Slashdot Mirror
Army Discusses MMO Troop Training Sim
An anonymous reader writes "Over at GameSpot, there's an interview with Dr. Michael Macedonia of the U.S. Army about the AWE training sim, a 'massively multiplayer simulation [based on the There 'virtual world' game engine] that will be used by military personnel to train troops in urban situations before they are airlifted to a battle zone.' Macedonia says 'We built downtown Baghdad in this environment', and also says 'we call our games tactical decision aids. Our thing is not making people shoot better; it's making people think better.'" We previously featured an initial announcement of this project in January.
Nothing like useing the latest toy to kill..
Battlefield confusion when the commander dies? Their own death? A commander in chief willing to sacrifice American lives for a people who would be better off left to their own devices?
I have been pwned because my
Finally... I can get rich by selling my hand crafted virtual weapons of mass destruction on ebay!
Any takers, they are rarer than the admins would lead you to believe!
How long before war game training/simulation slides into becoming real-time tactical control of the battlefield?
It's probably already technically possible, and just requires a generational change for the generals to accept it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
"Newb" will now be an official military term.
Anyone thinking Harsh Realm? And why do they cancel all the good shows?
Why worry that we now have a "new toy" to train soldiers?
Humanity has been using war games to train soldiers since the time of sparta. Then, as now, the aim was not to sharpen the fighting skills, but the thinking skills.
My feelings on the war in Baghdad aside, I feel happier that the soldiers being sent into the streets of baghdad will feel less nervous, and therefore less trigger happy
A well trained Army is not a more blood-thirsty army, as a matter of fact, the opposite is porbably true.
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
When did it become more expensive to outift our troops with the testing gear they use then to create virtual worlds?? If a movie can put together insane sets that look like 1950's new york, just for example, why can't the US Army put up a mock up of Babhdad and let the grunts try it out for REAL. With REAL guns firing paint rounds, REAL backpacks on loaded with REAL survival supplies, and the REAL screams of your men around you. Not a glorified video game. I don't want this to be labelled troll, but it almost seems like by giving them such shit training they are sending the soldiers to die, cause there is no way possible that "virtual" training is anywhere near as helpful to a green soldier as "real" training. If it was the ARMY would have a clue and be heavily recruiting FPS clans around the world....
Where can I sign up for Beta?
Battlefield confusion when the commander dies? Their own death? A commander in chief willing to sacrifice American lives for a people who would be better off left to their own devices?
Where do I sign up for beta?
Will this also be available to the general public (possibly in a dumbed down version)?
If so, will "terrorists" be able to learn from this as well, to see how the US soldier gets trained?
Personally, I'm interested, could be a fun game, IMHO there's nothing wrong with virtual killing (in RL I'm kind of a pacifist)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Forget about the $600 toilet seat...we're talking about the multi-million dollar petting zoo for guys!
Boy are they going to be pissed when they discover that god mode doesn't work in the real world.
Beep beep.
It's all fine & dandy the US Gov't wants to prepare the troops in advance so they're better experienced (and likely safer) actually seeing action. We've been kept abreast of this project througout its project lifecycle (and it seems to have reasonable milestones.
That said, why have things been thrown away? (or have they? We've already seen "America's Army", which was widely distributed, both online and via magazine CD inserts. Now, we've got another one.
Before America's Army was was anything but a few spare electrons in the public's eye, it was said there would be not just one, but two games. Is this the 2nd game?
Why do I get the strange feeling that he slips into something a little less comfortable at night and becomes Captain America or something?
'we call our games tactical decision aids. Our thing is not making people shoot better; it's making people think better'
... if only they could build a game to help the leaders think better rather than shooting their mouths off!
hmmm
In any case, these games will only take the soldiers upto one point. After that, comes the most important aspect of urban warfare... the mind of the enemy. That is where the battles are won or lost. And every adversary is prone to thinking differently in a given situation!
Can't wait for the hell to break loose when someone perfects their wallhack and aimbot. "omg u cheater, you just killed the whole US army!"
Business Voyeur
Thinking soldiers ? Wonder will never cease.
Reminds me of the strange artifacts reported when using Massive IA system in rendering battles scenes for LOTR
The soldiers ran for the hills. That's what's happening when you think
This is not a rant against the military, but again orwelian newspeak. they dont want soldiers who think better, they want soldier with better reflexes (as opposed to consciousness) and who think they are in a videogame.
Definitively NOT thinking better
--- Back to the trees, back to the trees !
i'd tell you, but nintendo and all their offspring are for whiny girly biatchnizezzzizzles
Why worry that we now have a "new toy" to train soldiers?
Humanity has been using war games to train soldiers since the time of sparta. Then, as now, the aim was not to sharpen the fighting skills, but the thinking skills.
My feelings on the war in Baghdad aside, I feel happier that the soldiers being sent into the streets of baghdad will feel less nervous, and therefore less trigger happy
A well trained Army is not a more blood-thirsty army, as a matter of fact, the opposite is porbably true.
Well... I strongly agree on the need for soldiers better trained to handle conflicts like the one in Iraq, but I wonder if the very American approach of using new technology for that is the best. While there is no doubt that for the war itself the US army's hi-tech approach has worked extremely well as the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have clearly shown, when it comes to maintaining order on the ground and fighting militias it has its limits. British troops in Iraq have globally been better able to pacify the cities they are in charge of than US soldiers, and the reason behind their relative success is not more high tech, geeky new technology but on-the-ground experience in similar missions acquired in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. I can't see a simulator replacing real experience in dealing with the population; it's not something you can simulate like an air battle.
What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
Then again there are us "Yurpeons" who think our governments are traitors to Western civilisation, whoring our lives, security, future and our ideals out for some cheap political correctness.
Don't assume you know people's opinions solely based on which continent we happen to live in.
What we need is a MMO Peace sim for the Neo-Con so-called think tanks (think? tanks!). A complete political / economical earth simulation.
So they can find out that their first-strike / secure-the-oil - global strategies will end up having the whole world against them while not really achieving any of their original goals.
As it is, they play it out in real life. To the detriment of the U.S.A. and it's citizens, as in: Terrorist attacks are ever more likely, Americans are coming home in body bags, the economy is severely damaged, a few profiteers run with the money. It's a disaster.
That's why we need an MMO for political leadership. The best army in the world cannot make a flawed strategy work. Just think what they could do with good leadership!
How about training on the difference between Friend and foe. I'd feel happier thinking US troops had a couple of hours training showing them the equipment used by allied and enemy troops, than a frag fest, before going into combat.
We don't wonder why a lunatic attacked us. To ponder the actions of the inane is futile.
I would like nothing more than if my country had as little to do with world affairs as possible. We shouldn't be the world's police. The rest of the world is going to hate us as long as we don't cater to everyone's every whim.
Freedom has a price. With out a strong military, you cannot ensure its protection. But then again, what does a troll like you know about maintaining a world free of dictators and corruption? The dirty little secret is this. You MUST protect freedom for the better of mankind. Even...if it cost lives.
Life is not for the lazy.
Americas Army has been around a while now training soldiers of all ages in basic combat. Puts you through basic training and keeps a database on your skills. It is run by the U.S. Army and when you join, they look up your skills in the database to help direct your training. It's a totally free game developed by the Army for your training pleasure.
It scares me somewhat the the U.S. Army is spending $$$ to train 12 yr old kids how to navigate battlefields.
