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.'"
Are they also going to ban 90% of the rest of the games where conflict is the only option?
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
Can we put George Bush onto a Restricted list? He certainly portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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.
Americans and their Freedom Fries
Rapid Nirvana
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?
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.
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 ?
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
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!"
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
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
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
And my brother is a marine... muhahahaha
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
"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."
"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.
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.
"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
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
Cheap UK and US VPS
- 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...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".
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.
... 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!
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!!!
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.
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."
The only way to change is to bring all the ideas out into the open, even the evil ones. Especially them.
My mistake, sorry.
By way of apology here is a link to a mildly amusing Picture of President Bush.
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.
It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.
<troll>
So, will GWB be refused a visa next time he visits Deutschland?
</troll>
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})/
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.
"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/
We're all nerds here, right? One word: Battlechess.
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 -----------------------------------
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
Any publicity is good publicity, and good publicity is even better.
This embedded comment brought to you by the Council on Opinions Galore.
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..
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) Parents will just buy the games for their children after muttering the German equivalent of "Just remember honey, this is make believe".
/. and just want the game that much more.
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
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
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
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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."
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.
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!)
162 comments and only 1 higher than +4!
what am I to read?
I say you give me +5 informative.
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.
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
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?
And if it stops one German kid from declaring war on France then it will be worth it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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
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.."
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
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.
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|
"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
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!"
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.
- Fight for freedom;
- censor for peace;
- repeat.
What better way to keep people busy?Maybe EA will be putting out a new title for the German market in the near future:
Discuss and Negotiate
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.
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.
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..
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.
... 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!
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
English is not my 1st language, so cut me some slack.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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?!
Granny Places Command & Conquer on Restricted List :-)
Gilad.
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.
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!"
Hmmm.. The German as pacifists. Now that could have spared the world some trouble! Too little too late I say!
www.lonseidman.com
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.
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.
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.
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!
They should add a diplomatic phase to c&c. Only I you failed that you could go to war.
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.
mogorific carpentry experiments
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...
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.
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.
mogorific carpentry experiments
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.
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
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
What's next, Chess???
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
[John Cleese]
don't mention the war!!!!
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.
> 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
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.
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
Chess must be also in Restricted List, because, it is after all - a War Game, very simplified in details though, but still it is.
-
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
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:
They that would sacrifice their
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
Does this also mean that advertising and public displays of US government is also banned?
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
'It portrays war as the only way to resolve conflicts.'
Somehow, I don't think that "Concede and Compromise" would be a big seller.
China banned this game long back.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
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!
Germany bans something because it glorifies war
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.
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.
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).
p -the-mideast's-ass thing?
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-u
>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.
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
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.
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!
"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."
:P
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?
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.
"Sim United Nations"
Includes free copy of "Command and Conquer" for use when finished playing!
...coming from them.
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
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
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.
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.
insert 'surrender is an option' joke here
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.
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
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.
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.
jerk.
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
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
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]
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
"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.
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
> 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
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.
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".
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.
Bullshit Censorship. Then again, that censor list also includes an Adolf Hitler game...
.......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.
About this war,
"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
I don't know why you are all bashing Bush on the war, it was Al Gore who invented war after all.
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.
Well, if you can think of a better way than war to achieve global domination then I'd like to hear it!
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.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
... how to mod insightfull flamebait?
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
Show humor who's boss!
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
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.
Hey guys, I hear that Germany placed Command & Conquer on their restricted games list. You wanna talk about it?
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!
"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.
"Freedom Fries" are just a reverse engineering scheme to get around French DRM methods and avoid payment of royalites for "French Fries".
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
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.
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
The only terrorist in canada are the canadian alliance party!!! Mange de la marde fasciste!
Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity!
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.
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.
Welcome to the Nanny State.
--sdem
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
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
The parent is raising the issue of criteria for humanitarian warfare.
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?
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. 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.
"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.'"
read the bunni comic
Yeah, cause that worked so well in Viet Nam.
Idiot.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
"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?
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
what do you expect from a nation that is depicted as nothing more than "the hitler country" by the hegemon.
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...
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
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.
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
...The Sims causes introverts to become socialites.
yeah. right.
I do security
>Just because someone else broke the rules doesn't make it ok for you to break them too.
check...
nosig today
> 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
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
It's a strategy game...geeezz
What, are they going to ban chess because you can't talk your way into a win?
Banning a game because they lost their battle in the UN is pathetic.
Free speech is getting expensive...
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?
Hey easy does it buddy!
:D
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
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
> 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
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
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.
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.
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
'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.
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...
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.
Hammer of Truth
i thought doom was already nazi doom! thanks banned games list!
i just climb trees, and look for rhythm everywhere.
'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.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
.. copies of Microsoft's newest game "Age of Diplomacy" have been selling in record numbers.
Live web cams
The UN weakened itself. Making resolutions, but refusing the back them up is the quick road to becoming irrelevent.
...
...
... 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.
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
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
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..."
> 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
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.
"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.
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...
"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
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.
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
'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.
Thanks for the correction.
Donate free food here
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
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
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
> 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
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.
An interesting article about the Kurds in Turkey and their stance on the war:
s to ry/0,7792,924026,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/
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?
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
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
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?
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?
> 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.
"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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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/
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).
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
War is Fun when You Know You Won't Die. Or will we?
--- Back to the trees, back to the trees !
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...
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.
Lets hope not.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
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
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
> 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
I'll bite:
In the French version, surrender or forever stalling are the only options. The only way to get out is to reboot.
Table-ized A.I.
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
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
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!
Shouldn't this be under the "censorship" topic?
-- (Score:i, Imaginary)
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.
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;).
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.
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
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.
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.
Most games, from The Sims, to Command And Conquer have several unilateral effects:
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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....
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.
The movies in the German version of CnC (DOS/Gold) were changed so instead of humans being killed there were robots dying.
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.
.. 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"
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.
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:
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.)
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...
"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.
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.
If you check the German website:
t ml
http://www.suddenstrike.de/english/index_news.h
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
..why just last week, it seems, it was "6000 years of civilisation".
Bitter and proud of it.
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.
And the thing is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have the SAME god. Wow.
This space intentionally left blank.
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.
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!
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 ==
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
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
being the largest country (except for china) helps too, I'd be curioous to see the same figures per capita
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. 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. 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. 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
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
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.
- France ...
- Russia
- Spain
- Italy
- Hungary
- Zaire (now Congo)
-
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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"
you are looking for :)
-DaedalusHKX
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler