.

      Nobody wants that, so a resistance is put up.

      We call that war.

    18. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      My favorite example of that is lobsters, male lobsters each have their own pheremone, and lobsters remeber who they fought for up to a week, and scamper out of the way if they catch the scent of a lobster that beat them recently.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    19. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      No, the 10K number is correct. Civilization etymologically implies trans-tribal communities. 30K you're not looking at societies, but small groups with no association with their neighbors.

    20. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by GarryOwen · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you define recent, biological warfare has been in use for the last 3000 odd years. Oh and whole civilizations have been wiped off the map for longer than that(cause killing every man, woman and child by spear is just as effective as a nuke, though it takes a bit longer)

    21. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by fragged+one · · Score: 0

      until the end of the last century? you mean 3 years ago? well, you're close, except slavery still exists. in countries such as nigeria, rwanda, etc., the slave trade is alive and well as it always has been. if you think slavery actually 'ended', then you need to get out more, read the news.

      Actually, the number of wars, and the proportion of people affected by them, have been at its lowest level ever for the past fifteen years.

      according to whom? either way, 15 years isn't really worth even mentioning given the fact we've been around and fighting wars for thousands of years.

      --
      if it wasn't for that horse, i wouldn't have spent that year in college.....
    22. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Herkules · · Score: 0


      3 Million Years of Human Civilisation and we still have wars.

      After 1X million killed in WW2 no wants more war.

      Dude war is as close a living person comes to hell!!!

      --
      CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
    23. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it's generally accepted that human civilization appeared when people banded together to form the first villages and began forming.

      Last time I checked, this got started approximately 7000-8000 BC. Let's say, about ten thousand years ago. Hardly three million. I hate to be so picky, but ape-like creatures that (almost) walked upright aren't members of a civilization.

    24. Re:3 Million Years of Human Civilisation... by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Which is why we're all opposed to taking them away from Saddam.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  9. lol... "warcraft" then ? by selderrr · · Score: 3, Funny

    the title alone promotes war, portrays it as a skill, as something to strive for and improve on !

    And solitaire, what kind of an asocial name with an egoist attitude is that ?

    1. Re:lol... "warcraft" then ? by bumby · · Score: 1

      Warcraft is probably still off the list because of the enemies. It's not human vs human, at least not "by default". You know, it's ok to kill anything that is not human: Dogs, cats, cows, birds, grunts, aliens, etc.

      --
      Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
    2. Re:lol... "warcraft" then ? by Finuvir · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking but seriously, Warcraft 3 doesn't show war in a very good light at all. It's made clear throughout that either the leaders are crazy/evil (undead and human campaigns) or that war is something that's forced on unwilling victims (the orc campaign, the humans in the beginning). I haven't played Generals, but Red Alert 2 showed war in a much more positive light. There's also the point that C&C will always be closer to reality than Warcraft, being a fictional game in a real world, rather than a fictional game in a fictional world (with fictional species thrown in for good measure!)

      --
      Why is anything anything?
  10. Left wing censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And once again, citizens are rudely disabused of the notion that the State is a benevolent force, be it "left wing" or "right wing".

    A Government either protects your natural rights or it removes them from you.

    Choose which you prefer.

    1. Re:Left wing censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose to have my natural rights removed.

  11. But what if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you refuse to play. Can you get re-elected Chancellor?

  12. lets not beat around the bush (no pun intended) by epicstruggle · · Score: 1

    The game, Command & Conquer Generals, depicts an animated siege of Baghdad, with the United States military battling a fictional terrorist group called the Global Liberation Army, which bombs the city with missiles carrying anthrax, killing civilians.

    Come on had they not had this in the game or at least changed the name of the city to something else, youd not have this problem. You see americans boycott french goods, now the germans are doing it to the americans.

    later,

    --
    "Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
    1. Re:lets not beat around the bush (no pun intended) by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > at least changed the name of the city to something else

      No, it couldn't be the case, that the game in its whole could be the cause. Especially, when they already Unreal Tournament on that list, AFAIK.

      > You see americans boycott french goods, now the germans are doing it to the americans.

      A) It might strike you unlikely, but most world-wide distributed games come out of the US. Especially ones with militaric themes. For some reasons, you won't see Bubble-Bobble or Super Mario on that list, but 1942, or Command and Conquer.

      B) They are not boycotting it. The goverment denied the publisher and the shops to advertise it, but it can still bought by adults.

      C) Some of these games even gain special popularity by the fact, of being placed on the restricted list.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    2. Re:lets not beat around the bush (no pun intended) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, 1942 was coded by swedes.

    3. Re:lets not beat around the bush (no pun intended) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS- The organisation is here for years and putting all Games Movies etc on that list which expose violence and other inappropriate materials for kids.
      And the list is loooong as it is growing from year to year.
      The first Industry to play along with that organisation ist the movie Industry which cripples all movies down to be rated for 12 years old to enlarge potential viewers.
      Now that results in crippled movies, which is bad.

      That said .. this was here looong before the war and is nothing simlar to the braindead Freedom Fries thingie which made look the us congress realy childish at best

    4. Re:lets not beat around the bush (no pun intended) by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      They're not boycotting it, merely banning the advertising of it.

      Plus, let's be honest, the squemish, pacifistic 21st century Germans make much nicer neighbours than the militiaristic early 20th century model...

    5. Re:lets not beat around the bush (no pun intended) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you an idiot? You can play ANY side in this game. Want to blow up Americans? No prob! Fire up the game and do so.

      Trying to suggest that using particular scenarios and names in a game might offend people is idiocy. It just serves to show that politicians live in a world just as imaginary as the game setting.

      Are we going to ban paperback fiction that does the same? A Tale of Two Cities perhaps, or some other famous literature? Perhaps we should also ban non-fictional books that offend. The Grapes of Wrath for it's portrayal of poor people? The Sinking of the Bismark? How about any book relating to World War 2?

      ANY government who thinks restriction of information and product will solves problems has a FAR bigger issue.

      Why do you think there are over 500 reporters of all nationalities with our troops in the war right now? Freedom of information, freedom of data flow - information IS power, because it lets YOU make an informed decision.

      So, have you even played the game?

    6. Re:lets not beat around the bush (no pun intended) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but they are not boycotting it - just not advertising it outloud.

    7. Re:lets not beat around the bush (no pun intended) by Herkules · · Score: 0


      I thinks its about gov not thinking it holds posetiv values and not about any boycott!

      --
      CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
  13. Ack... by TheToon · · Score: 1

    Politics... why can't we live in peace without that damned politics?

    I bet those politicians are now drooling when they think about all the extra votes they will get in the next poll. The Romans really had it right. Let the plebs live their own lives, give them bread and circus and they will stay happy and ignorant.

    Should they ban Quake type games too now? What about military flight simulators? What about strategy games where military action is a part of the game? Why not ban all computer games except the original Tetris?

    The war in the gulf is underway. That's a reality. They should adjust to it and make sure that it is over as soon as possible with as little civilian casualities as possible. Do they think they can get the coalition to just back off and go home?

    --
    //TheToon
    1. Re:Ack... by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > Should they ban Quake type games too now?
      Several are already. Doom is.

      > What about military flight simulators?

      They are not.

      > What about strategy games where military action is a part of the game?

      Most are not. Depends on the game. Is militaric action the only way? Or are other possibilities given? (Master of Orion, Civilisation) How is the war displayed? Purely abstract, like chess? Hexagon games? Or can you drive with your tank over the people, and see blood splatter, like in Command and Conquer? Or can you shoot a person in various body parts and see how he is handycapped by that and see how he falters accordingly?

      > The war in the gulf is underway. [...]
      > Do they think they can get the coalition to just back off and go home?

      Putting a war advertising (as considered by this agency) game on that list has happened before this Gulf War. Why should they stop now? It is a long existing common practice in Germany.

      > I bet those politicians are now drooling when they think about all the extra votes they will get in the next poll

      Yeah, that is terribly evil. Politicians doing something, which might give them more votes.
      Democracy sucks. (Not that they will get any more, because it is a long existing agency)

      Germany is a democratic nation, which decided (after bringing much havoc upon this earth with 2 World Wars) what is acceptable (porn on TV at 23:00) and what not (war advertising games) and acts according these principles (For several decades already).

      You can call them cowards, like some people in the US tends to call the French for doing what they do, or you can call them partisans.

      Or maybe you consider, that the way you and your country is living and the moral standards it adhers to, are not the only way, and acknowledge, that other democratic nations have also intelligent people, which have their own opinions, which are as much worth as yours or anybodies elses.

      This doesn't make you wrong, but the majority decides.

      That is what democracy is about.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    2. Re:Ack... by Tekai · · Score: 1

      Should they ban Quake type games too now? ... What about strategy games where military action is a part of the game?

      FYI all three Quake Games, (and numerous other FPS) are already banned in Germany. And if Westwood had not censored (robots instead of humans, green blood etc) C&C 1/2/3 they could have been banned too.

      And they are not banned, but put on a restricted list so only adults are allowed to buy them and you are not allowed to advertise them.

    3. Re:Ack... by n3k5 · · Score: 1
      Germany is a democratic nation, which decided [...] what is acceptable (porn on TV at 23:00) and what not [...]
      If you define pornpgraphy as something with the primary intent to sexually arouse people, this is true. But let's not give people a false impression. I receive 30+ German stations and watch some of them a lot, but I haven't seen people actually having sex a single time in about 15 years. They only show 'erotic films', a.k.a. 'soft porn', where actors pretend to have sex or to masturbate, but you hardly ever see primary sexual organs and you never see them in action. Maybe it's different on pay-TV.
      --
      but what do i know, i'm just a model.
    4. Re:Ack... by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      You are certainly right, speaking out of personal experience.

      To avoid any misunderstandings. It should be considered as a oversimplified example of an area, where German public is less restrictive than the U.S. one. Nothing more. It was not my intent to judge about how explicit these films are.

      Let me reiterate my main point, it is up to a democratic society, what it considers acceptable or not. Most often, one nation is more restrictive in one area, while being less so in another.

      To say that such thing (being more or less restrictive in one area in ones own nation) is stupid, is pretentious, as it is based on the assumption, that ones (or the one of ones nation) decision on that matter is superior to the other nations collective decision, which is based on their own knowledge and experience.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    5. Re:Ack... by Herkules · · Score: 0

      It was not a ban on the game! It was just put on a list of games the gov feals are bad in some way.

      Restrictions of reklam and etc... and not the game!

      =)

      --
      CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
    6. Re:Ack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politics... why can't we live in peace without that damned politics?

      Source code... why can't we just have programs without that damned source code?

      Why all this talk about building the damn software. Just run it!

    7. Re:Ack... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      This is an old thread, but I think you need to consider something: politics are peace. Politics are the alternative to violence.

  14. Sounds like... by JeffSh · · Score: 1

    Sounds like... some of the German politicians are forgetting their own history. That war was the only way to resolve the conflict they started in WW2.

    Diplomacy is what caused it to be such a large conflict in the first place. If we hadn't conceded the annexation of Austria, would there have been WW2? Who knows.. Hypocritical liberal view of history is bunk. And besides THAT even, black listing games because they depict war is even more retarded. C'mon free speech, fascist pigs.

    -Jeff

    1. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least we don't have an 'information awareness' office or 'homeland security'... and don't call as fascists as there are more nazis (gary lauck, aryan nations, kkk) in the US than ever have been in germany...

    2. Re:Sounds like... by tsa · · Score: 1

      Come on. The Germans started the war. And therefore they are now more sensitive to this type of 'entertainment' than other European countries, because they have experience... And, like a former poster, I really can't understand people that find sex/porn more revolting than violence. Both are for adults only but the latter can certainly do more damage to people than the former.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:Sounds like... by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

      Sounds like... some of the German politicians are forgetting their own history. That war was the only way to resolve the conflict they started in WW2.

      Despite the fact that history has a lot of examples of using war as a means of solving conflict that doesn't mean it should be encouraged.

      I haven't played C&C Generals, but it does make sense to restrict games which encourage violence... Many parents don't even look what games are on their children's wish lists... they just buy them. The extra effort needed to get the game might help highlight the fact that not all "games" are for children.

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    4. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is more the other way round. We remember a lot more wars in our lands than you watch in TV. We don't want wars to start. If one starts a war he has to be stopped, but it would be better if there never had been a war in the first place. War is not the answer on politics and should only be the answer to military attacks. Btw WW2 was the war and not the answer, cant see how you can make a difference here. The conflict started before the war and not with it. And second if you are at war how do you declare a second to the same countries without stopping the first.

      Just mz 2cents

    5. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Too bad America haven't experienced a single war on its territory for past >100 years, maybe they'd learn something from that

    6. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does that mean that the rest of the world should nuke the U.S.A.?

    7. Re:Sounds like... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      thats fine by me....can you hold off until i am safely in south america though?

    8. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MANY of the decision makers weren't even ALIVE when WW II was going on, much less WW I.

      Just because they live in the same land, or even share some of the same genetic markings, DOESN'T MEAN that these people have a "history" of war and conflict. Those were different humans - different physical beings with different brains, hearts, actions, lives.

      This is the same logic as "I shouldn't have to pay for reparations for slavery - I wasn't even alive when there were slaves."

      30-50 year old Germans had nothing to do with WW II, except that they probably had to suffer some of the consequences and after-affects. Give them a break!

    9. Re:Sounds like... by Llurien · · Score: 1

      True, a war was needed there. However, a war was only needed because Germany invaded another country, after which a defensive war against them was justified. This is exactly the same reasoning that justified the previous Gulf War.
      The difference this time is that Irak didn't invade anyone. While they might have been anxious to do so, they weren't exactly in a position, since their military force is now much weaker than it was 12 years ago.
      This time, America and Britain are invading (yes, invading) another country, where a large part of the population does not support them. Can't say I blame them either, because you generally don't much appreciate the guys dropping bombs on your head, even if it's for your own good.

    10. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If we hadn't conceded the annexation of Austria..."

      Looks like you're forgetting your history too.... Austria voted for reunification w/ Germany. Not that comparisons between the current conflict with Iraq and WW2 make any kind of sense anyways... not the same sort of conflict by any stretch of the imagination. Apples and oranges.

    11. Re:Sounds like... by Xiver · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious about what you believe should have been done.

      Iraq lost a war of aggression against their neighbors. As part of their surrender they agreed to stop manufacturing WMD and destroy what they had left in their arsenal.

      Intelligence says they have not done so. We have already seen missiles that Iraq and the U.N weapon inspectors claim did not exist.

      Crap, Iraq is even arming children and sending them into battle while using their mothers as shields. Do you actually think that as soon as Sadam believed he was strong enough he would not again assume the role of aggressor?

      --
      10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
      20: GOTO 10
    12. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please, there is more reason for conflict than invasion.


      Iraq is using weapons now it says didn't exsist, confirming intelligence that said this was true for the PAST 12 YEARS while we all sat around doing nothing.


      Iraq had murded hundreds of thousands, if not millions of it's own citizens using chemical weapons, human meat grinders, acid baths, beheadings, bullets, etc.


      Iraq has paid rapists, who make a living raping and photographing women to humiliate them into submission.


      They reguarly publicly executed anyone who exressed any dissent towards the regime, even proudly showing a father shooting his son in the head on the front page of their paper, Saddam dragging his own son in law behind a truck through the street them publicly murdering him, etc etc.


      I didn't see anyone protesting these terrible actions, but now that the US may have a chance to put a stop to them, people are throwing temper tantrums everywhere. Many from countries who help fund and arm the regime.


      I see people protesting and all I can think of is hypocrits! Where were you before the war started when hundreds of thousands of people were dying at the hands of Saddam? And do you have some special sense of what most the people of Iraq want, because from what I have seen most want the regime to end, and those that have escaped already definitely want it to end.

    13. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear.

    14. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like... you're a dumbass. No, i wont tell why, you wouldn't get it even if you tried.

    15. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and communists eat children too...

      Where were you before the war started when hundreds of thousands of people were dying at the hands of Saddam

      Well certainly not financing Saddam, like the us did all thru the 80s

  15. Wow by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    Hundreds of years of military tradition, and now this?

    Did they get their asses handed to them in a war, or something?

    *honk*

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asses handed to them? Hmm. let's see now, ONE country managed to take on HOW many? Gimme a break.

      Btw, it's funny the US with all their tech and massive army are having difficulties with the little Iraqies and their 50 year old antique hardware.

  16. Nothing resolves family conflicts like... by CoolVibe · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...a good game of quake/halflife/counterstrike/etc deathmatch. Seeing my younger brother splattered against a wall in a game does wonders for resolving conflicts :)

    And my brother is a marine... muhahahaha

    :)

    1. Re:Nothing resolves family conflicts like... by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 1

      There's nothing like coming home from ye ole office for a nice few rounds of deathmatch/capture the flag. Ahhhhh.

      --
      --------
      Free your mind.
    2. Re:Nothing resolves family conflicts like... by CoolVibe · · Score: 1
      Oh yes. And the "conflicts" I was talking about usually involve who's buying the beer this time.

      A typical exchange:

      Bro: *spots me on the roof somewhere* Ah! Prepare to die!
      Me: *grin* *BLAM*
      * Bro gets killed by me with an awp in the head
      Bro: Hey! You can't run and shoot with that sniper rifle!
      Me: Apparently I can... You buy the next round :)

      Well, sometimes he smears me though. It's a lot of fun nonetheless. Heck, we sometimes even play classic quake 1 sometimes, for variation, and sometimes even Doom. Too bad classic wolfenstein didn't have deathmatch. Who says violent games make people violent? It brings people together! There's no problem a blast with a BFG-9000 won't fix.

    3. Re:Nothing resolves family conflicts like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember: the family that slays together, stays together!

      Mike

  17. Bad Press by Pompatus · · Score: 1

    I can't remember the saying exactly, but it goes along the lines that there is no such thing as bad press. I have to wonder if Germany isn't inadvertantly encouraging sales by restricting advertising.

    People will always want what they are not supposed to have

    --

    ----
    Squirrel ... It's not just for breakfast anymore
    1. Re:Bad Press by Chokma · · Score: 1

      "...there is no such thing as bad press. I have to wonder if Germany isn't inadvertantly encouraging sales by restricting advertising."

      Sales really go down if a game is restricted in Germany. You can no longer order it via mail and will see no ads. Piracy of course will rise, and P2P-distribution makes sure everyone who wants it gets a warez-version.

      Besides, the restricted list is not available for everyone.
      It goes like this:
      1. Someone gets worked up about a game, video, website, the president's underwear, whatever.

      2. The item is examined and, if deemed dangerous for children, added to the restricted list.

      3. A small notice is written in the Bundesanzeiger (the Official Journal), which appears almost daily.

      3.1 Distributors and shops receive a notice to quit advertising the product immediately.

      4. Media whines or applaudes.

      5. Item fades from public view - it vanishes from the shelves and most people do not walk to the counter, demanding the new J.Dahmer-Sim but rather grab one of the publicly displayed games.

      The restricted list is only distributed on a need to know basis, there is afaik no way for Joe Average to get his hands on it.

      Note that restriction is not about a game being violent, it is about the way the violence is portrayed. A game where you have to reenact Littleton is more likely to get banned than one where you shoot terrorists like in Counterstrike.
      Games where you dismember or mutilate someone will almost certainly be banned, in extreme cases (Mortal Kombat I) a judge will issue an order to seize and destroy all copies, making posession of said item punishable by law.

  18. Command & Conquer: Inspectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We have evidence that the Brotherhood of Nod does indeed have a harvester. For all we know, they could be harvesting Tiberium as we speak."

    1. Re:Command & Conquer: Inspectors by MongooseCN · · Score: 1

      But the Brotherhood of Nod has no nuclear weapons. That temple is merely for praying an can't manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

    2. Re:Command & Conquer: Inspectors by ax_42 · · Score: 1

      But we won't allow anyone in to see if they REALLY have one. We'll just bomb the smoke out of them, just in case.

      What? They didn't have one? Oh, sorry. Here --- we'll rebuild your country, complete with a new dictator^Wmilitary leader (except he's OUR military leader), using our own companies (which hopefully gets the credits flowing back home).

  19. German Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it! I'm boycotting German Porn from now on! Only American porn for me.

  20. ob simpsons quote by zephc · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We Germans are not a warlike people"

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    1. Re:ob simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anyone who speaks German can't be bad"

    2. Re:ob simpsons quote by homemademissiles · · Score: 1

      "we germans arent all fun and sunshine..."

    3. Re:ob simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice bitching... but boring as well as "US is great" quotes

    4. Re:ob simpsons quote by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      While that's definitely poignant (not to mention funny), this is really indicative of how the German culture wishes to be perceived right now, and what they do to shape their society - they are so ashamed of WWII (rightfully so) that they have gone to the opposite extreme at the level of collective unconscious.

    5. Re:ob simpsons quote by LupusUF · · Score: 1

      They are not warlike people when they don't think they can win. If Germany had the military power that the USA had...well they have proven in the past that they would use it.

    6. Re:ob simpsons quote by Post-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      Sounds like denial to me...

      --
      "My mom always said that there are no monsters - no real ones - but there are !"
  21. Good for Germany. by alistair · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A quote I saw the other day

    "You know that times are stange when the best rapper in the world is white, the best golfer in the world is black, the Americas cup is held by landlocked Sweden, the French are accusing the Americans of arrogance and Germany is steadfstly refusing to go to war."

    I agree with this decision. The reporting of this war has verged on pornography, with too many reporters getting excited about bombs and tanks and too little attention being paid to the human cost. They are right not to ban it, but right not to promote the joy of conflict at this time either.

    1. Re:Good for Germany. by HighFlyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sweden is not landlocked.

      Switzerland is. And they are the ones holding The Cup.

      --

      -- Truth suffers from too much analysis.
    2. Re:Good for Germany. by eetu · · Score: 1

      Landlocked Switzerland, not Sweden.

      --
      "If I can't have a revolution, what is there to dance about?" - Albert Meltzer
    3. Re:Good for Germany. by rkit · · Score: 1
      ... the Americas cup is held by landlocked Sweden ...
      There is a difference between Sweden and Switzerland.
      --
      sig intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden is not landlocked

    5. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are right not to ban it, but right not to promote the joy of conflict at this time either.

      The restriction is highly ineffective. It does kill sales of a game which is put on that list, but on the other hand it actually promotes the game itself: Minors will simply pirate it.

    6. Re:Good for Germany. by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      Yup, its a good Qoute.

      BTW, Leave Porn Alone, And go do something Constructive.

    7. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One smartass after another, huh?

    8. Re:Good for Germany. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think it's ironic at all that Germany and Japan are, in different ways, two of the most resolute "pacifist states." It's more likely to be the consequence of their histories, than in spite of them.

    9. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no kidding.

    10. Re:Good for Germany. by haggar · · Score: 1

      "You know that times are stange when the best rapper in the world is white, the best golfer in the world is black, the Americas cup is held by landlocked Sweden, the French are accusing the Americans of arrogance and Germany is steadfstly refusing to go to war."

      That would be Switzerland: they won the cup this year.

      --
      Sigged!
    11. Re:Good for Germany. by alistair · · Score: 2, Informative

      There seem to be about 100 variations of this quote, although all the others managed not to confuse Sweden and Switzerland.

      I found a 2001 article (Google Cache) on the variations of this quote which appeared in the press and internet. The quote is attributes to Charles Barkley.

    12. Re:Good for Germany. by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't it amazing how much ignorance people can stuff into one quote?

      1) The bestselling rapper is white. Big news. The bestselling artist of any black music trend is always white.
      2) That's Switzerland. Sweden has plenty of coastline.
      3) People all over the world consider Americans arrogant, as they think this level of ignorance must be deliberate. Nothing new there.
      4) Germany has a constitution, largely dictated 50 years ago by the allies, including the US, which interdicts any offensive war. And saying 'I'm feeling vaguely threatened by this little country way off on another continent' will not make it a defensive war as envisioned by the framers of the German constitution. They had no choice but to say no to war. Mind, it's a good idea anyway.

      And yes, the best golfer in the world is Asian-African-American. Ten points for a reasonably correct answer.

      What I find offensive about the war reporting are attempts to sanitize it, to sweep the suffering under a rug, as it might inhibit support for the war effort. Do show the corpses, the malnourished children and the diseases caused by impure drinking water. Truth hurts, but it's good for you.

    13. Re:Good for Germany. by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's because they're not allowed to fight. :) The Japanese have been ITCHING to get in on the action in Iraq, they really want to kick someone's ass. Japan just seems like they want to fight SOMEONE. They were essentially a military controlled state until about 1840, and for about half the time since then. I wouldn't really call Japan a "pacifist state," they would probably be in a war with China as we speak if the US didn't have such a strong Asian presence. They're only peaceful because we won't let them have much of a military.

    14. Re:Good for Germany. by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      Its a classic joke that can be changed every few years. Thou the france/germany comment was extremely funny.

    15. Re:Good for Germany. by gnalre · · Score: 1

      And yes, the best golfer in the world is Asian-African-American. Ten points for a reasonably correct answer.

      Annika Sorenstam is black?!!!

      --
      Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    16. Re:Good for Germany. by pnot · · Score: 1

      The reporting of this war has verged on pornography, with too many reporters getting excited about bombs and tanks and too little attention being paid to the human cost.

      There's an article on this very subject in yesterday's Guardian. Draws some very interesting parallels between porn and war footage: "This... is the kind of spectacular vision you get in porn - where the point is to see the sex act from every angle. It's narcissistic." (Linda Williams, professor of film studies and rhetoric at UC Berkley)

    17. Re:Good for Germany. by HBI · · Score: 1

      Sweden isn't landlocked.

      It borders the Kattegat, Baltic Sea and Gulf of Bothnia, I believe.

      So much for geography :b

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    18. Re:Good for Germany. by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Sorry friend, but after WWII Japan is, by constitution, a "pacifist state". The Japanese constitution forbids them to have any type of "offensive" military.

      This stance is pretty hard to keep in the modern world, and it has been dodged around a lot, but the Japanese are most definately not "ITCHING to get in on the action in Iraq" nor held in check by the indescribable might of the US. They learnt about the horrors of war when two of they're cities were excised from the face of the earth.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    19. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who is being arrogant now?

      It would be unfair to show just the horrors of war unless we could also see the horrors of the saddam regime. show videos of him having his enemies thrown into machines that grind them up, legs first. show a picture of the wife who had her husband's body parts mailed to her in a box. show the iraq people eating food that is given to them by the international community because we can't allow free trade to them for fears that their leader may somehow acquire nuclear weapons.

      CNN reported that theyre has been no problem with electricity or water in Baghdad.

    20. Re:Good for Germany. by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that a quote from Jon Stewart? He also had the line about Rep. Armey didn't want to use the Army, Rep. Delay didn't want any delay (when dealing with Iraq)...

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    21. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show the horrors of war indiscriminately. And without bias show the whole history about Iraq and Saddam. Do not forget to mention UK's liberal use of mustard gas against the civilians in the early part of last century. Do not forget to mention the CIA's involvement in arming and funding the Ba'aht party to overthrow the previous government UK/US installed. Do not forget to mention that US supported Kuwaits economical warfare against Iraq in 1991 and that US encouraged Kuwait to invade the Iraqi part of the Rhumalia oilfields. Also mention all the conventional arms, biological and chemical agents and technology that US and UK sold to Iraq in the Iran/Iraq conflict. If you intend to tell the truth, tell the whole truth, not just the bits that suit your purpose.

      If you want to verify details, http://firethistime.org has plenty of details about the illegal things that the US, the UK and the Iraqi governments has been up to.

    22. Re:Good for Germany. by gaspyy · · Score: 1

      I didn't think I'll see such a post on ./

      I actually have bought C&C:Generals (I am/was a fan of the series), along with Freelancer. Freelancer got me hooked and I thought "let's try c&c for a change".

      I couldn't play it. It was too close to reality to be fun. Don't get me wrong, I play all kind of PC games, but seeing US tanks marching to Baghdad in C&C, it wasn't fun.

      The game also have some words in its intro, something like "in times of crisis, wise men resolve their conflicts using words -- words like 'scud missiles', 'carped bombing' [...]" and so on.

      The truth is that the war in iraq saddens me. I want to play games where I can get away from the day-by-day reality; maybe that's why I prefer to make trade runs in Freelancer...

    23. Re:Good for Germany. by rasilon · · Score: 1

      However, you know that the world is working just like normal when someone on Slashdot doesn't know their geography well enough to sanity check their quotes. The Americas Cup is held by landlocked Switzerland. Sweden on the other hand has plenty of coastline.

    24. Re:Good for Germany. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Me too!" said the liberal sheep.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    25. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actuallly Germany doesn't have a constitution, quite frankly if you play it by the rules Germany isn't even an independant country, there never was a peace accord signed.

    26. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bunk. Read their history textbooks and then tell us that.

    27. Re:Good for Germany. by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Read their history textbooks and then tell us that.

      Well, I've read them. They manage to convey the notion that war is a rather negative thing, and stress modern developments like foundation of the UN. I think I remember that an American statesman's ideas (Roosevelt) of a regulated peaceful coexistence of countris were very important for the foundation of the UN and UN charter banning offensive war.

      Sebastian

    28. Re:Good for Germany. by Executive+Override · · Score: 1

      Lets just hope the US doesn't have to go through all that before learning.

    29. Re:Good for Germany. by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sweep the suffering under a rug, as it might inhibit support for the war effort. Do show the corpses, the malnourished children and the diseases caused by impure drinking water.
      I'm not sure if you're saying that Iraqi children are dieing because Saddam spent all the money he didn't steal on cheap assed soviet era anti-aircraft missiles without G-limiters switches that break in half and drop there warheads in inconvienient places and chemical and nuclear weapon's plants instead of building hospitals, water and sewage treatment plants and food or just the opposite?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    30. Re:Good for Germany. by quax · · Score: 1

      We most certainly do have a constitution. It is a pretty good one. You can read up on it
      here.

      I figure your comment was going for "funny". If not than I am all the more glad that Mr. Rumsfeld does not want to redeploys US troops back to Germany once this war is over. We very much enjoy living in peace and we have an army capable of defending ourselves. We really do not want to get involved in America's post-colonial adventures. Having US troops here make terror attacks on German soil much likelier. I do not think we should tolerate this risk any longer. That is why fully support Mr. Rumsfeld in his initiative to pull American troops out of Germany to station them in Eastern European countries. But than again I always like to support my American friends if they are not completely unreasonable.

    31. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what have you been smoking? Germany most certainly does have a constitution. It's just not called "constitution" but Grundgesetz, something like "base rights". The word constitution ("Verfassung" in German) was deliberately not used because at that time (1949) Germany was divided. But the Grundgesetz is considered to be the constitution of Germany.

      Sovereignety was established in 1990, so Germany really is an independent country.

      Read more (in German) at http://www.bundesregierung.de/Gesetze-,4221/.htm

      cu
      Lars

    32. Re:Good for Germany. by BathTub · · Score: 1

      Who do you think has the Americas Cup?

    33. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read the part where they said they were a "liberating" force for occupying Korea and much of China?

      Pacifist? Of course. Unless there is some "liberation" to be done!

      Have you visited their shrines dedicated to war criminals? Maybe you should do that to get a real glimpse into the nature of Japan.

      I have friends in Japan, and they tell me the prevailling feeling over there is: damn those horrible Americans for using the inhuman nuclear weapons against us. Look at us. Poor us.

      What they don't seem to grasp is that those same nuclear weapons liberated Asia; stopped cold the daily rapes of many hundred thousands of civilian women.

      Yeah. Pacifists, all right. The root of their problem is their pride. The fact that they have war criminal shrines, and are continuing to rewrite history in their text books, tells me they are just itching to return to their past "glory."

      Why do you think the Koreans (North and South), and Chinese hate the Japan so much?

    34. Re:Good for Germany. by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Have you read the part where they said they were a "liberating" force for occupying Korea and much of China?

      I was actually talking about German history textbooks. I don't know Japanese :).

      Sebastian

    35. Re:Good for Germany. by argStyopa · · Score: 1
      Do show the corpses, the malnourished children and the diseases caused by impure drinking water. Truth hurts, but it's good for you.

      I'm sure you meant the corpses (of the roughly 500,000 internal enemies Saddam is estimated to have 'liquidated' in the last 10 years), the malnourished children (caused by twelve years of sanctions which could have been lifted in a heartbeat had Mr. Hussein allowed UN weapons inspectors truly free reign to prove he doesn't have those WMD's that France & Germany and peaceniks around the world are CONVINCED he doesn't have), and the diseases caused by impure drinking water (ditto).

      TRUTH HURTS, BUT IT'S GOOD FOR YOU.

      ^^ I'll second that notion.
      --
      -Styopa
    36. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kinda sounds like an American history text circa 2050.

    37. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does American Textbooks say about Vietnam?
      "US lost to Vietnam?"

    38. Re:Good for Germany. by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      chemical and nuclear plants?? SO far to the best of my knowledge, we found *nothing*. I'm not saying that Saddam is a good geezer, but war in the middle east region is probably just gonna make worse in the future. Iraq is supposed to have food for another 5 days approx. UN believes this will be one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes happened. 27 million people will need to be fed in the end of it. BLoody hope US/UK planned for that one as well. so far pretty much no help has come through to the people of Iraq.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    39. Re:Good for Germany. by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Close, but that's not 100% accurate. Chlorine and other necessities for water treatment have been on the sanctions list since the Gulf War. Of course, had Hussein been willfully compliant I'm sure the sanctions would've been lifted years ago. But there's still a goodly amount of time between: 1) when the U.S. bombed the plants and 2) when Iraq could've reasonably completed construction. Any deaths between [1] and [2] are on the Pentagon's hands because the Pentagon could have easily chosen not to bomb them.

      Of course, some one will inevitably say "well, if Hussein hadn't started the war in the first place...". That's bullshit because that's equivalent to saying "well, since Hussein started the war, we are justified in taking any action." So, we'd be justified in soaking Baghdad with VX gas? Just because someone else broke the rules doesn't make it ok for you to break them too.

      $0.02USD,
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    40. Re:Good for Germany. by op51n · · Score: 1

      I like (well ok find so hypocritical it's painful) the fact that all the papers over here are talking about the ambush of british troops as "shocking and murderous" and how offensive it is of Iraq. I mean they include the showing the bodies on Aljazeera, but they are saying that the killing them is terrible. And yet we drop 3000 bombs on their troops, and civilians. And we try to say we're righteous... yeeeeeeeeess

    41. Re:Good for Germany. by WaysideWeasle · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that may have had something to do with Allied Occupation that established governments after WWII that insured that Germany and Japan would never start another World War again? You could argue that thee U.S. would have been better justified in a liberation of Iraq during the first Gulf War as a preventive measure securing the country of Kuwait (and surrounding nations) from the threat of a known aggressive government. It would have been easier for the U.S. back then as well as they had U.N. backing.

    42. Re:Good for Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, they do. i have yet to read a single history text, american or otherwise, that claimed that the US succeeded, even slightly, in Viet Nam.

    43. Re:Good for Germany. by uradu · · Score: 1

      > on the other hand it actually promotes the game itself

      The restricted list is not meant to kill sales of the games, just to make them unavailable to minors. So what if minors can get them anyway through other sources? Does that mean that we should also stop restricting sales of cigarettes and alcohol to minors, because they can get them anyway if they only want to? A law is only the first step towards shaping reality, it doesn't in itself guarantee the desired outcome.

    44. Re:Good for Germany. by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      chemical and nuclear plants?? SO far to the best of my knowledge, we found *nothing*.

      Exactly. That is why UNMOVIC refers to these weapons as 'unaccounted'. For the past 12 years, Iraq has been required to prove the destruction of the weapons that we know they have. In the absense of this proof, we must assume they still have them.

      so far pretty much no help has come through to the people of Iraq.

      Look at the reasons why, and you will see that the blame for that rests solely on the Iraqi regime.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    45. Re:Good for Germany. by TopShelf · · Score: 1
      Japan is waking up to the reality that they do need to throw some weight around diplomatically, however, and not just rely on the US to carry the load. After all, the Japanese KNOW that they're within range of North Korean missiles as of today.

      And you should also note that Japan is a strong supporter of the US-led operation in Iraq.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    46. Re:Good for Germany. by goon+america · · Score: 1
      It has to do with contextual definitions. What concepts do they associate with war?

      Germany & Japan: War is a process by which most of your family dies horrible, horrible deaths

      United States: War is a process by which evil is defeated, freedoms are won, and triumph is attained.

    47. Re:Good for Germany. by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the opinion of the common people in Japan is, but their government certainly gave its full backing to the current war in the Gulf.

    48. Re:Good for Germany. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1
      Not completely correct. Koizumi is a strong supporter of the US-led operation in Iraq, but only about 30% of Japan agree with it. Many local governments have passed resolutions critical of the conflict. Like Anzar and Blair, he may pay a political price for that stance with a population that doesn't share it.


      See here for a little pre-conflict analysis, here (I love Asahi Shimbun) for a look at what's happening in the Diet, here and here for a look at the political fallout of Koizumi's position.

  22. Next: chess by steveha · · Score: 1

    "Chess doesn't even include the concept of diplomacy," they will say. "Why can't the two sides just appeal to some sort of Security Council that can veto the war and send both people home? And it's so violent. Oh sure, the pieces are 'captured'. Yeah, right. Everyone who has seen the first Harry Potter movie knows the brutal truth about what really happens when you 'capture' a piece in chess."

    They might also point out that only one piece out of 16 on each side is female. Why not half? It's sexist as well as violent!

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Next: chess by Alioth · · Score: 1

      But of course, the female player is the most powerful of the lot.

      Anyone who's ever spent any time with a woman knows this to be true :-]

    2. Re:Next: chess by fishbert42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Everyone who has seen the first Harry Potter movie knows the brutal truth about what really happens when you 'capture' a piece in chess."

      Or perhaps Star Wars and that round-boarded holographic chess game Chewy and R2-D2 were playing.


      "They might also point out that only one piece out of 16 on each side is female. Why not half? It's sexist as well as violent!"

      Ah yes, but she is by far the most powerful piece on the board, can be resurrected from the dead, and can be cloned. Besides, do you honestly believe that the King is the one in command? Hell no! That manipulative bitch is the one really pulling the strings in that army! She's obviously more than willing to let the other male pieces get slaughtered in the violent carnage while she hides behind her protective line of foot-soldier/cannon-fodder pawns (who are, no doubt, meager peasants forced to fight for the royalty to keep their farms). Oh yeah, she'll dart out every once in a while to attack, but as soon as she's threatened directly, she'll turn tail and run.

    3. Re:Next: chess by steveha · · Score: 1

      You know, my attempt to be funny sort of worked and is a little bit funny.

      Your reply, on the other hand, made me laugh out loud!

      Someone please mod this up. :-)

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    4. Re:Next: chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyone who's ever spent any time with a woman knows this to be true

      Only if you succumb to the promise of sex and threat of rejection. Be hard and uncompromising. Don't give in to the fake tears, threats of cheating ("you're not my property, you're free to do whatever you want" shuts them up) or blackmailing with sex.

      "What do you want from me?"

      "I want you to admit it."

      "Admit what?"

      "That I'm beautiful. I am beautiful and you know it."

      "You're about as beautiful as an empty fifty gallon drum."

      "Bullshit. You want it and that's a fact."

      "I just want to be left alone"

      "You're not a man. You're pathetic."

      "That angle won't work here: I don't have any respect for myself let alone the male animal."

      "Well, that says it all -- you don't even respect yourself."

      "Fuck respect. I'm not interested in it. I'm not afraid of losing it."

      "You're afraid of me aren't you?"

      "You're not even an issue."

      "I can get any one I want."

      "Not this one."

      "That's because you're a coward."

      "You know something? If you were interesting enough to justify it I would give a good portion of myself just to be there that broken and colorless morning when you get out of bed and look in the mirror only to discover that your precious skin is sagging off your cheeks and chin, and your tits are flattened, empty sacks of blue veins and bruises and your ass crack no longer looks like a crack but more like a streak of shit, and the only chance at beauty you have left is in your eyes but there was never any beauty there to begin with, and you finely come to that long anticipated revelation that you are nothing -- that you have always been nothing."

      She smacks me hard across the face. "Who the fuck do you think you are? You don't know me!"

    5. Re:Next: chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you just wasted 20 seconds of my life. fuck you.

    6. Re:Next: chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realise that one day your daughter will shoot you for talking to her like that. You should make the most of your time together. I mean, geez, it's not like the courts allow you to see her every day.

      And for Pete's sake, stop sleeping with her!

      Pete's getting jealous.

    7. Re:Next: chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might also point out that only one piece out of 16 on each side is female.

      Er, only one of the pieces is male, as well...

    8. Re:Next: chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, quite true in general, though this example is a little on the, hm, bad side.

      Generally women have the most power in a relationship because of sex, essentially. The threat of no sex and the single life is enough to make doormats out of most guys. Pathetic really.

  23. Quest for The Holy Grail top game in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Run away! Run away!

  24. Age restrictions by rf0 · · Score: 1

    This sort of things annoys me and I'm going to tell you why :). Games such as GTA and the other C+C games in some countries had age restrictions placed on them. Now if a game is rated 18 I would expect it to be sold only to adults. If some underage tried to buy it then the shopkeeper should ask for proof of age.

    Hiding something away doesn't make it go away. IMHO it actually makes it more exciting as its forbidden. Surel 99.9% realise that ITS JUST A GAME. Its not reality. I mean I don't play Burnout 2 and then go out and cause a car crash do I?

    Or what about Tetris? Do you see me trying to control blocks that are falling from the sky?

    Just my pet peeve

    rus

    1. Re:Age restrictions by critter_hunter · · Score: 1

      Actual age restriction is damn stupid. Age recommendation is good - most parents don't keep up with the latest gaming news, and an age recommendation on the box helps a parent decide if their child is old enough to play a given game. But actually asking for ID for some game - wtf, kids play their games at home, their parents will see it if the game they are playing is something they object to. And if they don't, they're not doing a very good job.

      When I was a kid, my parents bought my games. Or I earned some money and bought the games myself, but my parents came along with me. When I got old enough to go buy games unsupervised was when they deemed me mature enough to make sensible choices, or not to be too badly influenced by those games I bought (of course, my younger brothers where not necessarily mature enough for them, as is evidenced by my youngest brother thinking he was Raiden and jumping into people at shool once - kids ARE influenced by what they see)

      A government trying to control this is a government trying to do a parent's job. But then, I'm not entirely sure they're unjustified, as less and less parents seem to be supervising their children...

      --
      Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
    2. Re:Age restrictions by cthugha · · Score: 1

      "If Pacman had affected us kids, we'd be running around in dark rooms munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music..."

    3. Re:Age restrictions by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      so thats why i used to think raves were cool...

    4. Re:Age restrictions by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      And you forgot to mention those little yellow powerpills... that help you swallow neon coloured ghosts...

    5. Re:Age restrictions by meloneg · · Score: 1

      "If Pacman had affected us kids, we'd be running around in dark rooms munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music..."
      I feel obligated to point to my previous response to this comment.

    6. Re:Age restrictions by Cyclone66 · · Score: 1

      Have you been to a rave lately??

    7. Re:Age restrictions by Zach978 · · Score: 1
      --

      "I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
  25. Aargh! by Gerein · · Score: 1
    Sure, everything which has something to do with Germany and the US has to be connected to the war these days... That's just plain stupid!
    • The game was put on the list three weeks ago, before the war started. Thanks C|net for noticing...
    • Many games are put on that list, independently of who produces them.
    • CC3 does promote war, force and use of WMDs as the only option without alternatives. So, if you think a list like that makes sense (which I don't necessarily do), it reasonable to put CC3 on it.
    Note that being on the list hasn't stopped the success of these games in Germany in the past...
    1. Re:Aargh! by Gerein · · Score: 1

      Eeh, of course I mean C&C Generals and not CC3... (which AFAIK is not on the list, btw)

    2. Re:Aargh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "CC3 does promote war, force and use of WMDs as the only option without alternatives."

      I play AOE all the time and I've never felt the need to erect a catapult in my backyard.

  26. Well by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

    You have to admit, the kickass intro to C&C Generals shows what appears to be news footage with just the talking mouths. The narration is "In the Twentieth century, world leaders resolve conflicts with words. Words like SCUD MISSILE". Unfortuantly I don't have the game installed atm, but it basically gives the impression that world leaders solve conflicts by blowing the crap out of each other.

    The game very stylishly makes this seem cool. And it is amusing. While the gameplay is basically no different than the standard rts, and is not as good as Total Annihilation was (that game is STILL better than nearly anything created since), it has lots of style. The voiceovers and graphics are top notch and hilarious parodies of the present day. The chinese builder says "china will grow larger". The American Crusader tank says "Do what's right", and "Protect our people". There are various voiceovers for the terrorists side like "kill the villagers, they are stealing our supplies".

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually real footage, Bush is in there, Kofi Annan is in there.. Blair too.

    2. Re:Well by gheidorn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it'll give that impression to the 1,000,000 people who will ever play the damn game. Christ, that's like .00025 percent of the world population (1mil/4bil)?

      Then take the odds of one of those 1 million actually earning a position of power in the world, and multiply that by the odds of that person (who is intelligent enough to gain a position of power in the world) being equally easily influence by a game they played in 2003.

      This thread is stupid.

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

      ...but it basically gives the impression that world leaders solve conflicts by blowing the crap out of each other

      Yeah, because we know diplomacy always works... if you wait long enough. Hugs not war. Let's all hug Saddam Hussein.

    4. Re:Well by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      No shit.

      I was on the dev team for this game, and I nearly blew a gasket when I saw that intro movie... to me, it said, "diplomacy is for chumps; the only thing that matters is the ability to blow the hell out of the other guy."

      While this may be an unfortunately-accurate protrayal of how the world actually works, it's also not the message that seems desirable to convey to the target audience.

      I tried pointing this out to the producers, but they didn't really give a shit... I guess they figured it made the game more "edgy" or something. (You should have seen the stuff that was going to go into the game but ended up being cut at the last minute... there was a GLA mission where your objective was to massacre 300 civilians. No, really.)

      And yes, I feel a nice dose of poetic justice that it's been banned. No, I don't work for EA anymore. :-)

    5. Re:Well by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      actually I LIKED the intro. I'm just saying the German censors might not. I don't have a problem with it : I know that in the real world, blowing the crap out of the other guy sometimes helps. I also know that historically it has gone nowhere in many cases, resolving nothing yet killing millions.

  27. Last C&C rewrote history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about the current C&C, but one of the earlier ones re-wrote history so the nazis were on the allies side in WW2. I find that sort of historical revisionism to be disgusting. Because of that I have never bought any version of C&C and I haven't bought an EA game for years.

    1. Re:Last C&C rewrote history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Join the Nod side!

      I _AM_ you're father!

    2. Re:Last C&C rewrote history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and give them my money to reward their neo-nazi revisionism?

    3. Re:Last C&C rewrote history by prentiz · · Score: 1

      Or more accurately C&C Red Alert is set in a world where Hitler was killed in the 30s, so whilst the Germans may be on the allies side against Russia, they aren't Nazis.

    4. Re:Last C&C rewrote history by OutRigged · · Score: 1

      C&C Red Alert's story goes something like this.. In the 1940's, Einstien builds a time machine, and goes back to 1920's Germany, where he meets a young Adolf Hitler who's fresh out of prison. He then kills Hitler, altering the course of time.

      Fast forward to the 1940's, and instead of the Nazi's rising to power in Germany, we get Russia trying to conquer all of Europe.

      --
      RaGe
      We're all just noise on the wires..
    5. Re:Last C&C rewrote history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's even worse. For starters, Einstein is a pacifist who was unlikely to kill someone, even Hitler. So they turn WW2 Germany into the good guys, and a great Jew into someone evil. Not to mention under Einteinian physics, time travel is impossible.

      Let's not forget that in WW2, Germany attacked the Russians, and it was the Germans who were trying to conquer all of Europe.

      What does this historical revisionism add to the game anyway, it would play out just as well with the real time-line. Kids might play that game and thing that's what really happened. The golden rule is Never Forget, and EA is trying to muddle the facts.

      I hope there's a special place in hell set aside for the fuckers who made that game and run EA.

  28. They've come a long way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the eve of the twentieth century in 1899 a German called Delbrcks words were: We must become a world power ... we cannot go back. We can do this with England or against her. With her means peace; against her,war.'. History bears witness that one nation will go down as the cause of more deaths and misery through its acts of aggression in the last century than any other. So please do not be surprised if someone is trying to protect Germany's youth from making the same mistakes as their forefather's when they take the reigns of their country's leadership. The deaths of millions of people is a very heavy burden for a nation to carry.

    1. Re:They've come a long way by zero_offset · · Score: 1
      The deaths of millions of people is a very heavy burden for a nation to carry.

      It's also a very heavy burden for you to assign to a video game. Get a grip.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  29. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of coruse AIM-Bots will reduce the civilian and commercial impact.

  30. Clarification by HighFlyer · · Score: 1

    To make things a little bit clearer: The restriction of games like C&C is to protect the young ones.

    C&C was 'banned' because of the explicit and graphic visualisation of war, especially the attack on Bagdad.

    Seems quite ironic to me now that you can see live pictures of that very thing in the news all day long. Dead bodies in the afternoon news. Very nice, the little kids will love that.

    If you are 18+ you can still buy the game.

    --

    -- Truth suffers from too much analysis.
    1. Re:Clarification by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Another quirk: in the US, kids can play with war and gore to their hearts content, but as soon as a pair of breasts shows up, it's Mature content, and behind the counter it goes. In many European countries, they consider violence a more sensitive subject than sex.

    2. Re:Clarification by Magnacus · · Score: 1

      >Another quirk: in the US, kids can play with war
      >and gore to their hearts content, but as soon as a
      >pair of breasts shows up, it's Mature content, and
      >behind the counter it goes. In many European
      >countries, they consider violence a more sensitive
      >subject than sex.

      Yep! I totally agree!

    3. Re:Clarification by Kanon · · Score: 1

      I wish a pair of breasts had shown up when I used to play as a kid. It would have been more interesting than war I can tell you. :)

  31. Gay gay gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slow Down Cowboy!

    Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

    It's been -34 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment

    --

    Did I mention this is really gay? Please slashdot, stop being totally gay.

  32. http://www.moveon.org/declaration/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.moveon.org/declaration/

  33. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's conquer the French first to warm up. They sold nuclear weapons technology to Iraq in the 80's; they support terrorism.

  34. Mh, they have a point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from germany and i think they have a point in hiding it away. The reason i read was that some missions are to be solved by killing civilians.

    But who cares for the geneva conventions

    Everybody with a reasonable age is still in the position to play this game just that it is not allowed to advertise it.

    Cool down

    1. Re:Mh, they have a point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do have a point. The krauts are weak minded an lack critical thinking skills. With the rampant resurgence of Anti-Semetism in Germany, they may end up declaring war on Israel.

      The Geman gov't must avoid this at all costs. We all know who will exterminate whom this time.

  35. So. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should be a "Pass United Nations Resolution Condemning the Opposition" button which gives the player who presses it an automatic win? :-/

    I don't quite understand what it is exactly that they want Westwood to do.

  36. Can you imagine how much things would suck... by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1

    ... if German lawmakers ran the game industry? War games are war games because that's what's cool. What kind of boring stuff would Germany rather have its citizens play? Diplomacy games? Peacekeeping games? How about SimBlowhard, the true-to-life foreign relations sim, replete with advanced spin-doctor AI?

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    1. Re:Can you imagine how much things would suck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right.
      We need games which glorify violence, war and destruction. Aaaah, to kill someone so his guts are splashing all around, to use the force-feedback-chainsaw on his ass, to shit on his face when he is down - all those stylish american things make games what they are!

      Perhaps we could even have a Sim Kiddie-Porn. Or a kill-the-president JFK-Mod for Doom3. Bloooooood! Gooooore! Violenz! Our childen have to learn the cool things, killing, maiming, slaughtering, so they will become good little americans.

    2. Re:Can you imagine how much things would suck... by blackrider · · Score: 1

      I believe you did not get the point.
      The game is just limited to adult people and it may not get promoted officially.
      When I think of those mind limited kids out there, I wish there would be a kind of iq test as an access limitation to some stuff.
      Nevertheless I played C&C and I must confess although the game is fun they somehow really managed it to promote war in a way it made me feel sick.
      I sold the game on ebay.
      I can image there are people out there which believe in this messages, it'll be part of their socialisation and influence their way of thinking.
      In much parts there is too much enforcement on the regulation of unimportant stuff in Germany, but I am happy with this instance. At least it shows that someone cares about the next generation. That's something I really miss often in the US.

    3. Re:Can you imagine how much things would suck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Perhaps we could even have a Sim Kiddie-Porn. Or a kill-the-president JFK-Mod for Doom3. Bloooooood! Gooooore! Violenz! Our childen have to learn the cool things, killing, maiming, slaughtering, so they will become good little americans."
      SIGN ME UP FOR THE BETA

    4. Re:Can you imagine how much things would suck... by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1
      I can't believe you used 'suck' and 'Blowhard' in the same post, you naughty naughty person. :P

      --
      Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
    5. Re:Can you imagine how much things would suck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too!

  37. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Degaulle came to Canada during our FLQ crisis and tried to enourage terrorist activity here by shouting "long live a free quebec". France has a long history of being pro-terrorist.

  38. Well... by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1

    While I don't agree with government censorship for the most part, somehow the politics of their desicion slightly make me support the idea. I mean, it is not like the forbidding the sell of these games to assumingly mature adults, and recently I saw a C&C ad that basically said that war was the only option to peace (which kinda pissed me off). Well, I guess this really shows that though I value objectivity, I am really just a biased subjective bastard/hypocrit. Yeah, I suck.

    --

    This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

    1. Re:Well... by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1

      Sorry for mispellings and such, that is what you get for reading slashdot stories at 4 AM when you should be writing a paper due the next day.

      --

      This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

  39. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, and the British and the Americans, too! They sold chemical and bacteriological weapons (not even just the technology) to Iraq in the 80's! And given all the shit they've done around the world, they definitely support terrorism, whenever it suits them.

  40. Where do you start. by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'"

    Germany outlaws ideas, beliefs and feelings. If thought crimes ever existed, it will start in Germany.

    Of course, here in the USA, if you voice bias towards a minority, it can be considered a Hate Crime.

    -
    Political Correctness can bite my shiney metal ass.

    1. Re:Where do you start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outstanding... not only did you not read the article. You also failed to read the entire post. They didn't outlaw it. They made it illegal display it or sell it to anyone under the age of 18.

      Bar some of their laws concerning holocaust denial and ze making of various offensive poses and images, it's an extremely liberal country. You should go visit it some time.

    2. Re:Where do you start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They made it illegal display it or sell it to anyone under the age of 18.

      Oh yea, illegal isnt outlawed, oh wait it is....

    3. Re:Where do you start. by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 0
      If thought crimes ever existed, it will start in Germany.

      On a recent edition of his nightly program, O'Reilly said that "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me. "I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well, let's just say you will be spotlighted. Talking points invites all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in."

      zwire.com
      what a great, free country!

      mainstream media outlet brainwash seems to work very well so far. how come that powell and the likes can command the us media not to show certain footage? oh, sure... the masses might start to remember that people die at war and that the mere process of assaulting "innocent" countries (what exactly DID saddam do to threaten us security? what exactly IS the justification for breaking international law?) produces injustice, suffering and the exact opposite of all those things the gvmnt pretends to bring to the iraqi people.

      During World War I sauerkraut was renamed liberty cabbage and frankfurters became hot dogs. great outlook for the "freedom" the us wants bring the world. language cleansing usually is the first step towards fascism and censorship.

      oh, topic: protection of minors is taken rather seriously in germany - doesnt always work, but prevents the worst excrescences. stop confusing that with censorship (go check a dictionary if you need to).

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    4. Re:Where do you start. by sm1979 · · Score: 1

      This is not quite true. In any liberal democracy including germany only things you say or do can be outlawed. Being a nazi isn't a crime. Running around in a SS uniform denying the holocaust is.

      Besides that, I can understand that CC Generals was put on the index. I like war strategy games myself, but seriously, building suicide bombers as part of a game is a bit tasteless. Not to speak of attacking humanitarian aid convoys etc. This is pure cynism if it's meant to be a game.

    5. Re:Where do you start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it is not.

      It is a two step system in Germany.

      One there is the Index, it contains books, movies, games etc. If a title is on this list it is not illegal to sell it you just can't sell it to any minor (that means under the age of 18).

      Then there is the "banned" part. Items on this list are illegal to sell or show. You can still OWN it though without any implications if you already had it before it came onto the list.

      BTW, the "no advertising" thing makes sense, why tempt kids if they shouldn't get it in the first place? If you go to the video store and want to get into the adult section you have to be 18 as well and that's the same with the games. Show your ID and you can buy it.

    6. Re:Where do you start. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      things you say

      Well, you see, in America we have freedom of expression. It's not something granted to us by the government, it's recognized as an inalienable natural right.

      If you control what someone says, you are already very close to controlling what people think. What if the halocaust didn't happen? Were you there? Did you see it?

      Now, I'm not seriously denying the halocaust, but my point is, by supressing the speech to the contrary, Germany has effectively said, "this is the only correct way to think".

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    7. Re:Where do you start. by sm1979 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in principle. Of course, this basically is an infringement of the right to speech.

      I have a lot of sympathy for the liberal American constitution but on the other hand, judging from history, I have also a lot of understanding for the German concept of a well-fortified democracy.

      Besides the core parts of the constitution which are not alterable, this includes several mechanisms forbidding any nazi propaganda, denial of the holocaust or any other political agitation which at its heart, aims at removing the constitutional order itself. It even goes far enough to forbid political parties although this was used only once and is indeed a very extreme measure in a democracy. How could a democratic constitution give the right to agitate towards its abolition? It's abolished as soon as the majority doesn't believe in it anymore, but no minority should have the right to do so.

      In general, this limitation to the right of expression is agreed upon by a large majority thereby saying that indeed anyway of thinking so is plain wrong. And rightly so.

      As long as the freedom of expression is limited only in exactly this sense, it is ok with me. Luckily, there's the constitutional court to guarantee above all politics that it stays that way.

      Still you're right, that Germany doesn't qualify as the most liberal country. I fear, Germany is eternally conservative until the end of times. History didn't prove me wrong yet. :-)

  41. Rah! Rah! Rah! Boom! Hail Army and West Point ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    On, brave old Army team!
    On to the fray.
    Fight on to victory
    For that's the fearless Army way.

  42. Thanks a lot, I'll sure sleep better at night now. by danro · · Score: 1

    And here I were beeing smug over the whole "freedom fries/toast" thingy.
    ...but along comes the friggin Ministry Of Trivial Stupidity and proves that laughable selective stupidity is indeed global, and yes it affects us in the EU too.

    Last time I checked something like 90% of all games was insanely violent, but... hey lets single one random game out ond pick on it.
    I'm sure it will save our children real soon now.

    Shape up Germany, you are seriously hampering my ability to look down my nose at USians ;-)

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  43. Bad for Germany by fm6 · · Score: 1
    You have to respect Germany's desire to break away from its past. But censorship is not the way to do it. You can't simply outlaw philosphies you don't like. Germany has tried to ban anything resembling a Nazi party for over 50 years. It's illegal (or was the last time I looked -- been a few years) in that country even to display a swastika. (Except in a "historical context", which I find disturbingly vague.) Does that prevent the spread of neo-Nazism and racism in Germany? Not at all, there's still a lot of it. All the censorship does is give Nazism, racisim, and militarism an underground glamour.

    The only way to change is to bring all the ideas out into the open, even the evil ones. Especially them.

    1. Re:Bad for Germany by Doctor+O · · Score: 1
      You are missing the point here. Nothing is censored at all. You can get the game anywhere without problems, as long as you are 18+ years old. This is about protecting children, not about censorship.

      Don't get me wrong here, I find this ridiculous, too - the kids will play them games anyway - but at least they make a valid point. (It used to be *much* more ridiculous in the 80s when they were a bit off the track with the games they chose to be indexed.)

      I wish it worked, but I guess I will continue being 0wn3d in C&C by 13-year-olds. *sigh*

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
    2. Re:Bad for Germany by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      Most of the NeoNazi stuff I have seen in Germany has been in the former East. And, it is important to state this, that American NeoNazis have been expelled from Germany for recruiting, etc. As for the Swastika, give Germany credit. They went from 0 to decently tolerant in about 50 years (the Turks are one real problem they still haven't gotten around, but I bet they will, without violence. We've been half-assing it for 200+ years. I never felt strange walking with a African friend while in Germany, but, growing up in Southern Virginia, just being seen play with a black kid would get your ass kicked.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    3. Re:Bad for Germany by gotan · · Score: 1

      This is not censorship, it's restricting minors access to such games. If that is justified and done in an efficient way is up for discussion.

      The german constitution allows banning any party that is against this constitution and which intents to weaken or undermine it (maybe there's a similar clause in other constitutions too). That clause was also used against a communist party once, and is generally considered against extremist (left and right) parties.

      Yes, it is forbidden to display swastikas, it's also forbidden to misrepresent germanys past. Those swastikas are are usually used to convince people that Hitler had all the right ideas and that we should get back to those "good old times", which, among other things, is against the constitution. Also the swastikas were outlawed to distinct post-war-germany from the 3rd Reich.

      The "historical context"-part is necessary to allow depicting of nazis in historical contexts, like in history books, for educational use, in movies about the Nazi-times and exhibitions. There's no political gatherings disguising as "historical meetings" or political magazines coming along as "historical information leaflets".

      In fact forbidding swastikas does help to reduce the spread of neo-nazism in germany. Public display of swastikas will always lead to public awareness and generally arouse more anti-nazi sentiments than pro-nazi. Were swastikas allowed the issue would have probably been muddied down, and that would have helped to spread nazi-memes under the disguise of "nordic ideals" or similar nonsense.

      The most important law against neo-nazism IMO is that the german history in WWII may not be misrepresented. This makes it impossible to misrepresent the nazis as innocents and to deny the existence of concentration camps.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    4. Re:Bad for Germany by uradu · · Score: 1

      While you have a point, you also have to realize that Germany is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they hadn't introduced any of these special restrictions dealing with the Nazi past, they would have been accused of not really having changed. But they did pass special legislation, so now they're accused of not really being democratic. The thing is that the importance of these restrictions diminishes with time, and no doubt there will come a day when they will be lifted entirely.

      Being a German that has lived for 11 years in the US, I personally feel more concerned about the radical elements in the US society than those in the German society. German faschism is a well-known element that has been experienced first-hand, and while it probably never will vanish entirely (in any society, it seems), it can be controlled quite effectively. The US OTOH have had no similarly catastrophic experience with radicalism, so the tendency is to disregard the danger that it poses as insignificant within this society. That's why you're much more likely to read articles about the resurging Neo-Nazi movement in Germany than about the loss of civil liberties in this country. All things being equal, I'm a lot more concerned about the mixing of political and religious conservativism that is gripping this country than about Germany rearming and conquering Europe again. Left unchecked, people like Ashcroft would like nothing more than to give us a society in which you can be arrested for doing your lover doggie-style or for not praying before your meal.

    5. Re:Bad for Germany by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      ...growing up in Southern Virginia, just being seen play with a black kid would get your ass kicked.

      I grew up in southern Virginia (about 30 minutes from the Carolina border), and that was never the case. I had black friends, and so did many folks. This was in the eighties; certainly things were different in the past, as a direct result of the War of Northern Aggression.

    6. Re:Bad for Germany by fm6 · · Score: 1
      it's also forbidden to misrepresent germanys past.
      So it's illegal to claim that the death camps are a myth. Which lots of people believe. Doesn't say much about their intelligence, but it's an honestly-held belief.

      Contemplate the absurdity of trying to regulate what people believe.

    7. Re:Bad for Germany by fm6 · · Score: 1
      You know, I have a lot of respect for what Germany has accomplished since Der Führer thew his final tantrum. I know damned well most Germans are painfully aware of their past, and determined not to repeat it. So who damns them or doesn't damn them does really matter. What matters is how to deal with that past.

      Everybody's favorite strategy seems to be, "we passed a law against it, that solves that problem". Does work in the U.S., doesn't work in Germany.

    8. Re:Bad for Germany by gotan · · Score: 1

      So it's illegal to claim that the death camps are a myth.

      It is, and anyone publicating such lies in germany can (and probably will) get in legal troubles. There's still some groups who deny the existence of the concentration camps and try to get some advantages out of that, and there is a very small percentage of people who prefer believing them to facing the reality that they or their parents were part of this or at least let this happen. But since such lies have to be spread by mouth-to-mouth propaganda and most germans learn about the reality in history lessons only the most gullible believe in the lies.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  44. Sorry, Switzerland not Sweden by alistair · · Score: 1

    My mistake, sorry.

    By way of apology here is a link to a mildly amusing Picture of President Bush.

  45. Quit anyway by KillerLoop · · Score: 1

    Well, I know quite a few people who stopped playing it, including me, out of their own accord. I'm all against indexing and usually find it rather ridiculous to censor games.

    But in the case of C&C:Generals I can somehow understand it. The storyline was actually annoying and embarrassing to me. Nuking the Three Gorges Dam just to level a terrorist camp? Bomb a convention center to get them out? WTF?

    And don't even get me started on the GLA campaign were you have to slaughter civilians to further your score. Last time I checked terrorist weren't killing their own people like some crazed suicide commando out of Monty Phytons Flying Circus.

    It's the politically correct Westeners (actually the US) vs. the stinking abstract terrorists. Oh, there's China too which attacks only in numbers and doesn't care about civilian casualties. I mean hey, isn't that an exact portrayal of the world right now? *ugh* Not.

    This is not solely about strategy anymore, it's oversimplification bordering to propaganda. Not that I say this was intented this way, which I cannot know, but that's the impression I got.

    1. Re:Quit anyway by tbien · · Score: 1
      But in the case of C&C:Generals I can somehow understand it.
      I think one should not base his views on his personal morale. Either your against censorship or your in favour of it.
    2. Re:Quit anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well thank the gawds that the world is that black and white.

    3. Re:Quit anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/your/you are/g AND it's been -251 seconds since I last posted a comment. Oh wow, temporal displacement or what.

    4. Re:Quit anyway by KillerLoop · · Score: 2

      I'm with you. That's why I wrote that I can "somehow" understand it, and stated my reasons for doing so. However, I'm still against censorship and don't want to give the impression that I'm supporting it in the case of C&C, which I do not.

    5. Re:Quit anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Last time I checked terrorist weren't killing
      >their own people like some crazed suicide
      >commando out of Monty Phytons Flying Circus.

      Unless you count the Fedayeen mortaring their fellow countrymen in Basra.

    6. Re:Quit anyway by Herkules · · Score: 0

      Censorship of games is nothing more than what the people fell is none posetive influens!

      But who cares ? Its censorship of views and ideas witch is scary!

      I say more free speach (views ideas thought) and less war/violens etc... as entertainment!

      =)

      --
      CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
  46. Troll Ahoy! by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 1

    It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.

    <troll>
    So, will GWB be refused a visa next time he visits Deutschland?
    </troll>

    1. Re:Troll Ahoy! by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      You don't require a visa, to travel between the US and the EU, neither between the US and Japan, for that matter.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    2. Re:Troll Ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about GWB being arrested for war crimes and/or for attacking Iraq without permission from the UN?

    3. Re:Troll Ahoy! by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you happen to have parent which come from a semi-randomly selected country, in which case you need to have a biometric card, put your DNA in the hands of the government and have your dick-lenght/bra-size tattoo'd on your forehead.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    4. Re:Troll Ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol. very funny :|

    5. Re:Troll Ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually someone was suggesting to get GWB arrest for breaking the german law by promoting war......

      Interresting to see if the german justice system would have the guts to do that (very doubtful but it would most definetly be the right thing to do).

      Of course Germany doesn't have Guantanamo Bay so I guess he would even be treated in accordance with international laws and human rights.

    6. Re:Troll Ahoy! by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you happen to have parent which come from a semi-randomly selected country

      Actually that's "Unless of course you happen to have a parent come from a country whose majority of citizens have brown or darker skin and/or follow a religion other than a sect of Christianity".

  47. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Americans encouraged the FLQ to launch terrorist attacks in Canada?

  48. Wrong move.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if Saddam and Bush had such games in their youths they wouldn't need to get their excitement in wasting soldiers now.

  49. gifts still allowed? by John_Renne · · Score: 1

    I remember getting most of the games I ever played as a gift from my parents. IF C&C can be sold to adults I think it realy won't help. Violence isn't stopped by banning games in my opinion. It's the role-model kids see that's influencing them the most

    --
    /(bb|[^b]{2})/
  50. I'd sleep better at night if you would RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not singling out one game. RTFA. If you want to look down one something, at least try and know what you're talking about.

  51. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So did the US, no nuclear weapons, but weapons, to support Saddam in his war agains Iran.

    THE US SUPPORT TERRORISM!!!!!

  52. Bah by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

    "War as the only resolution" blah-di-blah. That's just stupid politician-talk, making use of the current anti-war feelings in Germany.

    In reality, the game was endangered from the day it came out, and we all here in Germany knew that. See, there's this stupid law to make sure that there are no violent games out there...displaying force against humans or even humanoids.

    Except for a few politicians, we are pretty irritated by it, seeing as we are perfectly able to distinguish between shooting at a human as opposed to clicking a mouse button while looking at colorful little dots.

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
    1. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait till Far Cry comes out..

  53. Why mention Harry Potter? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

    We're all nerds here, right? One word: Battlechess.

    1. Re:Why mention Harry Potter? by Atomic+Fro · · Score: 1
      Exactly. All these Real Time Strategy games really are are a glorified and more involving version of chess. The only real differnce is that instead of being turn based its *Real-Time.*

      I really think this is obscene. Any one know if Battlechess or the above Win3.1 Starwars Chess game is on Germany's hit list?

      --

      ==================
      Hippie Logger Jock
      ==================
    2. Re:Why mention Harry Potter? by yuggoth · · Score: 1
      I really think this is obscene. Any one know if Battlechess or the above Win3.1 Starwars Chess game is on Germany's hit list?

      seems they're not - see http://www.bpjs-indiziert.de/ for a complete list of all games, videos, books etc. on the German Index.

      --
      Cthulhu fhtagn!
    3. Re:Why mention Harry Potter? by TwistedSquare · · Score: 1

      I'd argue it's more to do with realism - no-one could really argue against stratego or chess as they are so abstract. C&C gets right in there showing tanks blowing up and guys dying. I think it sounds like a good system - the game isn't banned but it isn't allowed to be advertised, better than anything the RIAA or MPAA might impose in similar circumstances!

  54. Moorhuhn by clickety6 · · Score: 1



    Especially as one of the biggest selling, most poular series of games in Germany is "moorhuhn" where you use a shotgun to balst defenceless birds out of the sky.

    At least in C+C the enemy can shoot back! :-)

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    1. Re:Moorhuhn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DUCK HUNT

  55. in that case: by x0n · · Score: 1

    If the Germans are putting the game on the restricted list because 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts', by extension of the same logic, shouldn't the United States drop the price 50% maybe or, uh, just give it away free?

    As regards those of you implying that the Germans shy away from violence on TV, on the contrary -- in my many visits there, I've noticed that some of the content is quite graphic and very violent. But the big difference is that the violence they show on TV is nine times out of ten the real thing: news of robberies, middle-east conflict, wars etc. They tend (AFIACT) to not show depicted/fictional violence which although may be condescending to most of us, implying that we cannot tell the difference between depicted and actual violence, but at least young children will not be wondering if it's real or not.

    Additionally, they are well aware of their violent past and are not trying to ignore/hide it. Any time I was there, there was usually some kind of WWII documentary going on somewhere on TV.

    - Oisin

    --

    PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    1. Re:in that case: by Hanno · · Score: 1

      It's often claimed that there's a difference in culture between Europe and the US when it comes on what is acceptable on TV and what not.

      The US shy away from showing naked people on screen, while a woman flashing bare breasts is part of more or less every shower gel or deodorant commercial over here. And what they show on late night TV here would classify as hard porn for some Americans.

      The Europeans shy away from showing violent movies that are violent for the sake of violence (e.g. Slasher movies) while you guys didn't seem to have a problem with taking your kids to the Rambo and Schwarzenegger killfests. Which, btw., where age restricted in Germany and cut when shown on TV.

      --

      ------------------
      You may like my a cappella music
    2. Re:in that case: by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      Damn I need to move to Europe. I love naked women. :)

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    3. Re:in that case: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh give me a big breasted California girl any day of the week. Though those Switzerland women are very lovely as well. Oh the beauties of the world, I could never muster enough rubber to sate myself should I be given such perfect access. *sigh*

    4. Re:in that case: by x0n · · Score: 1

      True, but even within Europe things can differ. I'm an Irishman, living in London, UK. Their respective censor boards (for rating a cinema release PG, 12, 15, 18 etc) are different, with the Irish censor board being more lenient with sexual content (goes against the Irish church-going stereotype, I know), whereas the the English are more relaxed about violence (very much goes with the English stereotype lager-lout). e.g. A film with heavy sexual content may well be rated 15 in Ireland, and 18 in the UK, and vice-versa with a very violent film. Hmmm.

      - Oisin

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
  56. Goes something like this... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Any publicity is good publicity, and good publicity is even better.

    This embedded comment brought to you by the Council on Opinions Galore.

  57. On second thought ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. at a first glance its pretty obvious. Sure now, during their arguments with the axes of real Evil (Bush, Aznar, ...) Germany tries to underline their political statement to the public.

    But think about it. Arent the medias and entertainment the main part of this war? And i think many people have mostly mental pictures from some fascist hollywood war movies in their head when they bladdering something about "we just defend ourselfs". Sure there is the evil guy (Saddam) and there is the brave guy, who just wants his "damn right to feel safe". This simplicity doesnt exist, but if people imagine it this way they have no problem to kill or let kill some people they dont know.

    I think its a good thing not to let this kind of war propaganda in the future to the people, because youve seen it this time, how easy it was to start this war.

  58. Re:They're just jealous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont believe that this german decision can be understood by the majority of the rest of the world espacially by the american people.

    And telling us that we would be more tolerant when having own troops (even SS troops) in such a game shows how less you really understand!!!

    But fact is, putting violent games on a black list is nothing special over here in germany. A large amount of fp-shooters are on that list and every game that is about shooting and killing human beeings as main part of the game has a big chance to join that blacklist. That was in times of peace and stays also nowadays. I am convinced that this decision has nearly nothing to do with that war, even if it seems so.

    By the way, in my opinion americans should better have a president that was elected and is more intelligent than a bread. Because dumb people can be affected too easyly by the great economics.

  59. Well at least Germany isn't lying... by arthur5005 · · Score: 1

    because I'll tell you, in the intro video of that game, it specifically says:

    "In The Modern World. Great Leaders Resolve There Conflicts With Words.... Words Like: SCUD LAUNCHER (image of a scud missile's launching) CARPET BOMBING (image of a plane carpet bombing a city) TOMAHAWK MISSLE (image of a tomahawk missile launching)

    Can you be a Great Leader?"

    Well at least something can be said for honesty..

  60. You do that. by danro · · Score: 1

    If you want to look down one something, at least try and know what you're talking about.

    What? And break the good old slashdot tradition of screaming bloody murder without actually knowing what I'm talking about?

    Seriously, I don't matter much to me if a country have uniformly applied standards of censorship or not.
    The whole idea of not letting a publisher advertise for a blody game seems a little too authoritarian for my taste.

    Tobacco or alcohol, for example I could understand since you could make a solid case that they are harmful, but a game?
    Code is speech. period.
    As for looking down on people, I would think that the ";-)" following immediately after that statment would imply that it was sort of thounge in cheek, but apparently that didn't come across for all readers...

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:You do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      learn to spell.

  61. They just don't get it... by bazmonkey · · Score: 1

    1) Parents will just buy the games for their children after muttering the German equivalent of "Just remember honey, this is make believe".

    2) It's not like war as conflict resolution is going to go away because kids didn't practice on their computers.

    3) It's not like war as conflict resolution will get any *worse* because kids do practice on their computers.

    4) Basically it's a lot of pointless rules that does absolutely no good and makes a bunch of stinky computer geeks complain on /. and just want the game that much more.

  62. Not all of the reason by Hanno · · Score: 1

    The problem of "C&C Generals" is that it portrays war as a "fun thing" - yay, let's go to war! The spoken comments of the game characters, the game's settings - I read a report that says that the game campaign includes targetting civilians (and calls this "acceptable collateral damage") and bombing UN convoys. The game is, in one word, cynical.

    Yes, I do like strategy games and first person shooters. But these games are usually set in an alternate reality or at least use broad irony. "C&C Generals" is set in a copy of today's world and it uses conflicts similar to current ones as blueprints for its scenarios, using highly cynical approaches to "solve" them.

    There's a difference between James Bond and the late Rambo movies...

    --

    ------------------
    You may like my a cappella music
    1. Re:Not all of the reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never let it be said that American's don't "get" sarcasm.
      Oh wait...

    2. Re:Not all of the reason by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Depending on who's doing the planning, both "acceptable collateral damage" and attacking UN convoys strike me as realistic, not cynical. Brutal, yes... but it may be a good thing to remind people how vicious it can be.

      The former certainly was common in the Second World War; in fact, both the Allies and the Axis deliberately targeted civillians in their bombing / rocket campaigns. It still occurs today, to a certain degree. For instance, consider the apparent errant missile strike that killed perhaps a few dozen Iraqi citizens in a market lately. From what I've heard, the objective may have been a mobile missile launcher that was in the vicinity. Since the US knows full well that while its Tomahawks are pretty damned accurate, they're not perfect, it implies some non-zero tolerance for civilian casualties in order to hit valid military targets.

      The whole Palestinian-Israeli conflict also involves frequent targeting of civilians by both sides -- with Palestinians attacking Israeli communities, and Israelis retalliating against just about everybody. In both of their viewpoints, the niceties of "civilized" warfare lose to their objectives of ejecting either the Israeli settlers or the Palestinian militants.

      The UN has also been considered fair game by at least some combatants in recent conflicts, such as the whole mess in Somalia. UN troops have been intimidated, robbed, shot, and probably kidnapped and whatever else.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  63. Since when? by L053R · · Score: 1

    How did Germany, the main driving force behind WW1 and WW2 suddenly go anti-war?
    We are talking about the first people to defeat the Romans and drive them out of Northern Europe!
    Now, they hate war, hate the US but still want to continue to trade with terrorist. I'm confused..?

    --
    L053R
    1. Re:Since when? by x0n · · Score: 1

      Prior to EA taking over Westwood, the games were fairly abstract, or at least set way out of context 60 years ago, e.g. C&C Red Alert. I wonder is this the result of EA's marketing honchos?

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    2. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont you believe, that just this two wars have affected us in a way that cant be complied with different countries.
      In our past our country stood for the evil in the world, thats true and can be understood.
      Every human beeing tries to learn from their own faults, so do we.
      Nobody overhere (except dumb people) hate the us or their inhabitants. Thats not true. We respect and like the usa and their people. But what we dont like is their government and their actual way of solving problems in the world.
      Their intolerant way of reaction to our well discussed decision not to join this war. The friendship between our nations takes damage just because we have a different perspective to this things. When a friend of mine has a different opion I wont ignore him, perhaps I will stay at my opinion but I will not let damage our friendship but think about his opinions, perhaps they are right...

    3. Re:Since when? by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      I'm confused..?


      Yes ...
      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    4. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we must pay for the sins of our past! Even if they are... almost 2000 years old LOL!
      Europe knows best what war is like, that's why we are not warmongering imperialists like some country's.

    5. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we learned

      we learned not to believe sensless patriotism trying to blind us

      we learned not to let us blind by flashy homeland security colors

      we learned not to follow "great leaders"

      we learned to question things the media tells us

      we learned that war is not a solution

      we learned to see behind stupid propaganda

      we learned to see when a war is constructed, we did ourself against poland 60 years ago

      we learned to question "evidence" and to see when it is forged ... and we just learned that those who helped us to see 60 years ago are now blinded, their media is "gleichgeschaltet", their war is constructed, their people are blinded by flashy homeland security colours and government inspired fear (duct-tape-style) against foreign nations

    6. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused

      No, you are just plain idiot.... The next time you want to write something, leave it to someone else. No No dont think it is dangerous for your health. You only have 1 brain cell left undamaged dont push your luck.

      Remember to breath, eat, and shit. Dont think.

    7. Re:Since when? by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 0
      I'm confused..?

      dont watch too much tv, that should certainly help ;)

      hate the US

      they dont. they are disappointed by the fact that the people in the us dont seem to wake up. they have no problem with americans, they have a problem with the american leaders and their "if youre not for us, youre against us" ideology and general ignorance of international law and consent.

      and, as others pointed out: it is possible to learn from the past. some do, some dont. some take longer, some need to learn it the hard, painful way. us military is headed for the verrrry hard way of learning what can be done and what cant. i think that might dawn on large portions of the us population real soon.

      still, old europe as it is now called can clearly differenciate between gwb and the americans; being anti-war does not mean being anti-american. this concept is probably beyond what some posters here can grasp.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    8. Re:Since when? by DF5JT · · Score: 1

      "How did Germany, the main driving force behind WW1 and WW2 suddenly go anti-war? "

      Suddenly? Hardly.

      Germany has lived in peace for over 50 years now, after two nightmares that left most cities in rubbles, families torn apart, killed 6 million innocent people etc.

      Has it occured to you that Germany is fed up with war with all its facettes?

      The US has been in the most desirable position of not having a war on their home soil, with two notable exceptions in 1941 and 2001.

      I only fear that this overly zealous march into the Middle East will convince terrorists to hit America where it hurts most: at home.

      I pray for the American people to be spared what Germany and Japan had to suffer through during the war. Given that backgound, it is hardly difficult to understand that Germany does not want to be part of any active war any more.

    9. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The US has been in the most desirable position of not having a war on their home soil, with two notable exceptions in 1941 and 2001.


      Exceptions also exist in 1776, 1812, and 1861.

    10. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany is a participant in this war. They are a prime military supplier to the Iraqis.

      It is a might bit hypocritical to affect an anti-war stance whilst you are busy making hay from it, I think.

      If the Germans were true pacifists, their government would shut down the german arms industry instead of banning video games.

    11. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you ARE confused... go read a couple history books on the origins of the first and second world wars...

    12. Re:Since when? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > The US has been in the most desirable position of not having a war on their home soil, with two notable exceptions in 1941 and 2001.

      I think it is dangerous to blur the distinction between a crime and a war. The destruction of two buildings by civilians who kidnapped a plane was not an act of war, but an act of terror. A crime of the worst sort.

      Sebastian

    13. Re:Since when? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Germany is a participant in this war. They are a prime military supplier to the Iraqis.

      This is untrue. Much of Iraqi military equipment has been supplied by the US during the first Gulf War (Iraq vs. Iran) or by the Soviets (btw, why, if Iraq was US backed?) (Scud etc.). After 1991, the sanctions were in place.

      > It is a might bit hypocritical to affect an anti-war stance whilst you are busy making hay from it, I think.

      Please, support your allegations with facts!

      > If the Germans were true pacifists, their government would shut down the german arms industry instead of banning video games.

      Arms exports from Germany are very strictly regulated. Even allied countries such as Turkey have occasionally had problems with strict regulations in Germany, since they could not guarantee the weapons would not be used against internal opposition (Kurds).

      Sebastian

    14. Re:Since when? by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      The Germans should also realize that even if you don't want it, a war may come to you anyway -- and not on your own terms. Poland didn't want the Heer to come marching in, anymore than the Kuwaitis wanted to be annexed or the Israelis appreciate being blown up.

      One could argue that the United States and terrorists have been at war for many years -- as a victim, such as in the bombing of the Marine embassy in Beirut; and as a participant (if usually indirect one), by backing states (notably Israel) and organizations (intelligence organizations of other states) whose interests frequently involve opposing terrorists more directly. From that point of view, attacks on the United States and its interests are likely inevitable unless it were to completely withdraw from world affairs, which is not going to happen.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    15. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'll tell you why the germans don't want a war.. there are of course, the pacifists... but this also has to be considered: germany has pratically no troops that could've been sent to iraq. and they are jalous! do you think they like it, when other countries can enrich themselves with oil?(let's assume the us will take advantage of the oil fields, when war is over, what is quite probable.) it would of course strengthen the us-gb economy. schroeder also said he dint want a war when he was trying to be elected. some people consider this as one of the major reasons for his election.

    16. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US ppl live in stereotypes, that's why you are confused. Take a red pill :)

    17. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was an act of war.
      Committed by specially trained foreigners supplied and actively protected by a foreign government (Taliban.)

    18. Re:Since when? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > It was an act of war.
      > Committed by specially trained foreigners supplied and actively protected by a foreign government (Taliban.)

      I think a terrorist act is not an act of war unless some country _officially_ did it. You can't be in a state of war with John Doe, can you?

      Of course a terrorist act might be considered a reason for war, which is something completely different.

  64. Finally, something stupid Bush didn't do by alizard · · Score: 1
    Will chess be banned next? After all, checkmate comes from the Persian "shah mat", i.e. "The shah is dead". Will they be banning the books of von Clauswitz? Sun Tzu?

    Of course combat games don't present peaceful solutions to conflict. Would you buy them if they did?

    Being against war is one thing. Thinking that a video game will turn a user into a terrorist or Rambo is just plain stupid. Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

    Besides, C&C is more about learning how to collect and organize resources than anything else, new armies have to be built from local materials. Make or buy decisions. Those are lessons equally applicable to the military, business, or government. That gives it a certain redeeming value.

    The real world is becoming more warlike and shielding people from "warlike" ideas is not exactly positive for their survival.

    Of course, Germany also bans Nazi and other kinds of sites as well, practicing information control with the kind of enthusiasm and efficiency Joseph Goebbels could have only dreamed of.

    It's difficult to believe that this makes Germany as a country or Germans as a people any safer.

    1. Re:Finally, something stupid Bush didn't do by adri · · Score: 1

      .. you sound over 18. Or, at least, mature enough to understand the difference between make believe and reality. To see _past_ the simple parallels you could draw between real life situations and depicted violence in the game.

    2. Re:Finally, something stupid Bush didn't do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

      I think watching too many episodes of the A-team has made Bush what he is today

    3. Re:Finally, something stupid Bush didn't do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Of course, Germany also bans Nazi and other kinds of sites as well, practicing information control with the kind of enthusiasm and efficiency Joseph Goebbels could have only dreamed of. "

      And you wouldn't support banning nazi propaganda? How 'bout racist literature? Or kiddie porn? Or... etc.

      Aren't some things worth banning?

    4. Re:Finally, something stupid Bush didn't do by plierhead · · Score: 1
      Of course, Germany also bans Nazi and other kinds of sites as well, practicing information control with the kind of enthusiasm and efficiency Joseph Goebbels could have only dreamed of.

      Not really. Germany bans non-educational Nazi stuff (a bit too vigorously I agree). But banning is not the same as making new stuff up.

      Goebbels on the other hand created an entire alternate reality that changed the thinking of tens of millions of Germans and helped make it possible for them to see Jews, Communists, Slavs and others as somehow less human than them and thus as valid targets for persecution and extermination.

      --

      [x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful

  65. no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, not very surprising after what has happend in germany, although CS and the likes are the real bad boys IMHO, CS has done and will continue to do _ALOT_ of damage :( //Leiffi of Finland

  66. At least they are consistent by den_erpel · · Score: 1

    I guess much can be said about the influence of gaming/entertainment on upbringing and reasoning and if this should have such a significan weight.

    The least thing you can say that Germany is consistent and although this decision is probably influenced by recent events, I can support them (especially since it's not really censorship in the strictest sence: you can still buy the game without problem).

    btw, war isn't really resolving conflicts (ever), it's just anihilating it by destroying the oponent 's view (together with the oponent that is).

    --
    Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
  67. A certain "stench" to the game... by detritus. · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, the game's atmosphere does indeed have a pro-war, conservative biased smell to it. I won't go into specifics, because it's mostly bits and pieces that is better understood once played.

    One thing that I will touch on is C&C Generals Online's interesting (and mandatory) word filtering (both in chat rooms and in multiplayer games).
    Along with the traditional swear words, don't expect to use words such as:
    "saddam", "osama", "hitler", and "god". They will all show up as aterisks. If that's any indication to the mindset the developers/story writers are in, it's a pretty ludicrous one.

    1. Re:A certain "stench" to the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up.

  68. Just a cultural difference by double_u_b · · Score: 1

    In France, porn movies and reviews are on the higher shelves. They even can be in a different room, which access is restrained to adult people. In Germany, porn can on any shelf, but you can find video games shops where violent games are in a different room, for 18+. I remember when comanche (the first) has been declared "violent". Germany has a long story now of debates on which game is violent. What you can draw is that games that are addictive and in which you mae fun of killing people are "violent". Games like combat flight simulator are saw in a completely different way than C&C. Remember, Germany has even banned the "Jungle speed" card game, because it was too dangerous.(I aggree, this card game is deadly dangerous! But so fun!)

    1. Re:Just a cultural difference by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 0
      In Germany, porn can on any shelf

      im not sure where you get your information, but all i ever saw was videotheken having separate rooms for adult / pr0n movies. if they dont separate the stuff from the rest, they are required to keep minors out of the shop.

      youre right, though: age restrictions (and thats what the story is all about, even if most still dont seem to get it) sure have their pros and cons, and the debate in germany is still in progress.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
  69. wow by funkmastermike · · Score: 1

    162 comments and only 1 higher than +4!
    what am I to read?
    I say you give me +5 informative.

  70. First mission in German CC3 by S.I.O. · · Score: 1

    Using yellow and purple flowers, take out the tanks at the gate, then capture the infantry with hot chocolate and cookies. Give each guard a teddy bear and finally destroy the enemy HQ using the collected literary works of Gandhi. Secondary mission objective: disable the rocket launchers with chewing gum and doughnuts.

    1. Re:First mission in German CC3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the plotlint to MacGyver :)

  71. *sigh* by benson+hedges · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I feel the need to correct this, and risk my good karma by putting up something that, in peace time, would be labeled "+1 informative", and at the moment will most likely end up as "-1 flamebait". oh well, here we go.

    the german "Bundesruefstelle fuer jugendgefaehrdende Schriften" (federal department for the control of youth-endangering writings) maintains a list of products that are deemed "adult material". These products may neither be advertised, nor openly sold, but after an ID check may be sold to anyone age 18 or higher. these products fall into the following categories :

    • hard pornography
    • violence
    • drug abuse
    • political extremist material
    the first computer game ever to end up on this list was A10:Tank Killer. Other games include the Doom, Quake and Command and Conquer series. The Bundespruefstelle lost a lot of power over the years, but got a lot of influence after the Erfurt school shootings.

    and now for the reality check : as much as 18-year olds are able to obtain beer in the united states, 16-year olds can get a copy of C&C:Generals in Germany. if they can't buy it in their software shop of choice, they just get it per mailorder from Austria or Holland. the whole reason of this restrictive list is that, after WWII, there was a meme shift in Germany. The fascism meme (fascism as in "power trough violence") was replaced by the democracy meme, and most Germans/Western Europeans think that a game/book/movie that promotes the killing of human beings is not suited for kids.

    my point : this restriction list is not really potent, and has existed long before the current situation, even in a time when Germany and the US where close buddies. So don't see this as some kind of America-bashing. If we "old Europeans" accept the American attitude about gun ownage, you might as well accept ours.

    --
    Karma : Soylent Green (Mostly due to eating junk food and mocking religion)
    1. Re:*sigh* by nagora · · Score: 1
      The fascism meme (fascism as in "power trough violence") was replaced by the democracy meme,

      The exact opposite of the shift that occurred at the same time amongst the aristocracy of America, in fact.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:*sigh* by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > my point : this restriction list is not really potent

      Well, personally I think it is potent.
      It might not prevent a teenager from getting the game, but it displays the societies stand on that matter. And I think that is much more important than the ability to play it.

      A society which follows a clear line on a matter gives the necessary counter-balance, to set such games back into perspective.

      I think, playing such games do not promote such behaviour, iff the surroudings provide a good counter-balance to its statement. Listing such games enstrengthens the contra-position, and therefor does exactly what it is supposed to do.
      Demoting its unacceptable message (as considered by the German society, represented by the agency), without banning the game.

      The critical point is, the more often, this mean is employed, the less potent it will become.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    3. Re:*sigh* by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

      I'd just ask that you don't characterize the 'American' attitude of which you're speaking as 'American.' In the same way that 10% of the people in the world control something akin to 70% of the wealth, in 1998 (an old stat, not sure from whence it came) 10% of the people in the US control almost 70% of the guns.

      The attitude was one of our forefathers', important in a time of revolution and independant militia (before a nationalized or state army), and has carried over through the ages because of tradition. But, it's not as widespread as you seem to think, and as Michael Moore made the point in Bowling for Columbine, Canada (as opposed to the US I assume you were referring to) is a much smaller nation with a much higher per-capita gun rate. I'm just saying- please don't characterize us ALL as nuts, even though some of us may be (and to readers here- I'm not saying all gun owners are nuts, either!).

    4. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here. I still have my grandfather's old rifle from WWII. I also take it out to a range once in a while to fire a few rounds through it. He was a sniper during WWII and holding the weapon that kept him alive throughout it that he had received from a dying British soldier...well it holds a lot of sentimental value. The .303 Brit. One of the finest rifles ever built IMO. Just know that because we do enjoy guns over here, it is only those that abuse the *right* to bare (I will be buggered to lookup the proper use, too early) arms, are the only ones that are really publicized. I do think there should be a sort of 'filtering' test to chose who is sane enough to own a gun instead of just a lousy background check.

  72. Nice to see slashdot loosing it's objectivity by mark2003 · · Score: 1

    One of the things that used to impress me about /. was the fairly balanced viewpoints portrayed on this site. Unlike the Fray on Slate, there were very few racists and very few people making derogatory comments about other nations. Now I see posts talking about invading Germany, blaming all Germans for Hitler and abusing the French. Have you all suddenly become "patriots"? Or do we just have an invasion of 14 year olds getting over excited about seeing the war on TV? How would you Americans have felt if in October 2001 a German company had released a flight simulator that simulated a plane crashing into the World Trade Centre towers? Electronic Arts have been insensitive and are guilty or using the "patriotic" fervour that is very evident in the US at the moment to try and increase sales. What next? A Comand and Conquer that has an invasion of Mecca?

    1. Re:Nice to see slashdot loosing it's objectivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up. You're all babeling about the fact that Germany has banned the game...and they haven't! They just aren't advertising it on TV, and it won't be sold to minors.

    2. Re:Nice to see slashdot loosing it's objectivity by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      What next? A Comand and Conquer that has an invasion of Mecca?

      Don't give them any ideas. From what I've been hearing about Generals, I wouldn't put it past them.

    3. Re:Nice to see slashdot loosing it's objectivity by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      How would you Americans have felt if in October 2001 a German company had released a flight simulator that simulated a plane crashing into the World Trade Centre towers?

      I'd have called it insensitive, and would seriously reconsider doing any business with them. At the same time, I wouldn't go crying to mummy government that the bad men over there made an icky game that I don't like. I've got a few brain cells, I can make decisions for myself. From what this article sounds like, the German government doesn't seem to believe that a portion of their population has the same abilities.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  73. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh man, a slashdot discussion related to the game sounds just like the C&C online lobbies.

    I wish they'd sell the game only to adults, who have no caps lock key on their keyboards, elsewhere in the world as well.

  74. It's a good idea by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    And if it stops one German kid from declaring war on France then it will be worth it.

    1. Re:It's a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it stops one German kid from declaring war on France then it will be worth it.

      hooray US. we are so great, we are the best.

    2. Re:It's a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would at least prevent France from surrendering again.

    3. Re:It's a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you are referring to WW2: France declared war on Germany, FWIW. (Of course only after Germany had responded to repeated acts of provocation by the Poles by going in there) France, as an ally bound to Poland by treaty, then formally delcared war on Germany and the rest of the story as we all know it ensued.

    4. Re:It's a good idea by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the irelevent history lesson. What about the First World War?

      What I was talking about is that the only logical reason for not teaching kids that war is not the only option is to prevent them from declaring war. I chose France simply because that is the traditional enemy.

  75. The obvious solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a video game in which the goal is to convince the UN that they shouldn't allow conflict in a country you have oil interests in? Now that would be fun for the whole family!

  76. pointless by krautmann · · Score: 1

    The German federal minstry for family affairs had wished to capitalize on the current political situation. Of course that's pointless. Moreover, the ministry can only *apply* that a play be banned. The decision is made by an independent commision.

    The real problem is: should a government ban offensive material like violent films, porn, plays etc, and if yes, what must be tagged "offensive", and how should it be banned? This discussion goes on for decades now, in every Western country.
    In general, the European point of view tends to be more permissive with porn, the American, with violence. However, although sometimes stated, it has never been proven that consuming porn produces rapists, nor that playing war games harms innocent youngsters.

    The German procedure it as follows: porn only for adults, no public advertising of genitals. The definition for pornography is "explicit display of genitals during intercourse". Compared to US standards, a rather liberal definition. For games and films, there is a list maintained by said commision. Games (and films) on the list must not be sold to juveniles, nor advertised.

    Of course, these lists and bans will hardly have any effect at all. No bureaucrat will hinder people from having a good wank, or practicing how to become the Butcher of Baghdad. In Germany and elsewhere.

    And finally: like most things happening in Germany, this affair has *nothing*, I repeat: **nothing** to do with Germany's past.

    1. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the cnet article: The director of the German federal bureau that reviews media products for the youth market said the game had been restricted because it glorified war.
      "It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts," said the director, Elke Monssen-Engberding, whose agency is part of the Ministry for Family Affairs.

      The influence on the target audience is limited: If the kids want it, they pirate it. But putting a game on the list of restricted software severely limits the commercial success of the product.

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

      >>And finally: like most things happening in Germany, this affair has *nothing*, I repeat: **nothing** to do with Germany's past.

      Agreed: In the past, instead of just banning it, you would have burned copies of C&C.

      In another 50 years who knows how far Germany will come.

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

      u lot r twats

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

      he is right, u rcomplete gimps

      i had a vote in my school and 10,000 out of 10,003 said u lot r nobheads. those 3 r members on ur sites

      the messaage is

      u r fuking cool

  77. Who cares? by VirtualChris.com · · Score: 1

    C&C Generals ROX. If they want to ban it SO WHAT (it's just a game for crimeny). Maybe they should BAN movies made in Hollywood depicting WAR as well (Don't get me started on those hypocrites that oppose the war but make $$$ off of making WAR MOVIES)! ...or maybe they should be like JAPAN and BAN GUNS... All I care about is that I LIVE HERE.... I AM FREE AND I CAN CHOOSE TO LIVE MY LIFE HOW I WISH WITH NO CENCORSHIP. Joke 'em if they can't take a fuck.

    1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You live in the free america without any censorship...
      Well great, but I prefer living here and still have the right to say what I want. Still have a right on my private sphere and don`t have to fear to get watched by a kind of NSA all time long, when I decide to wear a beard.

    2. Re:Who cares? by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      I AM FREE AND I CAN CHOOSE TO LIVE MY LIFE HOW I WISH WITH NO CENCORSHIP. Yup. At least as long as you aren't shot by some whacko with a sniper rifle (!) while buying gasoline. Real great to be an American. I pity you, really.

  78. Thought Police In Action by helix400 · · Score: 1
    What a completely pathetic excuse to restrict a game. "It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts." What a load of crap. Violence is reasonable excuse, mature content is reasonable excuse...but this left-slanted, ideological, and inaccurate viewpoint is NOT a valid reason.

    I find it ironic that Germany claims to have a perfect knowledge of war, and because of that, they've concluded that they will never EVER go back to the ways of Nazism. Yet what are they doing? Forcing a politcal mindset upon a population!

    If Germany wanted to enforce this liberal viewpoint, they could have found far better things to restrict. I mean, a computer game? Everyone knows computer games are a fantasy world. Kids are smart enough to know that gaming foreign policy ("napalm those guys standing there...I want to want that hilarious burning stick figure animation again") is completely opposite to real world foreign policy ("Killing people really really sucks, lets try to talk it out first.") This whole idea seems less to do with German idealism, and much more like an opportunity to appear smarter and more mature than America.

    Going after computer games...German leaders may think they are philisophical gurus, but they sure don't have any common sense.

    1. Re:Thought Police In Action by Hanno · · Score: 1

      Yet what are they doing? Forcing a politcal mindset upon a population!

      "Of course we're not surprised that the Germans are against war. We taught you so."

      A senior member of the US diplomatic corps, talking to DER SPIEGEL magazine about Germany's stand in the UN security council, requesting that his name was withheld.

      --

      ------------------
      You may like my a cappella music
    2. Re:Thought Police In Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we in europe have free media, porn and whatever, you got an overreligious puppet president, no p0rn and lots of patriotism

      thats only fair, after all who needs a thought police when they got fox.

      Face it, germany is the free world now, america is just a bunch of patriotic flag swingers (was the other way around a few years ago)

    3. Re:Thought Police In Action by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 0
      Forcing a politcal mindset

      did you see any recent war coverage on cnn, fox etc lately? ever wondered WHY they show you what they show? or why you dont see certain images and are deprived of certain facts and news? whos forcing what on whom? do the iraqi people want to be "liberated" that way?
      strike-the-root.com

      upon a population!

      read the article: upon MINORS. its called protection of minors and it happens in accordance with german law. you might not like it - and lots of germans find it useless to restrict advertizing and sales in such a manner - but its a normal process. its not politically motivated or even remotely iraq-related. the decision was made long ago. not by the government but by a competent supervisory authority, which is a normal process in germany. you can still buy the game - but you need to grow up first. if this is all wrong, we should also grant minors the right to buy alcohol, drugs and porn without restrictions - wouldnt that be true freedom!?

      to appear smarter and more mature than America.

      thats easy. anyone can do it, even iraq. most of the world opposes the war - can they all be wrong or is it just that not everyone wants to be a sucker for gwb and his militia and not everyone is brainwashed by the us governments media outlets?


      fox / oreilly, cnn and all the rest do a better thought police job than youd ever find in germany. random example of a free country where you can express your views freely: channelonenews.com

      doesnt anyone notice the drift towards fascism in the us leadership? go read the definition and see what youll recognize :)

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    4. Re:Thought Police In Action by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Yeah I am sure the US is very much aware on how the "real" deal in a war looks like.

      Watching American TV Coverage of the war is like going to Disneyland, you get a little bit frightened but they won't show you enough to give you nightmares. Ever saw the pictures from the last Gulf war where the americans bombed the "highway of death"? No? I am not surprised, the american media deemed the pictures as "too violent" and "too disturbing".

      Here's a book recommendation for you: Shooting Under Fire: The World of the War Photographer

      It actually does show you some things you'll never see in american media. The stories of the photographers are worth a read too.

      Compare this to the coverage of other news outlets around the world and tell me again that people can differenciate. They cannot, because they only know the computer and the media makes the real thing appear like the computer game.

      Besides, it's not the leaders, it is an independant organization that checks and labels these things. Not only computer games but movies, books, any kind of media.

      BTW, the mindset is not forced, if you are 18 or older you can buy the game and any other item on the list, just kids can't (legally) buy it.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    5. Re:Thought Police In Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I find it ironic that Germany claims to have a perfect knowledge of war, and because of that, they've concluded that they will never EVER go back to the ways of Nazism. Yet what are they doing? Forcing a politcal mindset upon a population!"

      Kind of small-minded, aren't you? 'Forcing'? About as forceful as the US justifying their current efforts.

  79. THIS JUST IN: AMERICA EXPELLED FROM GERMANY by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

    In a move taken by Berlin as to not seem hypocritical, all American icons on German televisions, newspapers and plastic lunchboxes have been banned. It is unknown what effect this will have on Baywatch and Knight Rider merchandise, because... well..

    say it with me here folks..

    Germans love David Hasselhoff.

    1. Re:THIS JUST IN: AMERICA EXPELLED FROM GERMANY by krautmann · · Score: 1

      In a move taken by Berlin as to not seem hypocritical, all American icons on German televisions, newspapers and plastic lunchboxes have been banned.

      Are you kidding? This is plain bullshit.

      Germans love David Hasselhoff.

      I don't

    2. Re:THIS JUST IN: AMERICA EXPELLED FROM GERMANY by Surak · · Score: 1

      It's a Saturday Night Live thing ... the parent post is actually quite funny if you watched Saturday Night Live back when Norm MacDonald was doing the fake news. No actual Germans were harmed in the making of this post. :)

  80. They have to ban all games then by ascii · · Score: 1

    'cause believe it or not, the conflict is an intrinsic part of all games.

    How this conflict is visually represented is an entirely different matter. However, violent or non-violent, direct or indirect (Chris Crawford) playing a game revolves around the attempt to resolve a structural conflict.

    Seems like they'll be keeping themselves perty busy in Germany.

    --
    naah sig schmig
  81. How To Read Al Jazeera In English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Translate http://www.aljazira.it from italian to english, using the mighty babelfish

  82. Re:God bless President Bush! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So tell me who of us is living in the past,
    blinded and ignorant!

  83. Life imitates games? by slymole · · Score: 1

    There's a chilling occurence in the game where terrorists bomb a marketplace in Baghdad, with the U.S. military acting as saviors, trying to prevent the incident. The way the incident is portrayed in the game is exactly the way the U.S. would like to see the media cover yesterday's real missile attack on Baghdad's crowded marketplace by coalition forces.

    It's ironic and foreshadowing to such an extent, in predicting U.S. foreign policy, that one wonders if Gen. Franks is playing the game to figure out how to wage war..

    --
    "We don't stop playing games because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing games.."
  84. game by lethalwp · · Score: 1


    This game has 3 different "camps", the american: high-tech ones; the chinees: much meat available for war

    and the terrorists: using cars to explode tanks etc

    Of course the missions are always to "win" and control the world... An example: with terrorists you have to use 3 groups of riotting ppl to destroy a whole city to get money. With that money you build your base and destroy the other players

    Maybe this is too "close" to reality for germany, but hey, this is only a game, strategy one in full 3D, using chemicals, nuclear, etc =)

    Verry good one if you like the c&c, only remark would be the 3D enginge, which you need some time to adapt too

  85. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Bombur · · Score: 1

    Yes, they have. Like when they supported those renegade British Colonies in North America. At least they have proven themselves to be real friends to the United States when they stood up to tell Bush that he is wrong. That is what friends are for.

  86. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they should have included UN unit which gives you some sort of bonus :) or a UN Aid building that if you erect it on enemy territory you get money.

  87. who would have thought that by katalyst · · Score: 1

    the first victims of the Iraqi war would be German teenagers? Poor kids won't be able to play a pretty decent game.
    Sometimes, governments can be impractical. Sometimes politicians do something just for the sake of getting noticed. I've noticed that lots of countries that havent addressed or handled domestic issues and violence, are trying to act big and denouncing war. The war against war, starts at home... in your own house, town, city and country.
    Well.. maybe citing war b/w existing countries in a game may be looked down upon, might as well make em all up.... good ole NOD vs something else.

    --
    |/________
    |\A|ALYS|
  88. Computer games don't affect kids.... by InrdZQdxdqn · · Score: 1

    "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

    Kristian Wilson, Nintendo VP, 1989

    1. Re:Computer games don't affect kids.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, fake quote.

  89. This is not a big deal. Restricted list == Mature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the people calling the germans facist pigs and being equally retarded need to wake up, and READ. They aren't banning the game. They gave it a mature rating. It won't be advertised to minors, and they won't be able to buy it without assitance from an adult. Big fucking deal. It's like the explicit lyrics label on CD's which none of us purchase anymore. Its like the ratings on the movies. R Movies == 17...chill out. this is not a big deal.

  90. Give me a break. by La+Camiseta · · Score: 1

    I went over there during Christmas. All night after about 10:00/11:00 it's nothing but porn on the regular public channels. They've got no problem with some kids watching a chick piss into a guy's mouth, but when it comes to them making a bunch of tanks with what look like high-tech christmas trees attached to them shooting lightning at everything, that's over the lines there.

    Come on man, the game would suck if they were to add a negotiate module that you had to go through before that. I can just imagine:
    Friends: "Dude, come on over, I've got the new Halo game on my GameCube."
    Kid: "No, I can't, it's really intense right now. I'm buisy negotiating the terms under which we capitalists and the communists can resolve our differences. Wait, yes, I did it. Now I can play... What? We resolved our differences, so there's no war. This sucks!"

  91. Solution: by Alsee · · Score: 1

    The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'

    EA has solved the problem through a game redesign. Now the first thing that happens when you start a game is that the following message appears:

    You are president of Baristan. Your country shares a border with Fooistan. Fooistan is ruled by a bloodthirsty dictator who like to uses mustard gas and nerve gas on his own people for kicks. He has amassed several thousand tanks and infantry on your border and has announced that he is now Divine Ruler of Foobaristan and that your country rightfully belongs to him.

    How would you like to resolve this conflict?
    (W)ar
    (D)iplomacy


    If you select (W)ar then the game proceeds as usual. If you select (D)iplomacy, well... lets just say the game is very short.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  92. Americans' pro-war orientation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is being shown on this thread. People seem to be genuenly angry about the german decision to ban c&c advertising. At the same time you can't even show women's breasts on american network-tv.

    That's sad, after all war is a lot unhappier thing than love. A good look in the mirror would be in place for our american friends.

  93. good idea by merriam · · Score: 1
    1. Fight for freedom;
    2. censor for peace;
    3. repeat.
    What better way to keep people busy?
  94. This happened well before the war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was reported on Heise in February. Use the Fish.

  95. EA's Next Title... by RHIC · · Score: 1

    Maybe EA will be putting out a new title for the German market in the near future:

    Discuss and Negotiate

  96. I'll never understand... by HBI · · Score: 1

    It seems to be ok to shit on other people in German videos but not to show a Nazi symbol like a swastika, or to play violent video games.

    Perhaps mutual erotic defecation is the wave of the future? I suggest a UN resolution.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  97. Re:This is not a big deal. Restricted list == Matu by La+Camiseta · · Score: 1

    What's a big deal though is that they're not even allowed to have them out on the shelves. What the hell. Even here, there's porn right there in the racks of Suncoast Video in the mall. Granted, they're covered by some crappy plastic shield things (funny stuff when someone takes them :) but they're still there accessable. And we can advertise for those things. They're completely banning this game's advertising and shelf space. This game which shows no real violence unlike any of the UT/Quake games simply because it's a war game which 'portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.' Go fig. It's a war game.

  98. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we kill people who are just like us, then there will be none of us left. If we kill people who are not like us, we can take their stuff.

    What? You want us to stop killing people?

    As if.

  99. This one time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to agree with putting this game on an index, as a german who usually hates his country banning certain games (you can still buy them, they are not be advertised)

    It is a bad joke by EA and their Pentagon sponsors, and I really wanted to vomit after hearing the first word of the Intro

    "In the modern world, great leader resolve conflicts with words like Scud Storm, Tomahawk Missiles...."

    This game is full of racism and propaganda, its just disgusting.

    GWB is not a great leader, he is a nazi puppet

  100. folie furieuse by n3k5 · · Score: 1

    I played the first part of the series and had a brief look at the second one. I don't know about the second, but in the first the soldiers were changed into androids for the German market. The only change in the actual game was that the blood was removed and they made a different sound when a tank drove over them. Apart from that, the descriptions in the manual (which was translated anyway) were changed. That way, they avoided landing on the index. Silly.

    The same ministry liked Unreal more than Quake because you shouldn't shoot everything that moves, there are friendly creatures that help you if you let them. I heard rumours the 'Nali' were mainly introduced to make the game available in Germany.

    The really bad part (for me, personally) of the story is that to about every publisher, the German and Austrian markets are the same, because the localisation is identical. This goes so far that Amazon.at is apparently Amazon.de with the last two letters changed, nothing else. As a result, Quake 3 Arena, for example, was available in all the stores, because there is no such index in Austria, but once it was sold out, you couldn't just get it from Amazon. They don't have it.

    In the end, I ordered one from France. Please excuse me now, I have to put on my armure de combat, take my lance-roquettes and enter l'arena eternal.

    --
    but what do i know, i'm just a model.
  101. He wont visit germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless he is willing to eat a full load of tomatoes and eggs. Most of us germans hate him with passion and we would indeed show him our appreciation for his PNAC crap policy

  102. World is going crazy... by muffen · · Score: 1

    ... talking about Germany, I just had to submit this joke...

    You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, The Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war!

  103. They probably played the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the subject says, they probably played the game. I think EA have taken it a bit to close to the bone this time.

    If you play the USA all your weapons have advanced technology (integrated defence systems) and the pilots sound like Bush.

    Likewise the Rebels use Scud launchers, Angry mob's, Arms Dealers, etc. And have a guess who they sound like?

  104. EA is happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That game is going to sell like crazy. Who doesn't want a banned over the counter game.

  105. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried to respond to a comment and got this:

    Maximum Comments Exceeded!

    You've reached your maximum number of comments you can post: 269 comments over 4 hours.
    Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.


    At first it said 271 comments; I hit "back", then "reply" again, and it went down to 270, did it again it went to 269. Did it a few more times, but it stayed at 269.

    But now, a minute later, I'm posting again.

    WTF?

  106. The last time Germany was fixin for a war... by goldspider · · Score: 1
    ...we firebombed Dresden and Hamburg into ashes.

    I'd think it would take a little more than a video game to bring the uppity ones out of their holes.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  107. Because not everyone is a native english speaker. by danro · · Score: 1

    English is not my 1st language, so cut me some slack.

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  108. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by Pooh22 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If losing a war is what it takes to become wise about the horrors of war and the available pacifistic alternatives, I hope that the US/UK alliance loses (or at least not wins) this war.

    But on the other hand, I don't want Saddam to win either. This war just isn't right and any choice is probably a bad one. And staying neutral is probably a bad choice as well...

    I hate this world, time to move on to.... Betelgeuse ;-)

  109. Good by g4dget · · Score: 1

    I don't know about this particular game--maybe the decision makes sense, maybe it doesn't. But I think it is good that advertising is not considered "free speech" and that not everything goes when it comes to advertising. Of course, far more dangerous than advertisements for video games would seem to be advertisements for fast food. But perhaps they'll get around to restricting those, too.

  110. Re:This is not a big deal. Restricted list == Matu by Imazalil · · Score: 1

    BTW Quake/UT are also "banned". (from the best of my knowledge, and from previous posts)

    I think those Germans might be onto something, look at the murder rates between the two countries, or the US and any coutry. Rather then let kids virtually kill each other (with arguably some spillover into the real world) let them watch soft porn. They'll be whacking off and not shooting each other.

    Pretty smart, no?

  111. You know the world is going crazy when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, The Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war."

    This one went around last week. Apropos.

  112. Pre-release by Kynde · · Score: 1

    The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'"


    Did EA sell a prerelease to G.W.Bush?

    So now it's EA I gotta blame, right?

    --
    1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
  113. Re:Thanks a lot, I'll sure sleep better at night n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look on the bright side, you can be 12 years old and by beer and cigarettes, (no irony here) dont you just love the old continent.
    Well maybe not in the UK but thats another story...

  114. Haha this is amusing.... by miketang16 · · Score: 1

    Germany, the country that started BOTH world wars, is complaining that a VIDEO GAME portrays war as the only solution?!

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Haha this is amusing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      America, the country that wiped out the Indians and got rich from slavery, now fights a war to free other people, oh the irony.

      People and nations change, get over it.

    2. Re:Haha this is amusing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your history boy, Germany didn't 'start' the first world war, they had a pact with the ones who did (Ottoman empire).... And in the 2nd world war, France and England declared war on Germany first after Germany invaded Poland. Germany didn't declare war on them first. (I know I'm nitpicking a little here, but facts are facts!)

  115. Hypocrisy? by privacyt · · Score: 1

    I don't advocate censorship, but what's interesting is that while the Germans restrict violent games, the Americans restrict games that portray sex. Try releasing a game in US stores that has people fucking, and it'll get censored just as surely as violent shit does in Deutschland.

    1. Re:Hypocrisy? by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      Hello Grand Theft Auto?

      You get health points for f*king whores.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    2. Re:Hypocrisy? by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      You're comparing government-imposed restrictions with voluntary, industry-imposed labeling? Mmm hmmm.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:Hypocrisy? by privacyt · · Score: 1

      Although I don't agree with censorship, most local governments don't allow porn to be openly displayed.

  116. Said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from Holland, I agree most wars cause more harm than good; but this is rediculous.

  117. So free you are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So free you are you got ... uncensored news about POWs ... pictures of so called collateral damages ... "delayed freedom of information acts" ... Patriot Acts I + II ... Ministry of Truth and Homeland Security aka Gestapo ... Detention camps for muslim americans ... free p0rn on TV ... children banned from school for their free speech t-shirts ... a land which does not sign the Un childrens carta ... PNAC ... religious zealots bashing roleplaying games like d&d ... Freedom Fries and Threat Level Orange!

    I guess you can really be happy ... I am too here in europe

    1. Re:So free you are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like we couldn't too tell.

  118. You know the world's going crazy when... by SailorBob · · Score: 1
    The best rapper is white,

    The best golfer is black,

    France accuses the US of arrogance,

    and Germany doesn't want to go to war!

    --

    Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!

    1. Re:You know the world's going crazy when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copy and pasting a widely circulated joke without giving proper credits is not the least bit funny.

    2. Re:You know the world's going crazy when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel a dejavu!

      wait I have a comment:
      The best rapper is white,
      The best golfer is black,
      France accuses the US of arrogance,
      and Germany doesn't want to go to war!

      I feel a dejavu.....

      PS: "It's been -295 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment" ... hu?

  119. let's focus here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how Germany pulls a facist tactic and all you idiots are complaining about George Bush. I'm not particularly fond of this war either, but you people make me sick. It's not the war at all, it's Bush that you protest and I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop pretended to protest the war and start marching with signs that are more honest, "We hate Bush."

    And if we all cared about Iraqi civilians so much how about we all leave our cushy jobs, college studies, and homes and travel over there with some humanitarian aide. People in the USA who claim that they feel for the Iraqi people while sipping a latte from Starbucks make me sick.

    1. Re:let's focus here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only 3 starbucks in germany and they are empty at the moment ... because people here give a shit for american crap at the moment.

    2. Re:let's focus here.... by shaunyb · · Score: 1

      first, claiming that this is an action of fascism a gross exaggeration, at best. Second, you're generalizing the entire anti-war community, claiming that their intentions are not to stop the war, but to protest bush, which is quite frankly a lie. the anti-war community has existed at all times in history, throughout the globe. claiming that their intentions are not to stop war is the same as claiming that there are no pacifists. third, you admit that the protests are being held with the appearance that their intentions are to stop the war, to this i ask "how do you know that their intentions are really to protest bush? are you psychic? can you see something that i can't?" finally, i'd like to point out the misconception that the american government and the american people are one in the same. do not blame the american people for the war in iraq, the blame lies solely in the hands of those in power. we, as americans, do not support murder. we do not support this war. the american media is depicting this war as a "brave battle against tyranny and terrorism". buzz-words and rhetoric are being used ad nauseam, and have thus duped the lesser-intelligent population into supporting the war. please do not place blame on our people, we are a good people, who unfortunately are easily persuaded by our for-profit media.

    3. Re:let's focus here.... by Trejus · · Score: 1

      We as Americans do support this war (over 60%, for whatever reason). Speak for yourself if you don't support it, but don't speak for others. You are not the voice of America.

      I'm sure that like you, most Americans took the time to understand the facts and drew their own conclusions. Some decided that it wasn't nessecary, but others did. And you know what, that's great. It's what America is all about: you don't get shot for thinking the government is wrong.

      With that said, what i find especially revolting is that, with all the complaining about dehumanization from the anti-war groups, they in turn, with no reluctance, dehumanize those with opposite feelings. You did it in your post, you just implied that i support murder because i think that saddam hussien is a threat to international stability.

      Who wouldn't have wanted a peaceful resolution? You'd be crazy if you didn't. The difference between the the two sides is that one wanted a resolution. But because we believe this, and the anti-war and international community doesn't does not mean that we are bad people. Nor does it mean that those who oppose the war are evil traitors.

      Calling french fries freedom fries is counterproductive, as is hanging signs saying "US citizens not welcome." The beauty of living in the freeworld is that we can have a difference of opinion and still get along!. The majority of the world does not have that yet, so those of us who do have that right should do our best to exercise it.

      --
      "To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
    4. Re:let's focus here.... by shaunyb · · Score: 1

      "you just implied that i support murder because i think that saddam hussien is a threat to international stability." -actually, i didnt mean to imply that someone who is pro-war is pro-murder. i was trying to emphasize that the americans are not the blood thirsty militants that they are sometimes perceived as. i was trying to find a common ground between the pro-war and anti-war community, in that they both are (hopefully) against murder.

