Slashdot Mirror


Ender's Game Influences US Army Training

PortWineBoy writes "Although we've been bombarded in the last few weeks with techno tales of the U.S. Army, I found this story in the NY Times (FRRYYY) to be quite interesting. The director of the Army's simulation technology center said that Ender's game influenced how and what they will build for future training." Begin Mazer Rackham Analogies...

493 comments

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Didn't Ender's tactics involve genocide?

    1. Re:Hmm by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Xenocide in Ender's case.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and Steven King's books involve serial killers.

      Better ban any references to Steven King before our kids turn into axe murderers. . .

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

      Xenocide implies genocide.

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

      yeah, cause we're lining up civilians and executing them.
      Are you watching WWII reruns or something?

    5. Re:Hmm by AndroidCat · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes... And blowing up a planet implies littering.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:Hmm by SpectreGadget · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only at the end. What made Ender a really successful tactician was his ability to think wwwaaaayyyyyyy outside the norm (for them at the time) for strategy. He displayed it right away when he was heading to the station and automatically re-oriented himself when gravity went away. In the zero-g battle room, he was so successful because he threw everyone off by being so innovative.

      In the end, xenocide was a result of his actions, but not his intentions. That's what the rest of the books were about!

      --
      Jim Harry
    7. Re:Hmm by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Interesting
      True, in the book, the adults set Ender up. They told him not to shot planets, and told him it was a game. Then in the final round, when he was going to lose anyway, he broke the rules. They knew that Ender would bend or break the rules to win from all the battle room drills.

      Ender at least didn't try to evade responsibility for his actions. They were done in ignorance, but he admits he did them.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I read the book about 5 years ago, so I might not remember correctly, but didn't a giant ant tell Ender that everything was cool afterward?

    9. Re:Hmm by dhovis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but the point was that Ender did not know that. He thought he was training on a simulation. The situations they put him in kept getting harder and harder until they reached the homeworld of the "buggers" where the odds became impossible and so he just blew up the planet. He thought he was being tested and he was angry that they would give him such an impossible task, so he completed it the only way possible, by killing everyone, including his own men.

      It worked, but the point was that Ender wouldn't have done it if he knew it was real.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    10. Re:Hmm by isn't+my+name · · Score: 1

      Genocide where the 'soldiers' commanding the actual genocide weren't even aware what they were doing had any connection to reality. In fact, were actively discouraged from discovering that.

    11. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and also didn't Ender sacrifice a large number of his men suicide bomber style? Think I might be way off base here....

    12. Re:Hmm by Stephen+King · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh, I don't know about that. My kids didn't turn into axe murderers.

      --
      Karma: Undead.
    13. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you were dead at 54?

    14. Re:Hmm by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Damn, now I can't watch my favorite movie.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    15. Re:Hmm by moonbender · · Score: 1

      He was, and he has returned as an evil authoring zombie by popular and publisher request. You can see the post was made by a zombie; its evil bit is set.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    16. Re:Hmm by aheath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It worked, but the point was that Ender wouldn't have done it if he knew it was real."

      Actually that was one of the points of the book. Another key point is that the child soldiers were used by the adult soldiers to perform an action that the adult soldiers were unable or unwilling to perform.

      "You had to be a weapon, Ender. Like a gun, like the Little Doctor, functioning perfectly but not knowing what you were aimed at. We aimed you. We're responsible. If there was something wrong, we did it." Ender's Game Page 298

      Fan's of Ender's Game may want to check out Orson Scott Card's web site Hatrack River.

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

      Bah! That doesn't count unless his evil bit has been set five times.

    18. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not watching reruns. What are you inhaling?

    19. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does posting on Slashdot.

    20. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh yeah, I forgot about that part. I guess it's ok then.

    21. Re:Hmm by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the point they made in Ender's Game was that his advantage came in being able to "submerge himself in someone else's will" (ie: empathy). The essential paradox of the perfect general is someone who is able to empathize with his opponent perfectly, but at the same time, is able to destroy them.



      ** Spoiler Alert **
      (Though if you RTFA its already spoilt it)

      That's why they had to resort to deception at the end of the novel. Because if Ender had known that he was actually killing the Buggers, his natural empathy, which made him a brilliant general, wouldn't be allow him to kill them.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    22. Re:Hmm by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      +4 Informative?? H'okay, but I figured that the third book being called Xenocide was a bit of a give-away. (I did meet OSC back while he was trying to think of a name for that book. I suggested "Dead Ender". He did did seem to ponder that for a moment, but perhaps he was being polite.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    23. Re:Hmm by Bugmaster · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly. The article mentions how cool Ender was and how he "Saved the world", and suggests that someday our soldiers can be as cool. Unlike Ender, the Army and the media have no problem whatsoever with exterminating an entire species, should we desire to do so. Ender had to be tricked into fighting because of his ethics; the media, on the other hand, cannot even understand what ethics are. "Saving the world" sounds much cooler anyway.

      --
      >|<*:=
    24. Re:Hmm by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      Not if you read the next few books in the series.

    25. Re:Hmm by Pfhor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, Ender's strategic advantage was his compassion. He understood his enemies so fully that he loved them deeply, since he could see their motivations for attacking him. He is always at odds with the case. The reason why Ender did what he did was because he thought it was a game, if he knew it wasn't a game, he would not have gone through with it. He spends the rest of the series dealing with that guilt.

    26. Re:Hmm by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "What made Ender a really successful tactician was his ability to think wwwaaaayyyyyyy outside the norm"

      which was absolutly uneeded in the end.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Hmm by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Why is this not modded up to +10 superlative case on point?

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    28. Re:Hmm by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Where are my moderator points now?

      This is at least a +1 topical!

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    29. Re:Hmm by andfarm · · Score: 2, Informative
      Or insecticide.

      (Orson Scott Card's joke, not mine.)

      --

      TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.

    30. Re:Hmm by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      And when do we get the film, damnit?! =)
      I've read the books, now I want the film.
      Enders game, The movie.

      And why not "Enders game, The game"? =)
      Hmm... As long as it isn't a Doom clone.
      On the other hand, imagine a first person shooter without gravity. =)

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    31. Re:Hmm by oddrune · · Score: 1

      It also involved fighting a wastly superior army, and realizing that you can not win, deciding to suicide-bomb.

      Surely something the americans have experience with.

    32. Re:Hmm by miu · · Score: 1
      I read the book about 5 years ago, so I might not remember correctly, but didn't a giant ant tell Ender that everything was cool afterward?

      My hat is off to you AC, best synopsis ever!

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    33. Re:Hmm by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Well.. he entered into a scenario that he thought he could not win. He thought the entire effort was deletrious for his guys and hopefully for the Enemy. But in essence it was the mother of all suicide attacks.

      Jeremy

    34. Re:Hmm by phyreman · · Score: 1

      Actually I think what made Ender really successful was his understanding that it was necessary to understand his enemy thoroughly and then beat him so thoroughly that his enemy could never threaten him again. Sort of like what the US is trying to do to Al-Qaeda...

    35. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He spends the rest of the series dealing with that guilt."

      and that, my friend, is why the series went straight downhill after ender's game. who wants to read a multi-book guilt trip?

    36. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, they left the choice up to him whether he wanted to take an action that was that extreme. I remember that clearly. He got pissed and decided to end it fast.

    37. Re:Hmm by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      But it was needed very much near the end, when Ender was commanding the fleet against the fleets of the buggers. It helped to be a good tactician in order to get near enough to the bugger planet that he could use Dr. Device.

      But you're right: anybody could probably have done the last part (or maybe not; I think it took some good maneuvering to get close enough).

    38. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this was explained in the book. Because Andrew had shown that every single human life was priceless, the buggers knew that he valued every life so much as to not throw it away in a hopeless act. Yet as is said in the book, when things get most hopeless, humans are willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for thier fellow humans.

      Andrew ordered the soldiers to thier death, and the soldiers obeyed, to destroy the greatest threat mankind has ever known.

    39. Re:Hmm by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Aren't you dead?

      (Yes, I stole that line from STII, but it fit)

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    40. Re:Hmm by JesseL · · Score: 1
      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    41. Re:Hmm by cicci0 · · Score: 1

      this word does not exist at dictionary.com or websters online dictionary.

    42. Re:Hmm by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since we haven't encountered any alien species to murder yet, I'm not surprised. However, the meaning is obvious from the root Latin.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    43. Re:Hmm by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      But there you are in a vessel, able to use thrusters to controll your movement.
      I meant a game where you are a *person* without gravity. Unable to change your course unless you hit a wall or a pole or something.
      You would change speed and direction if you came in contact with another player or some other free-floating object and rocket away when fireing your weapon. =)

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    44. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Am I the only person who thought "Ender's Game" was actually game.... ?

      Even though it makes you feel superior to assert your knowledge of crappy Sci-Fi novels, you guys should at least throw a bone to the rest of us.

    45. Re:Hmm by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Try Homeworld...and in acouple of months, Homeworld 2 (man, I've seen the screenshots and I'm drooling!).

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    46. Re:Hmm by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      Since we haven't encountered any alien species to murder yet, I'm not surprised.

      Don't worry.. we'll find one sooner or later.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    47. Re:Hmm by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      No the series went downhill because Card sucks at writing series. They always start out good and then slowly spiral down into the gutter, or they just plummet there suddenly (the last book of Homecoming annoyed me a great deal).

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    48. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That last book of "Homecoming" did blow. Worst series-ender he ever did.

    49. Re:Hmm by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      I'd say that thats more of a Shot'em up game.
      You fly a ship and shoot other ships.
      I meant a game where you are a *person*, like in Doom, but have no gravity.
      You'd go around bouncing off walls, changing direction by hitting other free-floating object, etc. Just like if you where in a real free-fall.
      And just think about the effect of fireing your gun! Zoom! You'd go zipping across the room, possibly tumbling madly. =)
      You'd probably have to think ahead and maybe grab hold of a wall or something before fireing.
      Would probably be a nightmare to learn the controls though... Or to design a working interface at all, except for full-body VR-suits. :/

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    50. Re:Hmm by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      It's ironic, the parallels between Ender's Game and the current war. In both wars, they were fought preemptively, based on the expectation that the enemy _could_ become a threat. The buggers, in fact, were not planning any third invasion whatsoever.

    51. Re:Hmm by p0cketHAL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hate it when some guy's post
      capps an asteroid in my ass when
      I'm not lookin. Just ruins the mood.

    52. Re:Hmm by Post-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      Not quite

      The battle was going bad. They were seriously outnumbered, and rapidly loosing ships. His decision to destroy the planet was, although he didn't know it then, more or less humanity's last resort.

      He was being a good kid and tried to satisfy the adults.

      --
      "My mom always said that there are no monsters - no real ones - but there are !"
    53. Re:Hmm by DredPirateRoberts · · Score: 1
      No, he was NOT being a good kid... he was an angry, highly intelligent person, who believed that he had been set up to fail at the last, betrayed yet again by the adults whom he knew he could never trust. He believed that he was performing his graduation excercise from Command School, and that he had been given an impossible test, so he created a new victory condition on his own (outside the box). The only child-warrior who figured out that it was all real before they were told was Bean, but you don't know that until much later in the series.

      --
      "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell
    54. Re:Hmm by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      True. I think a computer version of the battle room would be a pretty cool game. (zero g, guns that freeze opponents, you can shoot yourself to partially paralyze yourself, etc.)

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    55. Re:Hmm by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      ender's tactics involved the exploitation of an oponents weakness in logistics. also, ender's solution was to cause the aggressor to not attack again.

  2. i hope they are not by stonebeat.org · · Score: 1, Funny

    influenced by "power puff girls" as well.

    1. Re:i hope they are not by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Only if they can lay their hands on some Chemical X. (And cool theme music.) Hmm... Saddam as Mojo Jojo.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  3. Great... by No.+24601 · · Score: 1

    This is how we expect to come out ahead in Iraq?

  4. Text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    April 3, 2003
    More Than Just a Game, but How Close to Reality?
    By AMY HARMON

    CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. -- THE noise level was rising, the body count was mounting and the 13 marines sitting in front of computer screens in a dark room here seemed briefly to have forgotten that the urban combat mission was just a video game.

    "Sniper on the roof! Sniper on the roof!" shouted Justin J. Taylor, a corporal leading Fire Team 2, half jumping out of his chair as his eyes stayed glued to the monitor.

    "Where? Where? Where?" demanded a comrade in Fire Team 3.

    "I'm shot," came the despairing reply. "I can't see anything."

    As the military embraces electronic games as a training tool, a growing number of soldiers are fighting in a virtual Iraq war even as they remain stateside. For many soldiers, the increasingly realistic simulations often seem like the closest thing to being in combat.

    "It gives you a sense of reality," Corporal Taylor said. "You get that nervous feeling: do I really want to go around the corner or not? You want to complete the job you've been assigned to do."

    Recent recruits who grew up on popular commercial games like Half-Life, Counterstrike and Quake 3 have a natural affinity for the training games, many of which are adapted by the military from the retail versions. Some military officials are enthusiastic about the benefits of running troops through the exercises at minimal expense.

    But as video war games gain popularity throughout the armed forces, some military trainers worry that the more the games seem like war, the more war may start to seem like a game. As the technology gets better, they say, it becomes a more powerful tool and a more dangerous one.

    The debate over the use of computer simulations large and small was sharpened when Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the commander of the Army V Corps based in Kuwait, remarked that the guerrilla-style resistance of Iraqi militia groups made for an enemy that was "different from the one we war-gamed against." The current situation in Iraq, some critics say, may highlight the problem of depending too much on virtual realities for training. They argue that military leaders can become too enmeshed in a gaming scenario to allow for what is actually happening.

    General Wallace's forces directed a computerized dress rehearsal for the Iraqi invasion with several hundred Army, Marine and Air Force officers last January in Grafenwöhr, Germany. The command center led by Gen. Tommy R. Franks of the Army conducted its own computer simulation, Operation Internal Look, last December in Qatar.

    "You can get so habituated to the gamed reality that the real reality, what's on the ground now, is thought to be artificial," said James Der Derian, principal investigator of the Information Technology War and Peace Project, a nonprofit group that studies the impact of technology on global politics. "If the war doesn't go according to the game, you just keep trying to make it fit."

    Computer-simulated war games, like the one hijacked by Matthew Broderick's hacker character in the 1983 film "WarGames," have long been used by high-ranking military officers to test large-scale maneuvers that cannot easily be replicated in the real world.

    What is new is both the way the games are filtering down through the ranks to the lowest level of infantry soldiers, and the broader vision that is being contemplated for them at the highest levels of the Pentagon.

    "These kids have grown up with this technology from birth," said Dan Gardner, director of readiness and training policy and programs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. "If there are tools that are less painful than reading through a book and can give them a better sense of what it might be like, we need to use them."

    Mr. Gardner stresses that nothing will ever replace "muddy boots" training. But he said the adoption of the technology was accelerating partly for practical reasons: real-life training is expensive, and i

    1. Re:Text of article by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      "The possibilities of networked computers, combined with an increasingly remote-controlled military like the one Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has vowed to build, has spurred interest in adapting the architecture of multiplayer games like Everquest and Ultima to create a "persistent world" for training and perhaps more."

      A MMOFPS with real life settings and physics?

  5. Why is this so hard? by corbettw · · Score: 5, Informative
    People, if you insist on submitting stories from The NY Times, replace 'www' with 'archive'. This isn't rocket science. Hell, it doesn't even count as computer science.

    Like so

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:Why is this so hard? by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      heck, rather than worry about the submitters, why can't the editors just do this???

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:Why is this so hard? by pyrrho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and rob the karma whores of low hanging fruit! You cruel cruel man ;)

      Seriously, I think they might eventually piss of the nytimes if they did that. Free Reg to the paper of record isn't really such an evil thing, btw, imnsho, ymmv, ald fa;bb b.

      --

      -pyrrho

    3. Re:Why is this so hard? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      This isn't rocket science. Hell, it doesn't even count as computer science.

      Locating the "any key" on the keyboard qualifies as computer science for many people .

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:Why is this so hard? by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

      news.google.com provides direct links to NYT articles. I'm sure they have some sort of agreement about it.

    5. Re:Why is this so hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a free registration, I mean come on it cost money for bandwidth. Personally I don't like registrations either but if I'm not willing to register and give away my info. I'm not going to be leaching their services either.

    6. Re:Why is this so hard? by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      ITYM "leeching" like a leech would do.

      Sucking blood. Like leeches.

      Leeeeech. Nasty, gross, and nothing like "leach" which is a boring-ass slow chemical process one might describe if they gave a rat's ass about cave development.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    7. Re:Why is this so hard? by bjb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1. It's a free registration.
      2. It's a reputable organization/service.
      3. Many people know this trick and can do it themselves if they have a problem with free registration.

      I can only imagine that if Slashdot, one of the largest redirection sites on the internet (heck, what is that term.. uhh.. Slashdot effect?).. if this site starts doing the 'archive' trick automatically, I can only imagine that this little feature will disappear rather soon.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    8. Re:Why is this so hard? by tfreport · · Score: 1

      If you look at the address if any article linked through news.google.com you will see '&partner=GOOGLE'. NYTimes Online probably has a number of partners that going through give you free access without the registration. Not sure if you can simply take an article and add the partner thing to see if I can get through (I already have preregistered so it has no effect) but some one else should give it a shot.

    9. Re:Why is this so hard? by PortWineBoy · · Score: 1

      I chose not to do so because I believe you should register with the site if you want to view the content. Why are you so arrogant as to assume everything that is not done your way is the result of stupidity?

      --

      this sig deleted by another sig

    10. Re:Why is this so hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe slashdot should pay to have the same deal!!! roflamamaoosflhasdhfahsdf oh my sides hurt!

  6. but didnt by mholt108 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ender spend the rest of his life paying for his evils......

    1. Re:but didnt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not really. He found the remaining hive queen on a colony planet in a spot that looked like the Giant's Drink from the Fantasy Game in Battle School and wrote the book, the Hive Queen, under the name 'Speaker for the Dead' that eventually convinced everyone that xenocide was wrong and the buggers were actually 'ramen', or basically friendly creatures. After many years of searching, he finally allowed the buggers to live again on the colony planet of Lusitania, so no harm was done.. :o

    2. Re:but didnt by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      'ramen', or basically friendly creatures

      I thought he meant ramen, as in good with noodles. [/me Looks down at bowl] Uh-oh.

      But seriously, he's just lucky the buggers thought that way. I doubt humans would have been so happy about it.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:but didnt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think 9/11 is an indication of american arrogance? if someone came up and kicked you in the face, would you blame yourself?

      you make no sense, please do not breed.

    4. Re:but didnt by KezMaefele · · Score: 1

      For the Slashdot religous crowd (there are a few): SadDammed Hussein will spend the rest of eternity paying for his evils. For all the agnostics (which seems to be a Slashdot majority: SaDAMN Hussein will spend the rest of his life paying for his evils. Looking at the news this morning that should be a couple of more days. Either way...

  7. ummm by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

    Given the skillz of the Iraqi army, "whack-a-mole" is a better training simulator.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

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

      Yes, skill is what they (the light forces and militia we have run into thus far) lack. But morale, tactics and ingenuity they have shown has been superior to everyone expectations (i would cite the number of advisors on PBS as good explain representations for this).

      Guys with RPG's and AK47's driving pickups and dump trucks attacking modern tank columns day and night ... thats pretty serious shit IMHO. Definately not the morale starved image that the DOD is talking about.

      Now granted its not a 'threat' to our forces overall . It is a testimate to the enemies will. Going into those fights with 'whack-a-mole' in mind is a serious mistake.

    2. Re:ummm by Alsee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      tactics and ingenuity they have shown has been superior to everyone expectations

      Yeah, a car bomb with a pregnant woman inside sure is ingenious.

      Using schools, hospitals, mosques, and historical sites sure are superior tactics.

      Hint: sarcasm.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:ummm by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't be so naieve. All these things may be immoral, and in violation of the "rules of war", but, rightly or wrongly, these people think they are fighting for their very survival, and the survival of their home. Whats right and wrong goes straight out of the window at that point.

      If you're fighting for something you love (Not necessarily your leader, but your home, or your country) against a superior force, you do anything. Suicide bombers, chemical weapons, torturing POWs, anything you think might give you a chance.

      That's why it's so bloody dangerous to back people into a corner. When they've got nothing to lose, they can throw it all against you.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their fighting because one of saddam's thugs has a gun to their loved ones heads.

    5. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep believing that if it makes you sleep better at night. Your country is conducting an illegal war and occupation after continually bombing the iraqis for 20 years. You think anybody over there actually likes you?

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

      And, btw, wasn't unconventional tactics and breaking the rules exactly what let Ender win against impossible odds in the end?

    7. Re:ummm by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Ender talks about what makes him so deadly (and so torn in himself) in the book:

      "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the wat they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them...I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don't exist."

      Ender uses unconventional and unexpected tactics, but only as an outgrowth of his understanding of the enemy. He knows the enemy, knows what they expect, therefore he knows what they do not expect. And that's what he uses.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    8. Re:ummm by osgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're fighting for something you love (Not necessarily your leader, but your home, or your country) against a superior force, you do anything. Suicide bombers, chemical weapons, torturing POWs, anything you think might give you a chance.

      I agree with you right up to the point of where you start intimidating, torturing, and mass murdering your own people. Then, exactly whom are you protecting?

    9. Re:ummm by KezMaefele · · Score: 1

      "All these things may be immoral, and in violation of the "rules of war", but, rightly or wrongly, these people think they are fighting for their very survival, and the survival of their home." Or Not. The ones that are still fighting are fighting due to crosswired religous beliefs of Islam. If I die for Allah and kill Americans I will get rewarded. That is crazy. The ones still fighting are scared to not fight. I don't think the majority of everyday people want The Butcher of Bagdad' in power. Quit trying to make the Iraqi 'defenders' sound noble. They are scared or decieved fools. The brave and smart will get out of the way and let us do what they couldn't.

    10. Re:ummm by Black_Logic · · Score: 1

      Didn't Colonial England (American persuasion) win the revolution because they refused to fight within the bouds of war (standing in a straight line and shooting at eachother) ?

      --
      Ansi's and stupid tricks!
    11. Re:ummm by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I'm not endorsing any of this necessarily, I'm saying this is what people can be driven too.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    12. Re:ummm by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they wanted Saddam in power. But I'm pretty sure they don't particularly want America in Iraq (Wether or not the US just comes in and sets up an Iraqi government; this is yet to be seen).

      I think at least a few of these people are not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the US (who is, after all, the aggressor, political rhetoric about pre-emptive strikes notwithstanding).

      And if you're asking to me to stop making the Iraqis sound noble, I'd ask you to stop slandering them. "crosswired beliefs of Islam", "scared or deceived fools". Despite what is said, people rarely kill for religion. They kill for money, power or revenge, and religious difference is a nice excuse.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    13. Re:ummm by rsborg · · Score: 1
      I agree with you right up to the point of where you start intimidating, torturing, and mass murdering your own people. Then, exactly whom are you protecting?

      Ok, Mr. Rhetoric.

      I think the original poster was referring to the *people* not the leader. Often times even in despotic regimes, the people are patriotic and self-preservational and that is to be expected. Saying that they are "mass-murdering their own people" as an excuse for OUR INVADING THEIR COUNTRY is pretty pathetic, especially since the kurdish massacre of which you describe was because a) the kurds were backstabbed by the US (left to hang after being promised support), and b) the chemical weapons used were purchased from the US. The root of the atrocity? I doubt it stops at Saddam. Keep looking.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    14. Re:ummm by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I agree with you right up to the point of where you start intimidating, torturing, and mass murdering your own people. Then, exactly whom are you protecting?

      Um, the rest of the people?

      There's a biological analogy: in order to stop an attacker, I may punch him. This may cause cuts in my skin, through which hundreds of my blood cells escape and die.

      Consider Saddam the brain and his people the cells of the "organism" of Iraq.

      I'm not defending or encouraging the practice, simply explaining it. I'm sure he doesn't think in biological terms about it, either; he is ruthless and his people are disposable (just as a certain amount of my blood cells are).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    15. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your country is conducting an illegal war and occupation after continually bombing the iraqis for 20 years

      And you keep believing that if it makes you feel that hating the US gives you a purpose in your miserable life. And by the way its only been 12 years of bombing. And by the way Iraq has been continually bombed for UN violations.

    16. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b) the chemical weapons used were purchased from the US. The root of the atrocity?

      I have heard this before, but no one has ever backed up the claim with a source. Can you cite a source for me? If we actually sold chemical weapons to Saddam's regeim I would like to know. I know we sold him weapons to support him against Iran once upon a time, but I have never heard a substantiated claim about us supplying him with chemical weapons.

    17. Re:ummm by Read+Icculus · · Score: 1

      No, actually that's a very common myth that is perpetuated by a shitty education system. The Americans fought that way at first because they had no real military or training to speak of. After "we" got French, Prussian, and Polish officers to teach us about fortifications, drilling, formations, cavalry tactics, etc., we became a much more effective fighting force. Although I will agree that willingness to use/ability to think up unconventional tactics in warfare is a plus.

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
  8. What I remember of Ender's Game. by Macrobat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As I recall, Ender's Game entailed government deception and secrecy, mass slaughter of innocents, a war started by trigger-happy humans, and the brainwashing of children.

    What parts were they emulating?

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The "mass slaughter of innocents by trigger-happy humans" is kind of wrong. The 'buggers' attacked Earth and nearly destroyed everyone first. The humans only sent an attack fleet back to the bugger worlds to get revenge and stop a further threat. Only after all the buggers except one hive queen were eliminated did anyone figure out that the buggers were actually sentient creatures.