If you really wanted a good sim, why not just use Paintball? It's probually as close as you can get without killing each other.
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
Let's look at the arithmetic a little closer:
Suppose a group of 100 solders are sent over with a modicum of training and are holding their own with a loss rate of 3%/week. Now, suppose your group is better trained before being sent over and the loss rate is reduced to 2%/week.
Now, for the sake of argument (the infamous "all things being equal") you are in the latter group. If the proficiency is improved (that "one new percent or one person) for your group, who should benefit? If the percentage remains constant, you might very well be part of the 2% and you might benefit from being that 1%.
So before throwing caution to the wind, you might want to consider the statistics. You might be the one who benefits.
Sims work! With the amount of hour spend playing Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, I can say for certain that I'm tatically ready for battle in the real world. Here are some things I've learned.
1. Never..EVER stand in the middle of an open field without cover. You will get your sniped.
2. Always reload when availble...and NOT in combat.
3. Team work...use team work.
4. Stay low, and quite.
Life is not for the lazy.
As a member of the U.S. military, I find your disdain for soldiers and the sacrafices they make appalling. If you dislike what the military does, don't blame it on the kids. Blame those that make the decisions.
Sorry but *I* don't think you quite get it.
If you have a large well trained army that can go into virtually any conflict, win and come out with minimal losses, do people "try it on" with you? No. It's all about fear.
From what I've read in Vietnam went in with heavy weapons thinking they would flatten everything. This is where they failed. The Viet-Cong was "sneaky" and used there grey matter.
War is thinking mans game, outright heavy weapons don't work anymore.
Armies aren't just for war either.
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
The Americans have 20000 nuclear bombs, no one is going to invade them, no one is even going to get close to invading and occupying them. They don't need a military any more!!
I hate to break it to you, but 20,000 nukes is not a deterent to some. Al-Qaida in particular comes to mind. With no real intrests to bomb, nukes have no deterent effect against them. Bombing their supporters would do some good, however dragging others into a conflict that is really a low key war is bad policy. Also, while we have theose nukes, that does not mean that we would use them. There is no need in most cases to turn an enemy into a smoking hole in the ground. Take Iraq as an example -- while the US had a great problem with Saddam, that hostility did not go to the point that we wished to kill all Iraqis. Far from it.
A tactical force will always be needed, regardless of the strategic deterrent. Even after one does nuke an area, you still need ground forces to capture the ground. Many situations such as urban fighting, airports, oil rigs, banks, and other high value targets can not be nuked. To nuke the target does much more harm than good. That perspective also does not take into account the negative PR that comes from using nukes. One nuke each on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed about 250,000 in the short term. Thats a large loss of life for a small tactical gain. Strategicly is was a great gain as the invasion of Japan was no longer needed, but relying on nukes alone would be a disaster.
There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of. No one else seriously wants to do this.
Dont be so sure about that. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Islamic Jihad, and others would strike at the US were it not for our tactical force. They know that any attack on United States soil would motivate the US to destroy them. Nuking these small places in Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt all have bad effects for Israel, not to mention those near ground zero. A tactical approach would be much better for all involved.
Even better than that of course is a political solution. Not everyone wants that.With no military, we have no backup. And we all know where no backups leave us.
Spc Gruhn, US Army
In vietnam the VC would ambush the U.S forces and then disappear after they started to lose men to make it so that the U.S would not take in a decisive victory. The VC played to the media.
As a Republican and true patriot, I cannot describe how FUCKING HARD my cock gets when someone talks about how great the US military is. Usually I just can't help it and immediately have to blow my load on some pictures of the greatest President and Texan of all time, his excellency GEORGE WALKER BUSH and that nigger general who commanded the Iraq campaign. Needless to say, I printed those out myself, using my AMERICAN PC and my AMERICAN printer! God, it feels so good to live in this country. Those Eurofags have no clue how fantastic it is to be an AMERICAN!
Better get a real democracy, Eurofags, so you can drive nice SUVs and be proud of your armed forces too. Even though you'll never be as great as the good old US of A!
So if nobody ever fights for freedom, the every country will *not* eventually turn into an absolutist regime?
Sorry, your witty little (recycled) one liner doesn't work here.
But since the Americunts don't really act in our best interest, smart Europeans don't support them.
Congrats on being 100% brainwashed!
Keep on fighting the good fight, you moron who thinks the world is ruled by people with morals.
I think he's just afraid that people have heard the "just following orders" before.
Until this technology becomse readily available - then it will probably be a valid defense.
Actually, it works pretty well, you just don't get it, dumbass.
If you really thinks your retarded lines about "freedom" work here (recycled from idiot speeches by your idiot president no doubt), you're an even greater moron than I ever thought was possible.
Fuck you, bitch. The people in the military don't make many sacrifices. People in WW2 made sacrifices. But not the "soldiers" of today, who only fight in small pussy turf wars that are little more than an adventure vacation.
Don't think anyone with a brain will respect you for that.
The Americans have 20000 nuclear bombs, no one is going to invade them, no one is even going to get close to invading and occupying them.
Dude, unless you want America to start using all 20000 nuclear bombs, you'd better pray Americans continue to fund their miltary.
Little Bricklets
please explain
If I had the power, I would snap my fingers and you would be off to N. Korea instantly. Hahaha let us see who is the brainwashed one again. Here's a survival tip. Don't say anything bad about Kim. If you do, you'll get a bullet in the back of your head. Just don't tell anyone I gave you this tip. It's a secret and I don't want them comming after my head.
What's not to get? It's just like all the other one liners the left seems to like using. You know, like "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity." They seem funny or insightful at first, but there is no substance. Example: let's say an enemy wants to subjugate your country will you be more free if you successfully fight them off? Of course you will.
This moral thing doesn't work because the idea is not to invade and keep it in a constant state of war for the rest of its existance (whether that is what you believe will happen or not). The idea is to invade, keep it under military control until the infrastructure and government can keep the country stable without outside help, and then withdraw.
And BTW, I'm not American, so he isn't my president.
Freedom has a price. With out a strong military, you cannot ensure its protection
The same with tyrany.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
The piece of software that sparked this "discussion" isn't going to enhance anybody's freedom, it's all about enhancing the US Army's ability to fight and control your typical third world urban armed populace. The only reason the US Army will ever be fighting in such urban areas is for strategic control over the resources of the country involved. It's worth remembering this before you start talking about fighting for freedom. If you're bombarding people in their own neighbourhoods with Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, chances are you're not fighting for freedom.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
(Connected to #washington at awe.af.mil)
[jim521] how do i heal?
[Gunner^USF] selling flak armour
[Gunner^USF] selling flak armour
[Gunner^USF] selling flak armour
[TYLeR] stfu n00b
[jim521] i cant see anythin
[Sgt_Bilko] *Your skill in Ammunition Conservation has increased by 0.1*
[Sgt_Bilko] whoo
[ARMYGIRL] try hitting yourself in the face a few times jim
[ARMYGIRL] maybe *that* would help
[982189] Y DO AIRSTRIKE NOT COME WHEN I KLICK
[982189] >:(
*You see gi-jane healing n00b22*
[_COMMANDER DEATH] OMFG LAG
Thats cause we killed 'em all before this generation got a chance
Perhaps building a sim where the idea is to think about what you are doing before you kill thousands of civillians would be a good idea. You Americans are so obsessed with your toys and you wonder then why some third world lunatic with a grudge plans attacks against you.
Why is this insightful?
A lot of other countries also think about what they are doing AND THEN kill MILLIONS of civilians: Soviet Russia, 1930s, Germany 1940s, China 1950s, Cambodia 1970s, Rwanda 1990s, North Korea 1990s....
It is in the face of this kind of world that America develops its military. And, it should be said, Europe has had pretty much of a free ride since at least the 60s by only spending 1-2% of GDP on THEIR OWN defence, while living "safe" in the knowledge that America spends 4-5% and was willing to use its own people's lives to defend europe during the cold war (I am a european).
And don't even think of suggesting that the UN is a better current substitute for the military: it did nothing in Rwanda in the early nineties in spite of warnings and months of notice; and it would have done nothing in Kosova if America had not stepped in.
Simulating tactical thinking in urban warfare could save civilian lives by preparing soldiers for the instant decisions and people skills necessary in moving amongst non-combatants while knowing there may be a few combatants lurking.
it gives realistic death results. as in, when you get 'shot' you have to lie down, stop playing, and watch footage of funerals until the entire simulation run is over...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
FACT:
The Americans have killed more civilians in one month in Falluja than all the terrorist bombings of the past year, yesterday's included.
Graphics looks crappy, the eviroments are empty, textures washed-out... I think I'm gonna skip tis one. :-)
BTW should US Army shift their world-liberating activities into virtual environment, there is a chance of less countries plunged into chaos and anarchy (Yugoslavia, Iraq), so thumbs up! Give'em better toys to play with!
You Americans are so obsessed with your toys and you wonder then why some third world lunatic with a grudge plans attacks against you.
You do realize you're on slashdot, right? Try telling slashdotters to stop obsessing over their toys, and they'll probably look at you as if you had asked them to stop breathing.
Little Bricklets
That may what was claimed was going to happen, but what is happening is that the remaining infrastructure is being run into the ground so that US companies can replace it at vast markups, the interim government (Chalabi's part at least) is acting as a secret police for the US agency whose job it is to ensure contracts for the US companies, and the country is dissolving into chaos as the general population realise that their liberators are actually just well-equipped looters, and starts trying to rise up against them, ironically fighting for their freedom.
The point about making obviously contradicting statements like mine, and that (admittedly rather stupid) one you quote above, is that it's meant to make you think about the contradictory statements and actions of those currently in power. Their methods will never achieve the goals they claim to have, and in fact will set them back. If that's the case, and they're not complete idiots, you should ask if maybe they don't actually have very different unsavoury goals.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
What's not to get? It's just like all the other one liners the left seems to like using. You know, like "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity." They seem funny or insightful at first, but there is no substance.
Right, right... Those idiot speeches made by the so called "conservative" guys are much better. You know, the ones where they put their hand on their heart, stare into the sky and try to form ~10 sentences containing as many words as possible from this list: freedom, bad, good, evil, right, wrong, light, god, jesus, humanity, fight, brave, cowardly, struggle, defend...
They sound all the same. Everytime I see someone giving such a speech, I can't help but think he's watched way too many cheap action movies. Substance? No way.
Example: let's say an enemy wants to subjugate your country will you be more free if you successfully fight them off? Of course you will.
I can see where this will lead. Please let's not start that discussion again. Iraq didn't attack you and didn't have WMDs. The glorious "conservatives" lied and we all know it.
And BTW, I'm not American, so he isn't my president.
So you're from the UK. Blair is not really that much better, you know.
I think the purpose of those 20,000 bombs was used as a deturrant to Solviet war, we have more, bigger better, don't F with us. I'm not sure if you are aware of this but it was only 20 years ago when there was a struggle for world power, the only reason there isn't one now is because It can not be easily won against the US. China is trying to inch inself towards the top of the food chain, Since thier ideals differ so much from that of the US and European contries who's to say they will not try to make the world communist as the Americans have tried to make it democratic? I am aware many slashdotters want socialism but the US doesn't so we will keep our military as strong as possible thank you.
If I had the power, I would snap my fingers and you would be off to Iraq instantly. As an Iraqi, of course. Haha! Let's see who's brainwashed when you're shot for no apparent reason by some 19 year old high school failure who thinks he's cool because someone gave him a rifle. Let's se who's cool when your only outlook for the future is being economically ass-raped by some western country for the rest of your life.
Many of them spawned facing away from the battle, therefore wouldn't see an enemy, hence they ran.
Commander: Soldier! Why did you skedaddled in the mist of battle?!
Soldier: Sir, I didn't see the enemy so I ran, sir!
Little Bricklets
The purpose of the military is to protect the local country from invasion from other countries and their armies.
Actually all enemies foreign and domestic would be a better description.
The Americans have 20000 nuclear bombs, no one is going to invade them, no one is even going to get close to invading and occupying them.
It seems obvious to me, considering recent events, that invasion is not the only threat to a countries sovereignty, need I really provide examples?
There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of. No one else seriously wants to do this.
Ignoring the obvious flamebait in this sentence, do you think that soldiers enjoy suffering, pain and death? Do you also believe that fire-fighters enjoy watching buildings burn and people die? No one else wants to do this? you mean no other country has a military? huh?
I can't help thinking that you sat around crafting this troll/flamebait just to get a response from someone like me. But I am just a bit scared that there are to many people in the US that think this way, and it will end up destroying the country. Any chance you could tell me where you live so I can stay 5 kilomiles away from you?
"The only reason the US Army will ever be fighting in such urban areas is for strategic control over the resources of the country involved."
So in the end, you think that Iraqis will have *less* freedom than under Saddam? Right. If at least one of the effects in the end is that Iraqis have more freedom, then the system being used obviously CAN be used to fight for freedom.
"If you're bombarding people in their own neighbourhoods with Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, chances are you're not fighting for freedom."
And why is that exactly? Because you say so? I'm going to assume that what you mean is that they are the overwhelming force and therefore the people they are fighting AGAINST must be the ones fighting for freedom. Faulty logic at best, if that's what you mean.
What happens when these underdogs take control of Iraq (as in, the US pulls out without setting up a stable government with police forces and an army and so on)? They bring all Iraqis under their control, like Saddam (only in this case it would be a Shiite government oppressing the rest of the Iraqis, instead of the a Sunni government, but it would still be a small number of people oppressing the rest). The rest of the Iraqis would not have much freedom.
Obviously, they can't be allowed to take control of Iraq, in the interests of Iraqi freedom (no, they don't have a great, free country now, but you can't expect an instant change. Obviously most positive change takes time). And if they're going to be fought, why shouldn't the be fought in the most effective way possible (reducing the number of casualties and collateral damage in the long run)?
Of course these machines can be used to fight for freedom.
Freedom has a price. With out a strong military, you cannot ensure its protection
The same with tyrany.
The same with a giant pot of gold, or did you have point?
They don't need a military any more!!
Uh, think about this a minute. The reason no one is going to invade or occupy the USA is BECAUSE of our military, and the fact that so many of our youth voluntarily join the armed forces, for whatever reason. I agree that the purpose of the military is to protect US soil and citizen, and not to meddle in affairs of other countries, but to say that the US doesn't need a military anymore is absurd. I think recent world events are proof enough of that.
So in the end, you think that Iraqis will have *less* freedom than under Saddam? Right. If at least one of the effects in the end is that Iraqis have more freedom, then the system being used obviously CAN be used to fight for freedom.
They may have the freedom to go out on the street and say "the government stinks!" but they won't have the freedom to control their country's own resources. What's more important?
It seems obvious to me, considering recent events, that invasion is not the only threat to a countries sovereignty, need I really provide examples?
The question is: can these threats be addressed by maintaining a large military? I doubt it.
You want to join the Airforce, they get to play with the Stargate!!
America's response? Barring some miracle in the Fallujah talks, it is to do precisely what the British attempted and failed in Iraq eighty years ago -- shoot and bomb Iraqis into accepting the occupation.
From the film, it didn't seem that the US soldiers - skilled as they may be at killing efficiently - had any talent/inclination/direction to try and win over the locals. They have anyone with language skills so the patrols are limited to hand gestures to "talk" to people, and there is no cultural interaction. As a bizarre contrast, down in Basra, a couple of clowns had shipped out to provide entertainment to the local kids. US patrols are all vehicular, whereas UK troops do (at least some of) theirs on foot, paired up with local police.
End result, US troops need training in fostering local goodwill, not how to shoot (although various ironic statements about how not to shoot friendlies spring to mind).
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
"Right, right... Those idiot speeches made by the so called "conservative" guys are much better. You know, the ones where they put their hand on their heart, stare into the sky and try to form ~10 sentences containing as many words as possible from this list: freedom, bad, good, evil, right, wrong, light, god, jesus, humanity, fight, brave, cowardly, struggle, defend...
They sound all the same. Everytime I see someone giving such a speech, I can't help but think he's watched way too many cheap action movies. Substance? No way."
Ah. But did *I* use any of those? Do you know that I support them? Of course not.
"I can see where this will lead. Please let's not start that discussion again. Iraq didn't attack you and didn't have WMDs. The glorious "conservatives" lied and we all know it."
I was certainly not talking about anyone invading one of the so called Western Democracies. It was a hypothetical situation that disproved the "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" thing.
"So you're from the UK. Blair is not really that much better, you know."
No, I'm not. I'm from Canada, a country that stayed out of Iraq (not that we had any real capability that wasn't tied up in Afghanistan). Name any given country, whether or not its government supported the war, and you will find at least some people who supported it, at least in theory if not in its execution (I think, like many other conservatives around the world, that America should have committed at least three times the amount of troops. That would have allowed them to be in many more places at once, and in force).
...teaching soldiers that once they are shot in the head, they can just respawn. Or if they see a rocket coming, they can just strafe left or right using the key pad.
Cool.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It will enhance the effectiveness of america's fighting force. By effectiveness I mean not only their ability to Kill Stuff(tm) but also their ability to not kill stuff. Maybe this will be the difference between soldiers bursting into rooms and spraying the slightest flash of movement and soldiers developing better room-clearance techniques which minimise collateral damage.
I'm not entirely sure why you think the only reason the U.S. army might fight in urban areas is "for strategic control over the resources of the country involved". Also, I'm not sure I know what you mean by that anyway??? Strategic control? Surely an element of that is minimising damage to infrastructure and essential services. Which is what they should be trying to do anyway...I believe this is in the Rules of Engagement and possibly the geneva convention as well. How is it a bad thing for them to try to do this better??
The reason this war has been so protracted is that the army is obviously not all that well equipped to fight in these situations, against a guerilla army, on their home-turf, in an urban environment. Training soldiers to "think better" is the best thing for all concerned.
A well trained army is not a problem, but it may look like a problem if your elected representatives are perceived as using them as a tool of oppression I guess.
"We, the USA, and the rest of the world spend far too much money on military affairs" No, you the USA spends too much, the rest of the world just spends much. The military budget for the USA tops all the other countries in the top 10 spending category COMBINED! As far as I recall not even 10% of the military budget is equal to what is used on the schooling system.
" That may what was claimed was going to happen, but what is happening is that the remaining infrastructure is being run into the ground so that US companies can replace it at vast markups, the interim government (Chalabi's part at least) is acting as a secret police for the US agency whose job it is to ensure contracts for the US companies, and the country is dissolving into chaos as the general population realise that their liberators are actually just well-equipped looters, and starts trying to rise up against them, ironically fighting for their freedom."
:)) I don't believe this and I think that history will prove this to be (at least mostly) unfounded.
That much is nothing more than opinion and speculation. Resolving this argument will probably require a few years of history. I can (and do) look at the same situation and say that it took time for the fighters to get themselves organized, and that it will take time for a stable government to form. As for the contracts... I don't believe there is a strong enough motive for the government to want to funnel money to recontstruction companies. The cost is far to high for that, unless you assume that the people in charge are purely self centered (or evil, if you will
"The point about making obviously contradicting statements like mine, and that (admittedly rather stupid) one you quote above, is that it's meant to make you think about the contradictory statements and actions of those currently in power. Their methods will never achieve the goals they claim to have, and in fact will set them back. If that's the case, and they're not complete idiots, you should ask if maybe they don't actually have very different unsavoury goals."
I see that, I mean that they don't mesh. The situations aren't analagous, and they have to be in order to work. There is at least enough room to dissagree on whether or not it will work.
Yet the insurgents don't stop, obviously, and the killing breeds ever more hatred against you Americans.
Of course they hate us, they are supposedly a very proud people known for thier toughness and we squished them in days, just like we did 10 years ago. What DOES concern me is that car bomb yesterday that killed 70 people (12 children) nobody in the middle east/europe/al jazeera seems to care about. but have an american soldier shoot one woman on accident, or return fire to a mosque, school, and everyone screems how sick we are.
It shows the truth, it doesn't matter WHAT America does she will still be hated. I feel like defending america but don't want to ruin my slashdot karma.
Wooh! If thats the second post then I get the feeling Godwin's law is going to come up any minute now!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,115102 1,00.html
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
His point is to insinuate America is tyrannical government thus increasing slashdot karma.
Strictly speaking they don't have that freedom either at the moment. Protests have to be cleared with the CPA some time in advance, aren't allowed over a certain size, and are generally controlled with indimidating numbers of skittish troops with a habit of firing first and asking questions later.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of. No one else seriously wants to do this.
It's called propoganda
I'm sorry, but this "blood for oil" raving is clearly bullshit. Gas is nearly $2.00 a gallon right now in my area.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
Maybe if they sold the lunatics weapons at a more reasonable price they wouldn't hold such grudges...
The US simply doesn't have that level of deployable force, without the draft. They might, if all the armchair generals such as yourself out there signed up. Luckily, being a Canadian, you'll probably never be forced to put your money where your mouth is.
As for popular support, it's a bit silly mentioning it, as the world population as a whole was pretty much against it. At one anti-war march in my country, 10% of the entire adult population showed up.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
Yet the insurgents don't stop, obviously, and the killing breeds ever more hatred against you Americans.
Yeah, just like in that book, where the DESERT POWER nomads were willing to sacrifice themselves against the evil Sardaukar terror troops!
Except that the lines in this situation are a little less black-and-white than your oversimplified spin of things would imply. Get a grip.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
That;s it. I'm moving to France.
No military = get attacked;
Attack = nuclear war
It's insightful because this is the 21st century, not 1930s Germany or whatever other historical examples you care to name with your really accurate(!) death toll estimate. I don't hear/read about US genocide against native Indians at the beginning of its relatively short history in the context of this subject.
...and your Europe/free ride comment is bullshit too. The member states of Europe (as opposed to the entire continent) have more than enough to take care of their own if required - and do so. If Europe and USA ever end up opposing each other with military, there'd be huge numbers killed on both sides. Please don't throw any of the tired old 'USA saved Europe' in response, because everyone who has even a rough knowledge of UNBIASED modern history is aware that the USA didn't do anything for Europe per se - but for itself. Isolationist policy, anyone?
Just to keep on topic: 'There' invites you to try their main offering for free... but only when you install IE. Maybe it's to create more realism - electronic equivalents of mugging, robbery, impersonation etc. etc.
What can really give you an advantage is knowing a 'map' if soldiers could run around in a virtual mockup of a real city they would naturally learn the map before they fight in it for real, it would be a big advantage knowing where to find cover and tactical positions, not to mention where all the power-ups are! Im guessing one of the reasons the forces in iraq arnt doing so well is that the other side (lets not get into who they are and weather they're right or wrong) knows the terrain and all the allys and connections between buildings much better than any foreign force, but how do you map out things like that?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
No, the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Why they do it is for the civillian authority to decide.
If anything, what you just described is a local millitia.
"The Americans have 20000 nuclear bombs, no one is going to invade them, no one is even going to get close to invading and occupying them."
Cut-and-past time!--Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers.
"There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of."
You seem to imply that they want to do this "just for the fun of it."
"But since they have so much powerful weaponry, no one wants to just take them aside for a little chat and suggest that they should just 'chill'"
Where, when and why they use those weaponry is not their own decision.
"they don't have any real enemies that are dangerous enough for them to require this kind of behavior."
If al Qaeda doesn't fit that description, who does?
I cannot agree more with you.
...).
... In our -US- name that we supported. Savac was created by the CIA"]
I've been thinking it over, and can just conclude that the US (gov.) is in a stage where the EU was a long time ago (like puberty or something...)
The US hasn't had a war on own soil yet; so everything is a "far far away not affecting me" kindof thing for the US-citizens (or under a propagaded motive; "WMD!", "terrorism", "Nuclear treath!",
The EU has, and took care that it "would never happen again". (Genève treaty, of which the US seems to fail to see the idea behind it.)
Overthowed countries (~Implement dummy US gov here~)by the US;
Egypt (1952)
Iran (1953)["Nearly anyone in Iran, with importance, has had a brother.. Or a mother..or a sister.. or a son or a father tortured, jailed, deprived of their property without due process
Guatemala (1953)
Korea (1960-1961)
Laos (1960)
Zaire (1960)
Cuba (1961) Domican Republic (1963)
Vietnam (1963)
Bolivia (1964, 1971)
Brazil (1964)
Indonesia (1965)
Ghana (1966)
Greece (1967)
Cambodia (1970)
Chile (1973)
Panama (1989, Operation "Just Cause", civilians executed on the streets by US forces. 4000:20 death ratio)
Could list much and many more.
War in any way is certainly in this day of age unacceptable...
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
So is this cost based off population? or landmass or somesuch or just $$$ spent total?
"The military budget for the USA tops all the other countries in the top 10 spending category COMBINED!"
Much like the US budget in general. Go figure!
Defense spending by the national government in the US still pales in comparison to spending on Social Security, Medicare and other "wellfare" programs.
"As far as I recall not even 10% of the military budget is equal to what is used on the schooling system."
Spending on schools is not the job of the national government. It's called "federalism."
"People in WW2 made sacrifices. But not the "soldiers" of today, who only fight in small pussy turf wars that are little more than an adventure vacation."
Are those killed in "pussy turf wars" any less dead than those killed in WWII? Does the DoD have Miracle Max stashed away somewhere?
I think this crosses the line. Here we are telling kids that the games are not real life, and then the military comes in and says "hey you can kill people in a game, and then kill them in real life!!" Someone's probably going to build one of a school or US building and then think it's ok to go shoot people there. I'm not saying all people are unintelligent, but there are some people out there who will take this game the wrong way.
Just because it didn't work out exactly as planned doesn't mean it's bullshit.
Too few people die in pussy turf "wars" (I wouldn't even call them wars) to say that soldiers who go on government paid vacation there really make sacrifices.
Uhhh, no. Typically, countries with nukes don't get attacked regardless how small their military may be.
Austin Meyer, the author of X-Plane has been working with some military and implemented some functions for them so that they could turn X-Plane into a UCAV pilot training program. The details can be read in the Beta new features announcement.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Killing civilains comes with the territory. Always has and probably always will. Its simply a side effect of war. People dont fight over areas that civilains avoid. More likely the battlefield is near a populated area. The more technology and training we get as troops makes us more effective in combat. Thats been proven hands down with the kill ratios cited (10:1).
This simulation is purely on a tactical level. What you are talking about with insurgents is more of a strategic or political level problem. I also dont think that we wonder why people attack us, thats almost a given whenever you try to make a change. People resist change both good and bad. The political decision has been made and the soldier has to live with the results even if they dont agree with them.
If you really want to stop the killing and your in Iraq, use the CPA. If your in the US, vote for regime change at home if you think Kerry would be any better.
OMG, like a small little cog in the machine like you knows anything...
Sounds like he/she knows alot more than you do.. unless you care to refute something in their post?
There's still some hope left here after all.
Maybe you should be reading here instead... you can masturbate all day while playing armchair general and any critics will be banned (except those who take it in the ass).
5. Where the fuck is my mouselook??!?!?!11
Easy.
1. Al Quaeda did attack the US and their "tactical force" didn't help.
2. The US has no reason to be in Iraq, and even if they had, they wouldn't need an army that large.
Sims work! With the amount of hour spend playing Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, I can say for certain that I'm tatically ready for battle in the real world.
I suppose this is a joke.
1. Never..EVER stand in the middle of an open field without cover. You will get your sniped.
Yeah, sure. Just make sure you have cover, not "cover". Assault rifle/machine gun rounds travel through thick trees, concrete walls and two feet of ground. Suddenly you don't have all that cover that games make you think you have.
What are you plans for fighting in the middle of a desert?
2. Always reload when availble...and NOT in combat.
I suppose "reload" means "switch clips".
3. Team work...use team work.
Care to elaborate? There's tons of field manuals written about the subject.
4. Stay low, and quite.
What if you have to attack?
Oh f***ing please... if you guys don't want dictators and corruption world-wide, how about you stop installing and/or supporting them? I can't think of any place after WW2 where the US army or CIA were involved in a government change, that didn't _result_ in dictatorship and corruption.
Heck, even Iraq is now well on the way to become a fundamentalist islamist state. It was a secular state which was _no_ friend of Osama, nor of Osama's fundamentalist vision.
Here's another idea: how about you mind your own protection, and let other people mind theirs? There's a (not so) fine line between "promoting democracy" and "school bully." Or between "protecting freedom" and "protection racket".
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The US hasn't had a war on own soil yet; so everything is a "far far away not affecting me" kindof thing for the US-citizens (or under a propagaded motive; "WMD!", "terrorism", "Nuclear treath!", ...).