    5. Re:let's focus here.... by Trejus · · Score: 1

      Sorry for putting words in your mouth then. I went what was supposed to be an open disscussion about the war that degenerated into an anti-war rally at then end. The common line was that war is murder and i think even one speaker used the 70's throwback "baby-killer." I guess I was transposing those setiments onto your post. I apologize.

      --
      "To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
  120. Indeed amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because we learned ... you not

    1. Re:Indeed amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... after millions of Jews were exterminated the best you can come up with is a censorship on a video game. Great going there Shroeder.

    2. Re:Indeed amusing by miketang16 · · Score: 1

      There is immense irony in the fact that you posted as "Anonymous Coward".

      --
      -------
      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
      -- George Orwell
    3. Re:Indeed amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still better than running around like a mad cowboy in the arab world, killing civilan iraqis for american pride shit

      www.projectnewamericancentury.com

      maybe you do not see what your leaders are up to, because you are blinded by homeland security colors and american flags

      we do ... we worry and we will not be a part of that game. You may buy little nations like micronesia to join the coalition of the willing, but germany and france cannot be beaten by a ruined economy that will go straight to hell after you realize that you will not win the war in Iraq

    4. Re:Indeed amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why ... just like 2003 other people here? or maybe to stay below the screen of your nazi office of total information awareness and homeland coloring

  121. heheh... I first read the title as... by fidros · · Score: 1

    Granny Places Command & Conquer on Restricted List :-)

    --
    Gilad.
  122. Proud americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casua lties/index.html

  123. wrong about Japan by lingqi · · Score: 1

    I don't think you are right on this one buddy...

    Constitutionally pacifist, ok, but in reality just by the amount of national pride in their "advanced military stuff" in the gulf right now will give you the idea that they want to be part of the action.

    Partically I do understand some of the reasons. If north korea do lob a few nukes this way, Japan would be royally screwed. (N.K can't go anywhere else - say they take over the south, what, they will go against CHINA? fat chance)

    However, being chinese, born in Nanjing no less, I can fully appreciate the concern other asian countries have over japan NOT arming itself. When Japan is armed, it has perfectly the reason to go conquer other places, because honestly Japan (the geographical features) really kind of suck. No natural resounces, tons of natural disasters, and no land for living (most habitable land is used to grow rice).

    So, yes Japan is itching to get in on some action (why you think they are SUPPORTIVE of the US?) as a thing to prove that they need more military or somesuch.

    But anyway; at least for a while longer, while the huge US presence is here, they don't have to worry too much about protecting themselves (and consequentially don't need to / have no excuse to arm). It would not be fun if the US one day withdraw their forces for some reason. Serious "shit hits the fan" would happen in this corner of the world.

    Btw, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still there. Nukes back then were not as powerful as today.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:wrong about Japan by quax · · Score: 1

      I think they are supportive of the US because the need the US military presence to keep North Korea in check.

      Exactly what natural resources does China have that Japan could want? Not Oil as far as I know.

      Japan did just fine economically after the war without access to natural resources. Nowadays it is really the intellectual potential of a country that determines its economic strength.

    2. Re:wrong about Japan by Kibo · · Score: 1

      A shit load of coal and iron for two. China is huge the size of the united states, but comparatively little of it arable land. Chances are if it can be dug out of the ground they've got their share of it.

      Wait till the Chinese really kick their industry into high gear, that will be pretty crazy.

      (I'm 100% monolingual white american btw)

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    3. Re:wrong about Japan by Kibo · · Score: 1

      They're probably supportive of the US to the point that they sent a made in the USA aegis cruiser because that comment about "Check book diplomacy" stung.

      There are some types of political currency that money can't buy. And Japan has many concerns which could benefit from such capital, not the least of which would be their increased ability to shape US policy in asia.

      The Japanese have by far the best toys. The bastards! I never knew how much my childhood sucked until I grew up enough to find out what I missed out on.

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    4. Re:wrong about Japan by lingqi · · Score: 1

      on the contrary

      China is one of the few places in the world that does not depend on the middle east for Oil. And that's saying a lot.

      Almost everything (raw materials wise) in Japan is imported. If you think Japan did "just fine" after the war without natural resources, what do you think it would be if it actually HAD natural resources?

      Japan's entire reason for going to WWII (besides the empiralistic ideals) was to get resources - the allies cut shipments (which, btw, Japan going to war was predicted and that's what was expected anyway - not necessarily Pearl Harbor, but that's just because military strategists had head up their asses)

      Why do you think Japan was occupying Manchura during WWII, instead of, say, push forward toward the western US (After decimating the pacific fleet - okay, short the carriers - They would have nearly no resistance going for california with Hawaii as a staging point. But they CANT because logistically they can't push into the US without raw materials to build planes and ships.

      And if you were Japan, would you prefer to depend on the US (as unstable as it is these days) for your safety, or get "approved" to watch your own ass? It's not like Japan can't have a fleet - they have the money and the technology (fuck 50% of the electricity in Japan is nuclear - so they can get a nuclear weapons program started and finished overnight if they wanted to).

      Don't be naive, man.

      --

      My life in the land of the rising sun.

    5. Re:wrong about Japan by quax · · Score: 1

      As you pointed out they do have a lot of nuclear energy and maintaining an army is costly.

      I still stand by my case that Japan is far better of without an army in a world ruled by free trade. Japan has the potential in terms of innovative and superior products to always buy what it needs. There is no need for them to steal it.

      Frankly I also don't think that Japan would ask anybody for approval if they wanted to arm themselves. Quite to the contrary I believe they are wise enough to understand that any such move on their part goes against their interest because it'll escalate the already volatile North Korea crisis even further.

      As it stand I take it we have some very different assumptions about what Japan wants to do and why it does what it does, but I don't think that we have any means to prove them.

    6. Re:wrong about Japan by lingqi · · Score: 1

      Well, First of all I don't think the world is ruled by free trade. Why? because of trade embargos that countries with an army can force onto other places. (Cuba, for example, gets the royal shaft treatment from the US)

      Anyway, Japan is in a tricky position. While they don't have to "ask permission" to arm, it would be a diplomatic nightmare if they did without some kind of consultation with UN or having US back them up or whatever.

      Imagine if Japan one day announced that they are just going to start building ICBMs. There would be an 185% chance that china will bomb it pre-emptively, not to mention N.K (if still there) doing the same. Korea and China does NOT want to see Japan arm.

      But then, like I said - depending on somebody else for your own protection is not a easy thing to swallow. A few weeks ago when N.K fired some missiles into the Japan sea, televised debate ran wild about arming.

      Now, of course Japan has half the population of US so the opinion is not always congruent, but do not for a minute think there is not a lot of people, and a lot of political influential ones, wanting to arm Japan.

      So basically what I have gathered is that
      1) they want to arm
      2) they can't because of the aforementioned tricky situation (there is more to the story regarding to US, but getting long already)

      I too personally think Japan shouldn't arm - because I am chinese, as well as from a "asia stability" point of view. but on the other hand, from a purely "what would benefit japan" point of view, arming is the way to go, if they can manage it somehow.

      --

      My life in the land of the rising sun.

  124. It feels like a good thing to me. by nuwayser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Though I can't put into words why, at least, not right off the bat... something about how the constant playing of war games could eventually become a replacement behavior for learning how to have real conflict with people. Or, as one therapist friend of mine put it, it could prevent people from owning their violence.

    Like with pornography: someone who looks at that stuff too much and from too young an age may never learn what real love and intimacy feel like. It's a real problem.

    Perhaps that isn't the German gov't's perspective, but it feels like a good decision to me, for the above reasons. Games like that just insulate the players from the realities of war. Sure, it's just a game, I know, but can anyone give me a reason why I need yet another false portrayal of war these days (in addition to those of most American media outlets)?

    Of course, they could just be placing controls on software made by an American company, but I don't know if the publisher is American. As someone else said, I think it will just draw attention to it and raise sales. Too bad.

    --
    "The cup... the drop... it's a YES!"
    1. Re:It feels like a good thing to me. by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      So maybe Germany should ban Tetris because constant playing of Tetris could eventually become a replacement behavior for learning how to build real walls, buildings, etc.

      "I know, but can anyone give me a reason why I need yet another false portrayal of war these days (in addition to those of most American media outlets)?"

      Should we ban Quake and UT because they have false portrayal of real world capture the flag game?

      "Of course, they could just be placing controls on software made by an American company"

      That could be good since maybe they'll ban MS products.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  125. Pacifism by Mean_Nishka · · Score: 1

    Hmmm.. The German as pacifists. Now that could have spared the world some trouble! Too little too late I say!

    1. Re:Pacifism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.. not all Indians and Moslems are killed worldwide, still time to save the world some trouble from US. Not too late to stop war I say!

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

      Way too late, really, for your commentary too... about 50 years too late. How many battles/conflicts have the States been in since then? How many have Germany been involved in since then? Do the math.....

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

      We only kill the bad guys...
      FOOL.

  126. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Motherfuck! Fly bitches when I walk!

  127. Germany not exactly champions of freedom by Quebst · · Score: 1

    It doesn't surprise me one bit. Remember that this is a country that cracks down on "hate" speech, although whatever hate means is up to the government. They have had a history of censorship in an effort to make their country better. It's absurd just not unexpected.

    1. Re:Germany not exactly champions of freedom by sdack · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right. You hate beeing surprised, isn't it? If you don't understand it, don't comment on it.

      Sven

    2. Re:Germany not exactly champions of freedom by Lionfish · · Score: 1

      Yes, they tried that - as much as others.
      Welcome to the club..

    3. Re:Germany not exactly champions of freedom by mark2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many times do we have to hear self-righteous Americans complaining about lack of free speech in other countries? Interestingly a recent survey on freedom of the press (demonstrated by the breadth of viewpoints espoused in articles) showed the US 14th worldwide, below Germany, France, the UK and the leaders (suprise, suprise) Holland.

      "Hate" speech is the same kind of thing that any civilised country cracks down on - i.e. racism, sexism, anti-semitism, attacks on gay people etc.

      Currently out of the Western liberal democracies the one that seems to be cracking down the most on alternative viewpoints is the US, examples include the Patriot act, that bloke that got arrested in a mall for wearing an anti-war T-shirt, etc.

    4. Re:Germany not exactly champions of freedom by Erwos · · Score: 1

      "examples include the Patriot act, that bloke that got arrested in a mall for wearing an anti-war T-shirt, etc."

      1. The Patriot Act doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with right to privacy. Not defending the Patriot Act, but it really isn't an example.

      2. The guy was arrested for _trespassing_, not for the anti-war shirt. Malls are private property here in the USA - they told him to leave, he didn't, he was arrested. Again, nothing to do with freedom of speech.

      As for alternative viewpoints, we've had large demonstrations in most US cities. People aren't arrested unless they're engaging in civil disobedience, like blocking streets. Of course, civil disobedience only works if you're arrested, anyways, so I'd say things are working fine.

      In other words, no, you're just plain wrong. The US is _not_ cracking down on freedom of speech. Quite possibly, the survey favors European countries due to their plethora of major political parties - the US only has two, and that means fewer viewpoints, but not fewer views.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    5. Re:Germany not exactly champions of freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Americans 'crack down' on such 'free speech' as racist literature, etc, etc? Lemme guess, just 'cause it's in the States means it's not 'cracking down' in the same way as Germany? And weren't Marilyn Manson T-shirts banned in some schools in the States? Think about it....

    6. Re:Germany not exactly champions of freedom by Quebst · · Score: 1

      Actually no, the US doesn't crack down on "racist" literature, etc. Malls are private property( by law and to a degree) and therefore can decide their own rules. Schools can censor on similar grounds, so called "loco paratis"(sp?) and basicly holding the fact that schools may make their own rules just as a private organization may. That guy in the mall wasn't just wearing a T-shirt, he was also involved in other activities. He also had all charges dropped.

      I don't support this crackdown, but "true" censorship comes from government, which is the only agency to enforce laws by force. Not allowing something to be posted on slashdot isn't censorship, having the government point a gun at your head and say "don't post anti-war messages!" is. I am American, so what? The patriot act was wrong but that doesn't mean a damn thing when judging another act in another country. I condemn the patriot act but I am much more protective of obvious attacks on freedom of speech. It's hard to say laws are wrong when you're not allowed to speak.

  128. Are they serious? by LeoDV · · Score: 1

    Then ban every FPS except System Shock and Deus Ex, every RTS, 80% RPG's...

    In France we have a pretty fucked up ratings system, but we know the only reason we do is because no shopkeeper would ever abide to it. Doom III will probably be banned for minors, but you'll be able to buy it from any shop if you're over ten. And you so rightly should.

    1. Re:Are they serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are quite a few that come to mind, that are not restricted. Soldier of Fortune 2 is available freely and even Americas Army is not on the index. I just checked it. I like the disclaimer in the front, where it says that this document may not be made available to people under 18.

    2. Re:Are they serious? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      I've got to say, I love France sometimes.

      It's theoretically a super-centralized country, with someone like Nicolas Sarkozy (minister of the interior) representing the government andwanting to impose rule after rule, and anyone who disagrees with him is an ignorant baboon, tons of police and rules and taxes and regulation, and...

      ...most of my French friends' attiude? Bah, too hell with the bastards, I'm driving to see my mistress. Pour me another glass.

      You have to respect that somehow...

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  129. Defusing bombs by ojQj · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You are absolutely right.

    I'm an American living in Germany. I was listening to the radio on the way home from work the other day. The announcer was listing off the traffic jams and construction sites of the day and casually mentioned that they were defusing a bomb in a particular area, and that people who weren't directly involved should avoid the area.

    This wasn't major news -- unexploded ordinance from WWII is still occasionally found and needs to be taken care of. With such ever present reminders of the horrors of war you begin to understand why the Germans are so utterly opposed to starting them these days.

    1. Re:Defusing bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wasn't major news -- unexploded ordinance from WWII is still occasionally found and needs to be taken care of. With such ever present reminders of the horrors of war you begin to understand why the Germans are so utterly opposed to starting them these days.

      The same thing happens in England/UK - new construction works unearthing an old WWII bombs. But we don't use the mistakes of the past to shirk our responsibilites in the present.

      I think the UK's national conscience, that if tough decisions need to be made, and that the use of armed forces are required, then "we shall not falter" (to paraphase Mr Churchill). the same as national laws, that have the sanction of imprisonment (and even capital enforcement in the US), that the same must be applied at the international level. We must be able, and prepared, to project the international concencus over rouge states. Without that, then the UN is worthless (league of nations returned) and world security is ultimatly weakened.

      I'm very proud of our "boys" out there, doing what has to be done to protect the free and the innocent of the world, of Iraq and ensure that world order is maintained.

      The French, Russian and Germans should be ashamed of themselves!

      Remember. The right and freedom that we use with this website, to voice our opinions freely, should never be forgotten. And we should never forget the people who have fought, and died, to protect this right.

      Oh - and I include by default the US servicemen who are making up the numbers...

      (And before anyone flames, this is BRITISH IRONIC HUMOUR...)

    2. Re:Defusing bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I think the UK's national conscience,
      isn't that The Daily Mail?? ;-)

    3. Re:Defusing bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here is an American who would like to let everyone know, that yes, the British are truly the only country worth their weight in gold over in Europe.

    4. Re:Defusing bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany seems espescially reticent to go to war when it's with a country that is a major under-the-table trading partner.

    5. Re:Defusing bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah sure. That's how the Brits are. That is why the overwhelming majority of the UK stands behind Blair. Right.

    6. Re:Defusing bombs by kruczkowski · · Score: 1

      Plenty of kids in Eastern European contries like Poland are killed every year when they find old granades and bomb from WWII in the woods.

      Yes, there are plenty there.

      --
      hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
    7. Re:Defusing bombs by Lars+T. · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      While the US has no problem to attack a major under-the-table trading partner.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    8. Re:Defusing bombs by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The bomb example was just an example. There's a major difference between the outlook of the British and the Germans. Basically: we didn't start it (to paraphrase Mr Cleese). And we were on the winning side.

      A lot of people suffered in very nasty ways in the Second World War and it all comes down to the political ambition of one man (from Austria), but it rubs off on the country he was leading at the time whose people went along with him for whatever reason. If I was a German I'd do everything in my power to avoid the slightest hint of any association with what happened in WW2.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  130. They fucked up Contra!! by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Due to Germany, the european versions of Contra ended up with humans replaced by robots, and the games renamed to "Probotector"

    I will never forgive them!

  131. Diplomatic phase by vesamies · · Score: 1

    They should add a diplomatic phase to c&c. Only I you failed that you could go to war.

  132. In that case, GTA3 shouldn't be on the list by wackybrit · · Score: 1

    Are they also going to ban 90% of the rest of the games where conflict is the only option?

    GTA3 will fall squarely into your 10% of 'good games' by that definition.

    After all, you can earn megabucks by just being a taxi driver, and you can play as the police fighting evil on the streets :-)

    Oh, wait.. fighting evil in GTA3 involves conflict.. much like fighting evil in the real world. Ah.

    1. Re:In that case, GTA3 shouldn't be on the list by linuxelf · · Score: 1

      > After all, you can earn megabucks by just being a taxi driver, and you can play as the police fighting evil on the streets :-

      Yeah, but don't you have to carjack a taxi driver or steal a cop car first? (heh)

      --
      - "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
    2. Re:In that case, GTA3 shouldn't be on the list by johnstein · · Score: 1

      HAHA! if I would ever get any mod points, I would mod this up. -John

      --
      "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results"
  133. I call bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice job Mr. Liberal, but Iraq was dodging UN resolutions for ten years before Bush got to the White House.

    Of course, now we've invaded Iraq, we should get ready for an invasion of Israel.. a country which has dodged MORE UN resolution than Iraq!

    1. Re:I call bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we should get ready for an invasion of Israel

      Yeah, 'cos that's ever gonna happen.

    2. Re:I call bullshit. by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      It won't, we've been sucking ass to those damned Israeli bastards forever. Oh and on a relative note, those Jews living there are now wiping out a people to settle their own kind. Does it remind you of OUR massacre of the native americans? If the arabs nuke and annihilate the jews, I have no comment to make except (at least they prevented life on a reservation!) which IS what will await them IF they are allowed to survive by Sharon and the ultra heavilly armed freaks during their power grab. No shit they're scared, other than US in the US, nobody gives a shit about their little bought and paid for country, especially since all they've done is foster instability in the region. THE ONLY thing that will stop further wars in that region is simple. Eliminate the need for oil. That's what prevented the further evolution of arabic nations. Don't forget that during the crusades they were centuries ahead of us in medicine, art, and sciences. Us good ole western white people managed to get our claws into them and cause them to become inert via the greed of their sheiks. Yay. Pay'em oil and oil dividends to the people. Blam you've got complacent lazy people living off oil money, with plenty of time to spare to get not only pissed off at our military presence there, but also to have enough time to BUILD terrorism in a nationwide enterprise for their people... The only things missing are Osama Bomb U Bad Inc. stock shares on wall street. Eliminate the oil need altogether (without being bought out by bush or his oil cronies) and you're set for life as is the rest of the world. Who knows, without oil money, the arabic nations may have to switch to educating their people again. Wouldn't that be magic. -Daedalus

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    3. Re:I call bullshit. by milktoastman · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with the Israeli settlement tactics, but it's not exactly like Europe did to the Native Americans since the Jews technically were there first many many moons ago.

    4. Re:I call bullshit. by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Hey easy does it buddy!

      First off...

      ***** Read this disclaimer (I do NOT condone terrorism and I'll be the first sniper to sign onto my local SWAT squad if terrorists take hostages here... I don't believe in killing without a very good reason... and not just suspicion but a VERY good reason (self defense? defense of others lives?) and hostage taking, period).******

      Now... about my earlier post.
      Don't take it as a religious attack because its not. After flying from religion to religion and finding many of their followers just as hypocritical as the next "turn the other cheek" liars. I am most likely to hold to the values passed on by Buddhism for the sole reason that it is roughly the only worldwide "religion" that doesn't advocate mass slaughter of "unbelievers". Christianity and Islam have both done that... and Judaism(and "god's chosen (and very militant) people" isn't proving any different with their own war of aggression right now.)
      Plus the native americans have been here for many "moons" MORE than your people were in the middle east, and we STILL massacred them, took their livelyhood away and destroyed a human/ecological balance that had lasted for over a thousand years (who knows exactly how long)! So take it easy...
      Those people in Palestine are turning to terrorism because they have no other method of retaliation. I doubt very much a guy with an AK and shit training will match up the professional soldiers, airborne strikes, the tanks and tactical nukes parked in Israel. But with a bomb strapped to his chest at least he'll feel like he died in holy fire taking a few of yours with him instead of dying in a futile attempt using a peashooter against an armoured army that even Satan would fear. There's more nukes in Israel than the rest of the middle east. How do you think those people feel on the other end of your guns? Happy? I doubt it. Put yourselves in their shoes... see how happy you'd be to know that a bunch of foreigners have landed and want the land because their holy book demands it. You'd be equally suspicious and hostile, especially if the land your hut is on gets sold out from under your sandalled feet.
      Secondly...
      If you claim religious goodness, do recall that ALL armies of Judaism, Christianity, and ISLAM have ALL gone with GOD!! when they went to massacre others (3 crusades, 1 children's crusade, many jihads, etc). So did their enemies. One question begs to be asked... has anyone received a "go ahead" from God yet? And if so, what part of "thou shalt not kill" did they ammend, I mean hell that was one of the original TEN commandments!! Perhaps we worship the wrong deity... or perhaps we're turning a blind eye to our OWN hypocrisy! But then again... the most "fervent" believers and outspoken advocates of christian, judaic, or islamic goodness are the filthy rich, who have stolen, lied and more than possibly cost others their lives to get there. And us everyday Joes suck it up like so much shit in our food trough.
      So get off your high horse and see the steaming bullshit for what it is. But you most likely won't because as they say... "ignorance is bliss".
      -Daedalus

      PS - if you feel like flaming... knock yourself out, just make it seem semi intelligent... I'm tired of apes with internet access... at least pretend you're a hairless ape :D

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    5. Re:I call bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's hope that if the TowelHeads ever do get a nuke, the Israelis will find out soon enough for a pre-emptive attack. Of course, nuclear weapons in that area are pretty useless because the fallout would likely make the entire area uninhabitable for everyone.

      Nuclear weapons are not of much practical value anyway, except to muslims or arabs or terrorists or whatever you call those guys who like to blow up everything they see because God tells them to or whatever.

    6. Re:I call bullshit. by lithiumcloud · · Score: 1

      And the thing is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have the SAME god. Wow.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  134. usa puts al-jazeera on its restricted list by kaisa_sosey · · Score: 1

    The english version of the Al-Jazeera TV's website was online since Monday. The adress is:
    http://english.aljazeera.net

    I could see it on Thursday and now it is gone. Washington Post has a article about a hack attack. Apparently the name of the website does not resolve.

    What i found very suspicious are these imposter sites:
    http://www.aljazeerah.us/ and http://www.aljazeerah.info/
    Only the latter has a little headline that the website is not connected in any way to Al-Jazeera TV.

    These sites can be easily confused with the original site and it already happened.
    Imagine something like foks.news in a arab country without a clear statement that it is not us media.

    ps: I already submitted the story about the imposter sites but slashdot did not post it. That's why i am posting it here...

  135. Do you remember Kosovo? by wackybrit · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I'm quite surprised at the reaction of whiny liberal lefties that this Iraqi invasion is so bad.

    We did EXACTLY THE SAME THING in the late 90's with Kosovo, and no-one was whining then! We were stopping Muslims from being killed! The UN did not approve of the NATO invasion then either! How many people whined about Serbian children getting bombed?

    But now that the USA is threatened, rather than some cute ethnic minority, oh no we musn't defend ourselves.

    1. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > But now that the USA is threatened, rather than some cute ethnic minority, oh no we musn't defend ourselves.

      How exactly are you threatened? A tiny country the other side of the world has MYSTERIOUS INVISIBLE weapons of mass destruction they might use against you in the far future? Ooh boy, now that justifies a war.

      On the other hand, using the same reasoning, the US has been a very noticable threat to a number of countries, as they really own state of the art weapons of mass bombing and the necessary means to get them anywhere. So, by your logic, for example a North Corean pre-emptive attack on the US would be justified?

      I think not. By symmetry, US pre-emptive attacks are equally unjustified. This is not self-defense, this is aggression.

      > We did EXACTLY THE SAME THING in the late 90's with Kosovo

      At least there were people in Kosovo who _asked_ you to intervene. I still don't think intervention (which caused massive refugee crisis and killed lots of people on both sides) was justified. And yes, there _were_ Serbian children bombed, as well as Albanian children and lot. It was a mistake to bombard Kosovo.

      Sebastian

    2. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Saib0t · · Score: 1, Troll
      But now that the USA is threatened, rather than some cute ethnic minority, oh no we musn't defend ourselves.
      Threatened??
      By who? Iraq didn't mention attacking the US? Funding Al Quaïda? Look at your "allies" in Kuweit and UAE.

      Defend??
      You're attacking pal...

      Blame it all on yourselves if things like 9/11 happened, after all, who gave weapons and money to Al Quaïda? Who gave money and weapons to Iraq?

      Peace will be achieved when the US will stop playing the bully-boy on the international playground.

      We did EXACTLY THE SAME THING in the late 90's with Kosovo, and no-one was whining then!
      Kosovo was entirely different. First, the internal community intervened AFTER the LOCAL conflict took place, to settle things down, after ONU decided it. It was an international effort.
      In the case of Iraq, the US and UK unilateraly decided to attack a defenseless country.
      Yes you hear me, defenseless. How fair is a war against someone you have spent the 10 years inventorying their military resources?

      Hmm, what's the reason again? Weapons of mass destructions? Where are they? if Iraq has them, why didn't they shoot them at the US soldiers?
      May I also kindly remind you that the only country to ever have used the atomic bomb is the US (aside from tests, that is).

      I sincerely hope that Iraq beats the sh!t out of the US (sorry for being rude, here, no words can express my disgust at the US today).

      Instead of making war when/where it's not needed, get your government to give 5 times more money to educate the children you do this for (rather than the DoD), so they can make educated decisions rather than relying on war mongering power hungry stupid politicians like this is the case now...

      --

      One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    3. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      But now that the USA is threatened, rather than some cute ethnic minority, oh no we musn't defend ourselves.
      And the one thing that "you whiny conservative righties" don't seem to understand, is that by waging this war, you are not defending yourself, but instead helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations as much as you can!
      • A lot of families will lose one or more members resulting in a lot of broken families. Do you think the rest will say "Thank you USA for solving this conflict in a violent way and it's ok that you took away the lives of our family members, it was worth it." or "F*ck you USA, Al Qaeda is right: you are the terrorists here and they are the freedom fighters. I've got nothing left to lose, see you in hell."
      • The majority of countries in the world is against this war, including some with veto power in the UN. The USA simply ignored that, called using a veto and other means of diplomatic actions things that "weasels" do and went bombing anyway. So another assertion of Al Qaeda, namely that the US wants world domination and is rogue (since they defy the UN) is "confirmed".
      • After the war is over, the US wants to install a military government (under US control of course) and contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq are already being signed, a lot of them going to ... US companies of course, one of which was headed for a long time by Powel! So the claim that the US is headed by nothing but a corrupt bunch of corporatists that only want to extend their influences in the Middle East is affirmed.
      • The US is already talking about invading Iran after Iraq is finished... Need I say more?
      Don't you understand that GWB is doing a better recruitment campaign for Al Qaeda & Co than whatever they could come up with themselves? All the US is doing is making sure it becomes more hated every day. Al Qaeda will only become stronger because of the war in Iraq, since they'll get more recruits ready for brainwashing, they're not being hurt at all. The only reason that GWB is waging this war, is because he wants revenge for his dad, he wants to please his "neo-conservative think-tank" and his corporate friends and because he doesn't want to be remembered as "the president that couldn't catch Osama bin Laden".

      Think for yourself, instead of blindly believing all the nonsense the Bush adminsitration and the media spew at you. They have no clue (the fact that they are actually surprised that the Iraqi's fight back, says enough imho). Even if you actually believe that this war is righteous, don't delude yourself into thinking that it is solving any kind of problem the US has with terrorism, it is only making matters worse. For the whole world. But the US doesn't seem to care what the rest of the world thinks. Which is why so many people are angry with the US. And some of those are weak and can be recruited by terrorist organisations for use as cannon fodder.

      And yes, this is completely off topic...

      --
      Donate free food here
    4. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't confuse the wacko rightists in the Bush regime with "Americans". Many of us here are hoping, against uncertain odds, to effect regime change in 2004.

    5. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by pilot1 · · Score: 1

      "How exactly are you threatened? A tiny country the other side of the world has MYSTERIOUS INVISIBLE weapons of mass destruction they might use against you in the far future? Ooh boy, now that justifies a war."

      I hate to break it to you, but some of those "invisible" weapons they're not supposed to have were shot at Kuwait.
      I found it truly amazing that they made a SCUD missile so fast. But oh no, they couldn't have been hiding it from the UN. They must have made it in under 3 days for the sole purpose of shooting at Kuwait, right? :P

      Also, it's kinda amazing that Saddam Hussein is telling his troops they can use chemical weapons (Al Jazeera along with American stations are all confirming that.) that they don't have. Or do they? Is it possible that someone _actually_ hid weapons from the almighty UN?
      Of course.

    6. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/US/current US government/g. My apologies.

    7. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by TGK · · Score: 1

      Not sure who to reply to, so I'll reply up at the top.

      Are Saddam Husein and Iraq a threat to the United States or US interests?

      Economicly? Certainly. Iraq controls a not insubstantial portion of the world oil reserve. Militarily? Possibly. Certainly not in conventional terms. The Iraqi military has been reduced to a runnning joke by 12 years of sanctions and continued US bombing after the Gulf War of 1991. Non-conventionaly? I'd bet on it. Granted the inspectors have not found evidence of WOMD in Iraq, however it is logicaly consistant, both with the actions of the regime in the past and with the strategic situation sanctions have placed Iraq in, to develop WOMD. Placed in Saddam's shoes WOMD would be my first move.

      Does that mean that Saddam threatens the US? Probably not. Since 1945 WOMD have played only one roll in major war, namely that of a deterant. It's easy to use chemical weapons on ethnic minorities, and it's easy to call those people war criminals. Lets not forget that the United States uses an WWI era WOMD to execute condemed fellons in some states. Hydrogen Cyianide (spelling?) gas.

      Should the US turn it's back on the UN in time of international crisis?

      This doesn't strike me as a very good idea. The message we send is that if you have a huge military and can bomb the UN into the stone age you don't have to listen to them. This of course motivates people to develop weapons to bomb the UN into the stone age, because who really wants to have to listen to the French?

      Are US actions in the Mid East fueling terrorism? Will this come back to bite us in the proverbial ass?

      Quite possibly. Lets look at this objectively.

      Assumption A - Iraq has WOMD.

      If so, those weapons were out of the country the DAY troops started amassing on the boarder. They probably left the country with teams of suicide oporitives under one instruction. In the event of the capture of Baghdad, set these off in a major US urban center. Again, this is what I'd do in Saddam's shoes.

      Assumption B - Iraq does NOT have WOMD.

      THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE BOMBING THEM? All this does is create more resentment for the US. Resentment equates to terrorist recruitment drives. We should be droping girl scouts selling cookies on Iraq, not bombs. Fill the world with warm fuzzies. No one flies planes into buildings because they dislike warm fuzzies

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    8. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by RobinH · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope that Iraq beats the sh!t out of the US

      I think that's pushing it a bit, buddy boy. I agree with many of your points, but...

      Well, I'll have to say that sometimes my gut reaction is to root for the Iraqi army, because they're the underdog, and if they bloodied the U.S. forces, it would give Bush pause before starting more wars.

      I also realized I only had this reaction when I thought of the Iraqi soldiers as just "doing their job". The reality is that the strongest resistance is from the "irregular" units, who are also responsible for humanitarian atrocities. Therefore, the only good that can come out of this is that the Iraqi Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam is defeated quickly. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely.

      I was thinking, if I were an Iraqi commander in charge of defending against a U.S./U.K. attack, what would I do? Well, the principle is that you apply your strength against the enemy's weakness, and you employ tactics that nullify the enemy's strength. From that point of view, the best idea would be to spread my forces out all over Baghdad. I'd arm them with RPGs, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns, etc. I'd sell all my tanks to Iran in exchange for more infantry type weapons. I'd booby-trap the heck out of every building. I'd put troops in the top story of every building in Baghdad.

      When the coalition comes, it will spearhead the attack with tanks, and follow with soldiers. I'd tell my troops never to fire at tanks - only shoot at flesh and blood targets. After they open up on the first wave of infantry, I'd have them retreat in pairs to the next block in a running firefight, forcing the invaders to pay for every block of the city.

      Then, the coalition tanks would probably keep advancing through the streets, but the infantry would be tied up fighting house to house battles. That's where you station your guys with RPGs and anti-tank weapons. Have them open up on the tanks from above, then retreat quickly to the next city block. Rinse and repeat.

      I would, of course, also hide armed resistance in the outskirts so once the main spearhead of coalition forces advances into the city, you can harrass their less protected rear lines.

      The coalition casualties will be around 30% (historically), and the advance will take a long time. The U.S. and U.K. troops will be forced to demolish civilian buildings, lots of civilians will be hit accidentally, and worldwide outrage for starting the war will grow even more. Families in the U.S. will start to question the necessity of the war.

      Anyway, I hold out hope that the war will end quickly, and that neither side will suffer huge losses, but I'm having a hard time believing that's possible.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    9. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jallen02 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see many people focus on WMD. When they are found will it radically alter your entire opinion of the effort?

      You use it as a supporting argument for your US-Hating stance, but would it actually change anything?

      I think people don't even really care of Saddam and his sons have WMD, they are just using it to toot their horns, and in the political arena gain popular opinion.

      That said I don't think war was necesarilly the exactly right choice, but I don't think it is as wrong as many believe. This should have happened 12 years ago. We are just cleaning up our messes now.

    10. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > I hate to break it to you, but some of those "invisible" weapons they're not supposed to have were shot at Kuwait.

      There has been no evidence of a chemical, biological or nuclear payload in the area where the missiles struck. Conventional missiles not exceeding a range of 150km were not banned; if you take a look at a map, you can easily see that Kuweit and Iraq are bordering countries. How do you know the type of the missile that was shot, btw? Didn't they explode?

      > Also, it's kinda amazing that Saddam Hussein is telling his troops they can use chemical weapons (Al Jazeera along with American stations are all confirming that.)

      Wow, you speak Arabian? If you don't, please don't quote Al-Jazeera.

      I have only heard that primarily in American media, there have been rumors of a mysterious red line drawn around Baghdad, upon the crossing of which chemical weapons are to be used. I don't believe the rumors. We shall see.

      Sebastian

    11. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see someone *finally* pointing this out. Many of the anti-US/anti-war stances I have seen use the view that there are no "WMD"..and if they are found...then what? They don't seem to have an answer there. My personal viewpoint is they just want to protest anything, and this seems to be a good excuse.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    12. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by darkweasel · · Score: 0

      And when they are not found? what then?

      can we trust bushII to not "plant" some to justify his war when/if they don't find any?

      --
      .sig.
    13. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by mebon · · Score: 1
      I sincerely hope that Iraq beats the sh!t out of the US

      I'm an American, and I completely agree with you. Our government needs to realize that they can't do anything they want, and that may be the only way to get the idea into their thick skulls.

    14. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wait I am sure you just packed your bags and signed your Army recruiting form right? Since wheh... war is just another thing that people like to bitch about. OK, sonny boy let us know what you think about war after your first tour of duty.

      What? You rather stay at your comfy home and write stupid shit on Slashdot?

      So let me get this straight. We are sending our loved ones (my brother is there) to die because our fraud of a prez thinks that there are WMD that may harm us (right?). So let me ask you the opposite question: What happens if there are no WMD? Eh? What is your answer... "sorry your brother had to put his life on the line, but Ijust had a hunch?"

      F U complacent asshole! As long as someone else is doing the killing and the dying... war for you is just something that poor misguided people like to bitch about, right?

      Spoiled SOB!

    15. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      Hey guys, I hear that Germany placed Command & Conquer on their restricted games list. You wanna talk about it?

    16. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by earthpig · · Score: 1

      i agree too. unfortunately i'm also scared that if things start to go really bad for the US it might trigger bush to do something even more stupid.

      i am also an american!

    17. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so you seem to know something that the rest of the world don't know. Where are those WMD exactly? And how come you witheld that info from the UN inspectors while they were doing their job? Why hasn't the US being able to simply go there and expose Saddam's "WMD" for everyone to see?

      Oh, wait did not the US impose and embargo for over 12 years? Did not the US bomb Iraq on an almost daily basis for most of those 12 years? How come did Iraq manage to develop WMD then? Would not that make the US also somewhat guilty? Since they failed on their embargo, and bombings?

      And what is sooo magical about those 12 years to disarm? Saddam has been in in power for over 25 years. So he had over 25 years to disarm, right? Oh, wait during half that time he was OUR ally... hum... interesting. So if he is our ally, it is ok for him to develop WMD? Also why are we allowed to develop WMD? Under our current course of action, shouldn't China, for example, force the US to disarm inmediatly or face Chinese military retaliation? Certainly the Chinese have all the right to feel threatened by our massive weapon stockpile. And they must do whatever it takes to defend themselves, right?

      Oh, and if Saddam has such a massive WMD arsenal, what makes you think he would use it against US. Why would he do that? What is the benefit for him on doing that? He and his country would be wiped out of the face of the earth in less than you can say "nukulear." I mean Iraq is now and invaded nation, with hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants on its soil massacring its own army. So wouldn't this be the ideal time for Saddam to use its WMD on us? Afterall our pResident has made it clear that he wants him dead, so what is Saddam waiting for to use them WMD?... the second coming of Jesus or Mohamed?

      Sometimes these Right wing types make me wonder, do they require ya'll to just leave your common sense at the door whenever you are force-feed Bush and Co. spews? Try thinking for yourslef every now and then, no... do not worry it is not as painful as Rush and Hannity and the rest of the merry gang would have you believe...

    18. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Surreal_Streaker · · Score: 1
      Since 1945 WOMD have played only one roll in major war, namely that of a deterant.

      Since 1945 WOMD have been held by the countries with the most to loose. The risk/reward equation changes dramatically as countries like North Korea and Iraq begin to aquire WOMD's.

      Of course I'd also that Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds counts as a non-deterrent use of WOMD.

    19. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Are Saddam Husein and Iraq a threat to the United States or US interests?

      Economicly? Certainly. Iraq controls a not insubstantial portion of the world oil reserve. Militarily? Possibly. Certainly not in conventional terms.

      Wait a sec, I thought we were comparing to Kosovo here, which was certainly not a threat to us militarily OR economically!

      The parent is raising the issue of criteria for humanitarian warfare.

    20. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Surreal_Streaker · · Score: 1
      Should the US turn it's back on the UN in time of international crisis?

      Well more to the point why shouldn't the US turn its back on the UN? Clearly the UNis not willing to act as more than a glorified debating club. France has no relevance in the 21st century; the have limited economic and military might, and historically have shown an unwillingness to stand up for what they belive in (including the sovergnity of their own country). Why should the US be held hostage to their veto?

      Assumption B - Iraq does NOT have WOMD. THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE BOMBING THEM?

      Can you think of any other way to convince North Korea not to build, and later possibly sell nukes?
      Should the US pay them a ransom of aid monies and encourage the same behavior by anyone who can build a nuke?
      Do you think they would be intimidated by a UN resolution against them after the UN was so ineffective in Kosovo and IRAQ? Should the US attack their nuclear plant and sacrifice Seoul to convice them we are serious?

    21. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cause that worked so well in Viet Nam.

      Idiot.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    22. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by gotan · · Score: 1

      What really upsets the people is, that the US government simply started this war without presenting convincing reasons that it is necessary and justified. Also the US government put themselves above international agreements, weakening the UN in the process. They basically told anyone of different opinion to go fuck themselves. This is the behaviour of the biggest bully on the schoolyard and it is perceived as such. Bush wanted to have his war, he escalated the conflict and he started it, and noone, not the inspectors findings (or lack of them) nor the UN could get him off this course.

      And no, it really won't change much if WMD are found now. Most people would probably think that it's fabricated evidence to justify that war after it started (like in those film scenes where the corrupt policemen raid an innocents house and drop some drugs in a corner to justify their doing so, this is not about saddam being innocent, it's about the role modell those people will liken the US to). Also G.W. Bush already demonstrated, that he doesn't need evidence to start a war, aparently "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to countries, it was replaced by "who is not with us is against us" recently.

      And while the US probably should have gone against Saddam 12 years ago (a lot of people didn't understand why they did not) the situation today has changed, the Iraq under Saddam and under UN surveillance was under control and no threat to its neighbours. Even the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator doesn't justify starting a war either. That cleaning up is still a war, and one that is probably creating more problems than it solves.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    23. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jhigh · · Score: 0

      Too bad there won't be any buildings left standing in Baghdad by the time the tanks get there. Do you really think the US is NOT going to bomb the crap out of Baghdad? It's called "preparing the battlefield".

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    24. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I was in the reserves for four years, and was activated and sent overseas once. I completely and fully understand the sacrifice and duty involved.

      I still have many friends who are active duty and overseas right now on the front lines. I know the weight of having loved ones overseas, and being the one overseas. Please don't assume so much about people you don't know. It is quite offensive to be insulted and told I can't understand something when I know firsthand.

      The reserves was a nice way to lighten the load of college debt and let me learn about things most people will only see, and not understand, on TV during times like this.

      Now to answer your question, "what if there are no WMD". I can't pull myself from the news for more than a few hours because *I* have people I care about putting their neck on the line for a decision our president made. Bush Jr. has made his choices and regardless of what many people think or call him I don't think anyone, but Bush himself, truly understands the weight and gracity of his decision to send our servicemen and women into harms way. We can't know because we have never done it before, and I hope I never have to. It is hard enough having loved ones in harms way, but to be the one to sends them?

      If there are no WMD the world is still a better place having deposed Saddam and his sons. The atrocities they have commited reach beyond what a reasonable person should be able to stand. I served my nation, and if I am recalled I would gladly give all. To know that the world is a better place, and that people suffer dramatically less for my individual loss if it comes to that. I can bear that cost, can you?

      Jeremy

    25. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Raptorman2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hate to break it to you, but just because the US "stops being the bully" won't make peace come any faster. When people like Saddam are in power; people that don't allow discussions like this one; people who, when confronted, send those people on "vacations" that they never return from or cut their tongue out and make them bleed to death ( as happened about a week and a half ago).

      When these people stop ruling countries, then peace can be attained. There's more to this than just the US backing down it's aggressive stance. However, I do support the troops and the coalition that sent them, because if any of you think that Saddam should just be left alone, ask his 3rd grade teacher...oh wait you can't because he shot her in the face when he was 11.

      I don't dissagree that the US is aggressive, but I do dissagree that we are the only cause of conflict.

      Mike

    26. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, and I never used WMD as my argument for getting rid of him. Killing their own olympic contestants, feeding their people to plastic shredders because they were displeased... and a past history of using WMD.. the list goes on and on and on.. that is plenty of justification for me. See my previous post, here. I have a personal stake in this. When it comes to human life I never take what is spoon fed to me. I learn as much as I can to fully understand as much involved as I can possibly learn.

      Jeremy

    27. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      I'm still conflicted on the whole war issue, but I fear that your assessments are possibly close to what will eventually play out.

      One of the things that irks me right now is to hear the cries of protest that the Iraqi's aren't fighting fair, disguising themselves as civilians, etc. Do those folks not remember basic US history and how we crow about fighting guerilla style, from behind the rocks and trees, rather than conventional lines of combatants advancing on one another in open fields and firing into the mass of unprotected bodies? Weren't our militia 'disguised' as civilians in that they might be called from their homes and businesses to fight at a moment's notice? We didn't 'fight fair' in defense of our homes then against a superior military force, why do we expect the Iraqis to do so under similar circumstances.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    28. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I never felt war without proper UN process was the right decision. I still feel the decision and situation could have been handled better. The UN could see us coming after Saddam due to 9/11 a mile away. We didn't even go into this situation preparing for diplomatic success. We went in with a pugilistic and bullyish approach and I agree, the results are *NOT* good for the international community at large.

      I was vehemently opposed to slapping the UN around like we did. It isn't right.

      That said, I think Iraq has broken enough resolutions for long enough that the war is "justified" to a large extent. And I am not opposed to this war, just how we got there. And since the war has started crying over spilled milk needs to wait until it is over. I am just tired of all the idiotic anarchist and their protests funded by the marxist/socialists taking any opportunity they can to jab America in the eye.

      Jeremy

    29. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Do you really think the US is NOT going to bomb the crap out of Baghdad? It's called "preparing the battlefield".

      I think the U.S. and U.K. have two bad options: either go in on foot and fight for every city block, or just demolish every building so the enemy has nowhere to hide. While the second option may not bother you, it will create much more resentment toward the coalition. The world will blame the U.S. and U.K. for the humanitarian crisis that results.

      The reason that the U.K. is not advancing into the heart of Basra, or flattening all the buildings there, is specifically because of this dilemma, and because there is no strategic necessity for them to capture Basra. On the other hand, the coalition must capture Baghdad and enforce martial law there.

      I believe that other nations more experienced in fighting urban warfare (i.e. Russia) foresaw this problem. They have been sharing their urban warfare experience with the coalition in recent weeks/months. Hopefully that will pay off.

      Also remember that every building that is destroyed, the U.S. and U.K. must help to rebuild as part of the post-war rebuilding of Iraq. Or is the U.S. just going to walk out of Iraq without living up to their obligations? If they do, Iraq will become an anarchy, much like Afghanistan after the Russians were kicked out. Do you think that would be productive for the war on terrorism, or not?

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    30. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has been no evidence of a chemical, biological or nuclear payload in the area where the missiles struck

      So they weren't loaded... this time.

      Conventional missiles not exceeding a range of 150km were not banned

      But weapons that can carry bio, nuke, or chem payloads are banned... whether they happen to be loaded or not.

      there have been rumors of a mysterious red line drawn around Baghdad, upon the crossing of which chemical weapons are to be used. I don't believe the rumors

      You don't beleive the 3000 chemical/biological protective suits found in a hospital? The weapons and ammunition found in the hospital?? Why would a hospital need weapons?

    31. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jhigh · · Score: 0

      I didn't say that destroying buildings was a GOOD thing, or that it didn't bother me. I was merely stating that the US is definitely going to lay down some artillery before they move in.

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    32. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > You don't beleive the 3000 chemical/biological protective suits found in a hospital? The weapons and ammunition found in the hospital?? Why would a hospital need weapons?

      Maybe they put them there in the hope the place wouldn't get bombed?? Duh... US forces have aerial superiority, so Iraqi forces try to negate that advantage by hiding stuff.

      Chem/bio protective suits don't necessitate the existence of chem/bio weapons. You're confusing cause and effect. I'm quite certain US forces also carry protective suits with them. Every decent army does.

      Sebastian

    33. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US government simply started this war without presenting convincing reasons that it is necessary and justified

      There are plenty of people who disagree with you.

      Also the US government put themselves above international agreements, weakening the UN in the process

      The UN weakened itself. Making resolutions, but refusing the back them up is the quick road to becoming irrelevent.

      They basically told anyone of different opinion to go fuck themselves. This is the behaviour of the biggest bully on the schoolyard and it is perceived as such

      We are the last remaining "superpower", and as a sort of 'parent' to the world, we have certain responsibilities. A parent interceded when children fight. They settle the matter themselves. This is what we are doing.

      And, if you disagree and think we shouldn't be doing this, then you must also disagree with the USA giving aid to countries in need. Those two things (giving aid, settling conflicts) are two sides of the same coin.

      And no, it really won't change much if WMD are found now. Most people would probably think that it's fabricated evidence to justify that war after it started (like in those film scenes where the corrupt policemen raid an innocents house and drop some drugs in a corner to justify their doing so,

      A vial of crack is one thing. A chemical weapons factory is a little harder to smuggle into a foreign country, transport to the desired location, and install. A paperwork trail showing a 10-year project to build a nuclear bomb is just a teensy bit more difficult to plant than a joint.

      Anyone who can't see that is stupid, and their opinions should be ignored.

    34. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when they are not found? what then?

      can we trust bushII to not "plant" some to justify his war when/if they don't find any?


      Right. One of the Marines will just reach into his (or her) pocket, and pull out a chemical weapons factory, and throw it in the corner. Then they'll point to it and say "Hey, look it's a chamical weapons factory! See, Saddam had them all along!"

      idiot.

    35. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Do those folks not remember basic US history and how we crow about fighting guerilla style, from behind the rocks and trees, rather than conventional lines of combatants advancing on one another in open fields and firing into the mass of unprotected bodies?

      I try to avoid the whole hypocrisy debate. However, now that you mention it, here's some more kerosene for the fire:

      1) The U.S. is blasting Iraq for showing captured U.S. soldiers on TV. Rumsfeld said that the U.S. never does that. However, with my own eyes, particularly in the 1991 war, I saw lots of Iraqi POWs on CNN. I've also seen lots of Taliban POWs in Guantanamo Bay on CNN, but they're not "really" POW's, right? They're "enemy combatants".

      2) The U.S. is blasting Iraq for torturing POWs, but the U.S. admits to using months of sleep deprivation and white noise to "interrogate" suspected Al Qaeda sympathizers, including some they later let go because they have no evidence. I admit there's a different, but it's not a black and white issue.

      3) Bush keeps saying "God Bless America", but most religions including Bush's religion are pretty clear that they're against the U.S. actions in this case.

      4) The Americans learned guerrilla warfare from the Native Americans, and used it efficiently in the revolutionary war, but then blasts the Iraqis for not fighting fairly.

      5) The U.S. complains that Iraq is not following international law, but the U.S. clearly broke international law by invading Iraq.

      6) I'm pretty sure Americans tell their children that murder is wrong and war is bad, but then they dress up their kids in red, white, and blue clothes to "support the troops". The children ask, "What are the troops doing in Iraq, Daddy?" Father answers "They're shooting at and killing Iraqi soldiers so that the Iraqis don't come here and attack us."

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    36. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This doesn't strike me as a very good idea. The message we send is that if you have a huge military and can bomb the UN into the stone age you don't have to listen to them. This of course motivates people to develop weapons to bomb the UN into the stone age, because who really wants to have to listen to the French?"

      Have you ever heard of the term, 'War of Mutual Destruction'? That is what would occur if the US believed it was stronger than the rest of the world and tried to act on it.

      Simply put, the UN is very large, and whilst the US may call itself a 'superpower' it doesn't actually mean that much. In fact IF the US decided to 'bomb the UN into the stoneage' the distribution of population and nuclear weapons would mean that the US would actually take more damage and be more completely crushed than other members of the UN.

      The UK and other countries may be backing the US now, BUT they will not tolerate attacks on primary UN members, hell even if you only nuke France the UK (and germany, switzerland, spain etc) would retaliate because they are only ~ 30 miles off, and the fallout would hit them. Not to mention germany, italy, spain, russia, china, etc all pouring nuclear weapons into the states as a retaliatory or pre-emptive defensive strike.

      If you look at the balance of forces then two things become clear. Yes the US has the single largest armed force on the planet (Excepting possibly china, but its also firepower per unit not just soldier count), however the combined armies of the the UN are many times the size and firepower of the US. And don't think they wouldn't band together, you attack the EU and the common defence treaty will require all 30+ nations to retaliate, NATO not withstanding.

      But aside from that hell of a stupid assumption, the rest of the post is pretty good.

    37. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by gotan · · Score: 1

      The UN weakened itself. Making resolutions, but refusing the back them up is the quick road to becoming irrelevent.

      The US, working as part of the UN and helping to enforce its resolutions could have strengthened the UN. Applying pressure to get the Iraq to obey the resolutions was right, but once that showed results it was wrong to go on with that war. But apparently the USA aren't interested in a strong UN enforcing international law anyway, they prefer sending in their army enforcing their law.

      We are the last remaining "superpower", and as a sort of 'parent' to the world, ...

      This shows exactly the arrogant stance of the USA toward the world. Get it into your head, that other countries don't consider themselves as toddlers needing a "parent" to guide their way. I don't see how that contradicts the concept that the strong should help the weak. If you help someone (because you have the means to), do you also tell him how he has to lead his life, and if that doesn't help beat some sense into him?

      A chemical weapons factory is a little harder to smuggle into a foreign country, ...

      Sure, if independent experts may properly examine that evidence ... all the "evidence" the USA claims to have is either under wraps or flimsy and unconvincing (a drawn up picture of a truck with a chemical weapons factory, well, i can draw up flying saucers flying over area 51, what does that prove?). And if that "paperwork trail" is anything like those internet printouts that were found in afghanistan then it's not very convincing.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    38. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > To know that the world is a better place [...] I can bear that cost, can you?

      But the cost is very high, and the world will not be a better place. Until a few weeks ago, it was generally accepted agreed upon by the civilized world that countries have no business waging war on another, except in self-defense, or by international consensus. Every country that violated that agreement had to face consequences.

      Now the US itself is violating the UN charter, and the UN stands powerless. Even the nations that support the cause of the US government ought to oppose the means and uphold international law. But the US are the most powerful and in the past have also been one of the most "morally upright" members of the security council, wielder of veto powers. How could they possibly be the target of UN sanctions?

      Thus, the world order the UN symbolizes has been significantly changed. To the worse. No matter how the war in Iraq ends, if weapons of mass destruction are found or not. The war itself never should have happened.

      Sebastian

    39. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      "At least there were people in Kosovo who _asked_ you to intervene."

      You mean like Kurds in Iraq?

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    40. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      US companies of course, one of which was headed for a long time by Powel!

      You're thinking of Haliburton, and the "head" now in government was Donald Rumsfeld (I belive he was VP).

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    41. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Exactly where were they proven to have Scuds. Reporters called them Scud missile attacks. However, even the US DoD and UK MoD said that they were probably legal Al Samoud missiles (missiles under the 150 km UN SCR 687 limit) and some sort of anti-ship missile. Even now CNN and other news agencies have begone to distance themselves from such comments by calling them Iraqi missiles and not SCUDS.


      Oh.... you probably believe that Iraq supplied the 9/11 terrorists.


      I'm not saying that Iraq does not have any prohibited weapons. But there's absolutely no proof currently. Use some critical thinking!

    42. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction.

      --
      Donate free food here
    43. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by diverman · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that correction. If you didn't, I would have. As much as I refrain from forming too strong an opinion on this (being half French and Half American [born in Brooklyn, NY]), I do oppose war in general... but I do NOT oppose supporting our troops once things have started.

      As my father's commanding officer in Vietnam (Hal Moore, lead character played by Mel Gibson in "We were Soldiers") once said, "Hate war! But love the American Soldier."

      And as much as I "voted for the other guy", Powell is the one person I seomwhat trust in this whole thing more than any other.

      -Alex

    44. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Wrong again, VP Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, which is basically the only company capable of assembling an oil well recovery operation on short notice.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    45. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > You mean like Kurds in Iraq?

      They don't actually welcome this war. They want independence, which they are not going to get, they don't want bombs and Turkish troops. You won't see a Kurd uprising in support of the American invasion.

      Sebastian

    46. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by sapone · · Score: 1

      An interesting article about the Kurds in Turkey and their stance on the war:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/s to ry/0,7792,924026,00.html

    47. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Gauchito · · Score: 1

      Can you think of any other way to convince North Korea not to build, and later possibly sell nukes?

      Would that convince them them? Or would it make them more anxious to get their hands on a possible deterrant to invasion since the US seems bent on going to war with no proof to offer for the crime it is acusing the invaded country of?

    48. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I big enough to admit defeat when and if I am wrong about something. I would begin supporting the war if Iraq was found in material breach of its UN SCR obligations. However, you are using a hypothetical situation to justify the war on Iraq. At current, UNMOVIC, many experts (former weapon inspector Scott Ritter), other countries' intelligence agencies and the reports from UNSCOM have painted a picture of a contained power that has no weapons of mass destruction. All of the proof from the American and British sides have been very circumstantial and in many instances have been refuted.



      The "proof" that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger: FALSIFIED!

      The "proof" that Iraq tried to get uranium through Turkey: FALSE

      The "proof" that Iraq tried to get aluminium tubes for uranium refinement: FALSE, according to UNMOVIC

      The satellite imagery "proof" that Iraq tried to start up various chemical and nuclear programs: UNSUBSTANTIATED, even after repeated UNMOVIC inspections

      The "proof" that Iraq has mobile biological weapons production facilities: UNSUBSTANTIATED (report from one Iraqi defector)

      The satellite imagery "proof" given by Powell to the UN SC that Iraq was moving chemical and biological weapons around: UNSUBSTANTIATED and refuted by UNMOVIC

      The "proof" that Iraq still has prohibited SCUD missiles: NOTHING, even during a war Iraq has not used any prohibited weapon platform yet. The missiles according to US DoD and UK MoD officials were not Scuds and were probably Al Samoud missles (legal) and some sort of anti-ship missile


      Iraq has destroyed around half of the Al Samoud 2 missiles that exceed UN SCR limits of 150 km. Iraq has cooperated with providing access to (even to reporters) a wooden UAV that has a very limited range. Iraq has cooperated with several scientists granting private interviews with UNMOVIC officials. There is no need for a war given the current information. If you have real proof then by all means share it (which the US should have done if they have it).

    49. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Don't you read the news? Kurds are begging the U.S. to allow them to start fighting against the Iraqi troops. They are even willing to be placed under the control of U.S. military command.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    50. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Halliburton has its own woes -- they acquired a company (I can't recall which one) that was being class-actioned into bankruptcy by an absestos lawsuit. Halliburton damnear followed it into the grave.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    51. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Don't you read the news?

      I guess I read other news. The last thing I heard about the Kurds in northern Iraq was that they were suspicious, since they would love to fight for their independence, but according to US/UK plans, would not become independent. Turkey even has sent or is sending troops into northern Iraq to control a potential Kurdish break-away from Iraq.

    52. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Here's the update.

      1. Turkey confirmed that they did not send troops into northern Iraq.
      2. Kurds stated that they will not fight for idependence to clam Turkey down but they are willing to fight to get rid of Saddam.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    53. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      2) The U.S. is blasting Iraq for torturing POWs, but the U.S. admits to using months of sleep deprivation and white noise to "interrogate" suspected Al Qaeda sympathizers, including some they later let go because they have no evidence. I admit there's a different, but it's not a black and white issue.

      I think you're trying too hard with this one.

      3) Bush keeps saying "God Bless America", but most religions including Bush's religion are pretty clear that they're against the U.S. actions in this case.

      Actually, there are folks on either side of the issue within many religious groups.

      6) I'm pretty sure Americans tell their children that murder is wrong and war is bad, but then they dress up their kids in red, white, and blue clothes to "support the troops". The children ask, "What are the troops doing in Iraq, Daddy?" Father answers "They're shooting at and killing Iraqi soldiers so that the Iraqis don't come here and attack us."

      I think that's a stretch on a couple of fronts. First, I don't think they'd word their reply quite the way you did, but more importantly there is a difference between murder and justifiably taking another life in most moral viewpoints (debate can rage as to the justifiability in this case).

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    54. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

      Iraq's Kurds see US invasion as a double-edged sword from yahoo news . The Kurds want an independant state. Which I don't think we will give them. If you look back in history, Ho Chi Min welcomed US support to fight the Japanese. After fighting the Japanese, they wanted an indepedant state and look what happend.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    55. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by GarryOwen · · Score: 1

      1. Big differences, the only pictures of Guantanamo prisoners you see are either smuggled or from a far distance. Have you ever seen any Guantanamo Bay prisoners (Or GW I POWs) being forced to do interviews for the news?

      2. I think there is once again a difference between sleep deprivation and white noise treament that US does and the rape / beatings / other torture that Iraq does(Check the GW I POWs that Iraq took, yes they did that).

      3. Bush's religion isn't against the US action. Some practitioners and preachers maybe, but the religion as a whole, no.

      4. The issues we are having is not them fighting from the woods or hiding. The issue we are having is when they use civilians to hide behind (hiding in hospitals, etc.). Now if we weren't as nice as we are, we would be killing them all without worring about descriminating.

      5. The bitch here is that the winner gets to set the laws, soooo, when the US gains control the Iraqies will be prosecuted.

      6. I'm an American and I tell my children murder is wrong, but war is not nessicarily(sp) wrong. Sometimes it is better to attack than to make concessions (see Chamberlain in WWII).

      Also for those who like a bit of history, read about the condemnation of Israel back when they blew up a nuke power plant that was being built(by the French) in Iraq. Everyone bitched then, but now we are thankful that the Israelies stopped the nuke program before it started (think carefully why an oil rich nation would need a nuclear reactor).

    56. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't use such strong wording about whether or not the war should never have happened. I do agree the war should not have happened the way it did. I am worried deeply about the international crisis that has come of it, but what can any of us do now?

      Throwing all politics aside I like to think about this war in the good done for the people of Iraq versus the potential harm. Are the American lives lost, and the billions of dollars spent, worth getting rid of Saddam and his Sons? Is it right for America to declare another government a "regime" and "remove" them? Is this war on a moral high ground, doing something good. Are we saving hundreds of thousands of children by bringing them back to the modern age. Or are we just being huge bullies, showing off all of our "toys" to no real positive effect. In a kind of cosmic-balance sense are more lives being made worse or better for this war? I have pretty strong opinions and answers for these statements and questions.

      Then to factor in the damage to the overall stability and ability of the UN to have any real authority, is it still worth it? Does the removal of authority from the UN damage more lives than we are saving by doing what we are? Has the UN really made a positive effect in the world, and now that they have been "lessened" by our actions is their ability to effect positive change lessened?

      I feel that some of these questions can only be answered by philosophy. I feel that the concrete things, like hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dying and mortality rates 10 times higher than than US all being caused by one person and his direct co-horts are things that can and should be changed. Maybe people aren't being thrown into ovens, but if his people are dying all the same.

      I don't think enough people have attacked these questoins objectively or with an open mind. I don't think enough people have moved past their blind animosity to the administration that started the war to really view this as anything other than wrong.

      Anyway, back to work.

    57. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that Kurds will have external help as Ho Chi Min did.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    58. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You talk about a world order that the UN syboliizes. What are actions without consequence? Iraq, under Saddam, has violated at least 14 UN sanctions and what did the UN do to about this, ask for more time, so he can violate more? When the UN is not willing to back up its own sanctions it tells me that the sanction is just so many words. What this recent event has shown me is that the UN is no better then the League of Nations.

      And simply as a side thought I can not understand Americans who hate their country, tell me, why do they stay here?

    59. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Surreal_Streaker · · Score: 1
      Would that convince them them?

      Hopefully it will, perhaps it won't. As you rightly point out there is no way of knowing.

      The real point is that if you desire a safer world and see North Korea's nuclear capabilities as a dangerous there are three ways to deal with them.

      1. Ignore them and hope the problem goes away, and hope they don't sell their nukes.
      2. Pay North Korea the money it wants and encourage similar problems in the future.
      3. Enforce the UN resolution against Iraq and threaten North Korea with the same if they don't listen to the UN.

      The first two options will not help matters. The last option may.
      Before Sept 11 it was possible to hope that no-one would be willing to use WOMD first - because the nuclear powers had too much to loose. Clearly this is no longer the case. If a nuke was available to Bin Laden do you think he would have hesitated to use it against the US. Are you willing to bet your life that N. Korea would never sell a nuke?

      As a side note do you really think Iran wouldwillingly give up their nuclear program while Saddam is still in power? Isreal?
      Do you prefer more countries with nukes or less? The less model has worked pretty well so far...

    60. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

      Lets hope not.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    61. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Herkules · · Score: 0

      Just a url on why Iran hates the US!

      http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041 60 0iran-archive-articles.html

      =)

      --
      CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
    62. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Iraq, under Saddam, has violated at least 14 UN sanctions and what did the UN do to about this, ask for more time, so he can violate more?

      I believe UN actions on Iraq have been _effective_ - Iraq hasn't been a danger for anyone during the last 12 years. Nevermind many of the resolutions were only grudgingly or not at all adhered to by Iraq. It worked. Iraq was under control.

      When all of a sudden someone in Washington got bored and decided to put pressure on Iraq and try to find a pretext for war. What was the urgent reason to attack Iraq? None, really. Things were working out just fine.

      > And simply as a side thought I can not understand Americans who hate their country, tell me, why do they stay here?

      Probably because they like the countryside, their home, their family, their jobs, they just don't like the crazy politicians and the fanatical patriotism and all the bizarre stuff going on over there. But I'm just guessing. Go ask an American. :).

      Sebastian

    63. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      Wait. You are talking about history here. Two things:
      1) To know about this would require education. This is not something that Americans hold as a high priority. They would rather spend money on more important things like tanks, bombs and planes.
      2) It's history. No one ever learns from history. No one.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    64. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Gauchito · · Score: 1

      As a side note do you really think Iran wouldwillingly give up their nuclear program while Saddam is still in power? Isreal? Do you prefer more countries with nukes or less? The less model has worked pretty well so far...

      You're right, they won't. But they also won't if they see the US as an invasion threat. With the pre-emption policy, they probably do feel like the next target, especially being part of the "axis of evil".

      Removing Saddam isn't wrong, but the method currently being employed is likely to motivate more of these outlaw regimes to arm themselves because they have no way of knowing if the US will come after them or not.

    65. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Bullsh*t.

      Soldiers do NOT carry around every concievable item that they might need in any set of circumstances. That's simply inefficient. You're not going to have MOPP gear on you unless you expect to be gassed.

      The Iraqis that left this stuff behind were expecting chemical weapons to be deployed by their own troops.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    66. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's simply a nation that we can't "leave alone".

      If we ignore the current regime, it would just regenerate it's ability to be dangerous to others.

      When compared to decades of external repression and enforced poverty, a war really isn't that uncivilized.

      We shouldn't have left the Ba-ath's in power to begin with. That was moral cowardice on our part 12 years ago. Instead, we made the "Joe Sixpacks" suffer through 12 years of embargos. Meanwhile, the Ba-aths get to continue their usual oppression.

      All these peaceniks ignore the fact that the status quo wasn't any better for Iraqis.

      If the Arab League weren't impotent, it would have found some way to coax the Ba-ath's out of power. The same goes for the U.N.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    67. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by javiercero · · Score: 1

      Nope, Dick Cheney's was Haliburton's CEO before entering office. The same company that had made business with Saddam in the late 90s for over $25Mil.

      Donal Rumsfeld sat on EBB's board, this is the company that sold the nuclear reactors to Korea (under his watch).

      Now connect the dots.... :)

    68. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      And the one thing that "you whiny conservative righties" don't seem to understand, is that by waging this war, you are not defending yourself, but instead helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations as much as you can!

      Follow the bouncing ball:

      1) Start war in Iraq to incite terrorists.
      2) Terrorists attack and kill Americans.
      3) PATRIOT 2! Emergency measures, suspend the constitution, disband Congress.
      4) Ultimate power!

      Of course I could be wrong.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    69. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your hatred for the US has made you go as far as do justify multiple violations of the geneva conventions....Real nice..

    70. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Or, we could arm and quickly train 50,000 Kurds. And give them some special forces guys to call in air support as needed.

      If innocent Muslims get killed, it'll be by other Muslims. The Republican Guard will be fighting people whose families they've nerve gassed. They may more readily consider surrendering to US forces.

    71. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Kosovo was entirely different. First, the internal community intervened AFTER the LOCAL conflict took place, to settle things down, after ONU decided it. It was an international effort.

      The UN opposed the bombing attacks on Serbia. That action was undertaken "unilaterally" by NATO.

      For the Iraq war, 49 countries are on board. That sounds like an "international effort" to me.

    72. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by bigmammoth · · Score: 1

      .. US. Are you willing to bet your life that N. Korea would never sell a nuke? ..

      correction are you willing to bet the life of a few thousand Iraqi's? I don't know it seems to me these countries are pissed off at the US because of our policie to prevent tragedy "here", often involves tragedy over "there"

    73. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by quax · · Score: 1

      I think at this point it is irrelevant how bad or evil Saddam is. The only thing that matters is: Will the Iraqi rather stick with him and fight the invading army or will they feel liberated any time soon?

      My gut feeling from the very beginning was that Arab nationalism and hate for America will weigh more than hate for Saddam.

      Bush/Blair already lost their case in the diplomatic realm of the UN. I fear they will also lose the fight for the heart and minds of the Iraqis.

    74. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get it into your head, that other countries don't consider themselves as toddlers needing a "parent" to guide their way.

      But they sure as fuck accept our aid, don't they!

      Like fucking welfare recipients- they'll take and take, and take... but when it comes time to pay back what they were given, it's "How dare you tell me what to do!".

      Kill them. Kill them all.

    75. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Gorbie · · Score: 1

      Wishing americans dead is a good recipie for foe development.

      I would not argue that attacking Iraq was a good idea. I would argue that now that we are there, we should support our troops.

      Hussien has run his country into the ground in an oppressive dictatorship. People in the middle east protesting the US are also protesting Hussien at the same time. Very odd to see.

      While I don't think it gives any country the right to attack another, I will say a few things in defense of the US.

      1) The US gives more foreign aid in money, food, and medical supplies than any other country. This was true in 2001 and 2002, and previous to that it was second to japan since the early 90's. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our money to help others. 11.4 billion worth in 2003. Those are just the ODA numbers. For the real story look here

      2) Whenever any country needs assistance militarily they come to the US. We have fought wars and spilled the blood of our citizens in 2 world wars, the korean war, the vietnam war, the gulf war, and several more minor conflicts. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our blood to help others.

      3) Whenever a country has needed assistance to rebuild after such a war we help them do that. We pay for the war, and we pay for the rebuilding. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our money to help others.

      If it weren't for #2, all of Europe would be eating schnitzel twice over, and if it weren't for #3 Germany wouldn't be able to eat at all.

      Bush's diplomatic skills are bad, but the hearts of the US population are in the right place. We do want freedom for the people in Iraq. We are sad every time we hear about another casualty on the radio in the war. Our hearts go out every time we hear about someone going hungry somewhere. The aid numbers above only reflest what the govt.
      does.

      This Link provides the ODA numbers, and while in contrast to the link above, does also speak of the total charitable donations of the US population, which was around 34 billion last year. That's a total of at least 45 billion dollars in aid.

      But...if you want to kill us off, that's fine. Just don't come knocking if you need anything.

    76. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Gorbie · · Score: 1

      You make good points. The company you refer to was actually run by Cheney (sp?), but it is still true.

      The place I would argue is only in the veto area. Do some research into the ties France, Germany, and Russia have with Iraq and the types of assistance they have provided over the last 12 years. It flies completely in the face of the UN Security resolutions, and I would speculate that these countries just don't want to be found guilty of such things in the international arena.

      One thing that I really think people should take from what you say is that they should try not to be a member of what I call "The fellowship of the Sheep", or those that blindly go through life accepting the spoonfed propaganda that those who have like views feed them through variou media outlets.

    77. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      The place I would argue is only in the veto area. Do some research into the ties France, Germany, and Russia have with Iraq and the types of assistance they have provided over the last 12 years. It flies completely in the face of the UN Security resolutions, and I would speculate that these countries just don't want to be found guilty of such things in the international arena.
      Note that this is a partial repost from another message I just posted in another thread, because I also referred to your message. It's not because I don't think your post doesn't deserve its own reply, just because I don't think typing the same thing twice in different words will add any value to my arguments :) Anyway:

      Before you go to war, you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth it. Obviously, most of the countries in the UN didn't think so. Bush wanted a war he could win (he thought it would even be easy, but it seems like he made a small mistake there), so he simply used the UN resolutions as a pretext to start this war. For Iran, it seems he isn't even going through that trouble anymore (although Powel seems to be trying to convince him otherwise).

      It is certainly possible that France, Germany and Russia have other reasons to be against a war on Iraq than just that they think it's plain stupid, but they were/are not the only ones that are against. Of course they are the most vocal, since they are all quite large and diplomatic heavy-weight countries, but for example Belgium ("my" country) is also against. And all those millions of people that protest(ed) against the war. I don't think you can dismiss that all as "they have other interests to protect" or "they are misguided, they don't know what they are talking about".

      Maybe I should have added that the US gov't is not just ignoring veto's, but also the will of the majority of the members of the UN and that especially that fact is undercutting their moral grounds. If the whole world thought this war was necessary/"a good idea" except for a small minority that included two or three security council members with veto power, the situation would be quite different in my eyes.

      --
      Donate free food here
    78. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Saib0t · · Score: 1
      1) The US gives more foreign aid in money, food, and medical supplies than any other country. This was true in 2001 and 2002, and previous to that it was second to japan since the early 90's. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our money to help others. 11.4 billion worth in 2003. Those are just the ODA numbers. For the real story look here [usaid.gov]

      being the largest country (except for china) helps too, I'd be curioous to see the same figures per capita

      2) Whenever any country needs assistance militarily they come to the US. We have fought wars and spilled the blood of our citizens in 2 world wars, the korean war, the vietnam war, the gulf war, and several more minor conflicts. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our blood to help others.
      I remember pretty well the 2 world war, there is actually a pretty large american military 20 minutes from where I live (in belgium). I don't think the US entered that war out of good will though, a germany the size of europe sure wouldn't have pleased the US in the long run. The other wars you mention were unneeded, especially the vietnam and gulf war. There's no denying that the US helped quite a lot when military strength was needed. A good thing that this role has been taken by the UN now. Everything but peace insurance is not a good idea imho.
      3) Whenever a country has needed assistance to rebuild after such a war we help them do that. We pay for the war, and we pay for the rebuilding. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our money to help others.
      That's the problem here, it's not your money, it's the internation fund's money. So more money to your industries, more money to your taxpayers.
      We do want freedom for the people in Iraq.
      Leave them alone, all the other countries have gone through that, when they're tired enough of sadam, they'll take arms and fight. If they don't win, it probably means that they aren't pissed enough or a large enough part of the population. Helping people without their consent is a very good way of making an enmity between you, like colonialism showed.
      But...if you want to kill us off, that's fine. Just don't come knocking if you need anything.
      You got me wrong, I don't have anything against the US population, I actually admire some of them. What I hate is that the US turns out to be an international bully. Everyone not playing their way is threatened one way or another, look at all the tarrifs and stupid restrictions on trade.
      Do you also think the US acts out of good will here?
      Do you really think they're fighting sadam for the greater good? I'd say they'd better target some other more dangerous countries, or some of their economical partners who *really* have no respect for human rights such as china and korea...
      The reason I want Iraq to give a kick in the figurative nuts of the USA is to have them stop meddling in other people's business on false pretenses.
      --

      One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    79. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Gorbie · · Score: 1

      A few points. First with respect to foreign aid per capita. As I said, that 11.4 billion is only a portion of what the U.S. gov't actually gives in aid. There are specific types of aid that the organization tracking this actually counts, and other types that it doesn't.

      What is also noted by that organization is that the U.S. population gives 3x that amount in foreign charities. No other country comes remotely close. Forgive me if that sounds snobbish, it is just meant as a presentation of fact.

      With regard to the U.N., they have utterly failed in this role, and specifically because of the Iraqi conflict. Long before the war I was against making any military strikes against another country, and adamantly so without U.N. backing. Unfortunately the Security Council failed in enforcing it's own will. Without diving off to find the link again, if you would just read the security council's 1441 resolution you will see what I mean. There can be no doubt that this resolution, which cites all of the previous resolutions regarding Iraq and the failure of Iraq to comply, called for immediate and full cooperation. The inspectors reported on numerous occasions that this was not the case. Did they say that they thought more inspections would be a good thing? Hell yes, and I'm somewhat certain that anyone in the position to keep their job by being the sole authority on whether or not it should continue would say the same thing.

      What the U.N. Security council has done is rendered itself utterly powerless and meaningless with it's inability and lack of will to prosecute a country that was in direct contravention of the U.N. will.

      Bush and his administration look foolish and they have made some enormous political blunders, but in the end I do think they are doing what needs to be done.

      About the money, it is not the international fund's money I am talking about. it is the money we spend directly in every country we have been involved in a conflict with to help that country rebuild, dating back to the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      About freedom for the people of Iraq: Are you a student of history? Name me any country that has freed itself from a barbaric dictator that regularly killed any citizen that might have hinted at being against that dictator. It would never happen! Saddam's control is too absolute, and his people are too afraid. They aren't pissed off, they don't want to die for sneezing the wrong way! I agree that we will leave the situation with egg on our face, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone did the right thing and wasn't recognized for it.

      On getting you wrong, you really should go back and read your first post. There is a reason you are my only listed foe. That was extraordinarily anti american and not justified in my view.

      Is the U.S. a bully? Hmm...interesting discussion. What I would point out is that the US is asked to head virtually every military operation worked through the UN or NATO. Maybe this makes us seem worse than we are because we make the front page...AND take most of the risks...AND never ask for anything in return.

      As far as Tarrifs go...it's interesting that you mention this. I recently discussed thsi with someone else. For good or for bad, the tarrifs exist largely because of the enormous trade defecit that the US carries. We buy soo much more than poeple are buying from us, and it is necessary to balance that to keep our economy striving. It allows US companies to stay competetive even when they have to pay higher US salaries. Is it fair? I don't know...probably not, but fair isn't the point. The point is that you are getting more of our money than we are of yours and the tarrifs create at least somewhat of a better balance.

      In the case of China or Korea, the circumsyances surrounding our relatins with those countries demand a different tact. I think you will see that once this war is over.

      And I will leave you with the same sentiment I did last. time. Name me ONE i

    80. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Saib0t · · Score: 1
      First and foremost, I am sorry you're taking it so bad you put me in your foes list. I personally don't use that except for morons who don't elaborate their [lack of] thought and are just plain rude.

      Some of your arguments make sense, and I'll keep then in mind, but I'll respond to a couple of your arguments nonetheless, instead of just modding you overrated or some such and be gone with it.

      Name me any country that has freed itself from a barbaric dictator that regularly killed any citizen that might have hinted at being against that dictator. It would never happen!

      - France
      - Russia
      - Spain
      - Italy
      - Hungary
      - Zaire (now Congo)
      - ...

      The inspectors reported on numerous occasions that this was not the case. Did they say that they thought more inspections would be a good thing? Hell yes, and I'm somewhat certain that anyone in the position to keep their job by being the sole authority on whether or not it should continue would say the same thing.

      You are saying here that the inspectors are partial and keep pushing for more inspections because they want to keep their jobs. By this argument, I could say that they report that Iraq is not cooperating for the sole reason of keeping their job too. I personally do expect profesionalism on their part.
      Still about the inspections. Iraq has infringed their initial agreement to fully help the inspector check that they had removed all weapons and the like. I'd be happy to see what the US would do under such circumstances by the way, but that's beside the point for the time being. My opinion is that they should not have been banned from having weapons in the first place, but having been so, they should have complied. Does that justify an attack, hell no.
      I can see no good reason the US attacked Iraq. I'll name what I think are the reasons:
      - 9/11 traumatized the US in a way nothing has before. The US had been [to the US citizen] an unbreakable fortress. This trauma led to a sense of revenge. After failing to kill Ossama Bin Laden, the US govt had to move their revenge rage elsewhere.
      May I here remind you that we're talking about the same Bin Laden that the US provided money and weapons to?
      - Showing the world US is the strongest, easy one.
      - Bush is a texan ;-)
      - Putting a US favorable govt in Iraq gives the US a foothold in middle east it doesn't have at the moment, after the diplomatical mood between UK and Egypt went a bit worse.
      Other than that, I don't see no reason.

      We buy soo much more than poeple are buying from us, and it is necessary to balance that to keep our economy striving. It allows US companies to stay competetive even when they have to pay higher US salaries. Is it fair? I don't know...probably not, but fair isn't the point. The point is that you are getting more of our money than we are of yours and the tarrifs create at least somewhat of a better balance.

      Tariffs are not there to compensate for lower salaries, not all the time anyway. I am talking here about something I know, steel and food tariffs from Europe. You can't reasonably argue that the european citizen are paid lower than their american counterparts. The tariffs are there to balance the inefficiency of the US in some sectors. Capitalism isn't supposed to work like that. In theory, whoever provides the best at the lower cost wins (comparing apples and apples here, not talking about slave labors like in some asian countries). So it's not fair, but like you said, fair isn't the point. And the world isn't fair. But it's still a measure on how the US acts towards the rest of the world.

      In the case of China or Korea, the circumsyances surrounding our relatins with those countries demand a different tact. I think you will see that once this war is over.

      You postpone your arguments because you have none. Iraq is the ta

      --

      One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    81. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Gorbie · · Score: 1

      Basic response before I go on and hold up my side of the arguement.

      You wish Iraq to kick the U.S. in the nuts.

      You say 9/11 was a kick in the nuts.

      Therefore you wish americans to die.

      You are THE enemy, and until that stance changes Unites states citizens will view all people like you as such.

      The weenies in France defacing WWII grave sites are not worth my toilet paper refuse, and they suck for defacing the memory of blood that bought them freedon, but that doesn't make them an enemy it makes them stupid. What makes them an enemy is hoping the U.S. loses the war, and therefore that many americans die.

      The difference between people like you and people like me is that you are sitting in you chair wishing death upon the citizens of a nation. I wish no such thing and feel the same remorse for any honorable Iraqi soldier killed in this war. The only people I have no remorse for are Saddam and his ilk, and soldiers that do things like wave a white flag and then when you are close drop the flag and start shooting.

      Or soldiers that round up a bunch of women and kids, put them in a bus and tell them "I am going to shoot your husbands and fathers if you don't go and run that American checkpoint". When they try and run the checkpoint and get killed, then the soldiers blame the U.S.

      Or soldiers that set up an explosion in a marketplace to kill many of their own people. Then, they take rocket debris from a rocket that could not have possibly been the cause of the explosion, scatter it around and blame the U.S. for killing the people.

      Or soldiers that make their military camps in hospitals, running around with women and babies in front of them so that they will get shot first, rather than protecting the same women and children, which should be their mission. Not that it matters, because if they were saved they would just be put on a bus to run a checkpoint and get shot.

      You earn enmity with this. I generally have no enmity towards anyone, ever. Think about it.

    82. Re:Do you remember Kosovo? by Gorbie · · Score: 1

      Now...on to the arguement, and in this I will try and be completely civil. I would love to change your mind, but all I can do here is present facts.

      Firstly, with your list of countries, could you please cite some historical referrence to what you are referring. I would like to compare and contrast the situations you are suggesting as similar.

      Regarding lower wages and tarriffs. It is foolish to believe that there is not a great disparity between the U.S. and Europe. France and Germany in particular are in a great state of economic crisis. I am not saying that some european products aren't better for less money or that they are not worth purchasing. I am saying that the gov'ts use of tarriffs is a way to balance US industry vs. international industry. Does this go against capitalism? Interesting arguement, and I would only say in response that competition within the United States is different from competition from outside. In the end, we need to take care of ourselves because nobody else is looking out for us.

      Regarding the first gulf war, I would refer you here to review the chronology of the war.

      To sum it up, Saddam whined about oil saying "They took more than their fair share, boo-hoo" , we said "sheesh, can't you settle it?", he said "Sure" and invaded, we froze BOTH Iraq and Kuwait's assets, the UN said "stop", Saddam said "F.U., Kuwait is mine", The UN said "uh-uh", and then said, "Go Get-em U.S.", at which point we did, and ALL we did was free Kuwait because that is ALL we were ASKED to do.

      I do not think strength is the only way to solve something. I think that when a country COMPLETELY IGNORES U.N directives for 12 years, something needs to be done. "Pretty Please" didn't seem to be working, and at that point there is no other choice. Saddam refused to comply for, and I will say it again, 12 years. Give me a suggestion that would have worked. Something that, all of a sudden after 12 years of non-compliance, would have been executed simply, quickly, and in the manner intended, that would have had any result whatsoever.

      You can't, because there is none.

  136. Original C&C vs War Against Terror by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

    1) C&C: Intro starts with player flipping through TV channels on cable and then seeing a building blow up with a voice over about the Nod Terrorist Organisation.

    War Against Terror: Begins with 24 hour coverage of the 9-11 attack.

    2) C&C: Immediately after the intro you hear two conflicting voices and are forced to choose a side.

    War Against Terror: "Let those who harbor terrorists know they and the terrorists themselves are our enemies, without distinction. America has the will and the resources to defeat you. We are a determined and rich nation with clever and resourceful people. We will also need and we demand the assistance of every government in the world to help us. Whoever does is our friend and whoever does not will be considered to be our enemy."

    3) C&C: involves grey troops fighting in tall snowbound mountains, or sand coloured troops fighting in the deserts.

    War Against Terror: Footage of Afghanistan mountain campaign, and desert footage of south-central iraq.

    4) C&C: American side has one General Shepard who guides you through the missions, until he disappears for a while because the UN hates him.

    War Against Terror: The CNN has Gen. Don Shepherd to guide you through the hunt for Bin Laden. Until the USA goes for unilateral action with it's coalition of the willing and the UN hates us.

    5) C&C: All this bloodshed for a rare natural resource which promises untold power to whoever controls it.

    War Against Terror: hmmm. you're right. Self Defense.

    6) C&C: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Kane.

    War Against Terror: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Osama.

    7) C&C: New weapons every successful mission.

    War Against Terror: MOAB. Stryker. SA80-A2.

    8) C&C: We will use cleansing Nuclear Fire.

    War Against Terror: Oh no. Just find the silver crate and get the hell out of there.

    9) C&C: the sequel, red alert, has Kane controlling Stalin.

    War Against Terror: "As a young man, Saddam Hussein admired Hitler's system of government. Stalin and his totalitarian model became Saddam's exemplars. Saddam tailored his system along Nazi and Stalinist lines, though it had a number of new features as well. In keeping with Nazi ideals, Iraq's Ba'th system had four main pillars: totalitarian ideology, single-party rule, a command economy (nominally socialist), and firm control over the media and the army."

    10) more to come. remember: there are at least two endings, to promote better replay value.

    1. Re:Original C&C vs War Against Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up

      & juat make sure that I get to drive the harvester

    2. Re:Original C&C vs War Against Terror by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      A few things:

      4) In the C&C plotline, GDI "played" along with NOD's propoganda campaign to lull them into a false sense of security. Shepard was busy performing that task.

      9) Red Alert (which is actually a prequel) has Kane as an advisor to Stalin. This plotline was dropped entirly due to a later decision to make Red Alert 2 (where Kane doesn't exist at all anymore.)

  137. Imposter...lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should have read a bit on these pages ... al jazeera means island and is a common term for the arab part of the world

    this page is probably much older than the television's site

    1. Re:Imposter...lol by kaisa_sosey · · Score: 1

      Ok, then thank you for this information.

      Anyhow,i think there must be a clear statement that www.al-jazeera.us is not related to Al-Jazeera TV.

  138. sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just when you think people in europe couldnt get any more wussy.

    HEY SCHRODUM IT"S A GAME!

  139. Iraq made me buy C&C Generals by wackybrit · · Score: 1

    I have to admit this, as a sick bastard, that seeing the Iraqi War start up again made me want to buy C&C Generals, so I did.

    Now I can live my own battles, and kick Iraq's ass.

    Sad, but true.

  140. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Mitch61 · · Score: 0

    The US are the sole reason for the existence of terrorism. The way they try to control the world is just asking to get a slap in their face. And yes, I think Americans can only think of solutions in terms of warfare. They said the weapons inspections took too long, but it will take WAY longer before the Iraq region is stable again

  141. Some people do not get it by panurge · · Score: 1
    The US has never been invaded and conquered except by its present majority inhabitants. Nor has the UK. Proportionately far more Northern Irish citizens have been killed by the IRA than US citizens by Al-Queda, but the UK somehow managed not to carpet bomb Crossmaglen and Londonderry. It's a pity the present UK PM doesn't seem to have followed the example of his predecessors over Iraq.

    France, Germany and Russia have a history of invasion as well as themselves being the aggressors.

    The Germans know that the cause of WW2 was the outcome of WW1. OK, they (or rather the Kaiser and his military elite, the product of the conquest of the rest of the German states by Prussia) made WW1 into a pan-European conflict. But the result is that modern Germans are well placed to understand that aggression and invasion ultimately result in a cycle of violence unless something really intelligent is done afterwards. Like Marshall Aid.

    They also know that there were many times before WW2 when Hitler could have been stopped. If the European states and the Soviet Union had pursued a policy of control and mutual support, beginning as soon as they realised the kind of state Germany had become (pretty obvious by the 1936 Olympics) Hitler could have been contained. But the states were divided among themselves. France and Britain had significant numbers of Nazi sympathisers, Italy had Mussolini, and the US thought Britain could do with someone taking it down a peg or two.

    So I do not think the Germans are being at all inconsistent. They are actually learning from history, and Churchill's remark that jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

    Restricting (not banning) access to mindless violence and seeking to promote more constructive engagement seems to me like a sensible thing for a government to do. But then I'm biased. In the 80s I worked for a company that was being unofficially urged by the Government to sell arms to our friend in Iraq, Saddam. He was the same homicidal lunatic then. And instead of containing him, our governments built him up. I think the Germans have a point, and that people who try and shout them down are doing it because they are afraid of the truth they might hear.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Some people do not get it by InadequateCamel · · Score: 1

      "I think the Germans have a point, and that people who try and shout them down are doing it because they are afraid of the truth they might hear."

      No, I think that the people who criticise this action do so because it is a waste of time and money. Repeat after me: TV and video games do not turn you into a sociopath. If they did we would all be pathological killers by now, but we aren't.

      I'm sorry, but your post has very little to do with the fact that a video game was taken off the shelf because it promotes violence. If anything, these games show that aggression may eventually lead to a favourable outcome but that casualties and losses are inevitable, and aggression causes retaliation.

    2. Re:Some people do not get it by salesgeek · · Score: 1
      The Germans know that the cause of WW2 was the outcome of WW1. OK, they (or rather the Kaiser and his military elite, the product of the conquest of the rest of the German states by Prussia) made WW1 into a pan-European conflict. But the result is that modern Germans are well placed to understand that aggression and invasion ultimately result in a cycle of violence unless something really intelligent is done afterwards. Like Marshall Aid.


      Much like the current conflict in Iraq is the result of the outcome of the First Gulf War and the inadequate resolution it came to. There was too much left undone on both sides for there to be lasting peace (if you think there was peace, ask a pilot who was being shot at daily enforcing terms of Iraq's surrender or the people who were missled in retaliation). I can only hope the final resolution is one that General Marshall would have been proud of.

      Restricting (not banning) access to mindless violence and seeking to promote more constructive engagement seems to me like a sensible thing for a government to do.


      If you don't like your freedom, then let govenment ban inconsequential items like video games. It's when government intrudes on small liberties that it gains the audacity to oppress on bigger issues. Of course, some people like being told what to do.

      $G
      --
      -- $G
    3. Re:Some people do not get it by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      I would beg to differ. The Germans seemingly have learned nothing from history. It is the British and the Americans who know that appeasing a dictator only leads to war, but on a time and place of the dictator's choosing.

      I believe it was the then British Prime Appeaser, Chamberlain who proclaimed "peace in our time" after meeting with Hitler.

      Peace at ANY cost ironically usually leads to war. In this case, Saddam has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, murdered thousands of his own people, simply for opposing him, kicked U.N weapons inspectors out of his country. (only allowing them to return when the U.S. began it's military buildup) and withstood over a decade of sanctions. (by the way, many of the same people opposed to this war were also calling for an end to those sanctions).

      I'm not sure how much more we could have expected to accomplish via diplomatic means. The folks opposed to this war increasingly remind me of Chamberlain and his ilk. They meant well, but ultimately cost the lives of millions more people by not stopping Hitler before his military grew too powerful.

      --
      - dj
    4. Re:Some people do not get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, no one has "carpet bombed" Iraq.

  142. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not a ban, it is a restriction that forbids advertising and sale to people under 18 - others can purchase it legally. Same things apply to alcohol, cigarettes, weapons etc. It may seem stupid to you to restrict the sale of a computer game, but then, that's the difference in views. It seems strange to us, too, that you can't officially get a beer in all US states if you're not 21 but steer a car at 16.
    I think rules like that are stupid in general, but they're certainly not the worst problem.

    BTW youngsters here tend to laugh at that list. They get any game they want whenever they want, SSEY HAFF VAYS hahaa

  143. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by Carbonite · · Score: 1

    I believe WWII should have also taught some lessons about appeasement and the consequences of ignoring problems until they become too difficult to handle alone. Peace is not defined simply by the abscence of war.

    --
    ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
  144. Not a surprise, but distressing nonetheless by TopShelf · · Score: 1

    What's next, Chess???

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  145. what ever you do... by nighty5 · · Score: 1

    [John Cleese]

    don't mention the war!!!!

  146. Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason for banning the game is of cause that terrorists are portrayed as (surprise!) muslim arabs.

    In every conflict germany has consistently cited with the side that want to kill the jews. I guess they want to see their job finished.

  147. The only way to resolve conflicts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right! Killing isn't the only way to resolve conflicts. Now, if the game allowed you to take your opponenets and march them off to the gas chamber rather than just shooting them that would be OK in Germany.

  148. Chess by fjin · · Score: 1

    Chess must be also in Restricted List, because, it is after all - a War Game, very simplified in details though, but still it is.

  149. That is so last month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    This game is on the restricted list in Germany since the 28 of February as you can read here.

  150. Turkey?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I remember Turkey getting into trouble with the EU after banning *all* computer games and the EU felt they were not living up to their free trade obligation to other EU nations.

    Maybe an 18+ rating was appropriate, we don't have a R game rating here (Australia) and so games that they feel are too violent/sexual for MA are banned. They were only allowed to release a tuned down version of GTA3.

  151. Germany is NOT anti-war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just chose their side and fight for the arabs as best they currently can.

    1. Re:Germany is NOT anti-war. by sapone · · Score: 1

      > They just chose their side and fight for the arabs as best they currently can.

      I think you suffer from a misconception there.
      Germany definitely is against the war because the Germans are against the war. There have been hundreds of thousands of people marching and protesting against the killing of innocents and the breaking of international law. Peace movement in Germany has been traditionally strong, at least since the 1970s-80s. German constitution even forbids war that is not in direct self-defense or direct defense of an ally.

      Sebastian

  152. You, sir, are ill-informed. by nurightshu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because the Provos in Ireland are so upset about American hegemonistic tendencies that it's encouraged them to rise up and commit acts of terror, right? Ditto the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elan, the Basque nationalists, the PKK in Turkey, the New People's Army in the Phillipines, the Zapatistas in Chiapas State, and probably several others I've never heard of.

    You "think Americans can only think of solutions in terms of warfare" because that's what grabs headlines. Brinksmanship is far more interesting on the world stage than a civil trade negotiation. Please note that when the Chinese were essentially holding U.S. Navy personnel hostage, that America did not go to war. Please note also that we are acting currently to enforce UN Security Council resolutions (most of them unanimous, if memory serves) that have been on the books for an even dozen years. Simply because some other countries object to the things they agreed to in the past doesn't mean our will must waver now.

    When you make obviously inflammatory blanket statements that have no basis in fact whatsofuckingever, expect to get them thrown back in your face. Oh, and as for your statement about Americans trying to control the world, I leave you with a quote from Colin Powell:

    Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.
    --
    They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
    1. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by djdole · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well said. *Applause* Finally an intelectual who knows the facts, can discren the truth from the rumors, and is intelligent enough to convey himself with tact.

    2. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by nick_davison · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Please note also that we are acting currently to enforce UN Security Council resolutions (most of them unanimous, if memory serves) that have been on the books for an even dozen years.

      And, as Robin Cook pointed out while resigning from the British government over the matter...
      Full Text

      "Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

      I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

      Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

      We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply."

      I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

      Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq."


      Many people's problem with the war is simply that: Iraq breaches resolutions for 12 years, Israel for 30+; Iraq has oil, Israel doesn't; Iraq gets invaded, Israel doesn't. I'm not advocating attacking Israel or supporting Saddam. I'm simply pointing out the double standards and how they lead to assumptions that many in the US feel are unfair.

      The justification for war on the back of defending a UN resolution, on the back of the weak UN, while the US has been one of the main forces stopping other resolutions from being enforced, is somewhat laughable.

      Were I more petit, I'd add "In that, you, sir, are ill-informed."
    3. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by buro9 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I generally resist responding to posts which are of a inflammous nature, but I do disagree with this one.

      I simply do not accept that the US and UK (and I am in the latter) are at war on the basis or weapons or dictatorship or the suffering of the Iraqi people... all are good reasons to go to war, but there are other countries much higher on the list if those are the criteria.

      I suggest you read this:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/business/programmes/mo neyprog ramme/archive/oil.shtml

      The URL gives it away a little... but it should be noted that this is a pure money programme, economics and nothing else. No argument was given for or against the regime in Iraq or Bush and the US administration, it simply stated what had happened and the impact of declining production in Texas (in the 70's) and later around the world.

      As much as I would like to believe in the government I helped elect, I simply cannot accept what they say against such a wealth of evidence.

      Not that I agree with Russia and France, both of whom also have interests (current) in the oil in Iraq.

      Ah well, there goes my Karma.

    4. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Trejus · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that quote. It really made me stop and think.

      I think the fact that we didn't remove Saddam in the beginning is testament to this. Instead of taking the easy way out and deposing of the dictator as soon as we could, we tried to work with him. Unfortunatly, things did not work out, and we have been forced to fight this war.

      --
      "To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
    5. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by glenrm · · Score: 1

      Well said, this is perhaps one of the best comments I have ever read. Get a grip everybody the world is becoming a better place. In the near future the only war with Iraq will be multiplay C&C, I am not kidding this is the way things are going to be, it will be a much better world, full of multi-player goodness.

    6. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by krist0 · · Score: 1

      one thing i found pretty funny from the above person,

      "Please note that when the Chinese were essentially holding U.S. Navy personnel hostage, that America did not go to war."

      if i think about the fights america has chosen to participate in recently (and i dont mean ww2 or that, cause back then it seemed like america actually cared about other countrys in the world) are the ones it could easily dominate....afghanistan, somalia, now iraq, they are all conflicts that america has started, knowing full well they can EASILY dominate....kinda like a group of 10 guys beating up 1....

      sure these countries do bad things, but if america wanted to stop the people it thinks are really bad, or who really would be a threat to the "AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE (TM)" then they would be off to war with

      China
      North Korea

      but choses not to, mainly cause they would get trully spanked (I am no saying north korea could really hurt america, but they have nukes.....bush respects that)

      so yeah, all this talk of "we dont start wars with everyone" is true, america only fights the fights it can win easily, while the reasons they claim they are fighting the current war (to liberate these people of their oil^H^H^H from saddam, eliminate the weapons of MD etc) are obviously something they dont believe in, so yeah, draw your own conclusions, think for once....

      ---------
      i am out

      --
      all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
    7. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

      We needed half of Mexico to bury our dead?

    8. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Were I more petit, I'd add "In that, you, sir, are ill-informed."

      You did, so I guess you are.

    9. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Here is an interesting quote regarding WW1. The war that was considered "The war to end all wars.."

      It was "The War To End All Wars,"- a senseless slaughter that set the stage for the bloodiest century in human history.
      Yet, it was more than just a war between nations. It was a war between what was and what was to be. The "old world" was dying, and the new world had yet to be born. People of all classes and nations saw it as some great cleansing fire that would accelerate this battle and lead to a better world. But, when it was over, more than men had died in the mud of the battlefields. The naive dreams of progress, along with the innocence of the pre-war world, faith in God, and hope in the future all died in the trenches of Europe.
      Tony Novosel

    10. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      Please note that when the Chinese were essentially holding U.S. Navy personnel hostage, that America did not go to war.

      It's called pragmatism. The US and China in a war would be too evenly matched. Much better to go up against someone who has no chance of beating you.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    11. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      A couple points. You point to the US enforcing resolutions from the past but I don't consider enforcing things from a dozen years ago while ignoring the international community is working with the rest of the world.

      Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

      Please note you don't need to take land to gain power. There are currently many American supported dictatorships the only issue the US cares about here is economic and political power I'd say more but i Have to go.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course we respects anyone with nuclear weapons. If we didn't then we would be accused of atrocious disregard for all human life on the planet. That is why Saddam would need to be removed from power.
      I'm not saying I agree with how this war was started, (In fact I think it was kind of jumped into), but the fact remains that any country which is sucessfull/powerfull enough defend itself and it's allies, will be thought of as brutish and pushy by those countries which are smaller and less able to defend themselves.

      Take police for example. Wherever there are police, there are people who resent that someone has more power than them. Even if they are there to help ensure the safety of everyone.

      The main factors that lead to the terrorism we've seen lately had been ignorance, poverty & oppression.
      The US is trying to help with the oppression part by removing Saddam.
      Removing Saddam should remove his hold on the Iraqi people's wealth as well.
      In fact, the UN has already frozen Saddam's accounts so that only the Iraqi people will benefit from the money.
      As to the idea that oil is our primary goal from this war; that is just not true at all. We have enough oil in the US (mostly in Alaska) to keep us comfortable for years.
      Talk to France if you want to make accusations of countries that have a lot of ties invested in Iraqi oil.
      Think about the fact that we (the US) are paying a ton of money to fund this war, and not only would it be easier, cheaper, better for international relations, and less on the cost of human life (in the short term) if we just sat on our thumbs and went to the surrounding countries for oil.
      But we aren't.
      In the past few weeks Saddam's militia has shown how little they respect their own countrymen's safety by setting up military-shop in hospitals, <a href=" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2889071.stm ">atrocities towards POWs</a>, and <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82310,00 .html">threatening civilians.</a>
      Saddam himself has said that if the US military comes within his "circle" around Baghdad, then his military should use chemical and/or biological weaponry. I guarantee you that the US military will have adequate protection from biological/chemical attacks around Baghdad. The question is: Is Saddam thinking of any remaining civilians in Baghdad or his circle?
      I doubt it.

      Yes the US respects other nations with nuclear weaponry. What I'm afraid of is if Saddam get some, how far will his LACK of respect go?

    13. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by ronfar · · Score: 1
      Harry Browne referenced this recently:

      A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing\

      He mentions it again here:

      Bring Back America

      There is a reason why the "War to End All Wars" is not taught very well in American schools, it might teach American children that war is a bad thing.

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    14. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were I more petit, I'd add "In that, you, sir, are ill-informed."
      You did, so I guess you are.
      Irony (n)
      1.c A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.
      Full Definition

      Moron (n)
      See previous poster.
    15. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not to mention you'd be just as wrong.

    16. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Floater_Nutz · · Score: 1

      The US isn't concerned that Israel will sell or use WMD on the world or their neighbors either. Israel doesn't have a regime in power that has killed, starved, or gased more than 200,00 of it's people either. Seems to me to be a pretty big distinction.

    17. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by nick_davison · · Score: 1

      The US isn't concerned that Israel will sell or use WMD on the world or their neighbors either.

      Israel illegally (read: Just like Saddam is accused of doing) gained nuclear weapons, breaching the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. The only difference being that Israel definitely has nuclear weapons while Saddam is simply believed to be trying to gain them.

      Israel has demonstrated a willingness to attack (granted, retaliate) against its neighbours.

      Mind you, your point is valid: Apparently the US isn't concerned. Not sure how that makes it better though.

      Israel doesn't have a regime in power that has killed, starved, or gased more than 200,00 of it's people either.

      True. It only gets through a few thousand Palestinians each year that is does kill, does starve but, granted, doesn't gas. It prefers flechette munitions that're internationally condemned. It does all this without the need for a no-fly zone like Iraq got when it did the same to its unwanted (Kurdish) population.

      Seems to me to be a pretty big distinction.

      Seems to me like a smaller and smaller one by the minute.

      Pretty much your sole argument, once the complete misrepresentations are removed, reduces down to "The US doesn't care about Israel doing what it does." That was pretty much my original point. What can I say - thank you for arguing my point.

    18. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i think about the fights america has chosen to participate in recently (and i dont mean ww2 or that, cause back then it seemed like america actually cared about other countrys in the world) are the ones it could easily dominate....afghanistan, somalia, now iraq, they are all conflicts that america has started, knowing full well they can EASILY dominate....kinda like a group of 10 guys beating up 1....

      yeah, a war with ground troops for the next 6 months (or more) sure is "easy". I think you are just a bleeding heart liberal with too much time on your hands.

    19. Re:You, sir, are ill-informed. by thevoice · · Score: 1

      The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

      True perhaps officially, but US interests are the most pervasive on the planet, be they military, financial or cultural. A lot of people don't like that fact and it matters little that the US does not own their land, it seems the US wants to own everything else.

      Personally, I don't think the US is fighting for freedom, this fight is much more about security.

      To paraphrase Kenneth Davidson: Americans don't yet understand or care that absolute security can only be achieved by making everybody else absolutely insecure.

  153. moron carpet posting, va lairIE's patentdead.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PostBlock(tm) device, & other whoreabull 'restrictions".

    lookout bullow. the phonIE bullonly payper liesense hostage ransom stock markup bullshipping industrIE, is dissolving into brand gnu coolapps.

    ""The drear horror of American life can be traced to two damnable roots, or perhaps it is only one root; 1.-- The loss of all distinctions between public and private affairs. 2.-- The tendancy to mess into other people's affairs before establishing order in one's own affairs and in one's thought. To which one might add the lack in America of any habit of connecting or correlating any act or thought to any main principle whatsoever; the ineffable rudderlessness of that people. The principle og good is enunciated by Confucius; it consist of establishing order within oneself. This order of harmony spreads by a sort of contagion without specific effort. The principle of evil consists in messing with other people's affairs. Against this principle of evil, no adequate precaution is taken by Christianity, Moslemism, Judaism, nor, so far as I know, by any monotheistic religion. Many 'mystics' do not even aim at the principle of good; they seek merely establishment of parasitic relationship with the unknown." (Ezra Pound, The exile, no. 2, p.35)"

    increasing the frequency of consultation with yOUR creator, has been shown to cause lucidity, despite a constant barrage of Godless bogus ?pr? hypenosys(tm) being spewn onto US.

    good work there J., voting with yOUR wallets, that is.

  154. This policy is great. by joonasl · · Score: 1
    The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'

    Does this also mean that advertising and public displays of US government is also banned?

    --
    "There is a terrorist behind every bush"
  155. Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Command and Conquer Generals was put on the restricted list on February 28th, so over a month ago temporarily, meaning it had to be treated like a game on the list.
    On the 6th March it was put on the index.

  156. Name Change? by dome · · Score: 2, Funny

    'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'

    Somehow, I don't think that "Concede and Compromise" would be a big seller.

    1. Re:Name Change? by bstadil · · Score: 1
      Or

      Security Council

      The Ultimate Debate

      This could herald a whole new game genre. First Person Envoy.

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
  157. Why talk about Germany? by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

    China banned this game long back.

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  158. That's not news by sdack · · Score: 0

    What is the point? The fact that there is a minor war going on? That the decision to put the game on index in such times does not appear to be independant?
    Better say that you cannot understand this decision, but for those who are looking for the game in shops, might have to ask for it.

    Have fun! Iraq will be liberated, it is not really a war - more like "some" resistance by the local millitary - and George W. Bush is an overconfident idiot or maybe has just some damn good advisors.

    Sven

  159. Free Speech? by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, I guess the German people do not have the same guarantees of free speech as we do in the US.

    --
    No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
    1. Re:Free Speech? by kusma · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're right that free speech is less absolute in Germany than in the US.

      But in this case, this has nothing to do with free speech. It is legal to sell/buy this game, just not to people under 18. Just as it is legal to sell pornography, just not to people under 18.

    2. Re:Free Speech? by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for the clarification.

      --
      No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
  160. You know that the world is going to end when.... by ItaliaMatt · · Score: 1

    Germany bans something because it glorifies war

  161. Germany is very consistent throughout history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What inconsistency do you find in the fact that people which supported Hitler now support Saddan Hussein?

    No change there. All is normal.

    1. Re:Germany is very consistent throughout history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, but many people who supported hitler are actually dead and I don't really see support for saddam, just opposition against the plans of the us govt.

  162. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by stud9920 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We should stop appeasing those Americans before they get too powerful and take over the world. Oh wait, they already are...

  163. German Law, was:The impact of this decision by seschmi · · Score: 1

    Probably not. The German "law for the protection of minors" (both the existing law and the new law, which will be in force from next month on) forbids not only selling the restricted media to minors, but also advertising or even mail order selling (no matter to whom). Furthermore shops who offer restricted media have to do this in a special adult-only area.

    While advertising will not be the main problem (the webservers of the company are out of reach of the German government anyway), the lack of specialized distribution channels will be a problem.

    The porn industrie has such channels (sex shops, cinemas, video stores), but they are not really useable for computer games, I would think.

    1. Re:German Law, was:The impact of this decision by gotan · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a specialized distribution channel, kind of: pirating. That 'restricted list' won't keep any game out of the hands (or computer) of any child determined to have it. But it will prevent parents from giving it to their child as a christmas present or somesuch.

      And while shops could sell the game 'under the counter' (i.e. not display it publicly but sell it to any adult who asks for it) only some specialized games-stores do that in reality (and they're nearly extinct). The really big shops like 'Media-markt' (big stores-chain for electronic/electrical consumer products and entertainment media) and 'Saturn' (similar) don't want the hassle and simply don't sell restricted games.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  164. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by quax · · Score: 1

    What really surprises me is that everybody seems to have forgotten Vietnam. It is such an overused phrase "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" but I've never seen this phrase more applicable than now.

  165. Europe is nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like every 50 years or so, half or more than half of Europe goes off the deep end. Pathetic.

  166. Life imitates Art by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    Well, how about this theory. Command and conquer is a cultural text. people play it. enjoy it. think about it in the off season. It came out in the late 90s. (dos version released in 1995).

    The thing is, people played this game and ate it up. Everybody loved it.

    Now in a democracy there's a lot of showmanship to being a leader. Right down to having the right mix of races in the faces behind you when you speak. you have to understand what the public wants and give it to them to stay in power.

    I'm not saying that war would have been prevented by banning certain video games. I think that wars of some kind were inevitable, ever since the british empire colonised the mid east. Heck, the region was probably screwed since the Ottoman Empire conquered the Kurds and the Assyrians. Not to mention what the sons of Isaac and Ishmael did to each other. (Actually I think that the whole thing went wrong Cain got annoyed... or maybe before that even with like, the saber toothed tigers and prehumanity fighting it out.)

    But I am saying that popular culture shapes the kind of wars that are just palatable to us. I think it's no accident that the war is balanced 50:50 for and against.

    Imagine if we had waited for the UN and they granted us a resolution to resolve the whole oilfield/WMD/who-gets-to-keep-their-fist-firmly-up -the-mideast's-ass thing?

    >60% approval ratings = suicide bombings.

    Now that we're in this war, and pissed off most of the world, we have to win it. I am firmly in support of our troops who are dying defending our way of life, no matter how obscenely exessive our way of life may be.

    At the same time, honesty dictates that I say this war is a crime.

    So let's just hope that this thing doesn't drag out and end up with us both getting conscripted on one side or another.

    Because I will kill for my country, right or wrong.

  167. Forgetting History? by budgenator · · Score: 1

    some of the German politicians are forgetting their own history
    I was there from 1974-1977 in the army and I sure that no one there is forgetting their history, Working actively to erase all traces of it yes, but forgetting no. The barracks that I lived in still had swatika's over the doors, other buildings displayed damage from shells fired at them durring WWII. There was a gentle but constant pressure on the US to remove these signs of german history. If you mentioned to a german that you had toured one of the concentration camps their response was usualy along the lines of "why would you want to do something like that for?"

    Actualy In light of recent events like the Berlin wall coming down, the fall of the Soviet Union and reunification of the two Germanies; augmented by the rise of the EU, I think that it's time for the US to re-evaluated it's role in the world and especialy NATO. I'm sure that the EU would be able to step up to the plate and run their own affairs. The EU is roughly equivalnt to the US in size and populations, if there is any defense needs that they have and can't fullfill themselves, we're only an ocean away just call. Hell actualy we could defend France remotely, we have enough ICBM's doing nothing that we could make invading France suicide.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    1. Re:Forgetting History? by sprekken · · Score: 1

      That is assuming that the US would WANT to defend France. Yes, yes, I'm sure we would, though the French would certainly not be grateful for it.

      The funny thing about France (and increasingly in Germany) is that the socialist government there has such a cowardly stance toward terrorism or aggression in general that at the whispering hint of a threat to their country they will give in and submit to whatever demands are given.

      They talk very big, but have no teeth to bite with.

      Every Christmas in France the postal workers go on strike. Why? So that they can have an extra week of vacation. What is done about it? Nothing. Everyone is either too busy bitching about life, the Americans, or every other country in the world, or they are too afraid of confronting the problem.

      Ah, what a wonderful world.

  168. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by MKalus · · Score: 1

    If losing a war is what it takes to become wise about the horrors of war and the available pacifistic alternatives, I hope that the US/UK alliance loses (or at least not wins) this war.


    Wrong,

    They have to win this war but it has to come at a high price. Only then the blood thirst is hopefully stilled.

    Look at it this way. The US after 9/11 acted like Terror is something that has never happened to the world before, the fight wars like you can only win them, and even when they lost (Vietnam) the full impact really never came home.

    No, the US has to win it because at the end of the loosing in Iraq would be worse, for the US and the world, but it has to come at a high price, one that is felt at home as well.

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  169. Germany attempts to restrict c&c.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and in related news,
    France, today, promptly surrendered to EA after seeing c&c.

    More at 11.

  170. Galaga by Anarchofascist · · Score: 1

    I'm an old fart, I know, but I was idealistic in my youth, and tried negotiating my way through Galaga, Galaxians and Space Invaders. It's just doesn't work, they don't listen. The more you shoot, the more waves of suicide bombers attack you.

    "Let's talk about our differences sensibly you guys. No! Wait! What are you shooting at me for? I'm just going to have to kill you! [blat][blat][blat] [POW] This slaughter cannot lead to anything good. Please, let's just sit down at the table and discuss our differences like normal, sane, NO! NO! [blat][blat][blat] [POW] Look what you made me do!"

    "It's easier to get into something than to get out of it" - Rumsfeld

    --
    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
  171. Re:Thanks a lot, I'll sure sleep better at night n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    12?

    In Germany it's 16 for both and 18 for hard liquor.

  172. New from EA Games... by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 1

    "Sim United Nations"

    Includes free copy of "Command and Conquer" for use when finished playing!

  173. That hurts... by caldroun · · Score: 1

    ...coming from them.

    --
    "If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
  174. According to the NY Times article... by farrellj · · Score: 1

    They theorize that it was placed on the list because of the conflict between Germany and the USA...and it kind a makes sense...a stupid type of sense, true, but sense none the less.

    ttyl
    Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
  175. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bitch..

  176. because by m1chael · · Score: 1

    its a waste of resources. muahahahaaha. seriously i think germania has totally overreacted as always when anything relating to war is involved. its unfortunate hitler is still affecting things in our times.

    --
    I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  177. Our war is a war for sand! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe that so many so-called 'educated' people have deluded themselves into believing that the evil Republicans have dragged us into the war solely to steal SUV juice. That is, quite frankly, ridiculous and offensive in the worst possible way. It insults the intelligence of many. It is really very obvious what we are really going to "liberate" from Iraq.

    We are going to go to Iraq for sand. I know that might sound a little revelatory, but if you think about it for more than a few seconds the reasons become obvious. Our civilization is so technologically advanced that we are completely reliant on microchips. And what are microchips made from? Any computer science major will be able to tell you that the fundamental element in the manufacture of microchips is silicon. Chips are very small, but when you are making and using billions of them a year then that amount of silicon adds up. And where are we going to get silicon? From sand, obviously. But we can't get sand from our own countries, can we?

    If we did so then we would cause massive swathes of coastal erosion and a large ecological disaster. The tourist industry of the west and east coasts of North America and the south of the UK would be obliterated, stripped from the land in months, perhaps weeks!

    It is obvious for all right thinking people to see that the only win-win solution to this problem is to take the sand from Iraq. We only have two possibilities: North Africa and the Middle East. Unfortunately, the North Africans don't have any nations which want us to invade them and is an oasis of peace compared to the Middle East. The Middle East is so unstable that no one will notice one more small invasion for something like sand. Besides, the Iraqis will benefit too. After we take away their sand their deserts will be gone, leaving behind a lush botanical paradise.

    The evil Republicans would have you believe differently and that we must 'liberate' as much oil as we possibly can from this poor underpriveliged country. They only say this so they can run their miniature 18 wheelers, "sports utility vehicles" and lubricate their gun barrels. They have no justification for stealing oil from Iraq, when said country could use it itself to develop itself and become another benevolent world power. This is why the war must go on, but not for oil, as President Bush and his incompetent cronies would have you believe, but for a few trillion crystals of silicon dioxide. Thank you for your attention.

  178. the should just sell the french version there then by xeeno · · Score: 1

    insert 'surrender is an option' joke here

  179. They have experienced the extremes of both by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    Germany and Japan may be the two countries who suffered most under World War II. At the same time, it may also be the two countries that peace brought the greatest prosperity.

    I think it is a small wonder that the population of these countries are more heeart-felt anti-war than UK or USA who has not suffered the trauma of occupation, nor had their cities anihilated by enemy bombs.

    1. Re:They have experienced the extremes of both by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      But similarly, wouldn't you think that the people of Russia who have lived under an authoritarian regime that regularly made citizens "disappear" and used torture extensively would feel empathy for the Iraqi's? Instead they mostly have the attitude of "screw them, let them solve their own problems".

    2. Re:They have experienced the extremes of both by Sinjun · · Score: 1
      nor had their cities anihilated by enemy bombs.


      In WWII the UK had many cities, including London, decimated by German bombing. There are no doubt still many living Brits who remember. That being said, it could also be the reason Britain is not supporting the war quite as much as the American population is, although the numbers there are growing as well.

    3. Re:They have experienced the extremes of both by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      The cities in the UK were not "decimated" by German bombing... certainly nothing on the scale of what Germany or Japan faced.

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    4. Re:They have experienced the extremes of both by TopShelf · · Score: 1
      Two points of response - first, there are estimates that roughly 20 million Soviets died during World War II far more than either Japan or Germany, and secondly, that Germany's and Japan's prosperity in peacetime was in large part due to American rebuilding efforts and a reduction in global trade barriers unlike anything ever seen before.

      Personally, I think it's a small wonder that so many people let their dislike for a President (which I share) cloud their judgement regarding how to handle a proven dictator and aggressor who has failed to comply with any of the resolutions that Iraq has agreed to since the cease-fire from Gulf War I.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    5. Re:They have experienced the extremes of both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No UK city was ever decimated by German bombs. In fact, if you're comparing the total damage done in the UK compared to the damage in any random German (or Polish for that matter) city, you're still on crack. You haven't seen decimation by bombing until there's no brick in sight left in its original position. Yeah, the Brits had it real tough, had to hide in subway tunnels every couple of days and put up with air-raid sirens.

      You obviously have no perspective on this issue.

    6. Re:They have experienced the extremes of both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relatively speaking, the Americans and Brits got off very easy during WWII. It was Germany, France and Russia who sustained the most danage, and surprise, surprise, they're most opposed to this little fit Bush is having. As long as there's no really damaging war on US soil, Americans will always be itching to go to war.

    7. Re:They have experienced the extremes of both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should add, damaging as in having a few major cities wiped off the face of the earth.

    8. Re:They have experienced the extremes of both by quax · · Score: 1

      At this point it is rather irrelevant how bad or evil Saddam is. The only thing that matters is: Do the Iraqi rather stick with him and fight the invading army or will they feel liberated any time soon?

      My gut feeling from the very beginning was that Arab nationalism and hate for America will weigh more than hate for Saddam.

      Bush/Blair already lost their case in the diplomatic realm of the UN. I fear they will also lose the fight for the heart and minds of the Iraqis.

  180. History Proves it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand Hitler was addicted to Nintendo's 1-bit game console.

  181. American perception of Germany by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    What is strange is not German pascifism, but the American surprise by German pascifism.

    A Danish journalist in the US explained it like this: "If you go into an American bookstore, you will find rows of books about the second world war, but only a few volumes about Germany post-WWII." I.e. American perception of Germany is still totally dominated by WWII.

  182. nee nee nee by m1chael · · Score: 1

    jerk.

    --
    I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  183. In other news... by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    And in other news: Playboy will also be put on the restricted list because it displays sex as the only way to have fun...

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  184. For the Germans: by Tomcat666 · · Score: 1

    People living in Germany might want to check out this page: Initiative gegen die Indizierung von Computerspielen

    It's a website about some people who want to bring the issue of banning these games in Germany to the EU courts, because it restricts free trading between EU countries.

    Have a look at it, these guys really need your support!

    --
    Two Worlds - One Sun [Spirit]
  185. The German version has always been different. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Last time I was in Germany, I played the german version of C&C Red Alert. It didn't have any humans in it. All the infantry had been replaced by cyborgs / androids, which died in an oily puddle, rather than a bloody puddle. This change had been made in order to promote the idea that killing people was bad, due to the same legislation that has caused the current ban. Grand Theft Auto, on the other hand, was displayed in shop windows. Apparently killing civilians is okay, it's just killing soldiers that's bad...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  186. Yeah? by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

    "The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'""

    Gee, just like WWi and WWII (both started by Germans over conflicts)? Nice, real nice. Like the pot calling the kettle black.

  187. Really on the ball aren't we by Snaller · · Score: 1

    The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'"

    1.That's how americans solve conflicts

    2.That's OOOOOOOOOOOLD news (both things) the put it on the restricted list when it came about about 2 months ago...

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  188. Wrong Icon by Ghostx13 · · Score: 1

    Should this post have the foot, "laugh, it's funny" icon? Or perhaps we need a new one, a pointing hand for "point and laugh, their stupid".

  189. Leave it to Germany! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that war does? Help resolve conflicts with people who choose to hurt others? What a bunch of idiots...

  190. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Americans encouraged the FLQ to launch terrorist attacks in Canada?

    No, the FLQ couldn't afford their prices. Of course Iraq is learning that the long run price of buying US weapons is very high indeed ;)

  191. War by capitalsucks · · Score: 1

    Bullshit Censorship. Then again, that censor list also includes an Adolf Hitler game...

    About this war, .......no terrorists were killed in Afghanistan but a few were born. Four terrorists for ever dead Iraqi child. Iraqi nationalists coming from muslim homes..its getting worse too. And my mom said that they wanted us there! The same TV station that told her that last night, showed a man who said what I've been saying all along, they dont like him, but they dont like the US military either. Also, a people will only obey a tyrant if they fear another enemy more. He is the tyrant, we are the other enemy. Bush is the tyrant, the terrorists are the other enemy.

    --
    "I feel it is my duty to look at the porn that kids download before I delete it, to be sure what it is."--School Admin
    1. Re:War by flyneye · · Score: 1

      how cute,a lil politically correct product of public schools has popped up to let us know that there are still a bunch of undereducated "commie wannabes" out there willing to take positions contrary to common sense and reason in order to set themselves apart as individuals.(brings to mind the "individuals" that get all their "punky clothes" at Hot Topic so they can be diff'runt.
      just stick to bussin tables kid.you could be a fry cook someday.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:War by shaunyb · · Score: 1

      while you make a good point, i'd like to point out that the exact same response you gave could be politically reversed and used to respond to your own comment. the "you're just trying to be different" argument is unoriginal and so broad that it could apply to any individual regarless of intelligence, from the punkiest looking 8 year old girl, to the genius Noam Chomsky himself. also, your mention of Hot Topic leads me to believe that your resentment towards the punks is more social than political. though i will admit that a significant portion of the punk-looking-people out there lack any insight into the meaning behind their chosen life-style, just because someone looks or sounds like a punk does not mean they are a wannabe. all true punks and commies started out as wannabes.

    3. Re:War by flyneye · · Score: 1

      i appreciate your making the distinction.admittedly i was a lil hot,partly at recognising half baked political ideas that result in "trendy activist"politics among the young dissafected outsiders.Partly also because being part of the "blank generation"(everyone who came after was a wannabe)i recognised that which killed the punk movement.trendy political agitation(if the world is goin to hell in a handbasket time to break out the beer and baseball bats not hippie protest signs)and poseurs(those who walked the walk and recited the talk from 3x5 cards)who put rules into the freeform lifestyle like the straightedgers.
      i really try not to be elitist,as its an unnecessary waste of energy and pointless,but both punk and communism have already run their course,both of course provided the means to their own end.Any romantic retrospective happening now are just the dissolusioned banging their heads on the same wall,while disregarding those who came before them.
      but thank you for noticing and participating.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  192. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    homo. There's nothing wrong with being American, but the ignorance and arrogance of many Americans is pissing me off. Go screw yourself.

  193. Wouldn't want to give people the wrong idea. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Let's not sell a game which is purely entertainment because well might be bad, but let's do sell weapons materials to a rouge state because you know it won't affect us in any way and they promised to use them for only industrial purposes.

    I don't know why you are all bashing Bush on the war, it was Al Gore who invented war after all.

  194. in other news by kharchenko · · Score: 1

    US Army has released an updated version of tax-money-sponsored first-person shooter to increase general public opinion of warfare among the young generation.
    Don't ask me what's worse - government actively working on popularizing war, or taking computer games off the shelves for political reasons.

  195. Sad? by 3rd_Floo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Eh, Germany is just sad that with the latest C&C they arent part of it, this wouldnt have happened if they'd been given a role like before. They coulda been the elite drunken guy that run screaming from the burning buildings of the GLA.

  196. Well if you can think of a better way than war... by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 1

    Well, if you can think of a better way than war to achieve global domination then I'd like to hear it!

  197. Bahahahah Pussies. by doppleganger871 · · Score: 1

    Bah. The only thing this game will do to kids is make them sit in front of the computer/console longer and develop blood clots in their legs.

    Freakin' kids wouldn't fight a war if it came marching into their town. They'd roll over like the french.

  198. In case it hasn't been said.... by ptrangerv8 · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Germany.... C&C:Generals restricts j00!

    ********************
    why are all my comments moderated up/down?

  199. Decisions decisions by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    ... how to mod insightfull flamebait?

  200. Increase sales by redelm · · Score: 1
    I presume the Federal German government wishes to increase sales. Nothing attracts more interest and attention than an official banning.

  201. That's right by karb · · Score: 1

    Show humor who's boss!

    --

    Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

  202. WWII WAS the only way to solve the German conflict by cehardin · · Score: 1

    The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'"

    Interesting, considering that WWII Germany presented an actual real-life situation where all-out war was clearly the only way to solve the conflict.

    Oh, but I forgot...
    U.S. is BAD, Germany is GOOD.

  203. is it really that big of a deal? by shaunyb · · Score: 1

    "left-wing censorship" seems to be the common respone here; while that is exactly what it is, let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. after all, it's just a game. have we become so immature and petty that the placing of a game under a counter rather than on the shelf is just cause to flame an entire nation? it's not like they're censoring media, a crime of which the United States is becoming increasingly more guilty. My second favorite news media source was shut down 2 days ago because of its opposition to the war on iraq. Lets get our priorities straight, people.

  204. Nobody in Germany wants this censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody here wants this censorship, but we have no choice - our government is responsible for this sh*t. Only some weeks after the game was out, the sellers/shops had to "hide" it. The kids that were fast enough to buy it are happy now ;) Thats the same thing with every new bloody 3d arcade shooter (like unreal tournament 2003) Strange : CaC Generals is the first realtime strategic game that was moved on the restricted list. But also the other command and conquer-games were censored (no blood, no humans- only bots). In germany are most people against this censorship-system, but nothing has changed yet :(

    PS: CaC Generals roxx!
    greetz from germany (sorry for my bad english)

  205. Whining Yanks by mark2003 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Synopsis of some of the posts on this site:

    Somebody dared to limit sales of US software in their liberal democracy!

    How dare any other country excericise their right to do what they want within their own borders. They only banned it because they hate Americans and because they are all a bunch of Nazis. And I hate the French. Let's nuke them. God bless America the home of the free! We have never supported any terrorists - only freedom fighters like in Northern Ireland.

    What has happened to /.?

    How many of us would support a version of a flight simulator where you could fly planes into the WTC towers?

  206. Look mommy, I want a beer. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Germany beer commercials? Even before this happened I've never seen a German beer commerical. Which ones are any good, not that I'll ever find any of those around here. Most of the imported beers I've seen are nothing more than the crap from Europe, but since it's imported everyone gets excited.

    "Freedom Fries" are just a reverse engineering scheme to get around French DRM methods and avoid payment of royalites for "French Fries".

    1. Re:Look mommy, I want a beer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "crap from europe" you're referring to is probably Heineken and other dutch swill. The two only decent beer brewing nations IN THIS WORLD are Belgium (yes!) and Germany. And I'm not german :D

    2. Re:Look mommy, I want a beer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't diss Guinness... Or We will have to conquer you!

    3. Re:Look mommy, I want a beer. by akmed · · Score: 1

      Actually, some American micro brews (e.g. Dogfish Head) give Belgian and German beers a run for their money. Don't judge a country's products by its mass-produced versions. Same goes for British beers. Hell, South Africa makes a very nice hard-cider (Savannah Dry). You just need to experience more things.

  207. I think this is a great idea by karb · · Score: 1
    Throughout our history, the one rule has proven true time and time again : wars have been always been precipitated by the sales of real-time strategy games to children.

    Wars are not caused by dictators, or greed, or oppression, or breaking of treaties. They are caused by poor problem solving skills picked up from the playing of real time strategy games by children. Kudos to the german government. You have made a brave stand for peace in these troubled times.

    --

    Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

  208. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    Iraq beat us to it, but im sure after we beat Iraq the french will fold, especially when not given a part in the re-building, I mean they will still want the oil contracts they probably secretely signed with Iraq, except in this case they will have to get them from our Vice Presidents Oil Company (i mean erm he doesnt have any vested interest in the company anymore... erm ya right)

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  209. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by prinzip · · Score: 1

    The only terrorist in canada are the canadian alliance party!!! Mange de la marde fasciste!

    --
    Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity!
  210. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already did. And we fixed their government and set them free. Now look how well they have done.

    Ingrates.

  211. Original C&C vs War Against Terror by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    sorry to get on my soapbox, and I know I've already said this here, but I want to know if anybody else has noticed this.

    Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

    1) C&C: Intro starts with player flipping through TV channels on cable and then seeing a building blow up with a voice over about the Nod Terrorist Organisation.

    War Against Terror: Begins with 24 hour coverage of the 9-11 attack.

    2) C&C: Immediately after the intro you hear two conflicting voices and are forced to choose a side.

    War Against Terror: "Let those who harbor terrorists know they and the terrorists themselves are our enemies, without distinction. America has the will and the resources to defeat you. We are a determined and rich nation with clever and resourceful people. We will also need and we demand the assistance of every government in the world to help us. Whoever does is our friend and whoever does not will be considered to be our enemy."

    3) C&C: involves grey troops fighting in tall snowbound mountains, or sand coloured troops fighting in the deserts.

    War Against Terror: Footage of Afghanistan mountain campaign, and desert footage of south-central iraq.

    4) C&C: American side has one General Shepard who guides you through the missions, until he disappears for a while because the UN hates him.

    War Against Terror: The CNN has Gen. Don Shepherd to guide you through the hunt for Bin Laden. Until the USA goes for unilateral action with its coalition of the willing and the world hates us.

    5) C&C: All this bloodshed for a rare natural resource which promises untold power to whoever controls it.

    War Against Terror: hmmm. you're right. Self Defense.

    6) C&C: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Kane.

    War Against Terror: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Osama.

    7) C&C: New weapons every successful mission.

    War Against Terror: MOAB. Stryker. SA80-A2.

    8) C&C: We will use cleansing Nuclear Fire.

    War Against Terror: Oh no. Just find the silver crate and get the hell out of there.

    9) C&C: the sequel, red alert, has Kane controlling Stalin.

    War Against Terror: "As a young man, Saddam Hussein admired Hitler's system of government. Stalin and his totalitarian model became Saddam's exemplars. Saddam tailored his system along Nazi and Stalinist lines, though it had a number of new features as well. In keeping with Nazi ideals, Iraq's Ba'th system had four main pillars: totalitarian ideology, single-party rule, a command economy (nominally socialist), and firm control over the media and the army."

    10) more to come. remember: there are at least two endings, to promote better replay value.

  212. the civil war by el_avatar · · Score: 1

    I believe that was a war between two Democracies. Granted, they spawned from the same source, but i am pretty sure they were democratically elected capitalist nations. I'm no history major, but it's just one example I can think of.

    1. Re:the civil war by Trejus · · Score: 1

      You can't really call the Confederacy a nation. It was more a loosely allied coalition of nation-states, much like the EU. Plus, depending on how you look at it, the CSA weren't ever not a part of the union. Therefore, the war was between one nation and a bunch of rebel states. This make sense since the primary sticking point was state's rights over federal rights. The agrarian states in the south didn't like the urban northern states telling them what to do. Slavery was a corrallary of that.

      Hence, all the states sort of fought independently. Which is why one state would have a stockpile of shoes but not enough uniforms, but another state's army would go barefoot, but have a surplus of uniforms. Finally at the end of the war, they did start sharing more, but it was too little too late. The Union, who fought as one cohesive force didn't suffer from these problems. Never underestimate the importance of good footware when you spend the majority of your day marching.

      --
      "To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
    2. Re:the civil war by Ashen · · Score: 1

      That was an internal conflict within one nation.

  213. Which reminds me of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This.

    For the historically challenged, the US national symbol of freedom was donated by France. I'd expect the US government to STFU their idiot boycott, or give the monument back to the French.

  214. Wow. by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the Nanny State.

    --

    --sdem
  215. BAN CHESS! by JamesUD · · Score: 1

    Chess is a war game where the only way to 'resolve' your differences is to kill the other leader (aka Der Konig).

    --
    There are two types of people in this world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig. 001010011 001110101 00
  216. Not Quite... by maomoondog · · Score: 1
    Eh... amen on the free speech point, but there were most certainly other ways to contain Hitler. Like, oh, say, not supporting him in the first place. (Maybe that would have worked with a certain CIA-trained dictator we're currently bombing). Perfect foresight in deplomacy isn't always possible, but maybe if we kept an eye on the long term, civilians and enlisted teenagers wouldn't end up paying with their lives for the mistakes.

    None of which makes it worth banning, of course. Generals marketed itself on a morally retarded militaristic worldview that's definitely on the rise in this country. But censoring never made anything go away.

    g

  217. I can smell it. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Yeh, we're pretty heartless bastards for protecting a people that have been for a couple a thousand years the whiping boys of nearly every coutry in Europe and the Middle East. What a bunch of meanies we are. Oh and those scheming dirty Jews, yeh there pretty bad too, they distabilized the whole region. Every time someone tried to go in and wipe them out they attacked them. Nothing more than a rouge state.

    For those who love to idolize the Muslim world, don't forget slavery was one of their big business up into recent times. (Still is in some areas) That was a nice little institution they gave to the world. Not quite the English/US invention history revisionists would have everyone believe.

    1. Re:I can smell it. by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      For those who love to idolize the Muslim world, don't forget slavery was one of their big business up into recent times.

      Yeah, good thing us enlightened whities never did any of that slavery stuff.

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    2. Re:I can smell it. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      They invented it and spread it accross Europe, Africa, and Asia. All we did was buy the North American franchise rights to it.

  218. Oh please... the US is working on the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    politicians here want violent games to be treated like drugs... beacuse, well, they are drugs.

  219. Rules for "Diplomat" Piece by Elias+Israel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. The "diplomat" is a neutral piece. To underscore this fact, it is not colored white or black, but rather blue, white, red.

    2. The "diplomat" is never placed on the board. It cannot move and can have no ultimate effect on the outcome of the game.

    3. The "diplomat" acts at the beginning of white's turn. The effect of the diplomat is to prevent white from moving any pieces.

    4. Each time the "diplomat" acts, black gains an additional pawn, which may be placed on the board at the player's discretion.

    5. Each time black receives a new pawn this way, the "diplomat" receives several million dollars from black, which it can stash in secret accounts to use to conduct it's "diplomacy" in other parts of the world. The "diplomat" may buy and keep other pieces of its own, which it may insert into other games without asking anyone's permission.

    This sequence continues until white completely ignores the "diplomat" and begins moving pieces over the diplomats protestations.

    1. Re:Rules for "Diplomat" Piece by k8to · · Score: 1

      'Rules for "Diplomat" Piece'
      [...]
      'A witty saying proves nothing.'

      --
      -josh
  220. Found 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We checked the hospital- there it was! The nuclear bomb plant and chemical weapons plant and all the heads of those POW's we were looking for. Never mind. We just didn't think to look there 'cause it had a big red cross on the roof and had signs on the door saying "Migraine suffering clinic - please do not bomb".

    Those crazy NOD!

  221. Yes. by Wingie · · Score: 1

    "CNet is reporting that Germany has placed the GOP's newest Commander in Chief game 'George W. Bush' on its restricted list, which means he may not be advertised or displayed on shelves although he may be kept under store counters and access to him would be allowed only to adults. The reason according to Elke Monssen-Engberding, director of the Ministry for Family Affairs: 'He portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'"

  222. Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ITYM "Long live those American Nazis!"

  223. It is called Freedom by glenrm · · Score: 1

    "may not be advertised or displayed on shelves" this part is plain stupid, but don't think it can't happen in the USA or other EU countries. We need to defend freedom, free speech, expression, etc. This is the job of all people, not just left, right, middle, libertarian, etc. get a grip it is a game, deal with it. What is wrong with the generation before my generation X? Why can't they relax just a little bit?

    1. Re:It is called Freedom by dhalgren · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse 'freedom' with 'getting to do anything I want'.

  224. Just a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be embarrassed too if my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents generations were responsible for Hitler and two world wars, but isn't this over-compensating just a bit?

    1. Re:Just a thought by shaunyb · · Score: 1

      what do you expect from a nation that is depicted as nothing more than "the hitler country" by the hegemon.

  225. Dangerous by Scot+Seese · · Score: 1

    Civilization is doomed to a fifty to one hundred year cycle of terrible wars with smaller regional conflicts every ten years. Our species is burdened with short life spans and a dreadful willingness to blindly ignore the wisdom of those who preceeded us.

    The mixed message Germany is sending to it's youth: War is bloodless, and the military is evil.

    History has been a long and winding highway littered with the wreckage of civilizations led by madmen bent on conquest. They were put down by strong, peaceful democracies.

    You cannot appease dictators. People who attain and hold power through strength, fear and intimidation only respect equal or greater strength and the resolve to apply it.

    So long as the earth is covered by hundreds of unique cultures and sovereign countries competing for fixed resources there will be the need for a strong military. Regrettably, as those resources are taxed by a burgeoning population the worst aspects of human nature will be on display.

    Germans cannot stick their heads in the sand. The world is not, and never will be a utopian conflict-free society. Diplomacy will never solve *all* problems. It's far too easy to sit on the sidelines of world politics and criticize the United States for taking the military initiative.

    Germanic tribesmen had an old saying: Never have by sweat and work what you can take by sword. Historically speaking, there is only one country on earth that's had the power of ancient Rome without the expansionist policies. One that has fought wars on principle and not occupied, expanded or enslaved. That country is not Germany.

    The German government's video game policy is being determined by the continuing shame and knee-jerk reaction to World War II and Gerhard Schroeder's pandering to public opinion polls.

    Put blood in your video games, Germany. Show violent war movies. Let your youth understand the consequences. Or forget all too soon how horrible it really is. That is truely what's dangerous.

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
    1. Re:Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > One that has fought wars on principle and not occupied, expanded or enslaved. That country is not Germany.

      Shall we guess which one?

      No, tells us, please

  226. That's the wrong attitude by Danger+Dave · · Score: 1

    Hey what is this, the 1940's? German people today have nothing to do with what happened back then so you can't (and shouldn't) go calling them names.
    Anyhow we're talking about a computer game here, that sort of ignorant hate-mongering is rather out of place.

  227. oh lovely, more groupthink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If a government bans (censors) music and movies that is repression. If a private organization (company for example) bans music and movies then it is an exercise of their freedoms. Just as you want to (and indeed should) listen to music that may be offensive to others you should logically and consistently extend the same liberty to those who do not wish to sell or play such music themselves... regardless of whether they are using "public airwaves" or not. One goes with the other and attempting a lopsided regulatory effort merely results in the eventual suppression of your own desires by the very same measures you used to "keep them open."

    Saying "US does it too" should be an attempt at a fact. Facts are very important but only if kept in proper context. Wielding the "fact" as a weapon to merely keep others at bay is rather pathetic. Using it as a justification merely proves that you are a hypocrit. A better way is to say, "Yes this is indeed bad, since the US government has done this and that then we should also focus our energies there as well."

  228. NEWS FLASH!!! by digitall33t · · Score: 1

    German Bundestag has adopted a resolution to change the name of Germany to New France. Stating their newfound pacifism, they thought it only logical. More details to come...

    1. Re:NEWS FLASH!!! by EllF · · Score: 1

      ...And in an unsurprising countermove, the United States henceforth will be refered to as the Fourth Reich. Heil Bush!

      --
      We who were living are now dying
      With a little patience
  229. Freedom Fries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you consider how badly American fries are made, it's probably a good thing that they've been renamed.

  230. And in other news... by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

    ...The Sims causes introverts to become socialites.

    yeah. right.

    --
    I do security
  231. that about sums it up for me by CBravo · · Score: 1

    >Just because someone else broke the rules doesn't make it ok for you to break them too.

    check...

    --
    nosig today
  232. nicht soviel interpretieren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, Im from germany.

    I don't think that this decision has something to do with the War in Iraq or the differences between US and Germany. In times like these we should not misinterpret every suitable news.

    Regards
    Christof.

  233. But it was never "peace at any cost". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funnily enough, it was an open secret that this administration wanted war with Iraq, UN resolutions or no UN resolutions. It appears that one of Rumsfeld's first suggestions on the "war on terror" was the invasion of Iraq. Strange, that.

    Oh, and as far as the murder of innocent Iraqis were concerned - most of them actually took place at two times; firstly, during the real first "Gulf War" - that between Iraq and Iran (where, incidentally, the US reaction was to say very little and sell Iraq more weapons - it was then "on side", as the first "war of aggression" of which you speak had US support). Secondly, when the US realised that Saddam's regime kept Iraq together, Saddam or no Saddam (1991); thus we see Republican Guard units being allowed through US lines to suppress uprisings in the south of Iraq - uprisings of people who had rebelled against this regime, with US support that turned out to be mostly of the words-only kind.

    Incidentally, one of the main reasons that the UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq all those years ago was to do with the US spying operation that effectively took it over; read up about Scott Ritter sometime.

    1. Re:But it was never "peace at any cost". by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      Sorry it took so long to respond to this. Agreed. It was wrong for the U.S. to encourage a rebellion among the Shia and Kurds and then not support them militarily. A circumstance that the U.S. is rectifying now. As for Reading up on Scott Ritter, the last thing I read about him was a few weeks ago and it involved allegations of soliciting underage girls: (see http://www.wiredpatrol.org/wiredworld/pervy.html)

      --
      - dj
  234. just remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    that as bad as the "trail of tears" and other less publicised events were, the unfortunate backdraft brought to you by those who choose hypocritical and sheepish emotional reacting over critical thought, give you the picture that:
    1. All Indians were plains indiansAll Indians where of the "only hunt what is necessary and use all the buffalo" varietyAll Indians where peaceful and enlightened people who lived in perfect civilized harmony before the evil Europeans (whites) came over.Indian tribes did not slaughter and enslave each otherRape was not a common tactic against children, women and even little boysOnly the white Europeans dishonored aggreements and treaties (hint: when you side with the enemy in multiple wars after promising support, then don't expect earlier and thus now invalidated treaties to stand up)Indians never mass murdered stock and only kept a very small percentage of the mass for food and utility
    I think, like any culture there are many good things to learn from them. However, remember that it is said that humans learn more from failures of ourselves and others than in the successes. If we paint an unrealistic picture of history because it suits our political agenda of hate mongering or just because we are talking monkeys then we only hurt ourselves and the rest of humanity. Human history should be viewed completely, warts and all: only then will we admit our short comings and have a chance to grow. Liberalism is the enemy of all attempts at peace, liberty, prosperity and enlightenment.
  235. Command.. by Mabidex · · Score: 1

    It's a strategy game...geeezz

    What, are they going to ban chess because you can't talk your way into a win?

  236. Re:Even better, Command & Conquer from the peo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While we are about it, let us not forget the eighteen million Russians who died *fighting* the enemy, or the eight million allied soldiers who also died *fighting* the axis forces, rather than volunteering for camps.

  237. What country censors the least? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've heard a lot about censorship in Germany,
    the U.S. and Australia lately. I wonder what
    country censors the least. Holland, perhaps?
    Maybe it would work well to let individuals
    think for themselves.

  238. Now that is just stupid! by wizardmax · · Score: 1

    Banning a game because they lost their battle in the UN is pathetic.

    --


    Free speech is getting expensive...
    1. Re:Now that is just stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they won. US was going to war anyway and without a reason (they STILL didn't point to ANY mass destruction weapon in iraq, despite claims to a lot of occupied territory).

    2. Re:Now that is just stupid! by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      Get a clue first. The game was banned WEEKS ago. And it wasn't banned for being pro-american or something, but for promoting violence. The same applies to id's ego shooters and several other games...

    3. Re:Now that is just stupid! by wizardmax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is why I think they lost.

      1. They didn't want war (for any reason) but there is a war.
      2. UN credibility is shot. (I am rather upset on this one.)
      3. Their economy is shot, because of trade with US.
      4. UN may get to participate in the rebuilding, but as secondary party.
      5. And the thing that pissed off the French so much, is that US and British companies would get the most lucrative business offers from it!

      Whether this war is justified or now, we will find out in the long run. For now, all I see is two sides fighting, and one side fighting rather dirty.

      I look forward to hearing from you. Fun debate

      --


      Free speech is getting expensive...
    4. Re:Now that is just stupid! by wizardmax · · Score: 1

      How long is "WEEKS ago". US has been pushing for this for over 6 month. And the game is not that violent, not even blood.

      --


      Free speech is getting expensive...
    5. Re:Now that is just stupid! by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      February 28, if you want to know it exactly. Of course I take back all my statements. Throwing Scud's at people is certainly not violence, if there are no blood pools. I'm deeply sorry.

    6. Re:Now that is just stupid! by wizardmax · · Score: 1

      Look, I see your point, but I am sure that the real reason is a mix of both points.

      --


      Free speech is getting expensive...
  239. Re:America is very consistent throughout history by mark2003 · · Score: 1

    US:

    Founded by ignorant, religious extremists who thought sex was evil and were extremely self-righteous.

    No change there then... except now millions of them get to spout self-righteous attacks on other nations on line.

    I'm not German or French but I find many of the "patriotic" comments on these pages offensive. Do any of you understand the diference between patriotism and nationalism? Do you understand that you seem to be crossing into the second category?

  240. good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, this game might encourage people to strategically send troops into battle when they can't resolve a conflict.

  241. AHH by mkelley · · Score: 0

    Thus the further proof of the pussification of Europe.

    --

    m.kelley
    life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
  242. Think of the children... by siskbc · · Score: 1, Funny
    Gerhard Schroder, Chancellor of Deutschland, visits a local school with a group of Americans...

    Gerhard Schroder: See guys? We can master the art of mindless idealism and nauseating political correctness and forget about our past of fascism and genocide. Now all of our pretty children smile and love each other because they play healthy video games.

    Assistant:Sir, von of ze children iz not schmiling...I think he has been playing das "Grand Theft Auto."

    Schroder: Vat! Ze children must schmile! YOU VILL SCHMILE!

    Child cries...

    Schroder: I see. You vant to be deeeficult. Herr Assistant, bring zu me mein tools...

    Schroder (grinning): Now you vill schmile...

    Child: Aaaahhhh! Das schmertzt! Bitte tot mich nicht!

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you are an ignorant asshole.

      If you ever GO to Germany you'll see they don't try to bury their past. The best and most thoughtful memorials and museums dealing with *all* aspects of WWII that I have seen have been in Germany. All children learn about it... you really have no basis for what you are saying. Except that your comments in conjunction with your shitty sort-of German are simply bigoted and insulting.

  243. huh? by sw33tjimmy · · Score: 1

    wonder what they think of BF1942? Wilcommen sie auf Deutchland! Where the only game our government lets us play is the Sims! My question: why is it the computer gaming industry that suffers when two nations don't see eye to eye? The German politicians are probably just mad because Gdub kicked their asses at C&C:G.

    --
    Get Virtual.
  244. Tits or blood, what do you prefer? by koi88 · · Score: 1
    The real reason why games are put on the "index" in Germany (meaning only adults can buy them, no advertising in public spaces) is violence.

    Many, if not most, computer games are about violence without being on this index.

    Maybe there's just too much blood in this game, if they reduce it, it may be allowed for children again.

    There are some games (e.g., I think "Giants") that have replaced red blood by green blood-> after that, children were allowed to buy it.

    Strange? Yes, German government is quite strict with images of violence-- like the American government is with sex. No tits (or "worse things") on American TV screens, not too much blood on German computer screens.

    It's up to you to decide which influence is worse for children.

    Please, don't compare PC games with reality. I have no problem with violence in games but in real life I prefer no blood being shed.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  245. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US government fails to understand that anti-Americanism (sometimes causing terror, like 11-9) is caused directly by their arrogance and militarism.

  246. Reason why it portrays war that way by ehiris · · Score: 4, Funny

    'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflict'

    In the intro they have somebody say:
    "In the modern world, great leaders resolve conflicts with words, words like :
    Scud Luncher
    Carpet bombing
    Tomahawk missiles
    "

    The game is pretty fun to play if it wouldn't crash all the time and reboot my system because my video card was a ATI Radeon 7200 and they can't make the game not crash on anything lesser then a 7500.

    1. Re:Reason why it portrays war that way by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      The game is pretty fun to play if it wouldn't crash all the time and reboot my system because my video card was a ATI Radeon 7200 and they can't make the game not crash on anything lesser then a 7500.

      Runs fine on a 32 meg original Radeon DDR, and 32 meg Radeon All-in-Wonder.

      Maybe your drivers, OS, or other hardware sucks, or it's a card-specific issue, but I've had no problems (except when it thought my installation was crax0red and quit every two minutes).

      --Dan

  247. Get real C&C always has been the fascist game by Nitrometano · · Score: 1

    C&C series has always been a a very fascist game. Even fans of the series seem to not like very much Generals.

    Althoug I not think banning games is a good thing, I remember germany banning some kind of board game when the objetive is to put your 6M j3w5 in the gas chamber. Of course then, everyone agreed that's the right aproach...

    The ambientation of C&C lacks of anything than can reduce the presumption of that WAR (portrayed in a realistic and serious way in the game, without a minor concesion to humor, compassion, etc.) is a wonderfull thing.

    Finally, USA readers, old europe has been, actually, BOMBED, really. Not like in the movies. You know, that's when the burning bodys are real, etc. Actually, the "european theater" as strategist used to call our territory are more sensitive to people being bombed...

  248. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well put.

  249. Re:WWII WAS the only way to solve the German confl by smack_attack · · Score: 1

    Germany couldn't possibly have anything to teach the US about their mistakes. Better to let crash and burn at this point than to become the next on the list of enemy states.

  250. nazi doom by eg0n · · Score: 1

    i thought doom was already nazi doom! thanks banned games list!

    --
    i just climb trees, and look for rhythm everywhere.
  251. Yikes by osgeek · · Score: 1

    'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'

    Are you serious about this? Are the Germans really turning into such huge pussies?

    Jesus Christ, it's a video game. What a crock of shit.

  252. In other news... by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    .. copies of Microsoft's newest game "Age of Diplomacy" have been selling in record numbers.

  253. The Germans are right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...war isn't the only way to resolve conflicts-- you can always set up death camps for the orderly disposal of people you don't like. That way, all the real estate stays intact (well, except for the synagogues). I guess their problem is that the game has no 'genocide' feature.

  254. Political Correctness and Spin at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a sad day. Germany is finally falling to the Political Correctness movement. In addition, they are using games to "show" everyone how high their morals are since they spoke out against the Iraq conflict a few weeks ago. After all, now that they stood on their soapbox, they have to show everyone that they aren't hypocrits, or anything like that, by making such stupid motions as this. To me, it only makes them look like fools.

  255. Now that's just plain WRONG... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, but only we in Africa are liberal enough to wholeheartedly support violent sex!

  256. Standard German Government Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is standard stuff from a government that has truly become a joke. Let's not all pretend that the Germans are some how so altruistic. There's still are large segment of the population that embraces Nazi ideals afterall. If you've never lived in Germany, you would never know. Any German that says otherwise, is ashamed and avoiding the truth. This is simply about a ridiculous government imposing its supposed higher morality. If you don't live there, who cares. The US economy doesn't need Germany. Still, I'm sure the restricted games make up the majority of the best sellers.

    1. Re:Standard German Government Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TROLL!

  257. You're like the 'X-Files'... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I think some of you out there will continue searching for the 'truth' regardless of it's proximity to you.

    Stockpiling weapons in schools and hospitals is bad enough - the chemical suits should give a further clue. Clearly, we're not dealing with nice people here. Why is it so hard to understand the intentions of the current Iraqi leadership? Why would they lie about this stuff so strenuously? And what will all of you say when the WMD is found (and it will be eventually). What? That WE planted it? Thought that's what you'd say.

    Drop your politics and open your eyes. This intellectual dishonesty stuff it really irritating.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:You're like the 'X-Files'... by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Stockpiling weapons in schools and hospitals is bad enough

      Yes, it is bad. But Iraqis are in a desperate fight against superiour invaders. They cannot just walk out into the field and wait for the bombs to drop on them.

      > - the chemical suits should give a further clue.
      Maybe a clue. Everything but a proof.
      Since you are comparing me to a conspiracy theorist, then why do you have to rely on little clues? I think if there had been proof of WOMD, the war would probably found world-wide acceptance.

      Existence of WOMD is only certain in popular perception, but largely unobstrued by facts.

      > Clearly, we're not dealing with nice people here.

      During a war, people on both sides tend to cast aside niceness.

      > Why would they lie about this stuff so strenuously?

      How do you know they're lying? The argumentation has the fault that it relies on the truth of the conclusion. "Since Iraqis have WOMD, but say they haven't got any, they're lying. They must be hiding something, or why would they lie. Therefore, they have WOMD".

      On the other hand, "reliable intelligence" from US and UK that was used to argue in favor of a war has actually been proven wrong in a lot of instances. UN weapons inspectors were given intelligence information, but found it to be inaccurate and misleading.

      I wouldn't be too sure about who's lying... :-(

      > And what will all of you say when the WMD is found (and it will be eventually). What?

      Then I will still say that the war was illegal, as it happened without legitimation. There was no hurry; inspections were proceeding remarkably well. The deaths of thousands of people could have been avoided, as well as the weakening of international law and the UN charter.

      > That WE planted it?

      I would not put it beyond the US to "overemphasize" or "misinterpret". It has in the past, especially while trying to find an internationally accepted justification for the war (it failed).

    2. Re:You're like the 'X-Files'... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      "But Iraqis are in a desperate fight against superiour invaders. They cannot just walk out into the field and wait for the bombs to drop on them."

      Then they SHOULDN'T! They've been warned enough, God knows. Ah yes, this is the same justification the Palestinians use I believe. Do you know what would happen if the Pals used a chemical agent and kill 100,000 Israelis? Al Jeezeera would say is that the Arab hero that perpetrated his 'honorable' act was shot through the back of the head by the evil security forces. Real objective.

      By 'nice', I suppose I meant at least the minimum civility in war. The truth is, these folks use our goodwill and merciful natures against us. Sending children to the front lines armed with AK-47's doesn't sound very morally justified, whatever the reason.

      What separates us from them is that we don't discriminately go in and start carpet bombing EVEN THOUGH WE COULD. Where is the praise of restraint? Too bad Hussain doesn't share this view of the preciousness of life. Arabs seem to love restraint as long as it means the other side dies.

      And when Israel finally stands up and defends itself against this kind of aggression, they are castigated. You fear leaders like Blair, Sharon and Bush because they won't lie over and die for you in the name of 'peace'.

      Speaking of which, if bloodshed was really to be avoided, why didn't your man Hussain admit his weapons after 12 years of inspections? Isn't THAT illegal?

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    3. Re:You're like the 'X-Files'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of which, if bloodshed was really to be avoided, why didn't your man Hussain admit his weapons after 12 years of inspections? Isn't THAT illegal?

      Speaking of illegal, a few other countries has done illegal things for DECADES! If the US want to police the world, it should process those countries too.

      And also, Iraq may had done things illegally, but that's doesn't make it automatically legal for other countries to invade it.

    4. Re:You're like the 'X-Files'... by sapone · · Score: 1

      > Then they SHOULDN'T! They've been warned enough, God knows.

      Huh? I meant, that's why there are weapon caches in unsuspicious places in cities. Because Iraqi (paramilitary) forces are furced to undertake urban warfare instead of open field combat, in which they wouldn't stand a chance.

      I don't really understand, what point you are trying to get across regarding palestinians. I think Al Jazeera is not as fanatical as you think - but it's also true that an Islamic TV broadcaster necessarily has a different point of view than a US broadcaster. Different cultures, different views, different propaganda. I think Al-Jazeera is rather objective when compared to other venues of information (US Military, Iraqi State Television).

      But your insistence "Arabs = evil" is worrying. You know, that really is racism. There are many "arabs", most of them moderate, nice people with wives (maybe several ;-)) and children and all, I believe. What did an arab do to you that you hate the entire ethnic group so much?

      I tend to get the impression that you are no less fanatical than the ones you're defaming.

      > And when Israel finally stands up and defends itself against this kind of aggression, they are castigated.

      What has Israel to do with it? I thought it was America vs. Iraq we were talking about. Lie over and die?? For me??

      Anyway, Israel vs. Palestinians can neither be solved by terrorist attacks nor by sending tanks to tear down villages. How about peaceful dialogue? Autonomy/independence of occupied area?

      > Speaking of which, if bloodshed was really to be avoided, why didn't your man Hussain admit his weapons after 12 years of inspections?

      _My_ man? I think you're confusing something there.

      I guess because there really aren't any bio/chem weapons left? Nothing to admit?

      > Isn't THAT illegal?

      How about innocent until proven guilty?

      Sebastian

    5. Re:You're like the 'X-Files'... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      And *I* meant that Hussain's regime should have complied first before all this mess started.

      I suppose if you have to play the race card, I'll bite. By 'Arabs', I mean the vast majority of sentiment we're seeing in almost every Arab nation besides Kuwait. Think of it more as a cultural issue than a racial one - that's how I mean it.

      When I refer to 'evil', I'm referring to the fact that this blind ideology is the real issue. Death to Americans and Israelis. Don't believe me? If you can get to it, check out a few of the articles on www.arabnews.com. THAT's the kind of slant I'm talking about - one that is obviously shared almost universally over there.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  258. It is a crazy world when..... by johndeaux · · Score: 1

    the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, The Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and GERMANY DOESN'T WANT TO GO TO WAR.

  259. This sums it up...we live in weird times. by aergern · · Score: 1

    "You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, The Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war."

    --
    Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
  260. Thank God.... by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 1
    ...I don't live in Germany...

    The last thing I need is some government agency deciding what is best for me.

    --
    There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
    1. Re:Thank God.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better being shot in the USA than living well in a normal country, it's your choice.

  261. patent violation? by caudron · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure they can't do that. Said act would violate the United States' patent on Absurdity and may even tread onto our long-standing patent on Stupidity.

    Seriously, come on! This is f'ing stupid. The fact that we enjoy games of violence is a symptom, not a cause, of our violent tendencies as a species. This is yet another way for politicians and policy-makers to pretend that they've struck a blow for humanity, when all they've really done is further bury a problem that needs to be addressed.

    --
    -Tom
  262. Ban Chess! by nick_davison · · Score: 1

    'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'

    Thank god. We can finally get rid of chess too.

    Even if it is really just based on that musical, it's still a game that portrays war as the only way to resolve your conflicts. And those horseys moved in weird ways - clearly concealing some kind of weapons program. AND... [the list is long, can you tell?] it allows you to knock over (surrender) your leadership to avoid the destruction of your armies - Bush clearly based his whole pre-war strategy on the evil game.

  263. Germany counsels against war and conflict by Gonzodoggy · · Score: 1

    This must truly be the end when the German government counsels against war... but even virtual conflict? C'mon people...get a grip.

    Gonzo
    "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something" - M. Simpson

  264. Continental Europe has had its balls cut off by LondonLawyer · · Score: 1

    eunuch n.
    1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
    2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
    3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.

    Goddam hippies.

    1. Re:Continental Europe has had its balls cut off by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      Continental Europe has had its balls cut off

      Continental Europe is eventually going to rise up and hammer an over-extended U.S. into bloody pulp. --France certainly had the balls to tell the U.S. to fuck off when it counted. That's FAR more than one can say about the average American citizen who, for all their gun-toting bravado, allowed a coke-head criminal to steal away their precious democratic government without a single shot being fired.

      And if you knew your history, (which you probably don't), then you'd know that Athens, against all odds, defeated power hungry Atlantis waaaay back during the last incarnation of all these end of the world theatrics.

      Think I'm nuts? If you manage to survive the next seven years or so in America, (which, is going to be tougher than you think!), then you'll get to watch it all unfold for yourself. Enjoy.


      -Fantastic Lad

  265. Re:Even better, Command & Conquer from the peo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what ? American's killed millions of people too. To name two examples: The indians, vietnam. The difference is, nobody givePkwOÁÚe¾,Ü;"-0D
    And don't forget: In this moment, the USA have their soldiers in Irak, they commenced a war. So shut up !

  266. My new game should make a killing! by brucifer · · Score: 1

    Since my new Sims expansion pack, "Sims: The Sims Go U.N.", has just gone gold, I should be raking in the bucks in Germany.

    In this expansion pack you guide your Sims through a model UN, allowing you to bicker and argue to your heart's content without actually doing anything productive!

    Madman building power in the middle east? Lets give him a little time to comply to your resolutions, it worked with that Hitler guy, didn't it?

  267. now they've gone an done it. by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    now i have to go and buy the game to see what these wise leaders made their conclusions on. i hate being driven by a marketing model in which i have no say in its outcome. ( other than to decide on paper, or plastic).

  268. War does resolve conflicts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    War solved slavery and facism.

  269. Ha... by Peterus7 · · Score: 1
    If this isn't a flame to the U.S. I don't know what is.

    So... war as the ONLY way to solve problems? Do you have to go through (and ignore) the UN?

    Still, it is too bad that gamers have to get caught up in a political pissing contest. It's just a game, durr.

  270. The German Front by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Now what do you suppose the odds are that iwould have passed the banned list if one of the major powers hadn't been the USA? Anti-war setiments toast round buttox.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  271. Strategy Games are as old as history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what? Strategy games are the oldest entertainment known to man.

  272. Re:Even better, Command & Conquer from the peo by UncleFluffy · · Score: 1

    In case you didn't notice, that was about 60 years ago. The *people* who did that are either dead, or sitting quietly in a corner drooling.

    If you think that guilt is a hereditary condition, you should consider the history of your own country too. Germany's body-count is far from the highest in recorded history.

    --

    What would Lemmy do?

  273. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany is going right back to fascism with this police state control on its society. Good just Gerhard Schroeder...France's little B****.

  274. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, the only terrorists in Canada are the frenchies who are dedicated to the destruction of canada. Mange marde yourself, idiot.

  275. Educational War Games. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why this is a bad idea. It denies possible outcomes to possible real life solutions.
    One recent instance I can think of was when Turkey recently requested 1000 Leopard II tanks from Germany. Leopard II tanks are very capable main battle tanks, almost equivilent to the US Abrams main battle tank. How much confidence, (if this deal had gone through) would it have given the Turks an incentive to invade northern Iraq. And what would be the outcome? Just because you don't like violence shouldn't be the reason for denying kids their right to learn from mistakes. It's a form of censorship plain and simple.

  276. Diplomacy has limitations, can make things worse by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Too bad America haven't experienced a single war on its territory for past >100 years, maybe they'd learn something from that.

    [satire]
    We have learned that we are fortunate not to live on the European continent. On second thought it was not good fortune, for many it was our ancestor's good sense to leave the region.
    [/satire]

    We have also learned from the mistakes of others. It would have been better for the French and British to forcibly enforce the Treaty of Versailles, which end World War I and limited German arms and troop deployments, when Hitler first began to illegally rearm and forward deploy troops. The result of diplomacy in this case was an even bloodier war. Diplomacy only works if both sides are making an honest effort.

  277. Bizarro World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What's going on with the world?
    1. The best golfer is a black guy
    2. The best rapper is a white guy
    3. Another white rapper does a country duet
    4. A country singer touring Europe is embarrassed to be from the same state as the President, who is described by leaders in the region as too much of a cowboy.
    5. The French are lecturing other countries about being arrogant
    6. The Germans don't even want war in a game

    --
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO

  278. Don't put white queen on G4 by nslu · · Score: 1


    Yes, we are working hard here in to put chess on the restricted list, too. Then again, one might introduce some new rule, where the black king and the white queen can sit down on G4 and talk for a while, or we might replace the knight by a new figure: "the diplomat". The diplomat can't move, but will have some really cool abilities. What exactly is not yet clear, the EU games council is still negotiating.


    Please, don't put white queen on G4 -- G4's actually run pretty hot, she'll burn her ass.

  279. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    It should also teach us about governments who claim to "free people" when they conquer a country.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  280. Battlefield 2003 by lucasw · · Score: 1

    When the coalition comes, it will spearhead the attack with tanks, and follow with soldiers. I'd tell my troops never to fire at tanks - only shoot at flesh and blood targets. After they open up on the first wave of infantry, I'd have them retreat in pairs to the next block in a running firefight, forcing the invaders to pay for every block of the city.

    Bring things back to slightly On-Topic:

    This sounds like an extremely cool game concept. Maybe Novalogic's Blackhawk Down could be modded into something like this for FPS, though the AI is so poor it would have to be multiplayer only.

    A whole new game is needed that would allow hundreds of defenders and invaders, and destructable buildings would be key to not giving the snipers a permanent advantage. But excessive destruction and civilian death (whichever side causes them) would cost the invaders victory points, and kills earned by the defenders dressed as civilians wouldn't be worth as much as in regular uniforms.

    Have lots of civilians, most of which will flood out of the place or cower in basements. Invader forces gunned down a column of refugees on the way in? That'll take their victory point down to zero, so if your invader teammates go psycho you need to friendly-fire them before they lose the battle for you.

    Throw in a reporter/cameraman player class, whose presence near a firefight will exaggerate the victory points won or lost by either side (propaganda bonuses), though sometimes with unpredictable results: sometimes filming dead or dying soldiers or civilians will enable the invaders more leeway to do more damage or the opposite, depending on some other factors. Maybe sometimes either side will want to take out a pesky reporter, but it will cost your side if the reporter 'shoots' first...

    Last thing: make sure you find some really solid funding for the game development that won't flake out or censor the key aspects.

  281. But it does suggest diplomacy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those who have actually played the game, you'll note that one of the US mission involves a UN negotiator meeting with the GLA terrorist group. Of course, the GLA kills the diplomat, but the attempt IS made. I wonder if they even bothered to check...

  282. Weird information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elke Monssen-Engberding is not the director of the Ministry for Family Affairs, this is Renate Schmidt. She is the director of the (from a earlier ost) german "Bundespruefstelle fuer jugendgefaehrdende Schriften" (federal department for the control of youth-endangering writings).
    Please correct that.

  283. War is Fun by draxredd · · Score: 1

    War is Fun when You Know You Won't Die. Or will we?

    --
    --- Back to the trees, back to the trees !
  284. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by iabervon · · Score: 1

    Reconstructed countries become pacifist. A country has to lose the war, and then feel that it's just as well that they lost.

    The US won't learn any more from losing the present war (if it does) than it learned from Korea or Vietnam, both of which it lost at a great cost. If the US were driven back and the UN came in and fixed up the situation, removing Saddam and his regime, and setting up, with arab support and assistance, a state that all the Iraqi peoples could agree on, the US might learn something.

    Staying neutral is a fine idea in this war. The US, unfortunately, has never been neutral towards Iraq, and trying to become neutral is a bad idea. It's not like Saddam is likely to attack France or Germany.

  285. Not setting a good example by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 1
    'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'
    So, according to the German government, censorship is a far better way to resolve said conflicts.
    --
    I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  286. The Revolutionary War... by ryman · · Score: 1

    World War I...
    World War II...
    Vietnam...

    Yeah, those were all wars we won easily. Take your own advice and "think for once" before you post, smart guy.

    --
    "We are far too easily pleased." --C.S. Lewis
  287. Nice try, but. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    ...The Sims causes introverts to become socialites. yeah. right.

    Poor argument.

    The Sims, and C&C, and virtually ALL video games have several unilateral effects:

    1. The undermining of social fabric as people withdraw from un-safe real-world interaction.
    2. The re-writing of synaptic pathways so that make-believe realities and their solutions begin affect all aspects of the brain's opperation.

    You think that playing games for thousands of hours where gruesome, careless murder is a standard practice, "gore levels" are a setting, and the flickering monitor lulls the viewer into a semi-hypnotic state won't have any effect whatsoever?

    That's just wishful thinking.

    The greatest lie ever perpetrated upon the public by advertisers is that people are immune to advertising. Or in this case, media in general.


    -Fantastic Lad

  288. Re:the should just sell the french version there t by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I'll bite:

    In the French version, surrender or forever stalling are the only options. The only way to get out is to reboot.

  289. Re:I'D LIKE TO CONQUER GERMANY TOO by JimFromJersey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1: They only supported us after we won the battle of Lake Champlaign (sp) and it became obvious that the Britsh position was becoming untenable. In the aftermath of the revolution, we actually found ourselves gravitating more towards the British then the French.

    2: This has less to do with what is the right or wrong course of action when dealing with Iraq then it has to do French commercial interests and French geo-political aspirations. What France is trying to do is set itself as a new global power, hence their neo-colonialist activities in Africa. If that is their goal then that's fine, a little competition between countires can be a good thing. However, I do have a couple of issues. First, I'm not sure France is prepared for the burden global leadership, I'm not sure they are ready to pay the bills in terms of money and blood. Second, when France stumbles, we end up leaving a lot of little, white crosses behind.

    I did get a good laugh out of the French Foreign Minister going to London recently and saying something along the lines of how they should work together in the spirit of Anglo-French cooperation like when they teamed up to defeat Nazi Germany. I laughed so hard I almost pissed myself.

    --
    between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
  290. Ha ha! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Cool post, dude.

    I totally missed the name 'Shephard' in Command and Conquer; a cheesey biblical reference if there ever was one! --Though no doubt fairly effective on a subconscious level. (They often are when your top layer of awareness fails to notice!)

    Typically, I find that most of the huge and pervasive media coups, (Star Wars, Matrix, C&C, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings etc.), are largely mediums for channeled messages from either the dark or light side regarding current and upcoming events during these end of times when the stakes are so high. --Usually completely without the knowledge of the human writers. Every good writer will tell you, "It just comes to me! I'm just writing as fast as I can to keep up! I don't know where I get my ideas! Etc."

    I think my one of favorite examples appears in The Matrix. (What a battle ground of warring messages, that film was!) Next time you get a chance, check out the package art. Those weird sunglasses Neo and Trinity were wearing? Notice how their faces are transformed when they had them on? Now, where else have we all seen that kind of facial configuration?

    Be careful, though. Greys are NOT saviors. They're tools and agents of the dark side. A really insidious subliminal message if there ever was one! But well worth it, for all the other stuff The Matrix delivered into popular thought!


    -Fantastic Lad

  291. As far as restricting Generals goes.... by siliconeyes · · Score: 1

    I think EA is doing a pretty good job by itself, what with a recommended system configuration like this?!

    1.8 GHz CPU
    256 MB RAM
    32 MB AGP (GeForce2 etc.)

    Sad, one of the things I enjoyed the most about older C&C games was their somewhat crude 2D look. But then, obviously I'm in the minority!

    1. Re:As far as restricting Generals goes.... by thunderbee · · Score: 1

      Bah, as far as the gameplay is concerned, I'm still with TA. No fancy 3D, but real game depth, and still the ability to surprise even after countless hours playing.
      Fancy 3d won't hide the lack of depth of the game.
      I'll be flamed for writing this, but WC3 was a sorry excuse for a game. Nice looking it was, but what new (game) feature did it introduce since TA? What nice feature did it lack? Shh...

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
  292. just a thought by 0x00000dcc · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this be under the "censorship" topic?

    --

    -- (Score:i, Imaginary)

  293. Re:This is not a big deal. Restricted list == Matu by La+Camiseta · · Score: 1

    I think that that's kind of different though. I mean, I can point out other countries with lower murder rates. I mean, look at Canada. Their murder rate's incredibly low, and they still let their kids have those things.

    I don't think that there's any real correlation between video games and violence. I was playing Wolfenstein 3D and Doom back in 5th and 6th grade, and shooters ever since. I've always, and all of my friends have always been able to separate the real world from that of games. I've never gone on a killig spree and no one that I know has either, at least in real life;).

  294. Black and White by fm6 · · Score: 1
    If you think Germany deporting American Nazis is a good thing, you missed my point completely.

    Actually, we've been half-assing it for 50 years. Before that we Jim Crowed it for about 60 years, which is less ambiguous. And of course the 300 years before that were even less ambiguous.

    I'm not saying the U.S. is particularly better than Germany. But we never had their incentives. Like losing a vicious war and getting caught indulging in racial extermination. (Of course, we did it too, but never really got called on it.)

    Where I live, you can walk down the street with a black person. Doesn't mean black people are treated fairly. LeVar Burton was pulled over on a DWB only a few miles from here.

    Naturally there are more neo Nazis in the east -- such movements always appeal to those who feel they've been shortchanged. But they are quite visible in the west as well. They were making news long before

    You might ask your African friend how it feels to be a person of color in Germany. Assuming he gives you an honest answer. Black people often assume that white people don't really want to know what it's like to be black, even when they say they do. I think they're probably right.

  295. You're sort of on the right track, but. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Germanic tribesmen had an old saying: Never have by sweat and work what you can take by sword. Historically speaking, there is only one country on earth that's had the power of ancient Rome without the expansionist policies. One that has fought wars on principle and not occupied, expanded or enslaved. That country is not Germany.

    You have GOT to be kidding. Who makes your Nikes? Which occupied Middle Eastern country does most of the U.S. supply of cocaine come from? Where did all the blacks in America come from? Heck, who set up and aided Bin Laden in his terrorist activities? (So that the U.S. would have an excuse to launch its bid for empire?)

    You're right. It's not Germany.

    Put blood in your video games, Germany. Show violent war movies. Let your youth understand the consequences. Or forget all too soon how horrible it really is. That is truely what's dangerous.

    No, no, NO!

    Media violence has NOTHING to do with raising public awareness about the evils of war. It has EVERYTHING to do with cultural programming.

    Think of it this way:

    If Hitler had been in a position to de-sensitize German youth through video games and television for twenty years prior to launching his bid for world domination, if he had the ability to forge synaptic links in the brains of all his followers between the emotion of 'Fun' and the act of 'Murder', do you think for a second he'd have balked at doing so?

    Me neither.


    -Fantastic Lad

  296. so in germany bush is kept in a glass case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts" Har har, Dubya warmongering blah, blah, ignoring un, etc, etc...

  297. There is more than one option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask any German, and he will tell you that war is not the only option. For example, one can settle their differences with another by systemmatically rounding that other's race and exterminating them mercilessly.

  298. Here is a little sample of a few section headings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - America liberates Iraq
    - America makes a strategic retreat from Vietnam
    - America liberates Nicaraugua
    - America liberates Chile
    etc

  299. I Agree with Germany. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    I know this runs counter to comfy, popular belief, but. . .

    Most games, from The Sims, to Command And Conquer have several unilateral effects:

    1. The undermining of social fabric as people withdraw from un-safe real-world interaction.

    2. The re-writing of synaptic pathways so that make-believe realities and their solutions begin affect all aspects of the brain's opperation.

    You think that playing violent video games for thousands of hours where gruesome, careless murder is a standard practice, "gore levels" are a setting, and the flickering monitor has been proven without any doubt to lull its viewers into a semi-hypnotic state, won't have any effect whatsoever?

    That's just wishful thinking! -And I know it sucks, because I've spent thousands of hours I'll never get back enjoying video game (drug) as well.

    But really. . .

    If Hitler had been in a position to de-sensitize German youth through video games and television for twenty years prior to launching his bid for world domination, if he had the ability to forge synaptic links in the brains of all his followers between the emotion of 'Fun' and the act of 'Murder', do you think for a second he'd have balked at doing so?

    Me neither.

    Everybody claims that, "Video Games have no effect on me." Bullshit. I've seen kids get fucking excited with anticipation when they consider the amount of devestation an air-fuel bomb can cause. We're at war because our media put us there. Period.

    The greatest lie ever perpetrated upon the public by advertisers is that people are immune to media manipulation.


    -Fantastic Lad

  300. Official NOD Response by Cybrex · · Score: 1

    This is yet another ridiculous red herring by the GDI to maintain their economic advantage against the impoverished nations of the Brotherhood! GDI wants to impose these harvester sanctions so that Nod will be dependent on GDI for power.

    Yes, the Brotherhood of Nod does have harvesters, but we use them to power our cities, run our industry, and remain economically viable. Under GDI's sanctions the whole of Africa would be overun with hazardous tiberium in months! We cannot allow our children to be poisoned by this dangerous substance!

    It's common knowledge that Nod's tiberium refining capability is not sufficient to produce weapons-grade tiberium, yet GDI continues to fill our skies with ion cannon satellites, all the while claiming to be a "peacekeeping force". This is an outrage.

    I call upon the UN General Assembly to end these illegal sanctions and disband the criminal Global Defense Initiative.

    In the service of Kane,
    -Cybrex

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  301. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To many posters: you're misinformed and biased to an extent that is difficult to believe. You only seem to be waiting for any news from Germany that could be interpreted as Anti-Americanism and then start drooling and ranting how bad and stupid Germany is. Bah. Take a look at German television and listen to some radio stations and then tell me again we're Anti-American.
    And then this continuous upbringing of Hitler and Nazi and whatever - it simply sickens me. There doesn't seem to be a single post where the word "Germany" isn't followed by either of the latter words sooner or later. Jesus, we've been feeling bad enough and humiliated about our history for generations. Don't worry, we won't forget that history. Can you believe a nation actually CHANGES within half a century?

    Games like the one in question have been put on the index here before. While it is always debatable whether whether or not the government should interfere everywhere and decide what is good for you and what isn't (and mostly the answer is no): Don't give me the free speech and censorship crap and tell me the US is the only place where it exists. There is no more censorship in Germany than there is in the US. The games on the "Index" are NOT BANNED, only minor's access to them is restricted - in a more or less symbolic way, since the restriction is frequently violated. If I wanted to give it a ranting I'd say Americans are ridiculously prudish and start screaming at the sight of a pair of boobs. Where is your free speech there? Doesn't your government tell you what's good for you if you can't drink your beer in public without being mature and grown for years? Good job I don't want to rant. I just think people on both sides should be a little more open-minded and reasonable.

    To the Germans posting here: why does everyone apologize for his bad English after every second sentence? It's humiliating. We're not native speakers and we usually have little exercise, so what the heck?

  302. Green Blood by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    I've been told that one of the earlier C&C games replaced the blood with green stuff for the German release because of this issue. You were supposedly fighting cyborgs.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  303. This is not really a surprise. by tempfile · · Score: 1

    The German authorities have always been very, very strict concerning violence in computer games. We've always had censored versions of the C&C series ("cyborgs" and black oil blood) and almost every 3D shooter "indexed", as the procedure is commonly called due to the "index of youth-endangering media" that the games are put on.

    The only little novelty here is that war, and not violence and/or its graphical portrayal is stated as the primary reason for the indexing, which it at least unusual. How far the current political situation has influenced the authorities' decision I cannot say.

  304. Cannon Fodder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember Cannon Fodder? By gosh, imagine if that game was released today. That'd give 'em something to complain about!

    "War! Never been so much fun!"

  305. Yeah, well the first CnC was CENSORED by skintigh2 · · Score: 1

    The movies in the German version of CnC (DOS/Gold) were changed so instead of humans being killed there were robots dying.

  306. You guys should check out US public access. by Kibo · · Score: 1

    Pretty much anything goes. As long as peta isn't required to be there an no one dies, the party light is lit and the disco ball is locked and in the get down position.

    --
    --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
  307. Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though I don't see how it changes much really,
    I agree that games seem to be largely a vhicle for violence, I went through my own stuff to clean them out since ive got 4 nieces and nephews and 97% off the stuff i had went out the door and wont be back.
    For those who say it has no effect, what about advertising if exposure to images has no effect why do we advertise.!!!!!, what we see feel and think we ultimately create.....
    But say have you heard about the game co thats doing a game where you have to infiltrate america, join a flight school, learn to fly and navigate then fly a big plane after fuelling it . and fly it into a large building - bound to be a big seller. assuming there's anywhere left afterall
    isnt korea building nukes, the chinese suppressing there people not to mention the crap around isreal etc of to war we go :) :)

  308. Significant differences between Iraq and 242. by Kelmenson · · Score: 1

    The Iraqi resolution was part of a surrender, after Iraq lost a war. Also the Iraqi resolution is unilateral; it does not depend on any other country to work with Iraq to disarm.

    On the other hand, Resolution 242 is a resolution that gives tasks for the entire region. Such as:

    Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

    Strange how you don't blame the PLO, whose charter until recently included words to the effect of "No Israel ever", for not acknowledging the sovereignty of Israel. Or any of the other countries surrounding Israel who even after the resolution still went to war with Israel.

    I guess its not strange that you think Israel could have done all this by itself. Seems most of the delusional people who are anti-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to stop fighting. Sadly, things don't work that way.

    1. Re:Significant differences between Iraq and 242. by nick_davison · · Score: 1

      I guess its not strange that you think Israel could have done all this by itself. Seems most of the delusional people who are anti-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to stop fighting. Sadly, things don't work that way.

      Seems most of the delusional people who are pr-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to breach the law and fight just as dirtily. Sadly things don't work that way.

      In Vietnam, one of the problems the US had was that they'd find a village that supported the VC and they'd burn it - occasionally stooping lower still. End result, the people you're trying to "save" hate you and ten other villages start supporting the VC. If anyone recalls, the US lost that one.

      In Northern Ireland in the late 70s, the British tried something called internment. Rather than acting within the law, they got pissed off with the murderous bastards that the IRA were and started interning people without the right to a trial or lawyer. They also took to beating a lot of the people they'd arrested to force confessions out of them.

      End result, for every 1 member of the IRA the Brits pulled off the streets, three more Irishmen were so outraged at what happened that they joined the IRA.

      Finally, Britain learned, started behaving within the law and took its beatings. It hurt, it hurt a hell of a lot for about a decade. But, you know what? Opinion on the streets is no so anti-IRA that they're barely a credible organisation anymore. No one joins, they blow the odd minor thing up and they get turned in by their own people. Most of them have left terrorism and entered in to regular crime.

      So, next time you try telling people that turning the other cheek doesn't work, just take a look at the simple facts. Yes, it's slow but it does absolutely work.

      Of course, don't let history get in the way of angry rehoric. If that's what floats your boat, you go right ahead.

      One last point: I do blame the PLO. I'm just realistic enough to realise that killing civilians by the thousand only adds to their support, not diminishes it.

    2. Re:Significant differences between Iraq and 242. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Strange how you don't blame the PLO, whose charter until recently included words to the effect of "No Israel ever", for not acknowledging the sovereignty of Israel.

      Oh? I don't know where you're from, but lets say you're from Rhode Island. Say the United Nations decided to make a homeland for refugees from some conflict on Rhode Island. Without any reguard to the people who happened to be living there at the time, such as yourself.

      Just how fast would you recognize the sovereignty of this new country?

  309. Re:I Don't Agree with Germany. by I-R-Baboon · · Score: 1

    When you choose to smudge your own reality and dwell within it's distorted boundries, it is at that point then you have chosen to deny reality for whatever mental reasons you may have. If you cannot deal with reality then perhaps instead of vegging out infront of games with drugs/booze you should be seeing a therapist and investing in a perscription meant to help your mental position and outlook. Accept the responsibility of your choices, actions, and mental state of being instead of pointing fingers and crying poor poor me look what that did to poor poor me.

    Children, need parents to raise them not programming viewed through the television or video games. Children that have been raised correctly by parents who care and love for them will have been taught the difference from right and wrong, reality and fantasy, a time for work and a time for relaxing. Granted, there is a time and place for things and children should not be subjected to it prematurely to their parents wishes and the child's well being. But put the blame where it goes, a parent not raising the child and allowing society in general, TV/Movies/Etc, video games and so on to raise their children is the entity at blame for a child thinking violence is a viable solution and a fun game free of pain and suffering. If the cover of this game is not graphic, then it should not be hidden away like trying to pretend it does not exist no unlike people trying to pretend reality does not exist by zoning out in front of games etc.

    Point the finger of blame where it truly belongs

    --
    -1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
  310. Gender of Rooks by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    Uhm, what makes you think Rooks are male? I don't see any interesting body parts sticking out (or doing the opposite for that matter).:)

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
    1. Re:Gender of Rooks by fishbert42 · · Score: 1

      Are you speaking of those tall, hard, stiff, unwavering pillars?

      "Do you think maybe he's compensating for something?"
      -Shrek

    2. Re:Gender of Rooks by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      Are you speaking of those tall, hard, stiff, unwavering pillars?

      Well, I certainly am not speaking about the dress-wearing Bishops or the Pawns in tutus. I am also not talking about the beautifully maned horses.:)

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  311. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    well, if lettig saddam make werapons and snub thge UN and make a farce of inspections is bad, and going to war is bad, and just not doing anything about it is bad, then you might as well remove saddam becasue the benifits of doing so are greater than not doing anything or running around in circles in the security councel.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  312. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    we did not lose korea, it was a stale mate....we would have won big time if MacAurther was not such an arogant ass and ignored Mao's warning not to approach the boarder.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  313. Re: "Losers" become pacifists? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    we did learn from Vietnam...we learned never get into a war that you do not Aim to defeat the other side......we never commited ground troops to invading the north and takeing down the N. Vietnamese government. you can not fight a war that you never intended to win in the first place.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  314. Typical interpretation. by Kelmenson · · Score: 1

    Seems most of the delusional people who are pr-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to breach the law and fight just as dirtily. Sadly things don't work that way.

    I can't even understand what you are saying here. Are you intending to accuse the US of breaking some law by invading Iraq? Or are you accusing Iraq of breaking the law by fighting from hospitals, in civilian clothes, after falsely surrendering, hiping amongst civilians, torturing/executing prisoners, etc?

    Finally, Britain learned, started behaving within the law and took its beatings. It hurt, it hurt a hell of a lot for about a decade. But, you know what? Opinion on the streets is no so anti-IRA that they're barely a credible organisation anymore. No one joins, they blow the odd minor thing up and they get turned in by their own people. Most of them have left terrorism and entered in to regular crime.

    Ah, so the US should just take its beatings until the terrorists get tired of attacking us. Good plan. Oh thats right, this is about Iraq. Well I guess since Iraq is only killing its own people, and hasn't tried to take over a neighbor in 10 years, we should just let them grow stronger and stronger, until they can directly hurt us. After all, ignoring the weapon restrictions placed on Germany after it lost WW1 sure didn't have any negative effects on the rest of the world.

    Oh, and notice that the IRA didn't actually apologize for the bombings until after 9/11, when the world was focused on the deaths of many (predominantly Irish) police and firemen in NY. The IRA, rightly, realised that the world would no longer put up with terrorists, and that they better distance themselves right quick.

    So, next time you try telling people that turning the other cheek doesn't work, just take a look at the simple facts. Yes, it's slow but it does absolutely work. Of course, don't let history get in the way of angry rehoric. If that's what floats your boat, you go right ahead.

    Eh? The IRA realised that bombing was bad. What, exactly, worked? How many people should the PLO, or Al Qaeda, or whoever, be allowed to kill before we hope they come to their senses without war? Would 6 million be enough for them to learn the error of their ways? Or is that too much history getting in the way of angry rhetoric?

    And what "angry rhetoric" anyhow? There was nothing angry in my post, and nothing that I would think was rhetoric anyhow. Only thing that could possibly come close is my "delusional people ... one side stop fighting" comment. Which doesn't seem like rhetoric, since that is exactly the point you brought up in response to my post.

    One last point: I do blame the PLO. I'm just realistic enough to realise that killing civilians by the thousand only adds to their support, not diminishes it.

    Ah, how nice. Yet busses blowing up doesn't diminish their support? The similarities to Iraq are high. If you hide your weapon making amongst your own civilians, you can't cry when the civilians get killed. They don't make weapons that only take out one apartment in a building, especially not if the apartment is full of bombs.

    But of course, you knew that. "History" and all.

  315. Re:Get real C&C always has been the fascist ga by MMaestro · · Score: 1
    "C&C series has always been a a very fascist game. Even fans of the series seem to not like very much Generals."

    Not to provoke an argument, but have you even played the single player storyline of the C&C game series? The goal, for the good guys, is to -stop- the evil dictator or communist (the series never used fascists, with the vague possibility of the Nod.) Even if you play as the bad guys, which is to topple the good guys, the sequel (assuming the game has/gets a sequel) continues the storyline with the good guys winning. EA = Pro-fascists? Not if I just destroyed the last Allied base and the Allied Chronosphere in Alaska yet my side, the Soviets, is the loser in the beginning of the sequel.

    As for fans not liking Generals, thats more of a balance and traditionalism issue than the game's topic. (Getting hit by 5 or more nuclear missles is pretty humiliating. The loss of real life actors continuing the storyline, which is non-existant in General, is a big blow off for long time fans.)

  316. Learn your history, so you can make a real example by Kelmenson · · Score: 1

    Oh? I don't know where you're from, but lets say you're from Rhode Island. Say the United Nations decided to make a homeland for refugees from some conflict on Rhode Island. Without any reguard to the people who happened to be living there at the time, such as yourself.

    Just how fast would you recognize the sovereignty of this new country?

    There was no country Palestine prior to Israel being formed. The people living there were not forced to move. Prior to the formation, the territory was a British colony. Prior to THAT, it was the Ottoman Empire. Yes, many Arabs lived there before Israel. As did many Jews.

    Yes, prior to the lines being drawn, there was a territory named "Palestine". But do a little research and you will also see that Jordan was part of Palestine as well; you aren't claiming that Jordan stole land from the Palestinians, are you? Or that the Palestinians are challenging the sovereignty of Jordan? Of course you aren't...

    A country being formed does not displace the people there. Its like the birth of a town. If there is unincorporated land that people are living on, they can petition to have a town officially made. If it passes, the town gets formed. If Bob down the street in the new town voted against it, he doesn't get kicked out. Its just a line on a map. Should Bob not recognize the town? Should Bob blow up the town hall? Should Bob move away and then claim the town stole his land? Or should he recognize the town...

  317. aww muffin by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    "with pornography: someone who looks at that stuff too much and from too young an age may never learn what real love and intimacy feel like. It's a real problem."
    you mean they won't know the cold painful tangs of heartbreak when they manifest? or mabye they won't ever feel it when their 'intimate' partner tells them that they've been living in a dreamworld, and that all they wanted was the sex, or that they've been cheating on you the whole time? [and they never liked you to begin with...]... or any of the millions of reaons why lovers inevidably break apart? love is a necessary evil - if you have found a way to rid us of this curse, then we should utilize it - nevermind this fear of the cure to our heart's discontent.
    anyone with half an ounce of humanity in them would know better.
    the real problem is love - without love there would be no heartbreak. how you can sit and defend something that would dissallow for the continuation of love is beyond me.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  318. Re:WWII WAS the only way to solve the German confl by cehardin · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that nobody complains about the U.S. liberating Germany from their leaders in WWII, even though many more civilians died in that endevor than will die in this one. The ends did in fact justifiy the means in that situation. However, it is always sad to see innocent civilians die for this purpose, I won't argue with that.

  319. Is Sudden Strike On The Restricted List Too? by grimzap · · Score: 1

    If you check the German website:

    http://www.suddenstrike.de/english/index_news.ht ml

    You'll see advertising for Sudden Strike, Sudden Strike II, etc. These are games that are made in Germany. I don't see any diplomatic options in these games. Can someone from Germany let us know if these games are also on the restricted list? Then we can see if this is another blatent Anti-US move and be appropriately pissed.

    --
    grimzap
  320. My how time flies ... by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    ..why just last week, it seems, it was "6000 years of civilisation".

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  321. I don't believe it, therefore it's a lie by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Maybe this Holocaust Denial thing originates as somebody's deliberate lie. Personally, I think that's a too-convenient cop out. But even if it's true, the law against "lying about history" is stupid. It doesn't change anybody's beliefs. It just drives them underground. Worst of all, it feeds the very attitude you're trying to stamp out! The whole Nazi/Fascist ideology is built around an irrational sense of persecution and marginalization. Telling such people that they can't express their opinions openly can only cause them to become even more vehement -- and violent.

    If you want to debunk bad history, you have to be able to discuss it openly, with no penalties for people who believe that Hitler got a bum rap, or that the world is flat, or other bonehead ideas. That can be hard to live with, but nobody said that living in a free society was easy.

  322. Lean not to miss the (obvious) point by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    So there wasn't a nation Palestine, whoop de frikkin do! In case you missed your United States history, Rhoad Island isn't a nation either. By your logic, all it would take is the United Nations moving in more refugees than there are current residents, and the natives of the island couldn't complain because they'd be outvoted.

    1. Re:Lean not to miss the (obvious) point by Kelmenson · · Score: 1

      Hey genius, if you could read past my first sentence you'd see I also equated it with a town. But clearly you are too stupid to read that far, or to grasp the words, or to read history. The UN didn't move anyone in. I'd explain more, but its clear that facts are beyond you, and you'll just continue to ignore them.

    2. Re:Lean not to miss the (obvious) point by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      But its not a town, its a fucking country you dumbass, and the point you are ignoring IS THAT IT WAS MADE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY LIVING THERE. The vast majority of Canada is uninhabited. Does that mean that Canadians should think its just fine and dandy if some group of refugees wants to set up their own nation up in the Northern Territories? Or is that too much of a concept for you little brain to grasp?

      And the fact that the Palistinians didn't have their own country prior to the foundation is Isreal is irrelevant. Or I suppose you would say that because they were under the thumb of Britian and the Turks before that, that they should be used to getting fucked over?

  323. I think you misread something. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    When you choose to smudge your own reality and dwell within it's distorted boundries, it is at that point then you have chosen to deny reality for whatever mental reasons you may have. If you cannot deal with reality then perhaps instead of vegging out infront of games with drugs/booze you should be seeing a therapist and investing in a perscription meant to help your mental position and outlook. Accept the responsibility of your choices, actions, and mental state of being instead of pointing fingers and crying poor poor me look what that did to poor poor me.

    Aside from the fact that I don't drink or take drugs, I heartily agree with most of what you say. --And also, except for the part about prescription psyche drugs being a good solution for the kind of problems you refer to. I know you were being facetious, but still; Drugs of that sort are some of the nastiest mind-deadening juju people can get hit with. Worse even than video games!

    If the cover of this game is not graphic, then it should not be hidden away like trying to pretend it does not exist no unlike people trying to pretend reality does not exist by zoning out in front of games etc.

    You're thinking too small there, brother! It's not about trying to pretend the stuff doesn't exist. It's about Germany deliberately trying to cripple the sale and consumption of a toxic material to kids who are too young to have any guard up against powerful brainwashing techniques.

    Sure, in the broadest sense, it's a violation of free will, which in the long run prevents people from learning through painful error. But frankly, (and you talked about children and the need to take care of them), most adults are no more aware enough of themselves or of their world than the average child. It is for this reason that Bush and co were able to get us into this war as easily as they did.

    Think of it this way;

    If Joseph Goebbels had managed to gain wide and popular distribution for his propaganda films in toy stores, then as a govnerment elected by the people to act in society's best interest, wouldn't you want to do something to prevent kids being exposed to his crap?

    There is a constant war raging to win the minds of the public. The side which wins, literally, rules the world. --Germany just wants to stop the proliferation of American mind-control media within their own borders. And I think that's cool.


    -Fantastic Lad

  324. The "Index" in Germany by Sanjihan · · Score: 1
    Just to clean upa little bit the informations you've got:


    The BPjM (the institute that looks after these things) puts games on the restricted list or 'Index' that could be a bad influence to young people (pornographic elements, extreme (graphic) brutality, content that is extremly disturbing to a young human and influence his growing up process in a bad way (for example: Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' is only allowed to be read if it's in a scientific context and if the book has the scientific annotations), glorifying brutality and or war.

    If the game, book, movie or whatever is overall too extreme in one or all of these things it can be even completly banned and it's no longer allowed to sell, buy or even possess it. But banning is used seldom and it has to be ordered by a judge in a trial.

    You can go against both the Indizierung (to be put on the index) and the banning, first one per internal trial at the BPjM, second one by court. That's also possible mutiple times but of course there has to be a time difference in the filing of the applications.


    For example: On the Index are Unreal Tournament (first and 2003), all the Quake episodes, GTA:Vice City, Soldier of Fortune, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, uncutted movies like Robocop II, Evil Dead 3, Scream I (yes, it too think that's funny ^_^). Counterstrike was interestingly not put on it.

    Banned are Wolfenstein:3D (because of the massively used neonarzistic symbols in a not historical context) and some very rassistical games like Niggerbashing, movies like uncutted Braindead, ...

    Evil Dead was banned to but got unbanned and now is only on the Index. Of course a distributor or someonle else has to file an application to unban, ... things because the BPjM isn't checking everything every year (counting all the webpages, movies, ... togther there are a several thousand things on the Index).

    At the moment an officialy accounted Organisation has to file an application for putting a specific media on the list (like the ministry for family,...) but starting from the first of april they can start at their own will. But the BPjM has not enough people to do more than the ones they get an application for :)

    Oh, I forgot: If something is recognised as art (wich are a lot of movies) it is not allowed to ban it or to put it on the Index. But the problem ist that games are at the moment not recognised as to be possibly art (ok, most isn't but they say theay don't have the potential to be it :-( ). For example the "Diary of Josephine Mutzenbacher" (that was a famous prostitute and the book contained a lot of graphical explained sexual situations (for that time after all)) was first put ont he Index but the bookpublisher fought against it and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (highest court over here) said it's art and it has to been put of the list. One year later they've put it on the list again but the publisher had no more an interest in fighting for it and actually no bookstore was ever to be sued for selling it in the public.


    But being put on the Index is one thing, getting sued for selling these in public (and other things) is another. In the real life a lot of the small shops doesn't care about selling these products openly and only one or two getting sued for it over the year :)

    Or you can drive just in one of our neighbour-countries, buy it and come back. So, today it's in some ways just something on paper (but if you get sued it can get very expensive (for german relations :) )), but the problem ist the front of the conservatives and their point of view of 'saving' the youth (like in most countries it think). If I look at their ideas of an effective youth-protection you only can get really sick :-(

  325. ... pardon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing against your statement or anything, but that sentence ought to be taken out and shot.

    However, I think it would be prudent to mention that since 1985, the Pentagon has spent over $45 billion on development of the F22 Raptor and the USA has no free health care system.

  326. It depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose it all depends on what you believe in, really. Personally I believe war is more obscene than sex.

  327. You are a dipshit by siskbc · · Score: 1
    Man, you are an ignorant asshole.

    Wow, since I base my entire self image on your opinion of me and your absolute determinations regarding people you've not even met, I will now be forced to commit Selbstmord. I suppose you can go find your tourist's German dictionary and find out what that actually means.

    If you ever GO to Germany you'll see they don't try to bury their past.

    I studied German and Germany quite intensively (not just a fucking vacation) and yes, they do. It is actually illegal to sell Nazi memorabilia in Germany. I recall a German schoolkid who did a tasteful project on Nazism got expelled. So yes, the Germans have spent the last 50 years expunging the previous 50 from their collective history.

    Except that your comments in conjunction with your shitty sort-of German are simply bigoted and insulting.

    I actually speak German. Fairly well. And I actually enjoy the German culture. But it doesn't mean they do everything right...and anyone who can't laugh at themselves as well as everyone else takes things a bit too seriously.

    Oh, and sign your posts if you're going to flame, you fucking coward.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  328. Jawohl by dzeroo · · Score: 1

    Excellent idea. Let's make something restricted and force it to be kept under the counter and sold only to adults. It worked great for Carmageddon and BMX XXX. Those games so like totally didn't get any free marketing.

    --
    == chicks are for fags ==
  329. Short Apology by Gorbie · · Score: 1

    I somewhat misread your post, and therefore the beginning of my rant was unwarranted. I am a big boy, and I apologize for that.

    What I need to ask, then, is if you didn't mean "give the U.S. a kick in the nuts", what did you mean? If you don't in some fashion want Iraq to win the war, what do you want?

    Also, if you truly didn't mean it, I think it would be important to "print a retraction"

  330. I think "USA republicans" is the term. by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    you are looking for :)

    -DaedalusHKX

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  331. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    Dimensions will always be expressed in the least usable term, convertible
    only through the use of weird and unnatural conversion factors. Velocity,
    for example, will be expressed in furlongs per fortnight.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...