    2. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, because nonsentient creatures build massive space fleets all the time.

    3. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I messed up :p It was the buggers that didn't realize humans were sentient until they started their invasion, but the humans didn't realize that the buggers were "ramen" or able to live in peace with humans until it was too late.

    4. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by JASP2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Get a Grip... and read the article. For one thing, yes in "Enders game" there was confusion and the "enemy" was destroyed, when in essance they were supposidly peaceful. However, they attack Earth first, unknowingly, and assumed we weren't a true life-form. Earth defended itself the best way they could...

      This xenocide correlation bullshit is just assanine, that's not what the article is saying. It actually says very little about "ender's game", but... the point is using High-Tech Simulations to train Army and MARINES. The post says Army when a big part of the article is talking about Marine sims too.

      As a former Army Captain... Sims work, and save you tax money. Our Military is the best fighting force in the world... and the most compassionate and ethical. Simulations also help soldiers learn how to deal with media, civilians and wounded enemy. That's why we are the best.

    5. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by 15+Seconds+of+Glory · · Score: 1

      It's the simply the idea of training with simulations, not the story of the book that the article talks about. Nothing is mentioned about recruitment age begin decreased, limiting families to two children, or a base on eros.

    6. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by ltwally · · Score: 1
      "As I recall, Ender's Game entailed government deception and secrecy, mass slaughter of innocents, a war started by trigger-happy humans, and the brainwashing of children."

      • Government Deception & Secrecy: No more so than in any war. The majority of government secrecy during wartime is a good thing . In Ender's case it was used to prevent useless civilian panic.
      • Mass Slaughter of Innocents: I'm a bit lost here. The only mass slaughter that took place was the bugger drones dropping like flies before Ender. You consider them innocent, when they actually started the entire war? And had refused every attempt Earth made at peaceful contact? Earth was cleary not the bad side here, no matter how big the "mis-understanding" there had been in the end.
      • A War Started By Trigger-Happy Humans: Uhm... the buggers fired first... and kept firing after Earth tried repeated peaceful contacts. How exactly do you define fighting for your species very existence "trigger-happy" ??
      • Brainwashing of Children: True. The "brain-washing" program wasn't much worse than the psychological training programs that adults are put through for our (the US's) military training. The main difference here is the length and depth of that training, and that it was happening to children. Sometimes extreme times call for extreme measures, though. In such drastic cases, the ends do in fact justify the means IMHO. (Better to warp a few poor childrens' minds than have your entire species wiped out by aliens!)


      Personally, I've always found Ender's Game to be a moving story, if a bit far-fetched. As far as using anything of it for military training... Beyond the wonderful toys, I'd hope that the US military doesn't adopt to much from that book.... as it is a story about last hope tactics!
      --



      /dev/random
    7. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by betat · · Score: 1

      All of them actually.

    8. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      To everyone who responded to the parent post:

      YHBT.
      YHL.
      HAND.

    9. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of them.

    10. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ramen - you mean like saimin noodles? Man, if Ender had only known that we could just eat the buggers then he wouldn't have had to feel so guilty in all those other books. "Eat what you kill," there's no shame in that. After all it worked for Hannibal Lecter, right?

      Ok, that sounds like I'm tripping acid or something so this message will be brought to you by the friendly letters, A & C.

    11. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by mcelrath · · Score: 1
      Another point of Ender's game was that you can get your point across and win respect with atrocity. (i.e. Ender killing the boy in the bathroom)

      -- Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    12. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      most compassionate and ethical.
      >>>>>>>>
      I doubt anyone is questioning the soldiers here. But the reality of the situation is that a soldier does what he is told, and the people giving the orders aren't necessarily as ethical as those carrying them out.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    13. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Bicoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not quite. At first, the Buggers didn't realize that humans are individuals rather than a Hive Mind. The Buggers finally got it after the second Bugger War. Humans didn't know that the Buggers had figured that out and were going to leave them alone, so they sent in a preemptive strike to wipe them all out.

      Point is, the Buggers weren't always ramen, they were originally quite dangerous, in the same way a kindergardner with a shotgun is dangerous. They didn't know they were going to cause harm by doing what they did and didn't fully comprehend what it was that they had done until quite a long time later.

      Though I really don't think that has a whole lot to do with the present military situation...

      --
      If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
    14. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by jgardn · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But the reality of the situation is that a soldier does what he is told, and the people giving the orders aren't necessarily as ethical as those carrying them out.

      Where the hell do you get this pathetic thinking from? The attitude of the leaders trickles down to the lower levels. The military literally reflects the attitudes of the top generals, the president, and his advisors.

      Ask anyone in the military. You will see slight differences in the behavior of each unit that precisely reflect the leadership of that unit.

      You want to know why the Iraqis are putting pregnant women in car bombs? It's because the people in the military are just as brutal, sick, and demented as Saddam is. They largely reflect their leadership.

      When you see a private run for cover with a child in his arms, he is doing that because he knows that is what his sergeant and lieutenant would do. The sergeant and lieutenant would do the same because they are told to do that by the captains and colonels. The captains and colonels do that because that is the ethics taught to them by the generals. The generals teach those ethics because that is what the president wants them to do.

      Your stupid argument that the little guy is good but the top brass is bad is idiotic. The little guy reflects the behavior and morals of the top brass and commander in chief.

      In fact, the true hero of this entire conflict is President Bush. He sticks to his morals. He did what is right despite public opinion polls and opposing pressure. He refuses to bend his ideals to satisfy a few people for a few days. He refuses to go back on his word. He is bringing dignity and freedom to a country that has been ravaged for twenty years. What is in this for him? What is he going to take home at the end of the day? The answer is nothing. In fact, he stands to lose a lot more than you imagine. How would you like to know that you were directly responsible for young men and women being tortured and brutally killed? Yet, despite this, he pushes on, not because it is easy, but because it is right.

      He is doing all this, sacrificing his political career, sacrificing his peace of mind, all to bring freedom to a couple of people in a faraway land that nobody seems to care about. He does this to ensure that our children will grow up without planes crashing into their office buildings, and without worrying about being burned alive by savage terrorists.

      It's people like you that make Saddam Hussein think he stands a chance, and give aid and comfort to the enemy. If you would've stood with your president from the beginning, Saddam would've left long ago, and we would've ended the torture that is the daily lives of the Iraqi people years ago.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    15. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by mholt108 · · Score: 1

      Err huh, are you on acid or is it silly pills? I also think the ethics of American soldiers are fairly good (although not immaculate), but as for Bush.... there is no Bush, never was. Please just a little study of foreign policy before speaking your mind.

    16. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by aheath · · Score: 1

      Ender killed Stilson and Bonzo because he wanted to end each fight. He acted in self defense in both fights. Ender was trying to win fights. He wasn't trying to win respect.

      Ender was not aware that he had struck killing blows until he watched Colonel Graff's court martial. Killing in self defense is not morally equivalent to comitting an atrocity.

    17. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not going to argue with you. We have a fundemental disagreement in our world outlook that exceeds the ability of debate to bridge. You have a romanticized view of the military and of our actions. I've come to the conclusion that there are no heros, and that the only thing that differentiates our leaders is the varying degrees of moral bankruptcy they exhibit.

      However, I contest your point that Bush is good because he refuses to bend his ideals. History has shown that an inflexible man is the worst kind. In a world where much is complex and nebulous, where even fundemental things like mathematics are incomplete and often contradictory, no one can afford to be rigid. An unwavering rightousness is the biggest trap of a weak mind.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    18. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by forgetmenot · · Score: 1

      Two words asswad: "My Lai"

      The day everyone stands with your beloved President without question is the day democracy dies. Then again, it might already be too late for that given the recent spate of U.S. legislation.

    19. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Actually, what is said in the books is that the humans didn't care if they could live in peace with the buggers or not. Mazer Rackham tells Ender that they don't know if the buggers would live in peace with them; all they know is that the buggers have attacked them before. Ramen, varelse, who cares. They might try and kill us, so let's make sure they can't.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    20. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because someone sticks to their morals doesn't make them good. It's the morals themselves that have to be judged, not people's tenacity.

      Just a few examples:
      Hitler knew what he wanted. Among other things, the Jews dead. And he didn't bow to all these other countries saying he was a genocidal maniac, he did what he thought right.

      The Worldcom et al CEOs knew what they wanted. Money. And they did whatever they could to get it. The rest of the world called them corrupt thieves, but they bravely ignored them.

      Osama Bin Laden knows what he wants. Dead Americans (Well, a liberated homeland, but dead Americans are a nice intermin step). And he did whatever he could to get them.

      Determination is not a replacement for moral fortitude.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    21. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Hidyman · · Score: 1

      Do the ends justify the means?

      --
      You can't take the sky from me ...
    22. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by lommer · · Score: 1

      He does this to ensure that our children will grow up without planes crashing into their office buildings

      Damn, kids grow up fast these days!

    23. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      As I recall, Ender's Game entailed government deception and secrecy, mass slaughter of innocents, a war started by trigger-happy humans, and the brainwashing of children.

      What parts were they emulating?

      The good ones.

    24. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      Well the second book's Title is Xenocide....
      Maybe you should argue with the author.

    25. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      An American Solidier (Thanks to Vietnam) does not have to do what he is told if it is immoral.

      If you are ordered to kill a civilian, an American soldier has the right to mutiny his Commanding officer.

      Under no circumstances must an American soldier commit an immoral act.

    26. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would make Hitler proud my boy!

    27. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1
      But the reality of the situation is that a soldier does what he is told, and the people giving the orders aren't necessarily as ethical as those carrying them out.

      "Just carrying out orders" was not grounds for a defence in the Nuremberg Trials. This was mentioned explicitly by the judges as I recall. The soldier is supposed to be able to see with some humanity. Some soldiers actually did this.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    28. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Wog · · Score: 1

      The text indicates that Ender could have stopped far short in both fights. He could have won cleanly, and walked away. The reason he inflicted such massive amounts of damage to them was because he knew that if he didn't they'd be back again to threaten him.

    29. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by maxpublic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If the views of the common soldier are somehow psychically warped into a borg-like collective by their commanding officers, then the fact that King George rules America terrifies me all the more. Now I *know* my army will gladly take to the streets and kill American citizens with wild abandon, so long as someone in power labels them 'terrorists' first.

      That is, if my self-serving, self-righteous, brain-dead fellow citizens don't do me in first for holding views contrary to their Holy Leader.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    30. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      Funny how that works when you're thousands of miles away from a courtroom though. (applies to any military)

    31. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 1

      Government secrecy and deception, check.

      Mass slaughter of innocents, providsional check.

      War started by hyumans, nope. Recall, humans had no way of knowing what the buggers' next move would be, and it could have gone either way. Given that the buggers had already shown belligerent tendencies once, it was a good call IMHO to just go blindly for them the second time. It's the survival instinct; err on the side of caution.

      Besides, you know how in the end it turned out that the buggers made themselves out to be magnanimous? Has it occurred to anyone else that it's really easy to be magnanimous in defeat too, as in "OK, you beat us but we didn't deserve to be wiped out; here, take my worlds, which you already have anyhow"

      --
      Blearf. Blearf, I say.
    32. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by superyooser · · Score: 1, Insightful
      History has shown that an inflexible man is the worst kind.

      Inflexibility can be either really good or really bad.

      To consider the good: Yeshua of Natzeret (see sig), Aurelius Augustinus (St. Augustine), William Wilberforce (ended slavery in the British empire), Isaac Newton, George Washington, Winston Churchill, Oscar Schindler, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many more. Of recent years, I'd add to the list of inflexible people of the best kind: George W. Bush, Tony Blair, the late Todd Beamer, Jessica Lynch, and one Mohammed of Iraq.

    33. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Zaak · · Score: 1

      ...the only thing that differentiates our leaders is the varying degrees of moral bankruptcy they exhibit.

      But in a democracy, the leaders are us. So isn't their moral bankruptcy indicative of the moral bankruptcy of the American people? Sadly, I think we are getting the sort of leaders we deserve.

      TTFN

    34. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by squaretorus · · Score: 1

      As a former Army Captain... Sims work, and save you tax money. Our Military is the best fighting force in the world... and the most compassionate and ethical.

      Sorry - from your tone and use of the phrase '...bullshit is just assanine' and capitalisation of MARINES I assumed you were an American!
      Apologies.

      Clearly your British!

    35. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Malcontent · · Score: 1, Funny

      " Err huh, are you on acid or is it silly pills?"

      No he's just been watching too much Fox News.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    36. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by aallan · · Score: 1

      Our Military is the best fighting force in the world...

      Then why do you keep on shooting the Brits? Aren't we on your side? And before you say "Friendly fire happens", it seems to happen a hell of alot less to other people than to you guys. You do't see us shoot up your lot do you?

      There are a alot of people pissed off over this issue on this side of the pond...

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    37. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This Brit doesn't consider Churchill a Great Briton. To understand why, click here.

    38. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      I bet that the US stands to gain alot from this war.
      Most probably, since there will be an American ruling the country after the war...
      Unless there's an election... Nah, probably not.
      Why give freedom and democracy to them...
      Anyway, most of the contracts for rebuilding what has been destroyed in the war will probably go to US companies, payed with money that Iraq will have to loan from, say, the US.
      The US oilcompanies will probably get *really* great deals when buying oil from Iraq.
      And then, when Iraq starts getting on its foots again, they'll repay the loans.

      And exactly how this war would lessen the threat of terrorism towards the US is beyond me...
      Doesn't this actually give rise to *more* hatred towards the US?
      If most people thought of the US as "the good guys", it would lead to a lessened terrorthreat.
      Not the opposite.

      But this is *very* off topic in a thread about using Enders Game as inspiration to train troops, so I'll stop now. =)

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    39. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      Let's suppose that in the military the little guy always reflects the ethics of the top leadership.

      If that's true, it is also true that any change in the ethic of the leadership should be reflected in a change of the little guy's ethic.

      So let's suppose that , for any reason, the Leader changes his/her ethics in such a way that the new ethic is the exact opposite of the old ethic (for example, a switch in ethic from kill 1 to save 100 because saving 100 is better then killing one to kill none because killing is bad).

      The little guy should immediately change his code of ethic and reflect the new code of ethic. But evidence suggests that's not happening, because human beings aren't programmable robots.

      For instace, if platoon leader decides it is ethical to kill all the people in a village to save a comrade, because a comrade is a comrade and must be helped at all costs , the little guy should immediately adapt to what his commander
      thinks it's ethical. But the little guy code of ethic doesn't switch in a second, in reality he's obeying orders to attack, because he was trained to -immediately- obey orders , because this can save his life on the field.

    40. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by OSgod · · Score: 1

      Osama wanted a liberated home land? What home land?

      When you get in to ancient claims of home land it's much harder to justify and almost impossible to deliver without committing genocide.

      I thought Osama was Saudi... doesn't that mean he should be attacking the Saudi's?

    41. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      Nice slippery slope argument.

      If you have a chickenshit and useless leader in a unit, the enlisted men will try to kill him. The weapon of choice is a nade, it's called "fraggin". They don't become useless and chickenshit just because their leader is chickenshit.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    42. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      I suppose the moderation system shows its failure here.

      Ppl's emotions are all caught up. Moderation requires a clear head and a steady impartial mind.

      Clearly not demonstrated anywhere here in this thread.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    43. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      They didn't know they were going to cause harm by doing what they did and didn't fully comprehend what it was that they had done until quite a long time later.

      Though I really don't think that has a whole lot to do with the present military situation...

      I dunno, seems a reasonably accurate description to me...

    44. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      Osama wants the US bases in Saudi Arabia to be dismantled. It's his home country.
      Osama would probably never have been a terrorist had not US had an base in Saudi.

      The reason US has a base in Saudia is to protect
      the oil trade.

      The reason US is attacking Iraq is to gain a base there and sexure the oil.

      BTW Saudi is ruled by a US friendly dictator - but still a dictator.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    45. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The sort of situations you have in the Middle East are like you have in school playgrounds sometimes. Two kids are having a bit of a punch up, and someone tries to come in and get them to break it up. And they both turn on that guy.

      Osama, and most middle-eastern terrorists are more irritated at the US sticking their nose into their fight than the person they're fighting with.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    46. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by KezMaefele · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded as insightful. It is funny if you are an anti-war liberal. Otherwise it is way off the mark. Remember, Ender was a badass that attacked with a killing strike before his opponent could gain advantage. That is what we are doing in Iraq. He felt bad afterwards and hated doing it, but loved the fact that he was still alive after the conflict.

    47. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      In terms of avoiding war crimes prosecution in the wake of WWI, "Just Following Orders" was in fact an excellent defense.

      If not for that, then 20 million German citizens would've faced hanging. But they weren't even sent to trial, because they followed orders, not issued them.

    48. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Former "Army" captain eh? That explains your arrogance, dim wit and illteracy. Hey moron, "supposidly" isn't a word. Neither is "essance". Splurge for a dictionary and forget the video games. Maybe those poor Brits can teach you some English rather that that "American" you can barely write. Your military isn't the best fighting force in the world, just the biggest and best funded. Lots of tech toys, but the people are pure crap. You're the best all right - top of the illiteracy charts!

    49. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mark my words. This war is the end of the world as we know it today. This war is ilegal. UN has lost it's function. Only reason why US is atacking
      iraq is oil. Look at this : 1 litre of oil (diesel) in most of the EU countries costs about 0.7 -1 EU
      How much is a galon in the US ?
      People don't be fooled by this propaganda.
      US have since 1975 lead 125 wars in the world (not on their teritory) they are the bigest threat to world peace and they are the biggest terrorists in the world. Think about cluster bombs uranium granades all forbiden bu UN. But who the hell cares we are the strongest we can do whatever we want. In 20 years world will be run by US gowerment an unless Europe realy unites there is nothing we can do.
      Read betven the lines when you watch the news don't belive everything you hear.

      Sorry for my bad english.

    50. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "But the reality of the situation is that a soldier does what he is told,"

      In Iraq and China and other militaries where people are promoted by loyalty instead of skill, yes. But that is far from true in Western militaries, especially the United States. Western military power is what it is today because the lower ranks are both allowed and expected to think for themselves. Instead of the micromanaged clusterfuck we see "defending" Iraq, the higher-ups in Western militaries give broad and generalized goals for the military to meet, and the lower ranks are given a great deal of leeway to meet those goals.

      Remember how the press was remarking on the first few days of the war how it seemed President Bush seemed totally uninvolved in the war? That's because he fulfilled his role as commander in chief by issuing his marching orders. The details are left to people below him in the rank structure. The only reason he seems "more involved" now is because he's going through the motions to appease the uneducated public, the one that doesn't realize how much Lyndon Johnson screwed up.

    51. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      In fact, the true hero of this entire conflict is President Bush. He sticks to his morals. He did what is right despite public opinion polls and opposing pressure. He refuses to bend his ideals to satisfy a few people for a few days. He refuses to go back on his word. He is bringing dignity and freedom to a country that has been ravaged for twenty years. What is in this for him? What is he going to take home at the end of the day? The answer is nothing. In fact, he stands to lose a lot more than you imagine. How would you like to know that you were directly responsible for young men and women being tortured and brutally killed? Yet, despite this, he pushes on, not because it is easy, but because it is right.

      You're right (Presidents are, and always have been, responsible for the actions of the nation during their term), but your hyperbole is overrated.

      Bush said that he would take the issue to the UN, and he didn't.

      Bush is NOT responsible for torturing anyone--the enemy is.

      And, really, Bush DOES have a lot to gain: Honor, pride, and a world free of a tyrant that tried to have his father killed and, if Bush fails, will likely try to kill him as well.

    52. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Third book. Second one was "Speaker for the Dead"

    53. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you can kiss your Karma goodbye. God forbid you should write a post which defends an unpopular position.

      People love conspiracy theories, and would rather put blame on an elite cabal of secret and evil persons, than believe that everyone around them is capable of evil.

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
    54. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by ovit · · Score: 0

      Please visit www.aynrand.org... They may not be all right, but you need some balance...

      Tony

    55. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      When Clinton was bombing Baghdad the day of his impeachment, where were the protesters? Where were the demonstractions? Where where the cries of "career politician?"

      The liberals sure love to be cynical when it's not their administration anymore.

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
    56. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      I've just consumed three hot-dogs.

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
    57. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George unbending? The guy who dodged the draft and then deserted his post during wartime, and now has the hypocrisy to launch his own war, now safely in the rear-guard command? Well, unbending in pursuit of his own well being at the expense of his country. Not an unbending patriot though.

    58. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      "to support and defend the *Constitution* of the United States against all enemies, foreign and *domestic*"(emphasis mine).

      This bit from the oath of enlistment is a clear mandate that we disobey any illegal order given. And yes, we respect that. If Dubya were to start blowing off Supreme Court decisions smacking down his administrations excesses(such as the PATRIOT act), at that point he would be one of those domestic enemies the Oath speaks of, and it would be all over.

      Granted, immoral orders that arent' quite illegal are an iffy point, but there are some(most in fact) cases if it isn't driven by the immediacy of incoming rounds that you can go over that persons head and complain(just make DAMN sure your ducks are in a row or you will be out on your ass faster than you can imagine).

      While the chain of command is firm, and orders are orders, there are systems in place to ensure you don't get ordered into a war crime, and even to protest bad orders should it not be something of immediate significance(of course, if said protest fails, you do it anyways). There have been a few times where I was told to do something and I raised a possible alternate mission that would have the same overall effect, but done faster/to a higher standard/with fewer resources/whatever... Sometimes the NCO or officer even agreed with me and amended his/her order. Sometimes they ignored me, so I had to do it there way....

      The point of this overly long rant- We aren't robots that mindlessly do what people tell us to do.

    59. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      " When Clinton was bombing Baghdad [salon.com] the day of his impeachment, where were the protesters? Where were the demonstractions? Where where the cries of "career politician?""

      Plenty of people protested the cruel and immoral torture of the iraqis with sanctions. Plenty of people protested the continual bombing of Iraq for 20 years. It's just that you never heard about it. Rush didn't tell you, O'Reilly didn't tell you because they agreed with clinton on this matter.

      BTW: Do you think that in hindsight impeaching the president because he lied about cock might have been an unnecessary distraction?

      "The liberals sure love to be cynical when it's not their administration anymore."

      Oh those darn america hating liberals. They are the only people who are cynical. US God loving and fearing patriotic conservatives supported bombing the shit out bosnia 100% and we also supported unconditionally the military intervention in Haiti to install a democracy over there. Only if those traitor liberals could be lined up and shot and buried in mass graves the world would be so much better off. Who needs those communist, fag, pinko, un-american niggers anyway.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    60. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of a typo? Now, if slashdot had a post spell checker, you might have a point, but it doesn't, so you don't. Some keyboards positively suck for typing, my typo rate jumped probably about 2,000% since my desktop went down and I had to rely on my laptop.

      People are pure crap? You obviously have not met many of us. I'm a former enlisted Marine, and have served some time in the Army National guard. Some of the smartest, most dedicated people I know are in the military. And, as for my own intelligence- Deans list. 3.67GPA, 1340 SAT after being out of school for 6 years(750 on the verbal btw... if I had been current on my math skills, I would have been damn close to or even exceeding 1500). ASVAB, I maxed out scores on all but two of the areas, and scored some of the highest scores my recruiter had ever seen in those other two. Many very intelligent people serve in the military, for reasons varying from personal development(my primary reason) to money for college(my secondary reason) to fighting for their country, to many other things. Don't cast us all off as idiots simply because one of us makes a few minor typos.

    61. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      Shit happens. Ever since mankind has discovered war, there have been incidents of accidental fratricide. In the chaos of combat, friendlies can look like enemies, you could be dropping excess bombs to lower your weight to conserve fuel for the return trip- Not realizing a friendly unit is in that area. Efforts are made to reduce the risk, but unfortunately it cannot be eliminated.

      BTW... The reason there are more US on UK friendly fire incidents is the simple fact that there are a hell of a lot more US forces than British. Simple probability says that there will be more friendly fire incidents from the Americans. If you pay attention, we kill our own as often as we kill British, if not more so.

    62. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      20 million weren't tried at Nuremberg. Those who were tried, could not appeal to "just following orders", however there was quite a bit of leniency by not trying people because the allies didn't want to cause lasting resentment in the German people.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    63. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Read+Icculus · · Score: 1

      Nice to see that you know enough about the lives of Todd Beamer, "Mohammed of Iraq", and Jessica Lynch to rate them "inflexible people of the best kind." I won't even get into your comparing Bush and Blair to MLK and Ghandi. Hopefully the mods will do their part on that one.

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
    64. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Read+Icculus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info AC.

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
    65. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a mighty high horse you have there. Maybe you didn't hear, but Saddam was put in power by the US government. Now that their dog has gone rabid, they want to put him down. Kudos to them for starting a war to 'fix' their previous screw-ups.

      And, nothing to gain?!?! You know they have oil there, right? Couple that with the stand the US has taken, 'since we're taking Saddam out, we should get to decide who gets in'. Any bets that they'd prefer a government that was sympathetic to them? That's just human nature. Of course, given their track record in the Mid-East, I doubt it'll last long.

      So, next time you try to assign lofty goals to the whole thing in the Mid-East right now, remember who funded the Saddam the tyrant, and Osamam the terrorist, and all the collateral damage the citizens get to bear for the sake of the US's foreign policy. And hurrah for the US - the country has finally grown up and can now clain to have started a war, because, not matter what Bush said, there was no connection between Iraq and any current hostilities, conventional or otherwise. The whole WMD thing looks more like a crock of shit by the day - have they found ANY indications of them in their traipse across 3/4 of the country? Is Saddam keeing them all stockpiled in his home in Baghdad? Besides, Pakistan has NUKES, and all the US did was say 'tut tut'.