100% incorrect. The US experienced the greatest loss of life in any military conflict during the Civil War, which was fought on US soil. 620,000 deaths is a generally accepted number, including the destruction of a number of cities, including Atlanta. That's almost 1 in 10 white males between 15 and 59.
The three battles of Gettysburg, Chancellorsville and Chickamauga alone took only a total of 9 days yet killed over 110,000 people, and this was before the development of weapons most people would even consider modern.
But I am just a bit scared that there are to many people in the US that think this way, and it will end up destroying the country.
OMG OMG OMG the end of the country is near because everyone doesn't get a boner anymore while watching military parades!!!!111~~~
Apparently, this post is hardly the second post
...back in time!
Quinn: The damage to sub-space has caused a temporal distortion. We've gone...
(dramatic pause)
Nonsense! My freedom to kill people who live in different countries and speak languages I don't understand is essential! All this democracy stuff is a sham if we can't kill everyone else on the planet and take their stuff. Why do you hate America so much?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You have to ask yourself the question of why does Al Qaida want to strike at the US. I don't think it's because of the American standards of living in spite of what GWB said at some point.
Moreover I'm not sure expeditions like those in Iraq help in that regard. I would be of the opinion that the current Iraq situation is a breeding ground for terrorism, more so than when SH was still in power, althought that is debatable.
There are those in the US who think that the US army should be used to defend the US and not to attack other countries over spurious allegations, however it is convenient for the military-industrial complex to keep making up ennemies so as to maintain their level of funding, keep developing new weapons, etc. This is a real issue.
So, let's just be clear on this:
When America holds the world hostage with 20,000 nuclear warheads, that's "protecting freedom".
When some guy straps explosives to himself, and does the same thing on a smaller scale, that's "terrorism".
So legitimacy is all about how big and powerful you are? Nice...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
There's also the terrible political repercussions of using nuclear weapons. I can gaurantee that any administration that uses nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack will not get re-elected.
Organizations like Al-Qaida know this, so it lessens the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrant.
If you look at India or Pakistan, though, I don't think you'll find as much local potential political fallout. However, there would be sanctions by western countries.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
People like you are the reason lots of people ignore posts by Anonymous Cowards.
But it fits you because that is what you are.
Freedom has a price. With out a strong military, you cannot ensure its protection. But then again, what does a troll like you know about maintaining a world free of dictators and corruption? The dirty little secret is this. You MUST protect freedom for the better of mankind. Even...if it cost lives. I agree very much, this is why i've decided to vote for mickey mouse this election. I can't stand either shitty political party in the white house. They are an affront to freedom.
Totally agree with this point. Read Starship troopers (not the movie) to get a better grip on this.
The point about training your tactical force is to teach them to apply the amount of force needed the situation.
Ongoing training of this nature is what the armed forces doing when they are not on Operations. They are called Exercises.
Now for operational purposes the preparation phase becomes even more important. The more important the objective, the better the model. I know when the SAS were training to pull hostages out of Lebanon, they used floorplans and real buildings.
Doing this training virtually is just another way to do this. IMHO it would only augment existing training.
Both the Soviets and the US were more than willing to use Europe as a battleground if push come to shove. Ever heard of the Pershing vs. SS20 debate in the 80s? Both were nuclear tipped missiles with short range posted on either side of the iron curtain, with too short a range to fall anywhere but in Europe.
As a kid growing in Europe at that time I felt extremely disinfranchised from both sides. It was pretty clear the US was not going to help Europe in any way should the shit hit the fan.
I don't think the US was unhappy to see Europe spend so "little" on their military. Indeed when France ceceded from NATO in the 50s and started to spend a great deal more for its own defence they didn't like it one little bit. Neither did they like the competition on the lucrative weapons market. When both the UK and France decided to play a bit of world politics with Israel as ally around the Suez canal both superpowers told them to go back home or get nuked.
It is true that nowadays the European military union doesn't exist and that the Kosovo was a disgrace, but I don't remember the US intervening in Rwanda. The UN eventually did.
The UN is weak because it was designed that way. This was the only compromise that superpowers could agree on when it was created. The whole thing is designed to be bogged down in bureaucracy and to be unresponsive to world events. It's a miracle that it does accomplish something from time to time, especially in education, drug control, and even peacekeeping. If you want a world body to be responsive to conflicts then it means that superpowers, and today this means mostly the US, must give up some degree of control on what it does. It will never happen if the US can have a say.
Myself I don't trust the US do to anything more than what benefits its immediate interests. If they match with what can roughly be construed as peacekeeping or conflict resolution, great. But it is not always the case. Sometimes the US will go to war for its own private reasons.
The simulation MMO isn't very realistic at all if you ask me.
There are no rocket jumps, no teleporters, no rail guns, no quad damage...you can't even capture the enemy flag for god's sake!
Doesn't sound very real to me...
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Who said anything about Iraq? The purpose of our military is to insure *our* freedom. When did we get a mandate to liberate oppressed people around the world? If Iraquis want freedom they should have gotten some balls and liberated themselves. I don't see how the same people who have no problems attacking our troops couldn't have put together some kind of revolution.
And why is that exactly? Because you say so?
No, because history says so. Do some reading on the history of wars involving the U.S. (or any other military power) and see how many were just about freeing some foreign people. You won't find many (if any). The U.S. doesn't send thousands of troops and spend billions of dollars without expecting something in return. Nothing wrong with this, all countries do it. But it is a fiction that we do these things out of the goodness of our hearts. Look up realpolitick sometime.
OK,
> If al Qaeda doesn't fit that description, who does?
Where does the Al Qaeda thing fit with the Iraq war? Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. At the moment the US Army is busy bringing up the next generation of terrorist who will not remember the US fondly.
1. We have lost more than that, last I heard, we just broke 700 coalition troops...
2 (the main point). Kill ratios don't mean shit. It is all about who can suffer the kills most effectivly. We had a kill ratio well over 10 to 1 in Vietnam, but the enemy did not mind losing half a million nearly as much as we minded losing 50,000, that is why we lost. They simply wanted victory more than we did. I think the same thing will happen in Iraq (I hope I am wrong). Also, we have already lost more troops in Iraq than we lost in the first 5 years we had troops on the ground in Vietnam... we had smaller numbers there until about '68 then the troops built up, and along with them, the casualties.
3. (About Islam) If all Islam teaches is to be a power hungry, mentally challgened idiot than i am glad I am not Muslim. I thought bush was a "Christian" (sorry couldn't resist) Seriously, there are members of just about every group who are power hungary ass holes, it has little to do with the particular group and a lot more to do the the human condition. It you think that is what Islam is about, spend some time around engineering graduate students, you will meet a lot of foriegn muslims, and you will see that they are clearly not power hungary, or mentally challenged...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
In the specific case of India v Pakistan, using nukes in Kashmir is a lose/lose for India. No matter which time of year India strikes, the fallout falls on India. Also in that conflict, India currently lacks the logistic capability to launch a sustained ground offensive. They have numbers, but if it goes beyond a few weeks, its a stalemate
Spc Gruhn
Keyboard Infantry since 2002
Bought -as opposed to earned- as in "being admitted to the 'champagne squad' of jet pilots in the local reserve (even though his test scores wer in the lower 25%)"?
At the very least, he's smarter and more knowledgeable than the average person.
So thats why his own staff nicknamed him "Advisee-in-Chief" and he still needs to sit in Dick Cheneys lap to testify before the 9/11 comission?