      All that said, I think Saddam is a monster (courtesy of the US) and should be taken out. BUT, policy and procedure, no matter how distasteful, would have left the US on the high ground, which is a difficult proposition right now.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    66. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      No no you've got it all wrong.

      We can't say that someone's morals are better than someone elses. Next thing you know, we'll be judging actions by a common standard, and some may even begin to realise there is a universal truth behind those standards, and we couldn't have that.

      The only way to judge is by how well they adhere to whatever standards they have set for themselves.

      </sarcasm>

      Can I stop being postmodern now?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    67. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by aserra · · Score: 1

      And, much like in Edner's Game, the troops can try things out without the expansive cost in equipment and potentially saving lives via a reduction in training accidents. While nothing will ever replace live fire exercises (until we get full VR immersion), they are on the right track.

      Mayeb the majority of /.ers are kinda pissed because it didn't mention that the war games were being done on a Linux cluster based on the latest Quake engine....

    68. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by jcast · · Score: 1

      I love how evil fixing your mistakes is... Oh, and: we have two parties here. The Democrats had the president (Carter) that put Saddam in power. Funny thing is, they're still the party that wants him there. Or maybe not so funny.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
    69. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them. -Einstein

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    70. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by jcast · · Score: 1

      That has got to be the dumbest statement I've ever heard. (And yes, I know who Einstein was. I don't think every thing he ever thought was intelligent; take his idea of Quantum Physics, for example.)

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
    71. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Your opinions about that quote notwithstanding, the US's track record in taking the initiative to clean up the world's (and their own) messes has been terrible. For example, Nicaragua, Iran, Osama bin Laden, to Saddam himself (and that's without research). I find it ironic that the two bigest thorns in the collective US's side for the last 12 years were both created by them. No, I don't count the whole Yugoslavia mess a thorn in the US's side, although that didn't mitigate the risk for US soldiers in the field. Given that stellar pedigree, what makes you think Bush and his aides, who IMO haven't shown a lot of forethought to this point, will do better than their predecessors?

      That's why I think it would be better for them to hand over that task to the UN. Then they can say, "Yes, it was our mess and we cleaned it up. Now, we'll leave it to an impartial (yeah, right) body to decide how best to go from here." Then no one can say it was for purely economical reasons that they attacked Iraq (no say where the oil goes), or that they're empire-building. The other "benefit" to having the UN do the job of selecting the new government is that the bigger the committee selected for a task, the more mediocre the product. And two of the "benefits" of a mediocre government is that they're too busy trying to find their ass with both hands to oppress their people, and they tend to be less of a threat to their neighbors (too much talking about who/if they should go to war than actual fighting).

      On a side note, Einstein's idead about Quantum Physics may have been flawed but, just like Newton and Euclid, he built the foundation that displayed it's shortcomings.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    72. Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. by jcast · · Score: 1

      Well, considering the only idea the UN has had for dealing with Iraq in the last 12 years was ``let's chase them around the desert with inspections some more'', I'm not that thrilled about the idea of letting them pick the Iraqi government. The last thing we want is an Iraqi government weak enough that organized crime ends up really running the country.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
  9. can someone host this?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can someone please mirror this

    1. Re:can someone host this?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      As a representative of everyone else in the universe..

      no.

  10. As they say in the commercial: by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    "Who are these guys?"

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:As they say in the commercial: by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      Better question: How the hell do I get some of that DoD research grant money?

  11. military leaders all under 15? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ender's Game and the following books are all great. But I'm not sure that we need a bunch of army commanders who haven't hit puberty yet who are lied to and told that they are really playing a top-secret version of C&C Generals, that just happens to play out in real time and not have a pause?

    Also, the whole book is basicaly about child abuse sponsored by the governemnt. Interesting reading, but maybe not the ideal way to create well-adjusted officers.

    1. Re:military leaders all under 15? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what? generals isn't real time? that's a surprise to me.

    2. Re:military leaders all under 15? by Bicoid · · Score: 1
      Also, the whole book is basicaly about child abuse sponsored by the governemnt. Interesting reading, but maybe not the ideal way to create well-adjusted officers.

      I don't know if well-adjusted is even relevant. Well-adjusted people don't just go off killing each other. The whole point of the military is to make people poorly-adjusted while they're on the battlefield, but able to control themselves when they return to society.
      --
      If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
    3. Re:military leaders all under 15? by QuickSilver_999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, the whole book is basicaly about child abuse sponsored by the governemnt. Interesting reading, but maybe not the ideal way to create well-adjusted officers.

      My Lord, have you even read the book? Card was getting at the disconnect that people have about children. If you listen to the people today, children need to be wrapped up in bubblewrap so they don't hurt their little selves. In reality, many children are smart, shrewder, and wiser than many so called adults in the world.

      Ender was by far the most intelligent and compassionate character in the book. But right behind him was Graff. Graff KNEW that he was screwing with these kids. He did it, not because he got off on the abuse, but to create a future for the whole world. This is why he keeps it from Ender until AFTER he wins. And attempts to keep him from viewing the trial, where he knows the death of the other students will come out. He doesn't want to hurt Ender, but he has no choice.

      Come to think of it, that seems like a couple of drill instructors I know. It's not that they hate the kids brought in to be turned into new soldiers, it's just that by "abusing" them, they can shake out some of those who will be a liability on the battlefield not just for the Armed Forces, but also for themselves.

      But anyway, he used children for this story to show many things, one of which is the depth that exceptional children have, and the problems that they encounter in their lives by people not willing to believe that children can be adults.

      --
      - No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
    4. Re:military leaders all under 15? by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      I rather my soldiers have 20 years of experience doing their job rather than 5.

      Same with any profession.
      It just so happens that in American we don't want to be told what to do with our lives from day 1.
      So instead of telling people what they will do we give them a well rounded education and then push them out into the world where for the next 20-40 years they work and say "Is this right for me?"

    5. Re:military leaders all under 15? by iq+in+binary · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, the whole book is basicaly about child abuse sponsored by the governemnt. Interesting reading, but maybe not the ideal way to create well-adjusted officers.

      I strongly disagree. Orson Scott Card did not ever have the intention of portraying a world where child abuse is sponsored by the government. It portrays a world focused on one thing: survival of the species. As much as it may be understood as child abuse, that's not the case. Orson Scott Card did a very innovative thing with Ender's Game, he put the survival of our race as a whole in the hands of a good-hearted pre-pubescent with a wit to match any debate team leader out there.

      The way I see it, I'd much rather have an officer trained to ensure the survival of his fellows rather than his own. This is exactly what Ender was trained to do (albeit in an extremely subtle yet very blunt matter).

      Yes, what Card prosed to be done to Ender was wrong morally. What you need to realize is that it's what needs to be done to ensure the lives of countless more children his age.

      Sacrifice is needed for gain, my friend. As horrible as it may be, sometimes these sacrifices are tragic. Beauty of it? Martyrdom is easily gained by those with even the smallest amount of selflesness ;)

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
    6. Re:military leaders all under 15? by Kragg · · Score: 1

      ...with the focus largely on the former.

      --
      If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
  12. inspiration from other video games? by b3h · · Score: 1

    imagine a 1337 4rmy equipped with rocket launchers and bfg's. sign me up!

    1. Re:inspiration from other video games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and team-killing idiots composing half this army ! Still wanting to sign up ?

  13. Nooo! Not again! by zzzmarcus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not another stroke to Orson Scott Card's ego! If you've ever heard him speak you know what I mean...

    1. Re:Nooo! Not again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard him speak several times. I didn't notice an ego. Yes, he is opinionated, but he didn't come across as thinking his own opinions superior to someone else's.

  14. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by jgardn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your statement about the British view of war versus the American view of war reminded me why Americans kick butt and why the British are only so-so.

    See, Americans go into war with one objective: to win. They bring bigger guns, better trained forces, and strategies that will ensure complete and total victory with a minimum of casualties. The interaction with the people is more of an afterthought. After all, if you can't win, it doesn't matter how well you interact with the local populace.

    The British treat it like it is a damn dress-up game. I've even heard that they take off their helmets and put on those ridiculous berets when they enter a city. They say it is to show respect. I think it is to do the Americans a favor and draw out the snipers. Sure, they may interact better with the people, but dead people aren't as nice as live ones.

    And the British can joke about the Americans all they want. They came all dressed up in uniforms and organized neatly not too long ago. A bunch of farmers kicked them out for good. I don't think those farmers knew the first thing about manners, but you know what, it was only their skill with the musket that mattered.

    And your silly comment about war not being a video game just isn't true anymore. Most of the killing and destruction is done from miles away in the cockpit of a jet fighter, from the cabin of a tank, or on board a missile carrier. It sure seems like a video game from that range.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  15. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ender's Game has nearly nothing to do with religion; though the following sequels, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind all have much religious stuff in them. Not necessarily propanda though. In Xenocide, it shows how religion and the belief in gods can drive people (Gloriously Bright) insane, making them trace woodgrains on the floor with their eyes for their whole life.

  16. All of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...That sounds about right to me.

  17. Orson Scott Card rules! by nikkelitous · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Orson Scott Card is one of the best writers in todays time. Ender's game had brilliant military strategies. Ignoring the Xenocide and child millitaries it has some wonderful concepts. Ender had few advantages over other 'armies' but he always pulled out ahead. Why? Because he kept the enemies guessing. They had no clue what was comming next. I think this is a good idea for our future millitary. Just so long as we keep ourselves controled.

    1. Re:Orson Scott Card rules! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ender's game had brilliant military strategies.

      I really don't mean to be an ass, but the principles represented by Ender's tactics were the military equivalent of nine o'clock, day one. Surprise, initiative, misdirection... these are not complicated or revolutionary ideas. The very first thing you learn when you study tactics is to figure out what the enemy expects, and then to do the opposite. Even taking into account the fact that the enemy knows you're going to do that, and is anticipating it.

      It's not some big insight that comes with genius or years of experience; it's the first thing you learn. Well, the second thing. The first thing is always to wear clean socks.

      I'm not trying to put you down or anything like that. I just want to make sure you don't read Ender's Game and come away thinking you've learned something about military tactics.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Orson Scott Card rules! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Actually, what you describe is better attributed to our enemies than ourselves.

      Nobody expected aeroplanes to be used as a weapon. But they were. Guerilla warfare/terrorism is all about using unconventional weapons and tactics.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Orson Scott Card rules! by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Ender had few advantages over other 'armies' but he always pulled out ahead. Why?

      Well, could it be -- and this is just a guess mind you -- could it be that he always pulled out ahead because he's the hero in a work of fiction?

      No.. I'm sure that couldn't have had anything to do with it.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    4. Re:Orson Scott Card rules! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Ender's game had brilliant military strategies."
      no, it didn't even have unique military stratagies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Orson Scott Card rules! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Orson Scott Card is one of the best writers in todays time.

      Personally, I liked "Ender's Game" the FIRST time I read it-- when it was called "Starship Troopers" and written by Heinlein. Card took a short story with an already weak-premise (generals can be made from 6-year olds!) and further watered it down with the most sophomoric of philosophy, science, and military strategy. Ender's siblings overthrow the government by essentially posting to USENET under pseudonyms? Gimme a freakin' break man...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  18. Air Force has been using it for awhile by AssFace · · Score: 1

    A fellow that I knew a few years back was very much into the life of being in the Air Force. He really wanted to be a pilot and had friends that were in there as pilots.
    I mentioned in passing that I was reading that book, and he said he hadn't read it but really wanted to because that was one of the required books along the way to becoming a fighter pilot.

    I never really paid much attention to it, and I hvae no clue if it is true having never been though any of that myself (and neither has he) - but he swore that it was mandatory reading at the academies.

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    1. Re:Air Force has been using it for awhile by Xandar01 · · Score: 1

      Ender's Game was on the "commandant's reading list" while I was enlisted in the Marines. Not sure if it still is, but I thought you would like to know.

      An except from google cache to a site that no longer exists:

      Commandant's Reading List

      The Commandant of the Marine Corps has prescribed a list of books that he felt were important for Marines to read. The list is divided into sections based on rank. Marines are expected to read at least two books per year from this list. The lessons learned from the books can be used to become better leaders both in and out of The Corps.

      Pvt, PFC, LCpl
      Rifleman Dodd by Forester, Starship Troopers by Heinlein
      A Message to Garcia by Hubbard, The Bridge at Dong-Ha by Miller
      U.S. Marines: 1775-1975 by Simmons, U.S. Constitution
      Fields of Fire by Webb

      Cpl, Sgt
      The War of the Running Dogs: The Malayan Emergency, 1498-1962 by Barber, The Old Man's Trail by Campbell
      Ender's Game by Card, Uncommon Men: Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps by Chapin
      Red Badge of Courage by Crane, Marine!: The Life of LtGen Lewis B. (Chesty) Puller, USMC (Ret) by Davis
      Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, Tet, 1968 by Hammel, Strong Men Armed: The United States Marines Against Japan by Leckie
      The Buffalo Soldiers: A Narrative of the Negro Calvary in the West by Leckie, Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation by Marshall
      The Right Kind of War by McCormick, Battle Leadership by Von Schell
      The Defense of Duffer's Drift by Swinton, Fix Bayonets! by Thomason
      Battle Cry by Uris

      SSgt, WO-1, CWO-2, CWO-3, 2ndLt, 1stLt
      Band of Brothers: E Co., 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne: From Normandy to Hitler's Eagle Nest by Ambrose
      Pegasus Bridge: June 6, 1944 by Ambrose
      War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History by Asprey
      Common Sense Training: A Working Philosophy for Leaders by Collins
      On Infantry by English & Gudmundsson
      Grant & Lee: A Study in Personality and Generalship by Fuller
      How We Won the War by Giap
      American Gunboat Diplomacy and the Old Navy, 1877-1889 by Hagan
      Acts of War: The Behavior of Men in Battle by Holmes
      Flights of Passage: Reflections of a World War II Aviator by Hynes
      The Face of Battle by Keegan
      Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology by Laquer & Alexander
      Strategy Liddell by Hart
      Maneuver Warfare Handbook by Lind
      The Middle Parts of Fortune: Somme and Ancre, 1916 by Manning
      We Were Soldiers Once and Young: Ia Drang, the Battle that Changed the War in Vietnam by Moore & Galloway
      The U.S. Marine Corps Story by Moskin
      The Military: More than Just a Job by Moskos
      Operation Buffalo: USMC Fight for the DMZ by Nolan
      Challenge of Command: A Reading for Military Excellence by Nye
      Attacks by Rommel
      Iwo Jima: Legacy of War by Ross
      The Forgotten Soldier: The Classic WWII Autobiography by Sajer
      Firepower in Limited War by Scales
      The Killer Angels by Shaara
      Tarawa: The Story of a Battle by Sherrod
      Falls of Eagles by Sulzberg
      Arts of War (Sun Tzu) by Sun Tzu
      U.S. Constitution
      Unaccustomed to Fear: A Biography of the Late General Roy S. Gieger, United States Marine Corps by Willock

      GySgt, MSgt, 1stSgt, CWO-4, Capt
      Battle Studies: Ancient and Modern Battle by Ardant du Picq
      Guerrilla Strategies: A Historical Anthology from the Long March to Afghanistan by Chailand
      The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France, 1940 by Doughty
      Street Without Joy by Fall
      Profession of Arms by Hackett
      Battle for the Falklands by Hastings
      Victory at High Tide: The Inchon Seoul Campaign by Heinl
      The War of the American Independence: Military Attitudes, Policies, and Practice by Higginbotham
      Once a Lengend: Red Mike Edson of the Marine Raiders by Hoffman
      Maneuver Warfare: An Anthology by Hooker
      Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 by Horne
      Infantry in Battle (U.S.) Infantry by School
      The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War: Its Theory, and its Practice in the Pacific by Isley & Crowl
      The Price of Admi

      --
      Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
    2. Re:Air Force has been using it for awhile by Xandar01 · · Score: 1

      Oh, It looks like COMMANDANT'S READING LIST has been renamed to U. S. MARINE READING PROGRAM.

      Here is a url:
      http://www.mca-marines.org/store/readingprog /cmc_l ist.htm

      --
      Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
  19. Virtual Reality? by puddpunk · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to get my head around how this will actually help any kind of armed force. Simulations _are_ useful for doing wargame situations etc... But how are you supposed to simulate humans?

    I can just see marines that have been through hundreds of simulations walk on to a battlefield and into a landmine, because the simulation never said anything about that.

    Simulation closes peoples minds. Training is important, but you can't forget how unpredictable a human is. The trainee walks on to the battlefield (or whatever he/she is being trained for) and thinks s/he is ready, but a simulation can not possibly exhaust every situation.

    Just a thought...

    1. Re:Virtual Reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although no online resources on hand, I have read interviews with people in charge of this kind of training and they are acutely aware that you can never replace the "real thing," but the idea is to get as much of your training in as good of a simulator as possible and finish you off in the "real thing."

      This is driven mostly from pressure from local governments to shut down live training facilities. Most people don't want a radioactive waste dump in their back yard. Seems like they don't much care for artillery ranges or outdoor firing ranges. This is an even bigger problem for regular gun enthusaists because they usually can't buy a few hundred acres in a national park and are more susceptible to the pressures of local government.

    2. Re:Virtual Reality? by jonjohnson · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to get my head around how this will actually help any kind of armed force. Simulations _are_ useful for doing wargame situations etc... But how are you supposed to simulate humans?

      Computers can be unpredictable. I mean.. look at the AI in some of today's games. Then think how much more money that the government can expend on buying that technology and improving it. With all of their resources, the simulations become much better and more lifelike. With enough chaos programming in there, it can be preparing for almost anything.

      I can just see marines that have been through hundreds of simulations walk on to a battlefield and into a landmine, because the simulation never said anything about that.

      What kind of full-immersion simulation would forget something as simple and fundamental in battles as mines?

      Simulation closes peoples minds. Training is important, but you can't forget how unpredictable a human is. The trainee walks on to the battlefield (or whatever he/she is being trained for) and thinks s/he is ready, but a simulation can not possibly exhaust every situation.

      I'd rather have a soldier who is confident (not cocky, though) and better prepared than a person who has just gone through basic only.

    3. Re:Virtual Reality? by puddpunk · · Score: 1

      Computers can be unpredictable. I mean.. look at the AI in some of today's games. Then think how much more money that the government can expend on buying that technology and improving it. With all of their resources, the simulations become much better and more lifelike. With enough chaos programming in there, it can be preparing for almost anything.

      Computers are completely predictable. They are machines and the random seeds are so weak (compared to the randomness of people) that there is no way a computer can simulate the mind/battle plan of someone.

      For example, take Saddam. What if there was a lot of close quarted combat just outside of Baghdad. It wouldn't surprise me if he just dropped a fat ass missile over everyone, even his own people. How the hell do you simulate something as sick as that? I couldn't bare to even write the code. How could I tell (looking back to the gulf war) that the bastard was going to set up _military_ installations in buildings such as hospitals and schools, then try and get the public to look at the attacking force as a civilian killer?

      What kind of full-immersion simulation would forget something as simple and fundamental in battles as mines?

      It was, in fact, an example. Intel can only go so far. From the article: "The debate over the use of computer simulations large and small was sharpened when Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the commander of the Army V Corps based in Kuwait, remarked that the guerrilla-style resistance of Iraqi militia groups made for an enemy that was "different from the one we war-gamed against.""

      I'd rather have a soldier who is confident (not cocky, though) and better prepared than a person who has just gone through basic only.

      That wasn't quite the point I was making. There is no substitute for experience. If a troop does a massive amount of training, and aces it. The troop will be more inclined to think about what a peice of piss this will be. He is more likely to let his guard down. The best soldier is one that knows what he's getting into, without the simulations telling him what it's going to be similar to, because chaces are, it won't be anything like a simulation.

      Relevant quote from the article:
      "Mr. Gardner stresses that nothing will ever replace "muddy boots" training."
      Right on the button

    4. Re:Virtual Reality? by DataPath · · Score: 1

      That's why you do a "capture the flag" kind of wargame with your own soldiers on both sides, and you stack the game against one team or the other each time.

      Oh yeah, and send one of both of them in blind (no prior knowledge of the situation, or terrain).

      Let the "battle-hardened" officers set up the conditions, and make the soldiers simulate on that. Pit them against real people.

      IIRC, in Ender's Game, as they got closer to ground zero for sending Ender in, they did just that: started putting the other team in several minutes before ender's team, tried stacking the odds against his team, took his well-trained team away and made them his opponents, etc.

      --
      Inconceivable!
    5. Re:Virtual Reality? by jonjohnson · · Score: 1

      Computers are completely predictable. They are machines and the random seeds are so weak (compared to the randomness of people) that there is no way a computer can simulate the mind/battle plan of someone.

      Yes, they are predictable, when you know the seeds and you have a computer to predict it. No human mind can figure out what random series a computer will generate at the same speed the computer can.

      I will concede on the fact that not every possibility will be explored by computers. However, every possibility that can be accounted for by partially random plans (not necessarily the best plans in some senses) and what munitions armies have.

      I'm also not suggesting computers will predict what any army will do. I mean.. chaos theory. However, given initial conditions (the more the merrier), a computer can provide surreal simulations

      As for the other point that there is no substitute for experience... you are right. However, we aren't going to kill each other to get experience. Instead, we must provide realistic simulations to put soldiers in situations that they might encounter. We see these already today.. mock paintball or even laser-style battles.

      However, what we can't put on a field, we can always create on a computer. The computers can even focus on the weaknesses of individual soldiers, something large group training can't do very well.

    6. Re:Virtual Reality? by justin_speers · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to get my head around how this will actually help any kind of armed force. Simulations _are_ useful for doing wargame situations etc... But how are you supposed to simulate humans?

      AI has come a long way, it isn't perfect, but it's sufficient for training purposes.

      I can just see marines that have been through hundreds of simulations walk on to a battlefield and into a landmine, because the simulation never said anything about that. Simulation closes peoples minds. Training is important, but you can't forget how unpredictable a human is. The trainee walks on to the battlefield (or whatever he/she is being trained for) and thinks s/he is ready, but a simulation can not possibly exhaust every situation.

      While those are decent points, I think they lose some of their validity when you take into account the fact that simulations are not the only thing the military uses to train soldiers. They're just a tiny part of the overall picture, an important tool. I think they have the potential to be very effective in combination with everything else they already go through...

    7. Re:Virtual Reality? by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      It's a short cut. To set up realistic training scenarios take a LOT of time. Getting the right OPFOR, the right ground, and enough troops together is a lot of work, and money. This simulation isn't a replacement for "muddy boots" training, but it makes it posible to go through a lot of scenarios in a very short time period.

    8. Re:Virtual Reality? by EvilSheep · · Score: 1

      I have not read the article, but isn't this one of the points? You do not simulate humans, at least not all of the time. It could be just as likely that you are fighting against your commander or your best buddy, and you won't know about it.

      --
      ---
    9. Re:Virtual Reality? by LoneWlf · · Score: 1

      Um... the simulation helps with the basics, but the
      whole reason that we use human soldiers is to counter human
      soldiers. They are as equally unpredictable as the enemy ...
      All a simulation will do is give them extra practice and
      get them in touch with some basics. No better, or
      worse than training. And less expensive.

      Just a thought

      --
      -LoneWolf-

      It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

  20. Re:Open challenge to /. readers by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1
    Heh, that was fun. But although I took your challenge and legitimately read the article slowly and carefully from start to finish, and laughed when I got to that last paragraph and saw what the deal was, I did not yawn.

    Goes to show that just because yawning is contagious, your challenge made me resist the feeling easily. I wasn't even tempted to yawn, or had to suppress one. It just didn't happen. Sorry. Yeah, I know off-topic. Here ya go: Ender would have yawned.

    -------

  21. Meshing tactical and first person by hlee · · Score: 1

    The article may be alluding to something like Command & Conquer (or Warcraft) meets Doom (or Flight Simulator), where you can both play as a grunt or a tactician. Tacticians define missions, and the individuals attempt to execute it. Imagine what a game that would make.

    1. Re:Meshing tactical and first person by libnatel · · Score: 1

      ive been looking for a game like that forever... sigh... i guess ill just have to go join the army and get payed money to play it

    2. Re:Meshing tactical and first person by mink · · Score: 1

      Get yourself a copy of Half Life and the Natural Selection Mod.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  22. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you so FAILED IT!

  23. Commander by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I remember reading (here it is) that the army had made Ender's Game required reading.

    When the Marine University at Quantico required students in one class to read Ender's Game, it wasn't for the strategy -- tactics in 3D space aren't really a big deal for the Marines. Rather, it was because Ender's Game is virtually a textbook in how to develop a strong relationship between a commander and his troops -- with plenty of examples also in how to fail as a commander.
    In Ender's Shadow it's said that Bean is actually more technically gifted then Ender but Ender is the perfect commander.
    1. Re:Commander by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      That is NOT the Army making it required reading. There are significant administrative, mission, legal, and even larger cultural differences between the Army and the Marine Corps. I've been part of both, there are huge differences.

  24. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here in the US Army, and the US Marine Corp, we use various computer simulations and "games" to train for combat. Helo pilots use these fancy simulators, as do the mechanized armor guys. Not only do we use graphics simulation, but also there are computer generated missions/scenarios (not like video games) that adapt to how you chose to execute a mission. For instance, you are given a situation, and you have several choices you can make, and then the system responds to your decisions (sometimes increasing the difficulty if you make a stupid decision) and presents you with a changed situation. I'm sorry, the Army psychologists do a better job at describing these new tools.

    Anyway, these are in their infancy, but the Army plans to expand upon this to help soldiers expand their ability to make sound decisions. I.E., think about the consequences before you do something. The goal here is that if you can become comfortable with making logical, thought-through choices at the computer, then in battle or what-have-you, you will fall back on this "naturalized" ability.

    1. Re:Actually... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Makes sense. Helo and armor are fantastically expensive in cost/time to actually use for training (and there's always the occasional accident). Anything they can do in a simulator (as real as possible) is good. Plus they can try all the bone-head manuevers without anyone getting hurt.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For instance, you are given a situation, and you have several choices you can make, and then the system responds to your decisions (sometimes increasing the difficulty if you make a stupid decision) and presents you with a changed situation.

      I've heard substantially different views on this subject. NPR(I think) interviewed a military tactics 'expert' who said that, basically, the US armed forces run wargames...but run it over and over, changing the game, until they get the result they want. How could you possibly learn to play chess, if you rearrange the pieces...hell, if you change the rules...until you win every time?

      It's amazing that our armed forces made one of the most basic mistakes- stretching your supply lines too thin, and failing to adequately protect them- right off the bat. It wasn't widely publicized, but many units were down to one meal a day to keep from completely running out rations, and of course everyone knows about the woman who was rescued(I'd like to know where the rest of her unit is- I think the army won't admit it, but they're probably all dead.) With all the satellite communications, GPS systems, etc- why is it that they couldn't figure out "hmm, we're stretching our lines a little thin..." Then, gosh golly, those crazy Iraqis came out of the woodwork(translation: they had put on civilian clothing and hidden, then waited for the Guys With Guns to pass) and attacked the supply lines.

      Yet, of course, the local army research center is working on such bright ideas as 'tubes' of food instead of cans, so airborne troops don't get an owie when they land, the poor things. How about, instead, teaching generals how to manage their supply chains, and that "bypassing enemy units" is incredibly fucking stupid? Either that, or the rumors about Rumsfield overriding things are at least partially true. Ahh, infighting.

      I got a great idea, lock our generals in a room with a bunch of systems running Freeciv, and send 'em up against the general public. I bet they get eaten alive.

    3. Re:Actually... by SyFryer · · Score: 1

      Well, on the face of this it looks good, but what tends to happen in this kind of thing is that people who are making the programs you guys are following are unattached to the process.

      A framework is made, by generals e.t.c, the program is made by contractors, the program can't be changed by the generals (nor do they care) once it's made and burnt to CD IMHO, I have had some experience myself with 'interactive learning' of this manner.

      I know that it is impossible almost to teach soldiers about war, (especially when they have never been in one), but maybe games of Warhammer or Dungeons and Dragons might be more appealing.

      In the end, the state of war these days IS a video game, that is why we have so many upset regimes and terrorists in the world, the allies have all the 'extra lives' and 'cheats'.

      Comparing war to a game sucks, but thats why we have chess.

  25. is ruthless efficiency the answer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What happens when the lines between simulation and reality are blurred to the point where it IS Ender's game. Where are battalion of super soldiers swoop down and decimate their opponents with no though to reaction to it all. Like in Ender's game, where what seemed like another game was war, genocide.

    While I think it would be absurd to be less efficient than possible, the spirit of American warfare must be upheld. We are not interested in conquest. After WW2, America could have taken over the world. McArthur was about to! If we are truly interested in liberation, freedom, and the plight of all men then these ideals should be a the forefront of the military's thinking. Not saying they aren't, but it certainly is not a part of "tactical simulations" like Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament.

  26. Confident in military Intelligence by smilinggoat · · Score: 1

    If there are tools that are less painful than reading through a book and can give them a better sense of what it might be like, we need to use them.

    Oh dear lord. They're worried about making troops READ? A BOOK?! Heaven forbid how painful that can be versus getting injured or worse in the line of duty. Really now, I may be misunderstanding the context, but for them to think of reading as an invconvenience and not an educational experience, I hardly trust them to manage war simulation or the pain involved with actual war.

    1. Re:Confident in military Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "books" he's talking about are Field Manuals. I'm guessing that you have never "read" one of these. Field Manuals are written to about a 5th grade reading level, with bad pictures and drawings, so they are about as fun to read as a phone book.

    2. Re:Confident in military Intelligence by Bicoid · · Score: 1

      Reading can be quite dangerous. I mean, think of all the trouble a soldier could get into by reading 1984 or Catch-22 or something similar...

      --
      If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
    3. Re:Confident in military Intelligence by screeble · · Score: 1

      Even better reading! The "Constitution Of The United States Of America!"

      Enlisted soldiers DO swear to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

      First hard target? CNN. Lock and load.

  27. We did take over - Mickey D's is worldwide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    No wonder they hate us.

    Of course, no one's forcing them to buy Big Mac's and Michael Jordan or Shaq jerseys.

  28. Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, listen buddy, if you'd bother to see if anyone has posted the same post, you wouldn't have REPOSTED THE SAME THING!

    You wannabe whore!

  29. Ben Stein! by coopaq · · Score: 1

    NY Times (FRRYYY)

  30. Others by gailwynand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Marine Corps also encourages the reading of Sun Tzu's Art of War - centuries old and still a great set of military insights. Also encouraged is Starship Troopers - which is best read as an ode to the infantry, and exemplifies the esprit de corps that the Marines strive for.

    --
    A pilot, in those days, was the only unfettered and entirely independent human being that lived in the earth.-Mark Twain
    1. Re:Others by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Art of War, got it. Starship Troopers, got it. Also, Clausewitz On War, Miyamoto Musashi The Book of Five Rings, Machiavelli The Prince. (Hmm, maybe not the last. Wouldn't want them to get ideas.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Others by thomkt · · Score: 1

      For a full listing of what Marines are encouraged to read, take a look at:

      The Marine Corps Professional Reading Program

      When I was in the Marine Corps, I had a commanding officer make us turn in one page "book reports" every six months to prove that we'd been reading books on the list.

      After I did my report on Ender's Game (with the help of Xandar01), he (the CO) sent out a message saying that sci-fi books couldn't be used.

    3. Re:Others by Bugmaster · · Score: 1

      Starship Troopers ? The book ? You're kidding, right ? That book is specifically written about what happens when military is allowed free rein, and fascism sets in. But maybe satire is too complicated a concept for the Army to grasp... Hell, after Freedom Fries, I'll believe anything. Apparently there is no bottom to the stupidity of our leaders.

      --
      >|<*:=
    4. Re:Others by hughk · · Score: 1

      I was amused to see that Mao is one of the authors.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    5. Re:Others by gailwynand · · Score: 1

      Perhaps IHBT but I'll bite.

      There's actually nothing fascist about Starship Troopers - the movie leans that way, but the book does not. Heinlein wrote it because he was pissed at the way our Nuclear and Military policy was being handled. Nobody in the book is forced to serve the government, as you would be in fascism - the government doesn't own the economy, as a fascist one would. It's true that the franchise isn't automatically granted, but that just makes it elitist, not fascist. The franchise isn't automatically granted in the US either - you have to reach a certain age - and in some states in the past you had to prove you could read, or pay a tax, or some such. Some of those individual policies may have been unjust, but that doesn't mean the government was fascist.

      Also, the military is not allowed free rein in the book - members of the military/civil service do not participate in the government until AFTER their service - and even then the majority of citizens were not actually in the military, but in the civil service.

      Don't take my word for it, this review is not favorable towards the book, but denies that it is fascist:

      http://home.golden.net/~csp/cd/reviews/starship.ht m

      Or try this page for another view:

      http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm

      If you think Starship Troopers was meant as satire, perhaps you enjoyed the satire of such other political apologies as The Federalist Papers, the Communist Manifesto, or Mein Kampf. The fact that Mein Kampf, let's say, could be easily lampooned or refuted doesn't mean that it was meant as as satire. Or perhaps you remember the movie, which is satirical (of Heinlein). Contrary to the opinion of many, our (the US) military is not populated by idiots.

      --
      A pilot, in those days, was the only unfettered and entirely independent human being that lived in the earth.-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Starship Troopers" boahaahahaaa

      That just about says it all about you
      military people, doesn't it?

      Jesus, a more crappy movie (if you're not
      american, that is) is hardly found in the
      history of moving pictures :)

    7. Re:Others by rusty0101 · · Score: 1, Funny

      More accuratly the small population of idiots that are part of the entire population of the military is neither controlling, or particularly idiotic.

      They also tend to be self limiting in that they are the ones that end up becoming targets first, which helps the remainder of the troops figure out where the enemy happens to be. As a result the population also tends to become very controled.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    8. Re:Others by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      You're not too bright a fella are ya? Why I bet ya'll go go hunting with guys named Jim-Bob and Joe-Bob and so on... He's refering to the book, not the movie. Yes, it is possible for movies to be based off of written material. The book was so twisted by the time it reached the screen that if they hadn't called it Starship Troopers, no one would have made the connection to Heinlein.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    9. Re:Others by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      I don't see a connection to Heinlein even though they DID call it "Starship Troopers". Gack. Too bad Heinlein didn't get to see it, he would have reamed Hollywood but good.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
  31. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Seeing you people - and I will call you "you people" - from the outside is just simply amazing. It's breath taking.

    You have grown so complacent in your lifestyles, you have so lost touch of 'reality' (oh the irony of your reality TV), that you have elevated even warfare to the status of competition.

    The original poster's point wasn't that British troops are sissy's and have better tea time manners, it was that the US troops have become the newest form of "GI Joe" toys that you can buy shrink wrapped at a Toys'r'us.

    War isn't that... War is dirty. War is evil. It's going to the very edge of humanity and looking into the abyss. You people think you can handle it all because you're the best trained, best equiped... You aren't worth squat...

    If you want to somehow pride yourself in warfare, you should go and bow to the ground in front of the people you call "camel jockey's"... These people, terrorists, are the shit... they are people who've carried and used Kalashnikovs out of necessity, not boredom, from when they were 12.

    You should go see people who've lived their entire lives with the constant threat of sniper fire in Sarajevo... kids in their early teens.

    You should go see african children, 8 year old children, who hack down an old man crossing the street with a machete just to grab a journalist's attention...

    To come back to your striving ideology, you might think putting money into your national soccer team is gonna make you good, but the reality is that kids like Maradona grow up in slums in Brazil having nothing else in their lives... that is why they are so good... not because they bought it.

  32. MacArthur's gotten a bad rap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    He was pretty much responsible for creating the current Japanese system of government.

    He was also absolutely brilliant militarily - IIRC his forces suffered less casualties throughout his Southwest Pacific campaign from 1942 to 1945 than the Allied forces had in just the one invasion at Anzio.

    1. Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap by be-fan · · Score: 1

      He was pretty much responsible for creating the current Japanese system of government.
      >>>>>>>>>
      Careful. A lot of people just see that situation as an example of American imperialism streching out through history. I don't completely agree with that idea (America was hardly imperialistic, in the traditional sense, compared to countries like Great Britain or France) but tact is somewhat important here. That said, we lucked out with Japan. The Japanese were the kind of pragmatic (think Romans) people that could stand to be force-fed someone else's culture, if they saw some benefit from it in the end. Acting, in the future, based on that model would be unwise to say the least.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap by sakusha · · Score: 1
      He was pretty much responsible for creating the current Japanese system of government.

      Umm.. NO. The Japanese Constitution was written by a bunch of international scholars who worked in the Occupation forces as technical advisors, including the famous Viennese woman Beate Sirota, who managed to slip in the women's suffrage clause (despite vehement Japanese objections). The Japanese constitution was drawn from various historic constitutions of the US, Russia, Germany, and France, amongst others. Go read "Embracing Defeat" by John Dower if you want the full story.
    3. Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting
      an example of [Western] imperialism streching out through history .. That said, we lucked out with Japan.

      Indeed. Here's what happens when it goes wrong. Looks/sounds sadly familiar, don't it? (Start with the top item.) Right down to bickering over who gets the spoils of war.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap by turbod · · Score: 1

      Typical anti-war rhetoric.

      Take someones comment, put a sarcastic "indeed" on the front, then put a link in with all the negatives that have been compiled throughout history for going to war.

      Be more original. Go be a human shield or something. Not that I am endorsing that, but geez, what you are doing now is mere flatualance.

    5. Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Typical knee-jerk reaction.

      Assume sarcasm where none was intended, and throw a hissy-fit when someone points out a historical example when meddling got us to where we are today.

      Surprise, I am reluctantly in favour. I just think we'll have to be very careful afterwards not cause another 89 years of problems.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Be more original. Go be a human shield or something.

      Will the volunteer human shields be qualifying for Darwin Awards?

    7. Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't. The first person the Japanese elected wasn't too friendly towards the Americans. Obviously.
      So the Americans decided to annul that election and the Japanese had to vote again...but the guy who had won wasn't on the ballot.

      Isn't history interesting?

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  33. Whoa! by Shoten · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ok, this is creepy, in light of the fact that I love playing America's Army: Operations.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Whoa! by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well I am really good at The Last Starfighter so I expect the aliens to come and recruit me any day now. I just hope the clone that replaces me is nice to everyone while I'm gone.

  34. In other news...Thirds rule!! by revery · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, many birth order analysts have also been heavily influenced by Ender's Game, and have written a new book entitled Seeking the Third, in which they compare children's traits to the three Wiggin's children based on the order of their birth.

    "First-borns tend to have strong world domination tendencies" says Dr. Oliver Knapthf, one of the contributors to the book, "they are frequently deceptive geniuses who should be watched closely and never trusted."

    In chapter five, "Embracing the Seconds", second-borns (called "Valentine's") are referred to as the glue that often holds families together.

    Though the book seems to favor third-borns (a surprising number of the authors are "Thirds"), giving them such titles as "the Saviors of mankind" and "misunderstood saints", Dr. Knapthf claims this is not true. "They are all necessary. The evil first-borns and the torn, empathic second -borns; you can't achieve a Third without a First and a Second."

    1. Re:In other news...Thirds rule!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woohoo! That means Jesus was a megalomaniac psycho killer. If you use their synopsis.

    2. Re:In other news...Thirds rule!! by LS · · Score: 1

      I would seriously doubt the validity of these claims. They sound a lot like Chinese restaurant placemat astrology to me.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    3. Re:In other news...Thirds rule!! by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      "First-borns tend to have strong world domination tendencies" says Dr. Oliver Knapthf, one of the contributors to the book, "they are frequently deceptive geniuses who should be watched closely and never trusted."

      I think this says more about the good Doctor than it says about firstborns. Clearly the man has some "issues" and needs to talk to a therapist about them. What's the betting that's he's third-born and had to wear an older brother's hand-me-downs and has been nursing resentment of that his whole life?

    4. Re:In other news...Thirds rule!! by rickwood · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if this is satire or a troll, which in my mind marks it as a first class example of either form.

      Either way, nicely done, revery!

    5. Re:In other news...Thirds rule!! by revery · · Score: 1

      Definitely meant to be satire, and thanks for the compliment.
      Having read it a bazillion times, Ender's Game is one of the few things that I know well enough to satirize intelligently.

  35. You're Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I am currently at Quantico's Officer Candidate School (in TBS phase) and we haven't read Ender's Game yet. If we do read it, it's likely for one of our upcoming Leadership Classes.

    HU-RAH!

    I also agree with another poster that the application of the 3D fighting space is not a challenge for any of us. We have so much time conducting these training scenarios that doing the actual fighting is second nature. (though we continue to study, train, and expand our knowledge of theater tactics) The reason we are here now, is to be leaders of men.

    1. Re:You're Right by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Liar.

      You also made me leave this in another tab for two minutes just to declare your stupid-ass as such.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    2. Re:You're Right by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      They should have David Weber's Honor Harrington books on the reading list also. The character Honor Harrington is a *very* good example of a competent leader.

      IMHO, of course, but I'd recommend you read them.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  36. the last star fighter fighter by lopati · · Score: 1

    the us marine corps' recommended reading list for "Doctrine, Training, and Tactics" has ender's game for corporal-sargeant! no word yet on shadow of the hegemon for secretary of state :D

    1. Re:the last star fighter fighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the actual Marine Corps reading list can be found here... http://mcrsc.mfr.usmc.mil/GuideBook/AppendixF/Read ingPgm.asp

  37. Armed Forces plan of Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    1. Leak RawFlug II to Kazaa
    2. Massive numbers of Peacenik/Commie college students download and play stolen government software to get back at 'the man'
    3. College Students Unwittingly Command really cool remote control robots and MechWarrior style mantanks.
    4. US wins oil war.
    and STRAIGHT TO NUMBER 5: Profit!!!

  38. I haven't read the article... by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 1

    but I can't see how "The enemy's gate is down" will help us in the war in Iraq...
    ;)

    --
    "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    1. Re:I haven't read the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baghdad is obviously the gate, which is why they bypassed everything else and headed straight for it very quickly

    2. Re:I haven't read the article... by Phocks · · Score: 0

      Well, it's down when you're dropping all those bombs, and maybe some troops attack while laying on a street louge? ^.^

  39. The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The "people who've carried and used Kalashnikovs out of necessity, not boredom, from when they were 12", are dying in the ratio of 1000 to 1 at the hands of those you say "have elevated even warfare to the status of competition".

    Those 45 million Iraqis who you have so eloquently termed "the shit" have seen something like 95% of their country effectively overrun in two weeks short weeks by a ground force of about 120,000 troops.

    For better or for worse, the military forces of the United States are now the most dominant in all recorded history.

    1. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      95% of their country = sand.

      Whop-de-doo...

      military forces of the United States are the only millitary with the audacity to do what they do. And open your eyes, the only times they haven't actually attacked puny targets, with way underfunded armies, they've failed miserably. Think Vietnam, think Bay of Pigs, think Mogadishu...

    2. Re:The people who are "the shit" by moonbender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As if there ever was a question whether the Iraq could stand up to the United States militarily. Not even the Iraqi government claimed any chance to defend the country indefinitely.

      The US might well sport the most dominant military force in all history, but the fact that you can - surprise, surprise - bomb the hell out of a repressed, deprived and embargo'ed third wirld country certainly doesn't entail that you can do the same to other countries. The goal should not be to "free" Iraq, if anything the goal should be to "free" Iraq with certain other premises: few to no civilian casualties, low to no damage to civilian infrastructure, effective ways to bring in humanitary aid, a smooth transition to a just post-war system.

      Also, the United States have bought what you call the most dominant military force at a time when a dominant military force has lost many of its uses: you can't (and don't need to) conquer the world with it, and you can't even defend American citizens with it - an army is no use against domestic terrorism.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    3. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason we failed in Vietnam had little to do with the North Vietnamese and everything to do with the communists funding/training them. Take China out of the equation and the Vietnam conflict is over in a matter of months. This is the same reason the Soviets failed in Afghanistan, btw. As far as the Bay of Pigs goes, that was the CIA, not the military. If we had wanted to conquer Cuba, how long do you really think that would have taken? They are in our back yard and not half a world away...

    4. Re:The people who are "the shit" by pVoid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Brilliant sig.

    5. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The reason we failed in Vietnam had little to do with the North Vietnamese and everything to do with the communists funding/training them.
      No, it had everything todo with the US trying to further its own interests by propping up a corrupt regime against most of the Vietnamese population who weren't willing to lie down and take it.

      The US lost that war, they got kicked out - yet the world is still here? What of the apocolyptic predictions that were used to justify the Vietnam war? Face it, the US government lied to get the US into that war, and they paid for it, and they lied to get the US into this war too.

    6. Re:The people who are "the shit" by PissedOffGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The goal should not be to "free" Iraq, if anything the goal should be to "free" Iraq with certain other premises: few to no civilian casualties, low to no damage to civilian infrastructure, effective ways to bring in humanitary aid, a smooth transition to a just post-war system.

      yep. in progress.

      Also, the United States have bought what you call the most dominant military force at a time when a dominant military force has lost many of its uses: you can't (and don't need to) conquer the world with it, and you can't even defend American citizens with it - an army is no use against domestic terrorism.

      how about making the world a safer, better place (exactly what its being used for now)?

      a completely dominant military force does everything better than a weaker military force:
      - wins wars faster
      - takes less casualties
      - causes less civilian casualties
      - inflicts less enemy casualties since they surrender faster

      it would be irresponsible for a country to have the most successful social and economic system in the history of the world and NOT buy the greatest military in the history of the world too.

    7. Re:The people who are "the shit" by vicious_sloth · · Score: 1

      uhh we didn't lose Mogadishu we lost something like 30 guys... and how many of the enemy did we get? in the thousands, that dosnt sound like a loss to me, It's only the media that made it out to be a loss, but in reality it wasn't.

      now i assume when you say Mogadishu, you are talking about the Black Hawk Down confrontation becuase thats what comes to mind when you say Mogadishu.

      --
      Sun is Warm, Grass is Green
    8. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      it would be irresponsible for a country to have the most successful social and economic system in the history

      Arrogance? or ignorance?

      What's your criteria for citing the US as the most successfull social system? Or were you actually talking about the Mayan's or something? Everywhere I look in the states, I see injustice, I see oppression, I see domination by the wealthy... I see lack of freedom. But above all, I see loss of culture, degeneration, and basic alienation from humanity.

      You are definitely not the most successful social system in history. Period.

      And you know what, I'm right, and you're wrong (for once there is such a clear line)... "why?" you would ask: because at least one person (me) - but many others - will disagree with you that you are the most successful social system. It's that simple. You are *not* utopia.

      The more vast your assertions are, the easier they are to prove wrong.

    9. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahahahahahaha and where do you live thats better? hahahahahahaaaahaaa go live in france or something, asshole

    10. Re:The people who are "the shit" by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a completely dominant military force does everything better than a weaker military force

      A funny thing about military power is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: Build yourself a great military to deal with the "world's threats", and the world's threats will build a military in turn. i.e. The US continually built up arms to counter what they saw as a great Soviet menace, causing the Soviets to do so in kind. Of course if you build your military too powerful, such that smaller countries don't have a chance to make an exercise at least restrictively costly for you, smaller countries who feel threatened will resort to alternatives: Is there anyone who doesn't think that the Iraq situation has done more to proliferate WMDs than every before? Hint: Every little country, say the Irans, Cubas and North Koreas, have more of a motivation than ever to acquire a force to counter what could be the next "regime change". I'm not speaking politically here, and am making no commentary on the war but that the logical conclusion is that it will naturally lead to the militarization of "evil" nations.

    11. Re:The people who are "the shit" by 10Ghz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      how about making the world a safer, better place (exactly what its being used for now)?


      And how do you plan on doing that? Attacking every country that is anti-american? Doing that will only fuel more terrorism. And to counter that terrorism, you attack more countries, which fuels more terrorism ad infinitum
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    12. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The goal should not be to "free" Iraq, if anything the goal should be to "free" Iraq with certain other premises: few to no civilian casualties, low to no damage to civilian infrastructure, effective ways to bring in humanitary aid, a smooth transition to a just post-war system.

      ok... 1st off I'm posting as AC because this is a toll message and I dont want to mess with my karma.

      few to no civilian casualties.. if you are an Iraqi still in Baghdad, then dime to a dollar your there because you want to be (IE: Military/Paramilitary/Baath Party), BUT if you truly are an innocent civillian... stay in your house.

      And regarding civillians getting killed at checkpoints, hundreds of cars go through those checkpoints daily, don't act like a fool, read the signs put up and do as they say and nothing will happen. We don't want to talk to you stay in your car and just keep driving.

      low to no damage to civilian infrastructure... The lights just got killed friday by the Iraqis themselves... 2 weeks of bombing and the power grid was still good (Power grids are pretty fragile). I've seen footage of Iraqi anti-aircraft emplacements on top of apartment buildings successfully blown up leaving the building intact... that is impressive to me.

      effective ways to bring in humanitary aid... well now that all of the Iraqi mines are out of the harbor this isn't a problem. Since the highways are still intact.

      a smooth transition to a just post-war system.

      I actually agree with you on this, according to the reports I've heard they already have the next Iraqi leader picked out... I believe that if we are going to instill a democracy in Iraq then we should help them draft a Constitution and assist them in establishing a free election, complete with cantidates nominated by the people. However the inherent problem in that is there are hundreds of thousands of Baath party civillians that we won't be killing and we will have to come back in 12 years to clean up our mess again.

      But in summation I agree we shouldn't have to go back to Iraq, we should have done it right the first time. However THEN we cared what the U.N. thought, now we are fixing our mistake.

      Besides, were the big bad yanks, what kind of message would we be sending to the world if we didn't do something... we huffed and we puffed and now were blowing the damn door down.

    13. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      And how do you plan on doing that? Attacking every country that is anti-american? Doing that will only fuel more terrorism. And to counter that terrorism, you attack more countries, which fuels more terrorism ad infinitum

      And by locking up criminals, we just encourage more criminals to rise up and take their place. Therefore, we must let all criminals run free through the streets. We can't stamp out crime completely, so we shouldn't try at all.

    14. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Every little country, say the Irans, Cubas and North Koreas, have more of a motivation than ever to acquire a force to counter what could be the next "regime change".

      Totalitarian dictatorships don't actually need any encouragement to do nasty things.

    15. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, it had everything todo with the US trying to further its own interests by propping up a corrupt regime against most of the Vietnamese population who weren't willing to lie down and take it.

      No, it had everything to do with not committing the resources necessary to do the job.

      The US lost that war, they got kicked out - yet the world is still here?

      I was just a kid then, but my assumption would be that they figured that the spread of Communism was a bad thing. I think they have a similar idea about terrorists, rogue states, and WMD these days.

    16. Re:The people who are "the shit" by maomoondog · · Score: 1

      Powell Doctrine parts 1 and 2:

      1) Overwhelming military force, because drawn out wars force moral compromise and prolonged damage to civilians and soldiers.

      2) Never enter war without a clear, publicized political end-point, and never enter without exhausting other methods of reaching that end-point.

      We've got #1 down, I agree I'd rather have this thing over quickly.

      WTF happened to #2? Just cuz you got sick of CNN reporting on the lead-up to the war doesn't mean we ever put up a credible diplomatic effort... if the public studied diplomacy ad avidly as warfare in this country, we wouldn't have anyone getting away with saying that we had.

      An unfortunate consequence of a dominant military is that it can make the people making political decisions reckless and lazy.

      Maybe we could use a few years as a non-'superpower' to sharpen those skills.

    17. Re:The people who are "the shit" by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Yet the United States, when it felt militarily overwhelmed by the Soviets (although that turned out to be a giant fraud to sell military equipment: The US always eclipsed the soviets), developed a wide range of biological, nuclear (including tactical nuclear), and chemical weapons.

    18. Re:The people who are "the shit" by bheerssen · · Score: 0

      how about making the world a safer, better place (exactly what its being used for now)?

      You mean like how the Israelis use their military as a force for stability in the Middle East? Ooh, sorry, that was a cheap shot. I'll stick to the American military. Maybe you mean like how we made the world safer with the first gulf war. OK, maybe not the world, but the Kurds were a lot safer right? Oh, right, that's no good either. Let's see, the vietnam war, that was an action that did... no, not good either. Ok, then, how about Korea? Our involvement surly did some good there, didn't it? I guess the peaceful situation we have there speaks volumes about the effectiveness of war. OK, going back thirty years may be a little much. We're different now. Just look at how we helped out the Somalis a few years ago.

      The point is, I fail to see how destroying peoples' lives on a massive scale could possibly make the world a safer place.

      Ohhh, I just got it. You mean how our military makes the world a safer place for YOU.

      it would be irresponsible for a country to have the most successful social and economic system in the history of the world and NOT buy the greatest military in the history of the world too.

      We have the largest prison system in the world. Indicative of our successful social system, we lock up more dope smokers and cocaine addicts than any other nation on Earth. Doesn't that make you feel safe? I guess our world renowned primary school system must be that most successful social system you talk about. You know, the one that, for all their good intentions, still churn out illiterate and violent malcontents. Our medical system is certainly the envy of the world if you can afford it. Which brings us to the economic system.

      The poverty rate in the U.S. is something like 12%. Our minimum wage is set far below what our own government says is a poverty level. And the poverty rate is increasing. It's at it's highest level since the 70's - which followed one of the few wars I can agree with, the war on poverty. Now that was just war - and not a single shot was fired. After the war on poverty we started a war on drugs. Which is really a war on the poor people of America. And it didn't really start in the eighties. It started just after prohibition failed way back in the twenties, but Reagan really kicked into high gear.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    19. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was just a kid then, but my assumption...

      Kid... Don't make assumptions. Go read a book... The US went to vietnam to fuel the war machine. Just like J.F.Kennedy got shot to fuel the war machine...

      The world didn't start existing the day you were born... There is a whole branch of human science called "History".

    20. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Can you spot the logical phalacy in that statement?
      Try http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/ for hints!

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    21. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      What's your criteria for citing the US as the most successfull social system? Or were you actually talking about the Mayan's or something? Everywhere I look in the states, I see injustice, I see oppression, I see domination by the wealthy... I see lack of freedom. But above all, I see loss of culture, degeneration, and basic alienation from humanity.

      With all our injustices, America still provides the most free society in the world. We have the most liberal civil rights. We have the most liberated education system (anyone can go to college). We are one of the youngest countries in the history of the world. We are an experiment, and a successful one at that.

      The fact is: Vastly more people want to come here than leave here. If you compare our 4th amendment and its right of privacy to France or England (both very progress, free countries) it is head and shoulders above when it comes to protecting the individual. Go read the laws before you bother argueing. Compare the social system in England, where it still pays to be born with the right blood. Compare to the overly socialistic control of France.

      I am tired of false modesty about this: The fact is, liberty works, and America has a better version. Period. There is no moral equivelence here, the fact is if you give people the most freedom, they will be the most prosperous. America needs lots of improvements, but its still the best game in town for equality and liberty. Go argue, sure, ok fine, it doesnt matter because it doesn't change it, no matter how anti-us you are.

      But we have to seal our borders OFF because everyone wants to be here. Think about that. There must be a reason. Call it arrogance if you want, but most countries could do better to look at our social and economic system, to serve as a model. The facts back that up.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    22. Re:The people who are "the shit" by lukme · · Score: 1

      If you haven't notice, locking up criminals who commit petty crimes doesn't make sence.

      Better yet, while in jail, we provide the weight training to improve the physical conditioning and the contact with other criminals (some are more serious) so that when the person leaves jail, they are better able to commit crimes.

      The notion we have about jail in the country is directly from the quakers and not improved by much. Instead of going after the root cause of these social problems, we just go after revenge. Perhaps we need to be concerned with poverty and education within the US and in the world, as opposed to just paying lip service to "no child left behind".

    23. Re:The people who are "the shit" by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      So obvious it's not even funny...

      a completely dominant military force does everything better than a weaker military force:
      - wins wars faster
      - takes less casualties
      - causes less civilian casualties
      - inflicts less enemy casualties since they surrender faster


      Which was/is clearly demonstrated in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, right?

    24. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      testing.

    25. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      testing

    26. Re:The people who are "the shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      testing another

  40. Ignorance of nerds ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Didn't know that you were so ignorant ??

    (gotta read the Project for the New American Century link on that page if you are a true nerd!!)

  41. Noooooooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you so FAILED IT!

    YOU FAIL IT! even harder!

    But still, you both didn't win.

  42. archive.nytimes.com hosts entry by pollock · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or even better, simply add
    199.239.136.212 www.nytimes.com
    199.239.136.212 nytimes.com
    to your hosts file to fix the "problem" for all normal nytimes.com URLs. The only negative side effect is that the front page no longer works.

    Check out http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ for more hosts file goodness.

  43. Unless the tee-vee is lying... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Modern troops are well trained. They are taught not only how to use their tools, and how to react, but WHY. I would think that they do a fair bit of reading to learn these things. Having them read a fictional story, which considering my science fiction bias, is not exactly dull doesn't sound like a stretch. Oh well..it is the New York Times..generally good stories but too often the reporter injects a bit too much of their own bias and preconceptions.

    --
    Blar.
  44. ruthless efficiency? Spanish Inquisition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought "ruthless efficiency" was one of the chief weapons of the spanish inquisition. You know, Cardinal Fang, comfy chairs, and the rest.

  45. Mazer Rackham by 0vi_king · · Score: 1

    ..Sounds like he is cursed with having two last names.

    --
    - Life is what keeps you occupied while you are waiting to die
    1. Re:Mazer Rackham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he is cursed with being a Kiwi. (This from an Aussie).

  46. Paintball might be better training by niteshad · · Score: 1

    First of all, I've never served in any branch of the military, much less combat. However, having played my share of first person shooters, I really must say that it's poor training for actual infantry operations, etc. The main problem is that when you're playing a FPS, your not moving, and not keeping track of what's exposed to incoming fire.

    In contrast, paintball teaches all of the same skills of small unit infantry combat as FPS, and in addition, you train your "muscle memory" in regards to shouldering your gun (yeah, the military call 'em rifles, but I have trouble calling my paintball gun a "marker."), aiming, coordinating movement and taking cover from incoming fire.

    If the US military's game, I'm sure there are quite a few weekend rec ball players out there who wouldn't mind playing the part of the Iraqi Army on some huge paintball field in West Texas or Arizona. However, this scenario risks the possibility that a rag-tag band of college paintball geeks totally decimate the 4th Infantry, so I could see why the military might not want to go for this.

    --
    To email me,subtract my nick from my email address, starting with the second character. (hint: adto.uiuc.edu is wrong)
    1. Re:Paintball might be better training by CMRichar · · Score: 1

      The argument against this one is that paintball utilized different physics principles than a real war. while a funky little pallet is plenty of protection from a 5 gram projectile propelled at 300 feet/second that is designed to break on impact, that same pallet will provide almost no cover from a 25 gram machined piece of lead that is designed to penetrate flesh, clothing, and most protective coverings.
      Another side of this is that at 300 fps, i can still dodge paint. I'm not entirely sure I can dodge a bullet fired at me from the same distance, hightened paintball reflexes, or not...
      I believe that the army DID look into using paintball to train their troops, but found that the differing physics betweent battle and the game bred some very bad tactics that would have gotten soldiers killed in a real battle. And, IIRC, that is EXACTLY what they are trying to avoid. HTH, HAND.....

      --
      "Good night, good work, sleep well, I'll most likely kill you in the morning." - Dread Pirate Roberts
    2. Re:Paintball might be better training by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1
      They're training different kinds of skills.

      The physical stuff- running, aiming, and crawling behind cover- is already what infantrymen spend all day learning. And they learn it well. Some units even use paintball, or laser tag, in addition to their dry-fire and live-fire drills.

      (A DI once told me, while shopping for video games, "We already know how to shoot")

      But the things that happen in a real war cannot be simulated with paint.
      • Big things- the large scope of war includes many effects that guys with toy guns can't attempt to replicate. In actual combat, these situations will be rare, but are critical to practice.

        Battlefields you cannot visit or recreate (downtown Bagdad...). More opponents than you have volunteer college kids. Many more civilian bystanders than you can hire as actors.

        Air-launched missiles blasting through buildings. An M1A1 rolling through a fighting position. Half the squad inhaling poison gas and needing an airlift evac.

      • Small things- Paintball, and to a lesser extent MILES and even training rounds suffer from different ballistics than actual weapons. They produce "false training", where a person can be conditioned to expect guns to behave less effectively than they really do. An M16 can be fatal from 1km off- no paintball players would think of engaging targets from such ranges. Laser systems can get the range right, but have other problems- you can't really glue optical sensors onto every surface of a person that might be shot at, and the protectiveness of soft cover is exaggerated. An M249 can tear through the walls of a residential home, but training lasers never will.


      Eventually, we're looking towards using a combined live/virtual infantry training approach. Each player will wear a position tracker on his body and weapon. Pulling the trigger will send a message to the master computer, which will compute anyone hit by the shot, and remove him from the game. As long as the location of every kind of solid obstacle is pre-programmed into the system, it should be able to correctly judge when someone is hit.

      And the weapons they carry in training can have the same weight as the real things.
    3. Re:Paintball might be better training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you miss the point. Simulations (such as MarineDOOM, which came out a few years ago for the USCM) are just one of many different tools used to train troops. Don't join the Marines expecting to play video games for four years, then face off against the flavour-of-the-week enemy of the state. It's not gonna happen. In situations where you cannot (for fairly obvious reasons, I hope) just plunk people into the middle of the real thing, you want to provide as many different types of simulations as possible, so they will pick up on the commonalities.

      As for paintball, it has some uses, but as a depiction of battle it's almost farcical. The existing MILES systems are much better as battle simulators, since you're training with the same weapons you'll use in battle, loading and firing similar ammo. Of course, both MILES and paintball have unrealistic ballistics, but that's why troops also do live-fire exercises.

      Think about this - paintballs travel less than 500fps, so you may actually be able to dodge them with a bit of luck. Try to extrapolate that to a 2500fps rifle round. You don't want troops thinking that they can dodge bullets.

  47. Leadership by FFtrDale · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's also on the U.S. Naval Academy's reading list for prospective Marine Corps officers. The reading list [sorry, please cut & paste] is at

    http://www.usna.edu/Library/Marineread.htm

    The main focus of the book for me was that Ender's primary character trait was the ability to get people to want to do as he asked them to do (OK, ordered - it took place in a military setting). As they did so, they learned that their abilities were more than they'd ever imagined. The conclusion of the book is a warning that Nuremburg was real, and that everyone is responsible for his own actions. And yes, that war is not a game.

    --
    Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
    1. Re:Leadership by mcramer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's also on the U.S. Naval Academy's reading list for prospective Marine Corps officers.

      I find it very amusing that a book filled with homosexual symbolism is on the reading lists for our country's premier homophobic organizations.

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

      Really? What homosexual symbolism is that exactly, I'm curious.

    3. Re:Leadership by mcramer · · Score: 1

      Let's see...I don't have the book in front of me, but a dim recollection seems to bring back:

      1) bunches of boys spending all their time together NAKED.
      2) The scenes in battle-room or whatever where there would be a ball of boys around one who, after much tension, is ejected (ejaculated?) at the other team.
      3) The fact that the aliens are called Buggers. (look down to the slang definition about sodomy.)

      Just go ahead and read the book again. It's really quite amazing to notice. And I'm not just saying that because I was an English Major.

    4. Re:Leadership by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      Not to mention this bizzare use of the word "ramen" all the time. Conspiracy!

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
  48. "We aint a gonna study war no more" by RalphTWaP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As unsettling as I find this, I also find it appropriate.

    History has always demarked a division between civilians and military, both in the traditions of service, and deeper, in the psyche. Plato demarked the guardian's education as beginning with fiction [337a]. And it was a key to this education that it twisted the basic nature of those who would be guardians, demarking them mentally from the populace. This is a key concept in the training of warriors that has survived in literature and drama through the ages (in our time, you need only see the unifying concepts behind group-identity put forward in studies of the German troops of WWII, or Card's work, let alone the psych studies that _do_ point out a greater tendancy to follow orders and act cohesively with a rigorous group-constructed identity).

    Is it any wonder that a society adept at mass production would find ways to mass produce those things that still must be men and not machines?

    Is this a criticism of the men and women who serve? By no means. The psychological conditioning they receive is no less responsible for their survival and success than their physical training.

    Is it grounds for a critique of an immature, and childlike race (mankind) who still finds war regrettably necessary? Perhaps. At least, however, it's highly unlikely that the children of those so trained will value war as highly as we do today.

    1. Re:"We aint a gonna study war no more" by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      History has always demarked a division between civilians and military, both in the traditions of service, and deeper, in the psyche. Plato demarked the guardian's education as beginning with fiction [337a]. And it was a key to this education that it twisted the basic nature of those who would be guardians, demarking them mentally from the populace.

      I think there's more irony in this than M. Suzanne seems prepared to acknowledge.

      What makes Plato's suggestion in the Republic of a separate life for the soldier class so interesting is that it happens against the backdrop of an Athenian military that was arranged very differently. One of the things (and only one) that made Athens such a force to be reckoned with in the 5th century B.C. was that they let all citizens into the navy; their naval might was arguably what saved the Greeks as a whole from the domination of the Persian invaders. When Socrates says the soldiers should live separate from the rest of society, he is undercutting a crucial piece of Athenians' understanding of their own worth. After all, the marriage of citizenship with military service was a significant point of pride.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    2. Re:"We aint a gonna study war no more" by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      Is it any wonder that a society adept at mass production would find ways to mass produce those things that still must be men and not machines?
      If only we could do this in our inner city public schools.

    3. Re:"We aint a gonna study war no more" by frozencesium · · Score: 1

      You never served did you? Talk about military training once you have gone through it.

      Very few people in the military get "psychologicaly conditioned" as you put it. People volunteer, they are not drafted anymore. Many of the units that go into combat are highly competitive, volunteer units. You don't get put into the Airborne, Rangers, Marine Recon, SEALs, etc...you must apply for them. These people already have the predisposition and mindset required for combat. since we all choose to serve, we all know what could be required of us to see and do in wartime. i think the military members are the LAST ones that want to fight, kill, and die.

      whether or not war is necessary is of course up for debate. IMHO it's really a function of our nature, so whether or not it is "necessary" is essetially a non-issue. all we can do is hope to keep casualties (both civilian and military) to a minimum.

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    4. Re:"We aint a gonna study war no more" by usmcpanzer · · Score: 1

      Is it grounds for a critique of an immature, and childlike race (mankind) who still finds war regrettably necessary? Perhaps. At least, however, it's highly unlikely that the children of those so trained will value war as highly as we do today.
      THAT is highly unlikely. Man has valued war for 5000+ years. No matter how 'advanced' or how 'educated' we become, war will be a constant. War changes throughout the ages, the inveitable that we have war won't.

    5. Re:"We aint a gonna study war no more" by rickwood · · Score: 1
      To quote the parent and a follow-up

      Is it any wonder that a society adept at mass production would find ways to mass produce those things that still must be men and not machines?
      If only we could do this in our inner city public schools.


      My, er... hypothosis -- theories are actually well reasoned and researched which this comment certainly isn't -- is that the US has been doing this, after a fashion, for nearly a century.

      Consider this: Each year, from just about every high-school in the US, a group of at least 22 young men graduates that have been specially trained in working as a team during close-order conflict with an enemy. This team is composed of young men with varying specialties such as leadership, deception and subtlety, speed and agility, and strength and power. These categories map nicely to military concepts such as officers, scouts, riflemen, and heavy-weapons crews. These young men are constantly drilled, exceptionally fit, and used to harsh discipline. Of course I speak of those high-school heros, the (US) football team.

      Basically every high-school in the US turns approximately one infantry platoon worth of fit and disciplined men every year. According to my calculations (admittedly based on my imperfect understanding of current US Army Light Infantry Division TOE) this yields around three modern Infantry Battalions per 50 schools (i.e. One Division's worth of foot-soldiers). That's just the football teams mind you.

      In this all-volunteer era, perhaps this isn't so significant. However, until the end of the draft in 1973, this constituted a significant strategic advantage for the US, as war planners could count on a steady stream of suitable men.

      Given that these are the facts, let's look down the rabbit hole and see what we find...

      The game of US Football was invented at the end of the 19th century. The main credit for this is given to a man named Walter Camp, born April 17, 1859, in the city of New Haven, Connecticut. He was a star athlete, making varsity for every sport in which he participated. He also had a fine mind, rising to the top of the New Haven Clock Company during his career. Some of you may have guessed that Mr. Camp also attended his home-town university, Yale. Couple this with the fact that football's popularity started with competitions between Yale and her fellow Ivy League schools and it's almost like a "paint-your-own-consipracy" kit.

      Please understand, I am in no way seriously suggesting during the late 1800s the finest minds in the US conspired to design a game such that it would be almost tailor-made for training young men into military roles. Nor did they with malice of forethought set out to invent a game that would eventually be played in just about every secondary-school in the United Sates. And I am certainly not suggesting that these great minds could predict that their game would eventually churn out many division's worth of men each year. To the best of my ability to determine, the men who invented football were simply athletes tired of English-style Rugby. They wanted an American game. It does make you think though.

      In conclusion, I believe that, whether by accident or design, such a set-up could be fairly described as exactly what the parent post insinuated: A Soldier Factory.
  49. Let me see if I've got this straight.... by Kibo · · Score: 1

    Karma whoring is now insightful.
    Reposting venerable Simpson's quotes for the multi-hundredth time is funny.
    And sarcastic presentation of the facts is flamebaiting.

    --
    --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    1. Re:Let me see if I've got this straight.... by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      You are not Kibo and you bring disgrace to the real ultimate power.

      Kibo would present real ultimate power in a non-post ... /. discrepancies aside.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
  50. I can't go to this war . . . by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1, Funny

    . . . I haven't got enough memory.

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  51. Hmm...Fiction influencing reality... by Alan+Holman · · Score: 1

    I am your Captain, and I am giving you a direct order: get influenced by my fiction. Well, I'm not a Captain, so you don't have to follow the order; however, I read Orson Scott Card's how-to book about writing sci-fi before I wrote my fiction; therefore, there's gotta be at least one or two cool ideas in it which can influence someone cool to do something cool, eh?

  52. Brit/Irish/UK fsckup offers comment by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

    Let's see:

    Born in Leicester. USAF Dad, Irish Mother. Raised mostly in the West of Ireland (but also in France, Germany, UK, Ireland, and U.S.), gaelic speaker, love the English, and the Irish, ex-US-military.

    And I'm not unique. In fact, I'll bet you'll find that a majority if the U.S. troops in the field today have a personal family history that goes back to Central America, Vietnam, and beyond.

    In other words, the U.S. soldiers of today are the Tommys of yesteryear.

    So please, quit with the snotty Brit attitude.

    Pat
    --

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  53. Did anyone bother by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1
    Did anyone here who has been commented at 4 or above, actually read the f*ckin article? Seriously.

    This is the article, in concentrate form:

    The use a Half-Life/Quake3 engine game (think America's Army) to run "simulations", no games

    They tell them the story of Ender's game, about a group of soldiers who think they're fighting video game aliens but are actually killing real life forms.

    This explains to them, in terms they can understand, that when you're playing America's Army (or whatever the simulation is called internally), you need to think this is real. This isn't a game.

    I can't believe everyone is going on about the politics of Enders Game and how they're teaching it to the troops when all they're doing is providing a modern fable which isn't corny or written by Aesop.

    1. Re:Did anyone bother by FrenZon · · Score: 1
      The use a Half-Life/Quake3 engine game (think America's Army) to run "simulations
      FYI (and I know it's external to your point), the game in the screenshots is the Army's modified version of Operation Flashpoint, which is a commerically available infantry/armour game. The developers were contracted by the Army to create a special version for them.
  54. Remember by Nameles · · Score: 1

    The enemy gate is down...

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

      Yes yes, and when "somebody set up us the bomb", "all your base are belong to us"

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

      obviously you've never read the book...

  55. Americas Army by Vengeance_au · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm surprised there was no mention of Americas Army in that article - I'm aware that the games primary focus is as a PR tool, however I would have thought it could also be used as an effective tool for training and simulation. Hell, even better on the PR angle, let the players who clock up 10+ hrs of AA per week that they can continue playing the game when they join up and it counts towards their training time, and watch them line up......

  56. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Anyone who thinks Ender's game has nothing to do with religion and other goals of propaganda doesn't know who John Locke was.

  57. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by mdvolm · · Score: 1

    It's true that there are many people who are forced to live extremely hard lives, who have grown up with violence and have carried guns since they were 12.

    But is this what we're supposed to revere? This is one of the reasons why America *needs* to maintain the mightiest military in the world.

    Of course war is dirty, but it's sometimes the only way. It's a practical necessity of life, and always will be. And the American military can and will handle it in the way they have been trained to do.

    And while many Americans have no doubt become complacent, don't let that fool you. They are also resilient and quite fierce when provoked, as the Iraqi military is finding out, again.

  58. Conspiracy Theory by solidsharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    My hippie parents have told me my whole life that the video games I've been playing are just part of a government scheme to train an entire generation into an army of super-soldiers. Because locking, loading and firing an M-16 is just like pressing the CTRL key. Yeah, I thought it was funny too, until I got drafted. The B2 I fly controls just like Star Fox.

    1. Re:Conspiracy Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you can constantly roll to avoid lasers, have one speed besides the short boosts or brakes and have nova bombs that you pick up inflight? Those planes must be more advanced than I thought..

  59. What I remember of Ender's Game.-Hand me downs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When you see a private run for cover with a child in his arms, he is doing that because he knows that is what his sergeant and lieutenant would do. The sergeant and lieutenant would do the same because they are told to do that by the captains and colonels. The captains and colonels do that because that is the ethics taught to them by the generals. The generals teach those ethics because that is what the president wants them to do."

    Small (or large depending on your POV) nit. There's also the ethics of the community and the individual morality imparted from one's family as well. Trickle down ethos is good but the one of greater influence is the one I mentioned.

    Also a parting thought to chew on. Were the historic record has recorded a soldier either disregarding a proper chain and did wrong, or a proper soldier has disregarded a wrongful chain, and did right. Things are as seldom as simple as one can hope.

  60. What? Its Out? by vizualizr · · Score: 1

    What? Noone told me!! When did Doom IV come out? Oops, gotta go out and buy a new computer to run it!

    --
    anything i tell you will cloud your opinion.
  61. Starship Troopers? by bagsc · · Score: 1

    I recommend this movie as a political farce.

    --
    http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:Starship Troopers? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Starship Troopers was a book before it was a movie. It's the book that's referred to here, and it is quite different from the movie.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  62. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by zulux · · Score: 1, Insightful

    War isn't that... War is dirty. War is evil.

    War is not evil. War can be waged for liberty, self-defense or to stop a genocide.

    War is a tool, a nasty sharp tool. It's what you use it for that make your endevor evil or, perhaps, good.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  63. Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by jgardn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, yeah, we went to Japan, and said "If you don't start wearing blue jeans and eating hamburgers, we're going to murder your children and rape your wives!" We went to Germany and said, "Because you stupid Krauts lost, we are going to torture you with shopping malls and action movies!" And we turned around to China and say, "Soon, your daughters will be our slaves because we will conquer you with the might of our FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS!"

    Or did we just luck out with Japan? I guess we also lucked out with Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Italy, the UK, France, Spain, Eastern Europe, Russia, and far more countries you will never know about. I guess we are still lucking out with Vietnam, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, and yes, even Cuba. I guess our policies of "kill the bad guys, let the others vote, and leave unless they want you to stay" just doesn't work, does it?

    What could be more tactful than that? We see a dictator, building up weapons that can harm us. We realize that there won't be a peaceful resolution to this, so we're going to have to disarm him forcefully. Sooner is better than later because if we wait too long, he might actually get the weapons that can really hurt us. And while we're at it, it's not a bad idea to upset the entire history of the country by setting the people free and letting them create their own government. So we go in, and ruin thousands of years of culture by banishing slavery, "murdering" treacherous people who oppose freedom, and encouraging people to think about their own future rather than place it in the hands of a dictator. When things become stable, we slowly pull out, and let the government, elected by the people, take over. We get a more peaceful world, they get a peaceful government, and everyone is happy. But at what cost? I can't see any negative effects, other than the disruption of their culture as they move away from being slaves who live in hovels into full-fledged equal citizens in their country.

    Now there is one more intersting point. Why do McDonalds and Burger Kings and shopping malls dot the landscape of Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, UK, France, Germany, and any country that is free? Why do they wear blue jeans, drive big cars that produce that dangerous chemical CO2, and try to earn as much money as they can?

    The answer: It is not because we force them to adopt it. It is because it is actually a better way of living than anything else. We seem to like it, because we choose to live in it. They seem to like it because they adopt it. Nobody is forcing anyone here. They do it because they want to.

    Our "empire", if you could call it that, is an empire of FREEDOM. We give people freedom, knowing that it will only make us and them more powerful, rich, and happy.

    Our founding fathers saw the day when people would come to us and ask us to set up their governments. Our founding fathers knew that we would be a "shining city on a hill". Now that we are, are you complaining because everyone in the world wants what we have, and we are more than willing to share it with them? Are you complaining because they are richer and happier and freeer than they ever have been since the beginning of their history?

    Or are you complaining because freedom really does work, even for poor peasants and backwards countries like Japan once was? Are you really complaining because your "ideals" (ie, communism or socialism) are really a horrible nightmarish world, where no one is safe, and no one is rich, and freedom is the only answer to cure all of the world's ills?

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha. This post is a laugh riot. Contratulations on completely missing the point of my post. I never said that the US was imperialist. In fact, I said that I largely disagreed with the idea that the US is imperialist in the classical sense. I merely mentioned that many people do in fact believe that, and there is no point in being tactless and giving them cannon-fodder.

      Now, let's see if I can clarify for you. We lucked out with Japan because we went into their country and imposed our system of government upon them. It's a miracle that they don't resent us for it. History shows actions like these usually end up in disaster.

      even for poor peasants and backwards countries like Japan once was?
      >>>>>>>>
      Japan was a great nation with thousands of years of it's own history. It's this precise ignorance of cultural tradition that makes the US the butt of a world-wide joke when it comes to matters like these.

      Two points ---
      1) Nationalism matters. Like it or not, people would rather be ruled by a malevolent native, than a benevolent foreigner. Don't ask me why this is so. But if you look at all the nationalistic movements the world over, you cannot argue that this is indeed the case. I would love it if everyone in the world could embrace democracy, and see the same sucesss as Japan has. But human culture isn't on our side in this matter.
      2) Culture matters. With Japan, we were in a rather unique position. Japan, culturally, was prepared for the modern democratic/industrial paradigm to take root. Most countries aren't. Countries like Iraq have 2000 years of history pushing them in a different direction. Pushing democracy where it won't fit is just asking for trouble. You can try to influence a culture until it gets to a position where it's amenable to adopting democracy, but you can't force it. Take a look at China. The western world has been working on China for more than a century. It's culture is slowly becoming more open and progressive. Maybe 100 years from now, China will have moved towards a real democratic system. But it's not ready for it now. That's OK. It took western countries centuries to get ready for democracy, so why should we expect it to take any less time for other countries?

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      to misquote Jimmy Buffett World War II is over the Japanese won they sold us Hondas and Toyotas did't need to use a gun.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    3. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have a lot of good points. But the effects of American economic imperialism are evident.
      Look to the Drug Wars in South America. Look to Mexico. Look to the sweat shops in Asia.
      Look at the Diamond trade from South Africa.
      American (Republican) Predatory Business practices have *ucked our reputation worldwide. Our arrogance since WW2 has been unacceptable. Americans are the rudest nation on the planet (NY city). Especially so when we travel. (Bahamas)

      We support dictators against elected presidents that won't be nice to our businesses. Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Iraq, etc.

      Europeans buy small tiny gas saving cars. Americans waste the world's oil supply by buying big honking SUVs.
      America has been a country of waste for a very long time and we are reviled for it.
      America has not been honest in its foreign policy. And while the world loves us they also hate us. A strip mall is the one of the ugliest and stupidest things I've ever encountered.

      Anyway, Ender's Game is a great book.

    4. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      Baghdad is newer in construction than a lot of East Coast Cities. Iraqi and Kuwaiti citizens on average make more $ than American citizens on average. (Think oil)

    5. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Marx's+Ghost · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, I think this is a troll post, but I'd like to respond.

      I'm not sure what your post was arguing with the discussion of Vietnam, China, Cuba, UK, Taiwan, etc. Are you arguing that US former economic (and now military) hegemony has produced wonderful results in those areas, similar to the way you characterize postwar Japan? I'm not really sure I understand the point. The US was forced to withdraw its military operations from Vietnam due to the unyielding struggle from Vietnamese peasants, and while its main objective of preventing the closure of Southeast Asia to capitalist development was successful, no one could argue that US expanded an empire of freedom into Vietnam. China's free trade agreements may impress you, but the national standard of living has dropped and certain towns have essentially lost all freedom in involuntary contracts to work in production for foreign corporations. I don't know if you pay much attention to South Korea, but there is a well organized and militant student and labor movement in direct opposition to the government free trade policies. In the last several years, there have been national strikes.

      Germany, which you seem to feel the US is singularly responsible for exorcising the Nazi past, has opposed US unilateralism. Not only that, but in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, there are very large activist organizations which have proven capable of mobilizing millions of people in protest to free trade and McDonalds-type corporations. To be honest, it appears to me that your post is a product of a very superficial familiarity with the world. The mention of blue jeans and other constant references to commodities as the culture of "freedom" suggests very little attention to the actual places you named.

      And to be honest, if the US is as devoted to freedom as you say (hey, maybe the accuations of imperialism are off-base) then why the long-time support of Saddam in the eighties, the gifts and sales of weapons the US condoned to the nation? Why is Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, given first class treatment most of the time by the US state? How can "an empire of freedom" afford to court such unfree states in the past and present?

    6. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Vengeful+weenie · · Score: 1

      Our "empire", if you could call it that, is an empire of FREEDOM
      Oh, puke. What a bunch of self serving crap. Don't tell me -- "Your prayers go out with every Tomahawk, that those innocents who must perish will be welcomed by the Lord." How f***en wonderful.

      There's a special place in hell for the holier than thou Bushittes.

      Our founding fathers saw a day when the government would get too powerful, too fast. When religous zelotry would warp the sensabilities of their country. They also saw the problems with a party driven system. They just didn't see what happens when the court system abdicates their role and interfers in a fair election.

    7. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      on average doesn't tell shit.. look at the median and mode.. the gap between rich and poor is way bigger in iraq and kuwait than in the US

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    8. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice. Reading an outdated, coldwar analysis of the modern world is pretty amusing. Good troll.

    9. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by vicious_sloth · · Score: 2, Informative

      what?! where do you get this information from?! think oil?! you actually think the money made from oil goes to iraqi citizens and not to Saddam's weapons programs? if Iraqi people made so much money, then home come the UN had to set up a food for oil program? a quick look at the A world fact book revels that the GDP per captia is about $2,100 in Iraq and 36,300 in the US, its not even close! why dont you make an effort and think before you post something blatently false next time.
      and what does newer construction have to do with anything? are you going to tear down entire cities and rebuild them every 50 years to make them newer?

      --
      Sun is Warm, Grass is Green
    10. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      are you living in the same US where Enron executives pay themselves 50 million $ in bonus money each year as I am? I doubt the corporate corruption of American can be rivaled by any nation, let alone Iraq. The rich just have you fooled into thinking that some day you can be one here.

    11. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      Actually it was mentioned in passing on CNN 2 hours ago.
      Your quote is per capita parity. I spoke on average income. CNN said average Kuwait income was ~40000/year and that Iraq was similar.
      Doing the math with the data from your site. Take the GDP from your site (which isn't a measure of total income only a measure of new goods and services produced) for kuwait its 30.9 Billion $. divide this number by the working population of kuwait. Assume only males (Arab) in the range of 15-64 work and you get 934,115 working men. Divide the 2 numbers which gives you $33,079/worker for Kuwait. Do the same for Iraq and the number is $8679.96/worker in Iraq which is much lower. I was told that US average income (US census) for 2001 was $31,000/year. Your site says $36,000 perchasing power parity in the US which isn't exactly average income.

      good luck.

    12. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We never annihilate cultures that we just can't deal with (Native Americans, yeah they're much more powerful rich and happy).

      We never FORCE people who don't want to be in this country to remain in this country (Civil War anyone? Oh yeah, it was all about slavery. Ask Martin Luther King Jr if slavery ended in 1863).

      We never imprison people without a trial just because we're afraid they might disagree with our government (Japanese imprisonment in WWII).

      We never persecute communists, or people who associate with communists. (McCarthyism?)

      We never consider terrorizing our own citizens to justify conquering another country ( Operation Northwoods?)

      We never do anything like
      brainwash children to fight our enemies and believe that women are second-class citizens (What kind of freedom is this?)

      We never allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan in the first place (Read what Rohrabacher has to say).

      We never sacrifice our WONDERFUL FREEDOM at a whim (Patriot Act).

      We never imprison people without a trial just because we're afraid they might disagree with our government (Maher Hawash)

      I don't know if it makes us imperialist, but it makes me less happy.

    13. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Evil+Pete · · Score: 3, Informative

      What an enormous chunk of hubris.

      After WW2 America had enormous goodwill in the minds of many nations. That stayed even after Vietnam (though a little faded). But now no-one trusts America. Which is really sad, and scary too. After the Cold War there was no fundamental reason for the West to stay together, in fact I remember Gorbachev saying to a reporter that the days of the West were numbered because they [Russia] had removed the main reason for it to hold together. But it didn't have to be sabotaged the way it was! The next 10 years could be very dangerous for us all because of Bush. I fear this far more than the 9/11 attacks. There is no fundamental reason why in 10 years the EU / Russia / China could not be pointing nukes at the US and banning imports from the US. The USA now needs the world more than the world needs the USA , it isn't the 1950s anymore.

      Just my 2 cents.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    14. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by vicious_sloth · · Score: 1

      okay, your still pulling numbers out of your ass without providing any sources whatsoever, and you still neglect the fact that most of the money made in iraq goes to Saddam, his weapons and palaces and not the people. Like i said again, why would the UN set up a food for oil program if the Iraqi's were making so much money?

      --
      Sun is Warm, Grass is Green
    15. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

      I pulled the numbers from your CIA website.

      Then I used logic to determine how it was possible that CNN got these numbers from the data you gave me. And the numbers worked out.

      I provided you with all of the sources of information. I'm sorry if you can't seem to do the math.

      Like i said again, why would the UN set up a food for oil program if the Iraqi's were making so much money? This is the first time you've said this to me.
      Just because One man in a country with a GDP of 59Billion$ is making a lot of money doesn't mean that he doesn't have to hire people to get things done. Or that his people don't own and work in the oil industry there.
      Face it, We just have a greater population of slaves than these countries do. Too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy in America and recent tax cuts focused at the wealthy are only making it worse here.

      There is a 15 year embargo in place by the USA and allies, And Iraq is mostly desert. In other words they can't get food any other way and America and the UN are squeezing all of the oil that they can out of the people of Iraq in any way that they can.

      It doesn't help that President Hussein is a horrible horrible person. But, I was just relaying the facts as I encountered them. Your posting and my math makes me question the source in regards to Iraq only, it still seems Kuwait makes more money per income than the US.

    16. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A comment just for you, Marx's Ghost:

      Well done. I appreciate your concise language and depth of response.

      -Brad

      wallace_brad@hotmail.com

    17. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Are you sure about that? I remember reading that most kuwait citizens were quite well into the middle class, so much so that nearly all of the low paying jobs were filled by foreigners.

    18. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You fucking fool. The oil for food program is in place because of the trade embargo. Before that Iraq was a fairly wealthy and industrialized nation. Haven't you noticed on the TV that Baghdad looks like a western country? Do you think that roads, streetlights, plumbing and tall buildings exist in a third world country?

      If you want to make statements about Saddam using all the money for weapons and palaces, take a peek at the US military as well as at the lifestyles of high class Americans who profit from dubious business practices(sweatshops, war profiteering... HALLIBURTON!!!). We've gots lots of palaces here too.

    19. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Echnin · · Score: 1

      You pretty much nailed it; those are many of the reasons why I hate America: land of the egotists and home of the exploiters.

      --
      Lalala
    20. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by aallan · · Score: 1

      The USA now needs the world more than the world needs the USA...

      Well its nice that sombebody over there is paying attention. Now, can you just go out and elect some reasonable politicians, ones that know where the Slovak Republic is for instance?

      "The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas."

      Then governor George W. Bush replying to a Slovak journalist. Bush met the leader of Slovenia, not Slovakia. Source: Knight Ridder News Service, June 22, 1999.

      If you aspire to the position of "leader of the free world" you really should know it doesn't end at the Texas border.

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    21. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by valisk · · Score: 1
      I read your post with some interest ands thought I would add a couple more points to be considered here.

      Yes the US does have a form of Imperialism, which is both cultural and commercial, it using the WTO as a proxy has opened many markets to US and European trade, the large problem as far as I can see is the refusal to truly open the US, East Asian and European markets to outside trade, the huge subsidies given to American and European farmers which allow grain to be profitably sold at a quarter of its production cost is one example, which results in serious problems for African domestic farmers.
      There are other examples, the French for example do not allow imports of processed good into France/EU without huge tarrifs which perversely cause EU tinned and packeted foodstuff to be cheaper than locally manufactered produce.
      Still, by themselves this would still allow a small but growing manufacturing centre to develop in these nations to meet local needs and this is where we come to the issue of China.

      It is in my opinion the key to whole situation, the people of China are living in what might be considered abject slavery to a small and increasingly wealth few. Many factory workers live in dormatories at the factory the work for, they also need police permission to move or change jobs, unions are forbidden on pain of death.
      These people work 80-90 hour weeks for around $10, which just in case anybody is deluding themselves, is around a quarter of the 'living' wage estimated for China.
      This situation has and is resulting in a serious and continuing drop in the standard of living and real terms wages across the Asia-Pacific basin and beyond, manufacting is increasingly being moved to China leaving communities devastated by lack of jobs and we see the increasing emergence of special Free trade zones in many poor countries which replicate chinese conditions and in many cases are run by the military of the nations involved.

      As for the issue of Iraq past and present, in the past Saddam was seen as a bulwark against militant Islam and it's anti western hatered, supporting Saddam, and France in particular held him close to it's bosom with visits to Paris and stays at Jacque Chirac's own home for Saddam, was, as in many other cases, simple expediency to counter Soviet or Islamic power and can justifiably be seen as an extension of the long war over ideologies which ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberation for the baltic and south of the Urals republics, which careful examination of US Govt strategic papers from the 50s 60s etc will show was the intended resolution of the cold war.
      It's fair to critisize the US on many grounds for it's cold war actions, but do not forget the equal and opposite actions by the USSR, such as its evil interventions in Hungary, Checkoslovakia, Angola, Afganistan, North China, Korea, Cuba.
      Please just because the cold war was cold, do not con yourself with the illusion that it wasn't a war.

      I am not American in fact I am British but I do feel that overall America has stood for Liberty versus Tyranny, even if the methods it used were sometimes as dark as those of whom they fought against, the world is today a better place because of it.

      --

      Economic Left/Right: -0.62
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
    22. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by abdavidson · · Score: 1

      "the gap between rich and poor is way bigger in iraq and kuwait than in the US"

      I think you just regurgitated some titbit of propaganda you heard from somewhere. Care to give a source because, while I believe it's absolutely false, I'd love to see who tried to say it's true...

    23. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      And to be honest, if the US is as devoted to freedom as you say (hey, maybe the accuations of imperialism are off-base) then why the long-time support of Saddam in the eighties, the gifts and sales of weapons the US condoned to the nation?

      Maybe the U.S. had some strange notion in the eighties that the Islamic militants that took over Iran were bad news or something. I don't know why they might think that, though. Islamic militants are our friends (since they give us the excuse to reform the Middle East today (thanks, guys--good job!)). But not to worry: the days of proxy wars are over now that there is only one superpower.

      Or maybe the U.S. thought that a secular state in the Middle East would be a refreshing break from the usual religiously-brainwashed states.

      Why is Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, given first class treatment most of the time by the US state?

      Maybe Saudi Arabia has been a strategic foothold in the region that now can be replaced by Iraq. Maybe some critical reforms w.r.t. state sponsoring and tolerance of terrorist organizations will be forthcoming in Saudi Arabia. Maybe in Syria, too.

    24. Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! by gmack · · Score: 1

      I've been to Kuwait so I know that's basically true. If your family owns the well your filty stinking rich and never have to care about money. If you work for the oil companies your very well payed but if you don't work for an oil company or for someone who caters to them then your going to be dirt poor.

      The worst part is that most of the people who actually work on the wells are from Europe, North America or Australia.

      Saudi Arabia is currently trying to fix that by discouraging foreign workers but it's still mostly true. You have a hell of a lot of poor people who have trouble even buying enough foood looking at other people who are very, very rich.

      And then people wonder why they have such an easy time recruiting terrorists in the region.

  64. Re:Orson Scott Card rules!-Phoenix Philosophy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go grab a copy of Sun Tzu's: The Art of War.
    "A military operation involves deception. Even thought you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Thought effective, appear to be ineffective"

  65. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You're missing the whole point which isn't whether or not america has a good army, or whether or not they are powerful...

    The point is that America's millitary should *not* be viewed as a point of pride, an accomplishement... the latest gimmick you buy to show off to your friends.

    Back to the original poster's intention: war is *not* a game. Beware! you are turning it into your next reality TV shtick... a couch sport.

    IT IS NOT A COUCH SPORT! PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE INVOLVED.

  66. Not new to use video games: BattleZone by oaklybonn · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I once worked with a guy that worked for Atari; the army commissioned a custom version of BattleZone for their tank trainers. I've been trying to find a better link, but for now, this site discussing battlezone: dadgum.com:
    What's the story behind the U.S. Army version of "Battlezone"?
    There was a group of consultants for the Army--a bunch of retired generals and such--that approached Atari with the idea that the technology for "Battlezone" could be used to make a training simulator for the then new Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The idea was that such a simulator could be made into a game that would encourage the soldiers to use it. They would learn not only the basic operation of the IFV technology, but would also learn to distinguish between the friendly and enemy vehicle silhouettes.
    They approached us with this in December of 1980 and found a champion in the company in Rick Moncrief. They wanted a prototype to be finished in time for a worldwide TRADOC conference, being held via satellite, in March 1981.
    and more...visit the site
  67. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That's a point of view...

    Mine is that War is the tip of a much bigger tool: Power.

    There is no war that is waged where there is no strugle for power and oppression. Why hasn't anyone attacked Siberia ever?

    It might become a necessity after endless cycles of incompetance lead to a deadlock (and don't pat yourselves on the back, the US has as much to do as anyone else as to why Saddam is in power right now)... but that will never justify war as a 'good'.

  68. Ender's Game? by murr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Those who plan their wars based on Ender's Game are doomed to fight wars based on Dune.

    1. Re:Ender's Game? by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those who plan their wars based on Ender's Game are doomed to fight wars based on Dune.
      The SPICE, er, OIL must flow!

  69. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Being a 24 year old black male living in Atlanta I have a better chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten to death than your average twenty-something in Sarajevo so please please STFU about Sareajevo kids.

    You should go see african children, 8 year old children, who hack down an old man crossing the street with a machete just to grab a journalist's attention...

    Really? Why should I see that? I do not understand how my witnassing a brutal murder could possibly relate to anything anyone is saying.

    To come back to your striving ideology, you might think putting money into your national soccer team is gonna make you good, but the reality is that kids like Maradona grow up in slums in Brazil having nothing else in their lives... that is why they are so good... not because they bought it.


    I'm sorry man, you have lost me. I have no fscking klue what in the hell you are talking about.

  70. FRRYYY by ar1550 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Bill Shatner? Is that you? And what is your problem with Phillip J. Fry?

    (-1, awful)

    Oh, and so not to be completely offtopic, No registration required link.

    --
    I once shot a man in Reno 'cause they cancelled Firefly.
    1. Re:FRRYYY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what the moderators think. That was pretty clever.

  71. The real lesson from enders game: complete the job by oaklybonn · · Score: 1
    The article really just talked about how wargaming is changing due to the virtual technolog. Ender's game didn't really use simulations (other than the psy-game) and instead relied on physical formations and drilling - so its really not the model that the article talks about.

    There is one thing that our soldiers could be learning from Enders Game though: make sure that your enemy cannot hurt you again.

    In each circumstance that "tested" him, he made the decision to completely obliterate the enemy. To make sure that the enemy could not hurt him again. Whether it was a bully in school, or the "simulations" that they used against him (and frankly, I think at that point he was trying to eliminate the "simulations" and the people that were making him perform more than the actors in the "simulation".

    Analogies to today? Al Queda attacked the US. Make sure they they are not capable of doing that again. I suppose Iraq is an extension of that (although I don't quite see how) But now that we've started, we need to make sure that the current Iraqi government will no never again have the power to hurt us. While I don't think we should have started this war, we're committed now and must complete the action; destroy the enemy and their capacity to make war completely.

    I just hope we can draw a line between where this conflict stops and the next begins...

  72. Curiouser and Curiouser by kickabear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing I find most interesting about this discussion is the way people keep referencing the novel as if it really happened. Almost as if it were a story from our history instead of a work of fiction by an extremely creative mind.

    I read a few pages of Ender's Game everyday at work. It's one of only a small handful of non-technical books I keep on my desk. It's a very worn paperback copy, and it rests between my two copies of Paradise Lost and my well-worn copy of Christopher Marlowe's Dr. Faustus. I've probably finished the book 10 or 12 times in the past four years. And I think I know the reason we keep referring to the story as if it were fact.

    Ender is a geek. He's bright and talented to the point where the only way people in competition with Ender can hope to succeed is by bringing him down. I know we've all read story after story and post after post about how difficult it is to grow up exceptional. (Remember the post-Columbine stories?) We don't simply relate to Ender. We aren't simply empathizing with him. Ender is us, and we are him.

    Now that I've said all of that: It's cool that Mr. Card wrote a book that tells some of the truth about leadership and building a team. It's neat that he got it so right. But let us not forget that it is a work of fiction, and it worked out for Ender because that's the way the author wanted it to. Just because it worked in the story doesn't mean that it'll work in reality. We should glean what we can from Orson Scott Card's insight into human nature, but I can't imagine using any work of fiction as a training manual.

    Ender's emotions and reations are real to me. I relate to his experience in some way. But we can't lose sight of the fact that Ender's actions and successes were part of a plot in a work of fiction. Any similarity between the fictional environment of the Battle School and reality is a testament to the imagination of the author, and not a sign that this book should be taken as Gospel.

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Curiouser and Curiouser by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Insightful



      You might enjoy the Honor Harrington series by David Weber, then. Honor is a fictional character, but a strong "true to rules of war" style character. She treats her enemies with compassion even after she's finished stomping on them; even the scum (tho she gives them only one chance).

      Buy the book "War of Honor" and you get all the previous books, and much more, on CD. Great reading and highly recommended. Weber is fantastic.

      Great post, BTW.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  73. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    However there are more of them than there are of us And Hi-Tech is a force multiplier the French learned thst at Argrncort The Longbow was the Hi-Tech Sir John Hawkwood lost 400 men the French lost 12000 Knights

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  74. well, that explains by mikeee · · Score: 2, Funny

    The rush to Baghdad. The enemy's goal is down!

    1. Re:well, that explains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's gate not goal.

  75. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by LordLucless · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    *** Xenocide Spoiler ***



    Uhhh, it wasn't religion or belief in gods that made Gloriously Bright trace woodgrains, it was the secret little OCD gene their government had inserted into their genetically engineered superbrains to keep em under control.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  76. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Or alternatively, to people who don't know who John Locke was, Ender's Game has nothing to do with religion.

    Apart from a few names, and the backgrounds of some characters, religion isn't raised as an issue to be dealt with in Ender's Game. The main purpose things like religion, nationality and culture serve in Ender's Game is to act as focii for government suppression.

    On the other hand, propoganda certainly is an issue. Most of the Peter/Valentine narrative is a massive propoganda campaign, not to mention all the editing of the war vids, etc.

    And I'd agree with the original poster that religion (and a whole host of metaphysical ideas) are discussed more in depth in later books.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  77. Demoralising by garyok · · Score: 1

    What happens to the troopers that get killed in the game? They've just had a lesson in the fact that a momentary lapse, or even nothing they themselve did wrong, has just got them killed. Imagine how nervous you'd be after that on a real battlefield, after 200 sessions, thinking "My odds of coming out of this are 30/70." My next thought would be "Screw this for a game of soldiers," and then over the fence at the first opportunity. I may (or may not) appear later, once the dust's settled, for tea and medals.

    Let's face facts: basically you're training soldiers to expect to die in a combat situation, and reinforcing that far more often than you would if you were limited to real-life exercises for their training. I don't think this will work out in the long run.

    --
    One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
    1. Re:Demoralising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The armed forces of the US are volunteers so it would be reasonable to think they know the reality of their situation; they may get killed.