Say what you like, but you know you're lying
You, Mr. Anonymous Coward, are certainly free to believe that your president is smart, knowlegeable (and honest, and ...).
The question is, does that belief (a.k.a. The Fuehrer is always right!) justify calling those who dissent liars?
Japan? Germany? The entire Soviet bloc?
Read a book.
Oh wow... DOH.
... man without means to fight back (or even reason). Nor with a 'real reason'. (more and more starts to sound like WW-stuff, I don't mean too. you guys are alright, seriously. But just cannot comprehend the stuff your gov gets away with.)
I regret not checking "annonymous coward" on that one.
But Civil War, and being attacked from a foreign country / overthrowing a country's government (how evil it might be; cause I can foresee the "But Sadam was EVIL!" or the "Fidel.. EVIL!", etc..) does seem to be a slight difference? (I might've expressed myself wrongly so I stand corrected, partially)
I also imagine the civil war being man to man / canon to canon fights instead of jets / high accuracy / hightech to
We all have had our civil wars.
In Belgium, for my case, we did some serious killing too (well we just killed lots of French once, wrote a book about it and kindof shut up about the other ones), it leaded to our independance and the Belgium we are today.
But we mostly just remember the WW's when we think about war for several reasons; we heard our grandparents talk about the horrors about war and know the direct effects of wars.
(kindof want to point out the "far far away, doesn't concern me"-point.)
If I'm not mistaken the US civil war was about 1861-1865, Belgium was attacked by Romans in 50B.C ('The Belgians are the most brave...'), ruled by Romans for 300yrs, then in the Middle ages after Vikins pokes around with us for a while we had some centuries of *internal* wars. So then, came the Spanisch for two centuries until the Austrians in 1713. In 1794 till defeated in 1815 the French took over. After defeat Belgium was "rewarded" to the Netherlands for 15 years. In 1830 we became independant. In 1914 (till 1918) the germans overran us while attacking the French so we joined the french to help ('we' defeated Germany in Belgium), in 1940 they -the germans- visited us again.
The *Americans* knowing how it is being invaded are the natives...
My point was in essence "war is bad, don't bomb others nor tell others what they *have to do*." (how many nukes do you have laying around there in the US? WMD?.. who's coming to bomb you?) and such..
I'll go hiding under my rock now, sipping some more coffee..
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Don't bother trying to talk sense to liberal pinheads, it will just piss you off.
Well, if the army uses these, I don't see why pacifists couldn't.
:)
:)
Peace protesters have long used role-playing to practice strategy, from hassle-lines to multi-actor games. In fact, one author has cataloged 198 forms of non-violent action. The oldest one on record is known as Lysistratic nonaction, where the women refused to sleep with their husbands until they agreed to stop fighting. The play Lysistrata depicts men with huge erections desperate to sign a deal
Some of the strategies that have been used historically include:
-fraternization with the soldiers (including outright seduction, playing sports together, etc...)
-non-cooperation (refusal to hand over information, "losing" municipal records for jews during WW2)
-demonstrations from standing in front of tanks to vigils
-strikes
-sabotage
It would be quite interesting to use these same tools to figure out which methods are most effective and result in the fewest deaths for all parties, and MMORPG would be a very good tool.
If we can't get non-violent means to work better, I'll stop protesting paying for war preparations and our militaries. If they work better however, I ask you to consider what you can do to stop this
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
It's called "balls" you bunch of pansy-assed geeks.
5. Whine and complain if the enemy uses an AWP
TIAEAE!
This isn't going for skills it's going for battlefield intelligence training. Obviously there are better ways to train a soldier to point a gun than to hand them a mouse. This is entertaining, cheap training that all of the soldiers can use when they aren't on duty. Think checkpoint training...
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
I wish I had those mod points I didn't use the other day.
The point really is, a suicide bombing in Iraq, it's acceptible nowadays. The world views it as, "oh, the US deserves it". Sure, our involvement in the middle east is making the arab world hate us more. Suicide bombings every day, isn't making us go, "oh yeah, we'll just go home, everythign will be fine and dandy".
If we left now, what would happen? You'd have absolute chaos. The country would go to hell. Sure, you can bitch all you want about wether we should be there or not, the point is, we are there. It's spilled milk. We can't un-go there now.
Everyone is busy hating the US to actually work on improving the situation. It's easy to strap a bomb on a disenfranchised teenager filled with hormonal angst than to work with people to actually set up a system of government. It's easier to be an insurgent than to step up and be a policeman.
So retard blows up a school bus, and suddenly its the US's fault. Logic like that hurts just as much as the logic that brought us to war in the first place.
I see this as an excellent opportunity to make use of the millitary's super-secret robot project the "AWESOM-O 4000." These robots are just amazing... from the re-inforced rugged paper-based shell to the numerous spare-battery holders on the unit.
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
How many Therebucks for a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
Despite what your president said there weren't al-quida suicide bombers in Iraq before the war, but there are now.
You have to admit that there is a line of reasoning that says it's the American's fault.
"Snipers" will now be known as "camping whores"
Then network them together and they can do the whole war over the internet.
Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
Sorry, IE only, go jump in a lake, a cold one preferably.
I am the Barber of Seville.
You do have a legitimate argument about the apparent arrogance of American foreign policy, especially under the Bush administration.
What bothers me about much of this criticism isn't Bush's arrogance or the poorly planned war in Iraq, but the oh-so-convenient ignornace of recent European history.
The dead were being piled like cordwood in the Balkans before the Europeans did anything besides send ineffective peacekeepers who stood by and watched genocide take place, it took direct US military involvement to acheive anything resembling an end to hostilities. The French bombed a *Greenpeace* ship in a *New Zealand* harbor so they could perform a nuclear test without harassment. And the convenient forgetting of less recent European history. Alegeria. French Indochina. Congo. Rwanda. Palestine. Suez Canal. The list goes on.
It makes European criticism of Bush (regardless of how stupid Bush acts) seems really, really hypocritical. And then there's the sense that the Europeans have simply grown accomodating of Muslim extremism, either because they enjoy the trade with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and so on, or because they simply agree with anti-semitic sentiments surrounding the Israeli question.
Unfortunately, Islamic terror is hitting a lot closer to home for Europeans. The last time they chose appeasement, in 1938, it didn't work out so well. I keep wondering if they're willing to stop being mad at the US and face the reality of what they've been nurturing, both at home and abroad, or if the King of England will need to send forth crusaders to defend Europe again.
"As a kid growing in Europe at that time I felt extremely disinfranchised from both sides. "
I also grew up in europe during the 70's and it was clear which side was more of a threat to W Europe in Czech in 1968 and Poland in 1980.
"It was pretty clear the US was not going to help Europe in any way should the shit hit the fan."
not true: there were a lot of US troops in Germany all through the cold war, and they would certainly have been killed if a war had broken out. Hence my point: the US was willing to endanger its own people, viz, soldiers, to defend a geographical area outside their homeland.
a second example is that during the Cuba missile crisis, it weighed heavily with the US administration that Russia would probably attack W Berlin if the US attacked Cuba. A strong argument for the route Kennedy took, via Adlai Stevenson and the UN instead of just nuking the small, irritating island, was exactly to avoid giving Russia a pretext for a war in Europe.
"but I don't remember the US intervening in Rwanda. The UN eventually did."