    2. Re:Demoralising by lord+sibn · · Score: 1

      Being slightly intoxicated, I can't pretend to understand most of what you said; apart from going AWOL. This is important; I do not know how Britain handles AWOL soldiers in wartime, but if you join the United States Army and go AWOL in time of war, you may be shot and killed on sight by the US Army. Don't believe me? Go sign up, there's a form you have to fill out that gives them permission to do this.

      You go away in time of war, you won't get any medals. You might even not come home alive.

  78. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wow, talk about oppression. Even the oppressed people of this nation think it's the greatest shit on earth...

    You have to get your priorities straight, '24 year old black male'.

    PS. You have no idea what you're talking about. You have the option to take a bus, and get the fuck out. Not everyone has that option.

  79. but enders game sucked by geekoid · · Score: 1

    really. Well the end anyways.
    we train this kid endlessly, then say "Here is this weapong that will destroy anything, golly what should we do?"
    so he uses his brilliance to point it at the planet... hmmm jeez, tough one.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:but enders game sucked by bani · · Score: 1

      wow. i cant believe that there's someone out there that feels the same way I do about ender's game..!

      the whole book sucked pretty much. the situations were too forced, the characters much too shallow and cartoony, and the ending felt like a total cop-out. (I felt pretty much the same way about Clarke's 3001, btw)

      a real book draws you in and forces you to think about what's going on. with ender's game i felt like i was being spoon-fed, yuck.

    2. Re:but enders game sucked by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Question: Would you be able to completely destroy another species? Would you be able to maneuver into position to be able to do so?

      Dr. Device was the 'endgame' like checkmate... sure it was a little anti-climatic, but all endgames are that way if you're doing it right.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  80. soldats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how they would fight a war if they played soldat.. ...speaking of which, how bout a macOS X port??!!!

  81. Dragon by TheGatekeeper · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    At the risk of being off-topic:
    Share this dragon
    If you do
    Lucky end for them and you
    --
    'The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age,' -Hamá, the doorward
    1. Re:Dragon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, secret message is actually encoded in image. (convert pallette index to ascii character)

  82. Re:Orson Scott Card rules! -maybe by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

    His books are good. But not great. Ender's game is a definite Read. His delving into religion and philosophy in later books are lacking. He tried to do too much.

  83. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by MikeFM · · Score: 0, Troll

    Take your pick of third world camel fucking terrorist fighters and send him on over. He can use sticks or stones or his choice of machete. I'll use a self-targeting automatic rifle (a minor toy that I've actually built) and we'll see who wins. He may be a tougher SOB but he'll still be the one that winds up dead because A.) my weapon will lock in on his body heat and movement and cap his sorry ass and B.) because I can be 1000 miles away from my weapon so there is little chance of his sorry ass capping me. Who cares how good you are if you still lose.

    Iraq could be ours already.. with no lose of human life on our side.. none at all.. if we weren't trying to be nice guys and protect the average Iraqi citizen. We could have leveled the whole damn contry remotely. We could have won the war that very first day. All the slum living of the whole damn Iraqi nation wouldn't have meant shit. Lucky for the average Joe over there that is more or less innocent that we would rather cause as little harm to him as possible.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  84. And don't forget ... by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    ... [spoiler warning] ... he didn't know that he was actually fighting the buggers when he defeated them. Which just added to his dismay later when he realised what he had done.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  85. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    just a short note, thanks for a sane post:

    high feelings but no racial hatred and managed to avoid bickering in the face of provocation too

  86. Not just the military influenced by Ender by humble · · Score: 1

    Need I say more?

  87. Video Game Warfare by Ian+Peon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I joined the Navy in '92 (left in 96) and worked on a destroyer as an Electonic Warfare technician. Sitting on watch staring at a SLQ-32 console often had me thinking I was playing a video game. A big part of the job was figuring out who was who. The first "long" cruise we went on (only two weeks - heh) standing 12 hours of watch a day, working for 6 more hours, and getting 4 hours of sleep a night warped my thinking in that I was no longer figuring out who the ships were on my scope, I felt I was creating them! I'd pick up a signal, build a track, decide who it was, and viola, there it was! These ships were nothing but signals and icons to me.

    Getting off the ship in San Diego was a huge wake up call... I had been "creating" the USS Rubin James, USS Ingersol and others. But as I walked down the pier, there they were, very real ships with hundreds of very real people walking off heading out to the bars and night clubs...

    Scared the hell out of me.

  88. I used to think that, until I read this: by Idou · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
    ----------

    Samuel P. Huntington

    Ever been to Japan lately? Besides the occasional McDonalds, you will find that things are really quite different there. People's notions of freedom are very different, and they have very different motivations than Americans.

    Bombs only change the landscape. If the world were to agree on the main virtue of its American ruler, it would be the accuracy of which its bombs land.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  89. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the encouragement. It might seem small, but it is sure as hell appreciated.

  90. Ignorance: Inflexible = Worst Kind by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    History has shown that an inflexible man is the worst kind ... An unwavering rightousness is the biggest trap of a weak mind

    That is an ignorant statement and ironically you demonstrate the inflexibility and unwavering righteousness you demean. An obvious example of your error is Winston Churchill. His inflexibility and unwavering righteousness with respect to Hitler was correct, Neville "Peace in Our Time" Chamberlain was wrong. History actually shows that there is no one answer. One situation, one time and place calls for flexibility, another calls for inflexibility. You are as romantic of the previous poster; your romance is merely a mirror image of his.

  91. Beware... spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a really good thing I just finished reading Ender's Game about 2 weeks ago, otherwise some article in a newspaper trying to make a hip, savvy connection with today's popular culture would've just ruined one of the best twists I've read in a story. I hope it doesn't kill it for anyone else. Usually journalists try to avoid doing things like giving away great endings to books/movies, but apparently these hacks figured the buzz generated was worth spoiling the surprise for millions of readers. Kudos, NYT - Next week's front page articles: There is no Santa Claus, Rosebud is Kane's old sled, and Wrestling is Fake.



    .... ok that last one might be a given but unlike others, I don't ruin good plot twists with my postings.
  92. Leaders or Sociopaths? by MikeFM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there anyone else that is good at getting people to do what they want but no longer does so for moral reasons? People aren't toys to manipulate to your own game. I used to be a major sociopath that sort of viewed humans as toys or pets. Controlling the majority of people is really easy.

    Life is much MUCH harder now that I've decide it's wrong to behave that way. It seems you can't really advance much in life unless you are an asshole. (I can say that about sociopaths since I am one.)

    The main reason I decided being manipulative was wrong ss that it's very easy to have less and less respect for the people you manipulate. It becomes easy to abuse them in other ways. You tend to think of people as belonging to you as livestock might. It's easy to get into brutality and sexual abuse and things such as that.

    When I see somebody that seems to have a lot of power or be some great leader I have to wonder how they got there.

    http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/soc io .htm

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:Leaders or Sociopaths? by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      This is a highly informative/interesting post. Why is it not modded up?

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
  93. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by teaserX · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    > "These people, terrorists, are the shit..."

    I dare ya to leave your dynamite vest at home and come say that to my face...pussy.

    --
    We really need your help
    http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
  94. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2, Informative

    zulux wrote:

    > War is not evil.

    Well, there is the concept of a just war, where war was/is considered acceptable under certain special circumstances. But even a just war is a last resort when all else fails, and with today's communication technology and organizations like the UN, there are a whole lot of other things for a civilized nation to try before going to war.

    > War can be waged for liberty,

    It can be, if it is yourself you are liberating (American Revolutionary War). However, if you try to liberate another nation against the will of its people, you have violated a principle of liberty called "sovereignty", and are no longer going to war for liberty's sake, but to conquer.

    "World Book" gives a slang definition for "liberate": "to rob or plunder, especially in wartime." This is the definition Iraq learned for the word when the British showed up the first time to "liberate" them.

    > self-defense

    Perfectly acceptable when nasty conquerors show up at your doorstep and start bombing the heck out of your beautiful capital city. But in these modern times, you might want to look up UN resolution 377 (Unite for Peace). Under that resolution, if the poor invaded country can get either seven Security Council members (no veto allowed) or a simple majority of the General Assembly to agree to it, the UN can form a posse and ride to the rescue. Of course, the naughty invader runs around trying to bully and bribe their way into "no" votes, but the resolution has been used successfully ten times in the UN's history. Iraq is working on number eleven, and our tax money is going into yet more bribes.

    > or to stop a genocide.

    Saving lives, always a great cause. Just be careful not to kill more of the victimized group than the genocidal maniac was planning to. Otherwise, there isn't much point...

    > War is a tool, a nasty sharp tool. It's what you use it for
    > that make your endevor evil or, perhaps, good.

    Tanks, bombs, and bullets are nasty sharp tools. War is the action of sending thousands of your people out armed to the teeth to kill their people until they surrender and let you have your way. Actions generally have moral values attached to them. Mass murder coupled with mass property damage (the end result of war) is generally considered very evil. In certain very special circumstances (the just war theory) humanity has pretty much agreed to overlook the evil of the action because of the intended result is necessary and unable to be gotten without going to war.

    Except for the just war exception to the rule, war is utterly evil, and is close kin to tyranny, genocide, and terrorism, sharing the same tools. To the Air Force pilot, he seems to be delivering a "package" with his plane, and releasing it with video game like controls. To the civilian it hits by accident, it is like being inside the World Trade Center towers on the morning of September 11, 2001: terror, agony, a very ugly death, grief and rage on the part of the surviving loved ones. One's country better have a seriously good reason to inflict this on another country.

    That's why it is so important to go the last mile, then fifty further miles, using diplomacy to solve the problem peacefully. Well, it is for the rest of us; for genocidal maniacs who get off on pictures of mutilated dead people, of course war is going to be a favorite pastime (btw, such people are sick as well as evil).

    "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
    Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

  95. Re:The real lesson from enders game: complete the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was exactly the lesson you *shouldn't*
    learn from Ender's Game. That book was Card's
    *critique* of military thinking i.e. Ender
    was warped and twisted into thinking the
    *wrong* way.

  96. POLL IDEA!!! by squaretorus · · Score: 1

    Are you a :

    First Born
    Second Out
    Third Turd
    Freaky Fourth
    Fucked up Fifth
    Sexy Sixth
    Evil Seventh
    Cowboy the Eighth
    Adopted you insensitive clod

    I DARE you to find a missing option among those!
    For the sake of decency - if the woosy editors wish they can change option 5 to 'Feckless Fifth' - this means lazyish!

    1. Re:POLL IDEA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 5 brothers and 5 sisters. That makes 11 total kids in my family.

      Need more options.

  97. "Here it doesn't hurt you to get shot," by XNormal · · Score: 1

    Well, that can be arranged.

    A harmless electrical shock can be very painful and should definitely improve the realism and raise the stakes.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  98. Speaking of Ender's Game... by CashCarSTAR · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Was there ever a Battle School mod made? (In any engine?) How the game they played in Battle School would be interesting to play, IMO.

    1. Re:Speaking of Ender's Game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem to that would be getting agreement from OSC and having 41vrs41?! you gotta be nuts to find that many ppl jsut to play one game. BTW i have made a quake3 zero-gravity mod, you bounce or hold onto walls and such. ppl didnt seem to like it :/

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

      I've seen 64 v. 64 run pretty well in BF 1942. Not really a shortage of players either...

  99. math? by pwarf · · Score: 1

    You are comparing apples and, well, brocolli or something, you've escaped the whole fruit category.

    First of all, the assumption that only males 15-64 work is erroneous. The very same CIA web site provides a number of 1.3 million for the labor force. I can understand missing that. However, for the US you then transition from the GDP/(number of people in labor force) to average income. While those two measures are related, they certainly aren't comparable.

    "This is the first time you've said this to me."
    Read his earlier post in this thread again. You just weren't reading closely. Look for the text "then home [how] come the UN had to set up a food for oil program?"

    Finally, why did you use the number of people working as the sample space? First of all, it's not terribly useful. High unemployment of unskilled workers creates an improvement in that economic measure. More importantly, it doesn't speak to your original claim "Iraqi and Kuwaiti citizens on average make more $ than American citizens on average." You didn't say "working citizens," just citizens. An important factor confounding an evaluation of your original claim is that over half of the Kuwaiti population is non-nationals, and thus not citizens. (1.16 million out of 2.11 million).

    The numbers did not work out.

    Given your haphazard method of analysis, it is inappropriate to blame anyone else for not following your math. vicious_sloth deserves an apology.

    Actually, I have one more bone to pick. "Face it, We just have a greater population of slaves than these countries do." What basis do you have for making this statement, other than some antipathy for the US? What's the income line for being a slave? Or was the term not meant seriously, and just used for inflammatory effect?

    Real slavery still exists. See this site:
    http://www.freetheslaves.net/edpack/edpack_ 1.pdf
    Is there a problem with the income disparity in the US? Yes. Is the cure worse than the disease? I don't know. I am afraid it might be, but it is an issue about which reasonable people can disagree. However, income disparity does not equal slavery, and your frivolous use of the term belittles the suffering of the estimated 27 million slaves in the world today. (Source is the website cited above.)

  100. Avoiding war to prevent Terrorism by OSgod · · Score: 1

    is a fallacy. War doesn't create terrorism. As a matter of fact peace and prosperity have created more terrorists than war ever will.

    To sit back and say "we can't strike them because they will bomb us more" is stupid.

    We need to let it be known that:

    1. Terrorism will bring swift and huge consequences to any nation state that is associated with it.
    2. That peaceful means of negotiation exist.
    3. That blind obedience of any mantra -- wheather political or religious -- is guaranteed to limit your future.

    The total population of the world will not be heald captive by a small percentage. A melting pot approach (US/Roman) will have a much better chance of dominating than a nation/state that understands and tolerates only a single religion/race/way of life.

    Get over it.

    1. Re:Avoiding war to prevent Terrorism by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      You got it right about the prosperity part. Let's all remember here that Osama Bin Laden is(was?) a spoiled *rich* Saudi brat. He had a lot of money, quite a lot of religious fanaticism, and (questionable) motive.

      It sure would be nice to know whether or not he's still around....

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:Avoiding war to prevent Terrorism by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Osama Bin Laden did not pilot any plane, nor did he detonate himself in a cafe. Desperate situations take desperate means, I think.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    3. Re:Avoiding war to prevent Terrorism by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      But he is the primary motivator behind Al Quada - that was my point.

      He's also a fucking coward. Won't take the risks himself - but sees no problem sending other people off to die.

      Boy, I'd *love* to meet him in a dark alley. ;-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re:Avoiding war to prevent Terrorism by moonbender · · Score: 1

      I'm not about to argue with you, but comitting crimes that make you the number one enemy of the strongest military in the world sounds kinda risky to me. ;)

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    5. Re:Avoiding war to prevent Terrorism by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      I didn't say he wasn't a fool, either. I think we're in agreement ;-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  101. Where did he mention Ender's game? by brucifer · · Score: 1

    At what point in this article was anything aside from video games mentioned? For all we know, the poster could be making up the reference to Ender's game. Look more carefully at the articles posted at /. and compare them with the poster's summary.

  102. Re:oil for food by bj8rn · · Score: 1

    what?! where do you get this information from?! think oil?! you actually think the money made from oil goes to iraqi citizens and not to Saddam's weapons programs? if Iraqi people made so much money, then home come the UN had to set up a food for oil program?

    Just to inform you: after the Gulf War, Iraq was not allowed to export oil (their government declined the offer to sell oil in limited quantity to meet the peoples' needs - you can blame Saddam for it), until in 1995 the oil for food program was established. According to the UN, 72% of the profits went to the humanitarian program. (food, medicine, etc).

    --
    Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
  103. typical american ethnocentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    9/11 was not an indication of american arrogance, it was a RESULT of our arrogance. If we had'nt been prancing around the world with economic/social AND religious imperial intentions, 9/11 probably would NOT have happened.

    Please dont be like the majority of Americans, get your head OUT OF YOUR ASS and actually give a shit about other peoples and their cultures.

    1. Re:typical american ethnocentrism by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      9/11 happened because the Americans have been far too tolerant of the forces that have been aligning against them.

    2. Re:typical american ethnocentrism by Kragg · · Score: 1

      God Almighty! Where's the fucking 'colour this comment white, hide it before the anger overwhelms me and i go fucking postal and start slaying americans JUST IN CASE they think like you' button?

      --
      If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
    3. Re:typical american ethnocentrism by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      God Almighty! Where's the fucking 'colour this comment white, hide it before the anger overwhelms me and i go fucking postal and start slaying americans JUST IN CASE they think like you' button?

      Then they weren't tolerant enough?

    4. Re:typical american ethnocentrism by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      Actually, 9/11 was inevitable. So was 2/15. Not to mention other dates that come no matter how tolerant or intolerant Americans are, such as 7/21.

      Or did you mean the events on 9/11/2001?

    5. Re:typical american ethnocentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but you should you be able to use the term ethnocentrism and american together like that. Ethnocentrism imparts that we're somehow partial to our own ethnicity. Since America is a melting pot and not of any particular ethnic make up (for example I'm anglo/native american and I have friends who are african/anglo and arab/asian).

      In discussions I've had with many people they cannot say that they are pure anglo or pure anything for that matter. So to go around pushing the idea that America - one of the most culturally diverse countries on the planet is being "ethnocentric" seems a little absurd. I mean how many cities in the US are like St. Louis Missouri where you can find a mosque, a catholic church, a scientology center, baptist services in Korean, and a synagogue within the same city and all relatively close to each other.

      So are we to believe that this mix happens IN SPITE OF our "American Ethnocentrism" or because of it, have we flipped that word on it's ear and said "Hey it's great to be an American, we don't care where you are from come and share. Come and be an American."

      To me being American is about being able to go to work and talk with people who grew up in different circumstances than I did, people who maybe speak a little differently or have different values. Being American is not about waking up and being with other people "JUST LIKE ME". I don't want to ever have a day that goes by where all I see is "white" people. People who grew up just like me, dressed just like me, with no other values but the ones I have too. That's homogenous and we have nothing to gain from that.

      We also have nothing to gain from people constantly pushing the idea that American's are lazy, culturally ignorant, aggressors. Our government may be that, but then our government fails to properly represent us and has done so for quite some time now. Even people in Egypt can see that the American Government and the American People are two distinct entities. This is not the way it should be. The American Government should be reflecting the will of the people and not through "opinion polls".

    6. Re:typical american ethnocentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then this American thanks his lucky stars that we still have enough nukes to destroy the rest of you assholes a thousand times over.

    7. Re:typical american ethnocentrism by jcast · · Score: 1

      Hey! Be careful how you speak of my birthday!

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
    8. Re:typical american ethnocentrism by mholt108 · · Score: 1

      Shame you posted this as anonymous coward as it was well written. I am not American - rather Australian, but we have even more cultural diversity. Its great huh.....

      Despite 9/11 and the events that caused it, America is still an amazing and fantastic experiment in what humans are capable of. More power too you... be proud but humble.

      m

  104. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Do yourself and the world a favour: Go back to school and learn to form coherent sentences and the value of punctuation. You won't look like a 14 year old American dimwit anymore.

  105. If you haven't read it yet ... by Thoguth · · Score: 1

    techinque for finding textfiles of novels on the web.

    1) find a legitimate excerpt (e.g. a sample chapter) on the web
    2) copy a sentence fragment that is unique to the book, but mundane enough that it wouldn't be quoted on peoples' "cool quotes" pages. (something like "jammed against Ender's seat back, hurting his chest")
    3) paste it inside of quotation marks in a google search.
    4) the top result will probably be the legitimate excerpt you found earlier. The other results will probably be .txt files that contain the complete work. You may have to repeat the search with the ommitted results included.

    Here's what such steps yield for Ender's Game

    5) Once you've found how good the book is, give your eyes a rest and buy the book or at least check it out of the library.

    --
    The requested URL /iframe/sig.html was not found on this server.
    1. Re:If you haven't read it yet ... by Thoguth · · Score: 1

      and if you're not up for the whole novel, the complete text of OSC's 1977 short story Ender's Game (warning, it's a spoiler for the novel) is available here on his website

      --
      The requested URL /iframe/sig.html was not found on this server.
  106. Ninjas? by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

    But in England, the franchise is called Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles, not Ninja Turtles...

  107. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying "You haven't lived unless you grew up in a shithole. Everyone should live in shitholes!"?

  108. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    IT IS NOT A COUCH SPORT! PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE INVOLVED.

    But more importantly, the future of civilization is involved. I would prefer one without totalitarian dictatorships. I've heard that they're bad news.

  109. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Of course, the naughty invader runs around trying to bully and bribe their way into "no" votes, but the resolution has been used successfully ten times in the UN's history.

    Has it ever been used against the U.S.? Do you really think that the U.N. could mount a "posse" against the U.S.?

    But more interestingly, contrary to the U.N.-love-in types, w.r.t. the attempted 18th Iraq resolution, I really don't see how the presence or absense of a rubber stamp from half-a-dozen bought-off third-world dictatorships should create or remove a moral justification on anything. (Well, maybe a couple of them aren't technically dictatorships.) Is this your notion of legitimacy? Most of the countries throughout the world are bullshit dictatorships. Should they be the basis of moral justification in the world?

  110. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    That's why it is so important to go the last mile, then fifty further miles, using diplomacy to solve the problem peacefully. Well, it is for the rest of us; for genocidal maniacs who get off on pictures of mutilated dead people, of course war is going to be a favorite pastime (btw, such people are sick as well as evil).

    Diplomacy only works when there is someone serious on the other side of the table. Where's your moral outrage for the 100-million civilians that have been killed while the U.N. has sat on its ass and watched? Are only the deaths inflicted by the U.S. worth noticing?

  111. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Iraq could be ours already.. with no lose of human life on our side.. none at all.. if we weren't trying to be nice guys and protect the average Iraqi citizen.

    Moderators may rate this guy a troll, but what he's saying is true. If the U.S. was really so bad, they could have taken Iraq in a couple of days. It's only because they're trying to minimize civilian losses that the war is taking longer and taking more coalition losses.

    Everyone is always riding America's ass and is so cynical about their motives, but I have to wonder what they are smoking. Most of the world outside of your comfy chair is a shithole, and I for one am glad that there is a force working to lift some of the world out of "shithole" status. Pacifists and their wishful thinking will never cause the end of war, but the spread of democracy will. I have to think that in some sick way, pacifists actually like most of the world being a shithole just so they'll have something to compain about.

  112. About Enders Game? by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

    After reading the article, I can say I feel mislead. I clicked expecting to find something about how the government has just built some giant gravity-defying rooms, but instead I find that the goal of the military is to make our soldiers fight without even knowing their fighting.

    IMHO, they got the wrong things out of Enders Game. There is value in soldiers not knowing the reality of fighting... But that makes any Big Brother scenario all the more scary.

    It reminds me a little of the movie Toys (Plot Outline: An eccentric toymaker finds his family business horribly misused by his militaristic uncle who is bequeathed control of the company). Where a has-been general trains some youngsters to play video games, while in fact they're controlling RC weapons of war.

    Scary, isn't it!

    An online Starcraft RPG? Only at

    --
    Online Starcraft RPG? At
    Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  113. Why are Slashdotters so whiny? by jensend · · Score: 1

    Look people, this is the New York Times. They're putting their articles and content, which is their entire business, on the web for free, and all they ask is that you register with them. Unlike many other sites, you can really trust that the info you give the NYT will be confidential; they're not going to risk losing any of their reputation for a few lousy bucks. Privacy policy here.

    In other words: If you're going to mooch their content, do it on their terms instead of using a stupid loophole in their system.

    1. Re:Why are Slashdotters so whiny? by gnurb · · Score: 1

      The reason I haven't been using the registratoin feature before because it had been so poorly designed. There was no easy way to retrieve your lost password if I remember. I checked back, and it looks alot easier now, I just registered.

      --
      hooray! it's a sex wiki
  114. Months? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    "Captain Gentile said. "I had a fratricide incident. But it's good to make those mistakes now so I don't make them six or seven months from now in Baghdad.''"

    So it will take months? What happened to the war hawks saying this will be faster than Afghanistan and Kosovo?

  115. Pretender by D.Throttle · · Score: 1

    Has anyone see "Pretender"? The show about the "pretenders" which were capable of assuming any identity. I haven't read Ender's Game but it sounds similar in that kids were used for military simulations and other things of the sort.

  116. Sheesh, people, read the article before you post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you whiners out there who are saying "well, gee, Enders Game was about Geno/Xenocide, is this training for Iraq?", "Is this saying that the Thirds will save mankind?", and so onwill you please actually read the article?

    In the article, they talk about using computer simulations to help train soldiers. They talk about how you learn, very quickly, how to move through, say, tall grass, because even in the simulation, if you stand up straight, you get killed.

    This is compared to Enders Game, where the military uses simulations to help train their soldiers. I rather enjoyed this book. The Battle Room and the simulations later that Ender went through sound exciting, both as a learning tool and for fun.

    NO WHERE does it say "and because in the end Ender wiped out an entire species, we decided to teach our soldiers the same thing".

    Get a clue. Read the article. Then whine about something actually contained within it if you feel you have to make some jab at the US Military.

  117. Offtopic? Hello? by sandbenders · · Score: 1

    It seems like roughly 480 of the current 512 posts are Offtopic. Oh, but what I wouldn't do for moderator points right now...

    --
    Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
  118. Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by geoswan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There is a small town in Southern Alberta called Cardston. I lived there for a while, when I worked on the neighbouring Reserve(*). I didn't realized there was a connection with Orson Scott Card.

    Maybe I should have. I knew Card was a Mormon. So was the founder of Cardston, one Joseph Ora Card. His little homestead is preserverd at the southern end of town. There is a little plaque there, saying he was the first Mormon to leave Utah and settle in Canada.

    Orson Scott Card's book "Seventh Son" takes place around 200 years ago in a parallel universe where magic works -- little magic -- not world-shaking magic. In the sequel his little hero spends some time learning native magic.

    And Scott dedicates that book to an ancestor of his, whose life was saved by natives on the Canadian frontier.

    Well, I heard the native's version of this story too.

    First a little context. The Blood Reserve is about 600 square miles. Their own name for themselves is Kainai, which translates as "Many Cheifs". They were part of the Blackfoot Confederacy. They were one of the Plains Nations which had depended on the Buffalo.

    Well, their version is that Joseph Ora Card arrived on the land Treaty Seven had granted them, and threw himself on their mercy. His wives and children were ill. Would the natives feed them? Would the natives let them stay, over the winter, in this little valley?

    The elders were compassionate. They let Card, and his sick family, stay over for the winter.

    That winter they were struck by a horrible smallpox epidemic. Two thirds of the natives died that winter. They had more serious problems to deal with than to wonder why the Card family had not left, as they had promised.

    In their version Card wrote to Utah, and invited all his friends to come join him.

    The Oldman River forks just upstream from Lethbridge. The natives oral tradition is that Treaty Seven granted them all the land between the two branches of the Oldman River, to the border with the USA. There is a Blackfoot Reservation just the other side of the border there. Is possession 90% of the law? Mormons settled all the land south of Cardston, to the US border.

    The natives believe that Card stole a big strip of their land.

    Personally I think Orson Scott Card was extremely insensitive to write that dedication, given the animosity between the natives and the Mormons in that part of the world.

    What is the genocide connection? Where did the natives get smallpox? Might it have been from Card's family? His wives and children were sick. That would certainly be tragic. In fairness, there are other theories of how the natives came to become infected. Still Joseph Ora Card doesn't seem to have hesitated to take advantage of the natives who had been kind to him.

    (*) The Canadian government calls them "reserves". The American government calls them "reservations".

    1. Re:Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      How is this "insensitive"? The guy should be able (and is, for that matter) to dedicate his books to whoever the hell he wants. Who is he hurting, really?

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
    2. Re:Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by geoswan · · Score: 1
      How is this "insensitive"?


      How? THOUSANDS of people died in the incident he mentions. Yet all he mentions is his own immediate ancestor. Thousands of people resent the role they imagine his ancestors played in the loss of their relatives and the loss of their land.


      Yes, you are correct, when you say he can choose to ignore the feelings of those who feel his ancestors robbed them. You suggest that no one can make him care over this historical injustice. And I would say this is, by definition, insensitive.

    3. Re:Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps the next time one of these primitive-people write an award winning science fiction book, they can dedicate it to their ancestors.

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
    4. Re:Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by tycheung · · Score: 1

      How is this different from 90% of all the other monarchs in world history?

    5. Re:Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      The Oldman River forks just upstream from Lethbridge.

      First time I've ever seen my hometown mentioned on /.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    6. Re:Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      > Yes, you are correct, when you say he can
      > choose to ignore the feelings of those who feel
      > his ancestors robbed them. You suggest that no
      > one can make him care over this historical
      > injustice. And I would say this is, by
      > definition, insensitive.

      That's disingenuous. If he were writing a book about what happened around that time in the valley, then and only then would he have the obligation to mention what may or may not have happened.

      He is no more obligated to pay homage to the people who lived there previously in acquiescance and thanks to a family member than I would be to apologize to the person my mother killed in a car wreck when thanking her in the preface to one of my books.

      It is not germane. It would have been kind, but it is certainly not germane.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    7. Re:Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by geoswan · · Score: 1
      That's disingenuous. If he were writing a book about what happened around that time in the valley, then and only then would he have the obligation to mention what may or may not have happened.

      I didn't say he had an obligation to give the history of his family's terrible contact with the natives in his dedication.

      How do you think Nicole Simpson's family would feel if O.J. wrote a book, and wrote a loving dedication to Nicole at the front of it?

      Or take Thomas Jefferson, who modern DNA testing now seems to confirm, kept his wife's half-sister, and body-servant, as his concubine, after his wife's death. Wouldn't it be unseemly if he dedicated a book to her for her "faithful service", without mentioning she was a slave?

      Maybe Orson Scott Card didn't know the history of this controversy? This is hard to imagine. There is a chain of grocery stores here in Canada, called "I.G.A." -- short for "Independent Grocer's Alliance". But every time my bosses's children were with me, and we drove past the I.G.A. in Cardston, her kids said, "I.G.A., do you know what that means? It means 'Indians Go Away'." If Card is in contact with any of his relatives back in Cardston I find it hard to imagine he could be unaware of this tension.

      It looks like he just doesn't care. And I maintain that is insensitive.

    8. Re:Orson Scott Card's genocide connection by WatertonMan · · Score: 1
      My understanding is that the Mormon settlers entered southern Alberta under the encouragement of the Federal governemnt. They'd been encouraging settlers to what was then known as the "Palliser Triangle." (Basically southern Alberta and Saskatchewan)

      Regarding smallpox, hadn't the Blood been beset by smallpox before from US wiskey traders in the 1870's? If I recall that was deliberately spread, in keeping with a policy of the US government of biological warfare against native Americans. The Mormons didn't arrive until 15 years later, in 1886. I believe that the Mormon settlers bought land from pre-existing settlers (the Galts) as well.

      While Mormon - Indian relationships certainly weren't good in the later part of the 20th century, my understanding is that they started out fairly good. Indians were invited to Mormon events and treaties were signed between them. Indeed during the "bad blood" between the Blood and the inhabitants of Cardston in the 1970's those documents were to prove significant. The Indians claimed all of Cardston and claimed they were going to occupy it. It made national news and there was a standoff for quite some time. The Blood further tried to aggravate Mormons by claiming that they'd put their chief in the Mormon temple and use the baptismal font as a swimming pool / hot tub. While Mormon treatment of Bloods was often not much better in the 20th century, the documents and history that came out in that era showed that once they had been much friendly and closer.

      While the natives do believe that Card stole a strip of land, the documents prove otherwise.

  119. Re:The real lesson from enders game: complete the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you. THANK YOU, anonymous coward, for understanding. The book was ironic and critical!

    Sheesh. Too many people misread it. Scary.

  120. And here come by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

    All the Marxist/Maoist/Communist/Green Party weenies to moderate you down.

    Don't you know that capitalism, not Communism is evil? That capitalism, especially global corporatism, is just slavery cloaked in a fancy name? And that Communism is where real freedom is (even if you don't have food to eat, and "loyalty squads" will come beat you if you say anything bad about the regimine like in Cuba).

    You would think that after killing over 100 million people over the past century and enslaving close to 2 billion people, the Communists and their sympathizers would have some shame.

  121. Umm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Churchill allied with Stalin.

    I believe the quote was something along the lines of he would ally with the devil himself if he thought it would help.

  122. Gaming the games by NaturePhotog · · Score: 1

    ...the guerrilla-style resistance of Iraqi militia groups made for an enemy that was "different from the one we war-gamed against.
    This is likely to be a problem, regardless of whether it's 'muddy boots' training or a computer simulation. If you train wrong, and haven't learned how to adapt, you're in for a world of hurt.

    Another problem is that war games/simulations can be rigged to provide the desired result. This is likely to be a problem with either 'muddy boots' training or computer simulations, too.

    But it seems like it would be easier to secretly rig a computer simulation to accomplish this. Read more about recent rigging of war games: General says Millennium Challenge 02 'was almost entirely scripted'. This had real people giving orders, and the general in charge of the OPFOR found out about it. But if it had all been computer-based, how hard would it be to stack the deck in secret?

    1. Re:Gaming the games by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Secretly rigging that particular game (by inserting "cheat codes" or other advantages into the code) would've been very hard.

      For one thing, MC02 wasn't run on a monolithic piece of software like civilian MMORPGs or networked FPS/RTS games; it was more than 50 independently developed programs, sharing a network protocol but little else. (The Marines ran different software than the Army, who were different from the CIA, who wouldn't even tell us what they were using...)

      There was minimal amount of coordination amoung the programmers- to ensure a baseline level of fairness, the week before the game, all the programs lined up their entities in two opposing rows and began shooting at each other (with a GodMode cheat enabled so that fatalities were instantly healed). This was to ensure a general correspondence in the represented power levels of guns and armor.

      So, if any one program tried to cheat, chances are the operator of a completely separate piece of software would catch him at it, and complain to the sysadim. This happened several times in fact- for instance, the Navy decided they had binoculars that could see through solid rock- but the response was to ignore the discrepancies and continue with the game. (Which gave fodder for that General's complaints)

      (And in general, military software contractors don't practice anything approaching "extreme programming", so expertise to quickly modify the games is rarely easy to find)

      (For a few more details on the MC02 fiasco, read this post of mine)

  123. Finally catching up to the Marines. by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

    About 5 years ago General Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps, released a list of books he recommended Marines read. Enders game was one of them. It was mainly one of the whole "Place of the military in society" things.

  124. Damnit! by ColGraff · · Score: 1

    Damnit, why wasn't I informed?

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  125. wwwwwway off target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "New York Times?!
    NEW YORK TIMES?!??!!!
    You think you're better than us?
    US?
    U.S.
    U.S.A.
    U.S.A.
    No Way!"

    Coach McGuirk,
    Home Movies

  126. Folding reality back into the simulation by WillWare · · Score: 1
    It's great that simulations have been helpful in training our troops. But we have run into surprises, both big and small. The "small" surprises (suicide car bombers, fake surrenders, combatants in civilian clothing) should be folded back into the simulation in preparation for the next conflict. And if we can draw any inferences about other things they might invent (cf the warning of upcoming "unconventional tactics") that would be good to simulate too.

    The big surprises aren't surprising with two weeks of hindsight: Iraqi civilians aren't jumping for joy at our arrival, because they got bit last time and they don't trust us to finish the job this time. Are there strategic simulations for the top brass and the administration? A good simulation can dispel your assumptions and delusions, and the planners could have benefitted from some of that a month ago.

    --
    WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
  127. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    My point, Walter, is quite clear: America has a powerful army because they have money to buy shit. Not because they are "the best".

    If you really think any of your soldiers, apart from the navy seals perhaps, are more ferocious and lethal than the iraqi SRG, you are mistaken.

    On a side note, you really should watch "Apocalypse Now", and pay attention to the part where Brando talks about the vietnamese soldiers who are ruthless... He says it's not because they're not men, it's not because they're devoid of love; they have families and children they love too...

    That's point a), point b) is that it's a very wrong thing to think of warfare as a video game... (as the title of this thread implies)... it's not about buying your little tanks and guns and strutting them. People die in war... civilians as well as soldiers... And as such, you should stop treating it like it's a game. It's not about being "the best". To come back to the original point: you can't beat the people who've grown up in war all their lives at their game... they own that game. It's childish and presumptuous to think, hey we can best them at that game too: no, you can't, and besides WHY THE FUCK would you want to??!?

    You have to understand the subtle nuance between being better at war, and winning a war... you could pit the worlds greatest boxer against a gang of 50 thugs with guns, he's not going to make it alive. That doesn't mean any single one of your thugs were more skilled than he was. These people who throw themselves strapped with plastic explosives... the people you call 'animals', unhuman terrorists: I'm ready to bet they had families (probably killed at some point), I'm ready to bet they had loved ones that they knew they wouldn't see again that morning, but they went ahead and blew themselves up. THAT is war my friend... as horrible as it might be, the fact that that human being could abandon his life for that cause, is war. And that is what you are trying to best... do you really want to?

  128. Anyone else see America's Army and think.... by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

    Ender's Game?

    America's Army is a free FPS using authentic US army gear and scenarios. Whether attack or defense your team is ALWAYS the US and the oppoonent is ALWAYS (a) eastern european ski-mask wearing terrorists or (b) turbin headed middle eastern terrorists. Most of the scenarios focus on CQB... ie exactly the kindof combat that Ender's Game focused on in the tournaments and exactly the kind the US army has found/will find itself in. Think Somalia, Gulf war, etc.

    1. Re:Anyone else see America's Army and think.... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The scenarios of The Army Game are exactly not what the US army is/will finding itself in.

      As you mentioned, in the game, the teams are always 100% balanced, and have equally powerful weapons, communications, and survelliance/intelligence assets. The US army will never be willing to engage in a fair fight- it's against their simplest doctrine ("never attack without a 4x numerical advantage" for instance)

      Plus, everything that moves is either an ally or an enemy (or one of a small number of hostages).

      To make the scenarios at all realistic, there'd have to be dozens of coordinated US soldiers, hundreds of OPFOR (spread out, without reliable communication or leadership) and thousands of civilians. And those OPFOR and civilians should be able to change roles at any moment.

  129. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

    "Do you really think that the U.N. could mount a "posse" against the U.S.?"

    Considering the fact that the US spends half of it's national budget on the military (and thus more than the next 16 nations combinied), it would be difficult.

    It also explains why Americans so favour the military option: gotta use that toy to validate spending so much money on it...otherwise budget cuts are made to that lovely bundle of cash.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  130. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    And where was the US when this kind of stuff happened in Rwanda?

    You can only claim morality when you are consistent. Otherwise you're oppertunistic.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  131. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by spun · · Score: 1

    Rwanda is just one example of the US turning a blind eye to tyranny when it is not in our economic interests to stop it. Look at East Timor for another example. 200,000 dead and we didn't lift a finger, because the agressor, Indonesia, is our ally and American Big Oil has large holdings in Indonesia. What finally got Indonesia out of East Timor? Diplomacy and the U.N.

    Let's just see how many Evil Tyrants we go after when we finish with Iraq. My guess is none.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  132. it's called X-COM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and X-COM 2...
    some of the best games ever made, shame they werent multiplayer.. oh well..
    Master of Magic also has elements of this..
    same for the Master of Orion series, tho i hear moo3 blows the chunky monkey.....

  133. This is Slashdot by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    "Did anyone here ... actually read the f*ckin article?"

    Come on. This is Slashdot. Do you really need to ask that question?

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  134. You did not read the book.... by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    or you have a very poor sense of what you are reading.

    If you read the book, and I mean read it without a skewed Idea about what it is going about, it is about how mature children are, or at least how mature they feel they are. Ender happens to be our hero, the buggerwars, the game, thats all secondary to how Ender feels, and Enders struggles. It is not about government sponsored child abuse.

    In fact, if you feel that you need "more" proof, in the beggining of the Enders game that I bought 6 years ago in the science fiction section at Walden Books, it has a preface by Orson Scott Card describing his intentions with the book, and why he wrote it.

    So it is obvious you are very much completely wrong, and having been modded up in this case, especially when the skew means something in maybe 2 people who read only at your mod level is very bad. Because it allows ignorance to propagate.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  135. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You have no idea what you're talking about...

    *What* is a totalitarian dictatorship? I personally believe you (the US) are in the dictatorship of your corporations. You might think that's the height of capitalism... but you'd be wrong, corporations are just people abstracted.

    You should always feel a queeze in your stomach when you judge your neighbour's regime to be totalitarian.

    Let me tell you something: in this recent crisis, the united states made inuendos to the turkish parliament that if it did not comply with the states' requests, they would orchestrate a millitary coup and do it by force.

    The turkish parliament held steady, and refused... Yet, the turkish government is very 'widely accepted' to be corrupt and undemocratic. My question is: says who?

    In my opinion, the US gov is just as fucked up, it's just hidden better behind bureaucracy. But I don't see anyone marching in saying "hey, US, you've got a fucked up government, fix it, or face our wrath"...

    Regardless, watch where you tread, cause war is one thing, politics is a slightly different topic. Politics, and eloquent speach (such as "totalitarian dictatorship") are just a means of justifying the desires and impulses of the few mighty in the face of the populace.

    And make no mistake: you are the populace.

  136. Pfaulder corporation supplied Iraq with blueprints by Schnake · · Score: 1

    Here's my attempt to answer your question:

    --------------

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/saddam _goodguy_030310.html
    "American companies were allowed to sell chemical precursors to the Iraqis. Washington in the 1980s licensed dozens of other firms to ship biologicals to Iraq - deadly viruses and toxins, the sort of stuff Washington is now demanding Iraq destroy.

    It's known the U.S. provided satellite intelligence and advice to Iraq. But there have been recent reports, based on interviews with military advisers at the time, that American strategists actually helped with battle and strike plans that resulted in use of chemicals."

    ------------------

    Check out this site:

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
    Scroll all the way down to Document 1, and read the summary:

    Shortly after the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. embassy in Ankara reports that Turkish ports have a backlog of goods awaiting transshipment to Iraq, and that a substantial amount of Israeli goods transit Turkey for "Islamic belligerents," including Israeli chemical products for Iran. It remarks on "Israeli acumen" in selling to both Iran and Iraq.

    If you click on the link for Document 1, and go to the last page of the PDF file, you'll notice:
    "been waiting for a month to get a certificate of origin claiming U.S. provenance for a shipment of seventeen thousand tons of Israeli "chemical products" bound for Iran. He admired Israeli business acumen in selling to both sides."

    ---------

    And I read somewhere that the US allowed the Pfaulder corporation to supply Iraq with blueprints for a chemical warfare plant. Try doing a search on Google.

  137. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by jpop32 · · Score: 1

    Everyone is always riding America's ass and is so cynical about their motives, but I have to wonder what they are smoking. Most of the world outside of your comfy chair is a shithole, and I for one am glad that there is a force working to lift some of the world out of "shithole" status.

    Yeah, sure. If the US was really about helping the world, consider this: The money spent on this war could be, instead of killing of thousands of innocents, used to pay of the foreign debt of most of the third world. Debt which ensures that those countries will _never_ recover and be prosperous, simply because they need to service the debt, instead of making the lives of their people better. And we're talking dozens of countries here, not jst one or a few.

    But, since that wouldn't be remotely as good for bussiness as is 'freeing' iraqi oil, don't expect it to happen any time soon.

    Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. There are absolutley no altruistic motives behind government actions. Not in the US, but not in the French or German actions either. Every and all altruistic and moral justifications are merely an after-thought designed to justify the actions and positions.

    Pacifists and their wishful thinking will never cause the end of war, but the spread of democracy will.

    I feel the US administration is about to get a really unpleasant reality check regarding the illusion that you can forcibly bring democracy to a country.

    Democracy building is a very slow and time-consuming process. A process that needs to begin with the people getting the idea of democracy. I don't believe the iraqi people have the slightest notion of what democracy is. The culture there simply doesn't recognise it. It will take years and years before any Iraqi government will strive to be anything but Saddam-by-other-means.

    Trust me, I have some first-hand witness experience in democracy-building processes, living in ex-communist European country. Democracy was brought about by the people wanting democracy and people fighting for it. But, still, people mostly didn't get it. Unfortunately, especially those in charge. It took some 10 years to really bring democracy about, with some serious 'whip and carrot'-ing by the international community.

    I must say that I really don't believe the US has the will and/or staying power to really bring democracy to Iraq.

    Case in point: Afghanistan.

  138. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    Do you want to know why these people have to have these Kalashnikovs, or why the 8 year old has to kill the old man crossing the street for his clothes or food, it's because the F*CKING leaders of thier land/country are CORRUPT!!!! Their so called "leaders" are building palaces and hording food and polished marble for themselves. Keeping basements full of money and killing people for enjoyment all in the name of "helping their fellow countrymen." These warlords in Africa just care for power and money, they don't care who they step on. This dictator in Iraq and leaders in other Middle Eastern countries just care for power and money, while these idiot religious people have to f*cking clue what it means to be human and have humanity. These leaders in the Baltic countries, ie Yugoslavia and in Sarajevo care only for power and ethnic purity and couldn't give a shit of "the other dirty people".

    Ohhh, but what happened, the United States went into Sarajevo to stop the killings of Muslims (who Middle countries say we are trying to wipe out). These shitty liberals need to get their story right. You need to get your story straight and find these reasons for these things happening. I'm not saying that the US doesn't has its fair share of corrupt officials, but we have the laws that let us examine what they are doing and rectify it.

  139. Well.... by duck_prime · · Score: 1
    If you're fighting for something you love (Not necessarily your leader, but your home, or your country) against a superior force, you do anything. Suicide bombers, chemical weapons, torturing POWs, anything you think might give you a chance.
    But what if you know that even that won't give you a chance, that all it will do is make that superior force very, very angry? Is it still a good idea? Remember, the whole idea behind the Geneva Convention is "what if we lose?" -- the side that loses wants to be in good standing GC-wise, to protect themselves later.

    Also, this is why you may see refusals to deploy "cheating" weapons. Take Iraq (please): from the perspective of the Baath party, losing the war is unimaginable catastrophe: they cease to exist, and their institutional will is to fight to the bitter end. But to young Joe al-Schmoe, PFC, if the country falls it means that he gets a short vacation in a POW camp, then a new government that he also doesn't get a say in. It's not quite as bad for him.

    Interestingly, that is why the media war is so important. The Iraqis want to convince the populace that their backs are against the wall to stiffen their will to fight ("The Zionists want to kill us all, then forcibly convert us all to Judaism ... fight with your fingernails!"), and the coalition types want to convince the Iraqis that this is merely a regime change ("Tired of being oppressed? Just stay home and wait it out!").

    We'll see how this all rolls out in the news.
  140. Bugger Propaganda Lies ;) by duck_prime · · Score: 1
    Not quite. At first, the Buggers didn't realize that humans are individuals rather than a Hive Mind. The Buggers finally got it after the second Bugger War.
    I never understood how the buggers were supposed to not realize humans were intelligent after they saw our spaceships. "We sent in an invasion, creatures in spaceships resisted, but we couldn't imagine that they were actually intelligent creatures, spaceships nonwithstanding, so we sent in a second invasion fleet, had several massive space battles with nuclear fucking bombs in the cometary shell, did something called 'the Scathing of China', and didn't 'realize' that humans were sentient until some jerkoff named Mazer Rackham kicked our butts". Sure. How were non-sentient creatures supposed to shoot nuclear missles at you?

    After the first invasion they *knew* we were legit, but they came anyway. I'm glad Ender beat the crap out of them. Too bad in the later books the surviving alien egg took hypnotic control over him and made him miss the obvious truth.
  141. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by blair1q · · Score: 1

    The author knew who John Locke was, and lionized him in the book.

  142. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Now you're getting into the methods of analysing a text. Where is meaning constructed? Is the only meaning in a book what the author intended? Or can the reader, through their new perspective, bring new meaning to the text? The current view is both; that meaning is constructed somewhere between the reader and the author.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  143. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by mfrank · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how 400 billion out of a 2 trillion dollar budget could be considered "half". Why favor the military option? Gee, maybe because the diplomatic options was about as effective as using harsh language.

  144. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Semantics and pragmatics are separate, but even if the text is misunderstood by many, the intent exists, and can be inferred by many more.

  145. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by omynous · · Score: 1
    Considering the fact that the US spends half of it's national budget on the military (and thus more than the next 16 nations combinied), it would be difficult.

    Ah, there's the rub. To continue they need money. And with the U.S. Government military spending reaching new peaks, all it takes is those who own the debt to say, ''no more money'' to end the dominance. And that day is approaching, and with GWBush, sooner every day.

    And then, may the killing come to an end....

    Shannon Mann

    --
    A comment overheard in a corn field `If you have better ideas, lets hear them. I am all ears.'
  146. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's more like 460 billion (since Bush just got another 100 billion from congress) out of 1.2 trillion, but hey, don't listen to the foreigner who knows more about your budgetary situation than you...

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  147. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Some would say the misunderstandings of many are just as valid as the intent of the author.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  148. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by blair1q · · Score: 1

    If it's due to the ignorance of the author, that's valid. If it's due to the ignorance of the audience, then the author has gotten away with the literary equivalent of a trojan horse, hiding his message in a work that is getting popular on surreptitious means.

  149. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    I think we're really just reiterating the same points now. It seems to me that our opinions divide on what is to be the ultimate authority of a text. You seem to be of the opinion that the author is the only one who can see definitively what the truth of a text means. I think that multiple meanings, some intended by the author, some not, can all be excavated from the same text, and that all are equally valid.

    At this point, we should just agree to disagree. Nobody's looking anyways ;p

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  150. Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda by blair1q · · Score: 1

    It's fine that nobody's looking. No posturing going on.

    We're not disagreeing on the deconstruction of the text. I've always argued that the author loses control of the work once he places it before an audience.

    But I've never believed that subliminal messages didn't exist just because most of the audience failed to recognize them. That part of the audience that does recognize them infers the author's real intent. You probably already have read it, but check out The Annotated Alice, a thorough essay on the backstory of Alice in Wonderland. Also look up the real meanings of The Wizard of Oz. The author's intent in those two works became obscured partly because the references were obscure in scope, but also because they were artfully shrouded. Card's allegory doesn't hardly try, but because most SF audiences are somewhat ignorant of religion and politics and real-world war, it ends up being obscurant.

    Ender's Game and its sequels have an ulterior motive. Card may have meant it to be more clear, but he got lucky and made a bunch of money instead.

  151. Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game by mfrank · · Score: 1

    Well the *75* billion he just got is for the war, and will not be a permanent increase.

    And 30 seconds with google shows me that federal government receipts (in 2001) to be 2,019 billion dollars.

    http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02 .h tml#Revenues

    Or do they not count social security taxes as taxes in Europe? If that's the case, you all must have reeeaally low taxes.

  152. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    Why do mathematicians insist on using words that already have another
    meaning? "It is the complex case that is easier to deal with." "If it
    doesn't happen at a corner, but at an edge, it nonetheless happens at a
    corner."

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...