This is misleading. The UN pulled out of Rwanda at the beginning against the advice of their military advisors on the ground. And France sold weapons to the Hutu government of Habyarimana. You're right about the UN being shackled: but that is because no large country, not just the US, wants it to interfere in their own affairs.
I didn't mean to imply that the US did anything in Rwanda, only that "no" country did anything effective. In the face of such hatred and potential mass murder, I would still prefer to rely on America "benefiting its own immediate interests" than any other country having their power. All countries evaluate their "immediate interests" and act accordingly. It seems to me that the America's interests aligned more with peace and freedom than any other great (former great?) power during the 20th century.
I'm not saying the US government is anywhere near perfect: but look at the alternatives.
We were explicitly told not to ever drive off the map. Doing so reset your height variable to 0. Driving back onto the map didn't change this, so you became a "submarine tank", able to see (and kill) everyone but nobody else could see you. They'd had several simulations ruined by people doing this, and SIMNET was very, very expensive to run in terms of time, money and personnel. It was cause for serious disciplinary action.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
If lives are saved and people are freed, do the ends justify the means?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Lets hope so. Since both sides are able to train this way. Or will they only allow connections from within the US? That would seem to be a wise idea. We really don't need to train all the worlds armies and terrorists in urban warfare, that would be stupid beyond belief.
But it is a fiction that we do these things out of the goodness of our hearts.
Finally, someone who admits it. Why can't all people be that way?
Japan? Germany? The entire Soviet bloc?
Regime changes in Japan and Germany were part of WW2. At least it's obvious that the original poster assumed this. And you certainly weren't directly involved in the Soviet regime change. Don't be ridiculous.
Read a book.
Reading books is no substitute for intelligence or common sense.
So are you, soldier tool. Please die in Iraq so I can fill my SUV with cheap gas, asshole.
Yeah, sure. Just make sure you have cover, not "cover". Assault rifle/machine gun rounds travel through thick trees, concrete walls and two feet of ground. Suddenly you don't have all that cover that games make you think you have.
What are you smoking?Assault rifle rounds might penetrate 2 feet of earth (depending on the type of earth we're talking about) but thick trees and concrete walls? No... you've been watching Navy Seals too much!
1947?
They could. But how long would it take for the whole army to rotate through it? Simulations allow a few guys to practice squad-level drills with simulated buddies, perhaps every afternoon in their own barracks. As it happens, there are some facilities where they do physical practice as you suggest - although they use lasers rather than paintball. Once the trainees have got their act together in the virtual worlds, then they can be let loose on the physical trainers without wasting everyone's time.
A good virtual world also supports mission rehearsal, if it can be configured to look like the street they will go down tomorrow. This simply can't be done with the physical Baghdad film set approach, where one size fits all cities.
Instead, continue to masturbate wildly while playing armchair general when in reality you're not even an NCO or flip burgers at McDonalds.
Where I live, attacking weak enemies (and ONLY weak enemies) is associated with the words "pussy" or maybe "bully".
Military force or the threat of force is essentially a repression of people's freedom.
To say that you are protecting freedom by really protecting the freedom of America's elite at the cost of the freedom of the rest of the world is straight hypocrisy.
Well, I don't know about others, but I have no beef with the poor soldiers sent to fight pointless wars. You guys have all my sympathy there.
I do blame the ones who make decisions, but... well, you know, somehow it's hard not to generalize some more. Seeing how US presidential ratings jump sky high each time someone gets bombed... sorta makes me suspect that _some_ people down there must indeed get all excited at the idea of bringing more war and instability to this planet.
I don't know who those people are. Probably not you. Still, kinda makes me nervous.
Now to be fair, it's not like the USA is that much different from the rest of the world.
I've seen, for example, such touching pieces as an interview with a widdow, somewhere in the middle east, some long time ago. She was showing a church where some of their people were hiding during an attack. Apparently an artillery shell went in through a window and exploded right inside it, killing everyone. She was asking for international support to... give their side some more weapons, so they can go do the same to the enemy. It made me sick.
And I'm not even getting into stuff like third world countries cheering that they've spent hundreds of billions on nuclear research, to terrorize some equally poor neighbour with. You'd think they could have done better stuff with that money. Like feed their own people. Build some factories. Whatever.
I'm starting to suspect that the human species as a whole is a little deffective.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Hey, its our money, we can spend it any way we like.....not for someone in another country to make a call on.
That huge military also protect other countries for free. We kept the border safe for decades between Europe and Soviet Union. We have people on the border between N & S Korea....and other places around the world. That costs money too....and other countries benefit from it. So, before you criticize too much...imagine the turmoil in the world if we just pulled out our troops from everywhere in the world...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You forgot some:
B elgium(1945)a (1944)
Britain(1776)
France(1944)
Luxembourg(1944)
Denmark(1945)
Greece(1944)
Albani
Iceland(1941)
Guam(1983)
This makes no sense. From now until the end of time there will be other humans who want to kill you for whatever reason. Unless you willingly become a slave or die they will bring the war to you.
are there any military sim games like this now, but available to regular civillian consumers?
after reading ender's game, starship troopers and a couple other military sci-fi books a while back, the idea of having a closer military sim started to appeal, but even on a higher level- we're talking about a whole army, a thousand people strong. and all of them humans, with a command chain like the regular military. perhaps with a sci-fi flavor and fun sci-fi toys- ansibles, armour suits or something like that, to aid in the game and possibly story.
i see two big virtual armies going at it. or navies, on sea or in space. you get the idea. you gain rank by doing well, etc etc. that would rule. i don't game much, esp on the PC- but are there games like this now or planned for the near future?
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Well, I don't know about others, but I have no beef with the poor soldiers sent to fight pointless wars. You guys have all my sympathy there.
Everyone who enlists in the US military knows very well that the country has been attacking weak nations for fun and profit throughout the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21th. If you don't want to take part in this, you should not enlist. If you do, however, expect no sympathy.
Nuking these small places in Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt all have bad effects for Israel, not to mention those near ground zero.
I would have reversed that, but I guess it's all about priorities.
If lives are saved and people are freed, do the ends justify the means?
Who the hell got free? You know what's going down at Abu Ghoryab? They have a CIA torture center there that is no different than anything Saddam built. Now it's just Paul Bremer in charge instead of Saddam.
The people they have released mostly say their crimes were things like arguing with troops. For which they got dumped in a torture center for months where they were beaten and spent their days locked into excrutiating positions with good ole Red, White, and Blue american piss-soaked bags over their heads.
I read all the Iraqi bloggers I can and one of the last holdouts that still held any hope for the US occupation finally left the camp after US soldiers threw his nephew over a dam.
This whole thing is fucked and all the tactical simulation on the planet isn't going to fix anything.
Not unless you can hook it up matrix style to everyone in America and program all the Iraqi's to love Americans and have the big political fight turn into whether they want to subscribe to the neoliberal New Republic or the neoconservative National Review and whether they want UN approval to help us invade Syria or just join the new coalition of the willing.
Wouldn't be a bad PR move for the election season.
That huge military also protect other countries for free.
There ain't no such thing as free lunch, remember?
It was in YOUR interest that the Soviet Union didn't gain too much allies in Europe. And it's in YOUR interest that European countries don't have large militaries. Because if they did, you would have a hard time bullying the UN.
A virtual enviroment for training! This will make US soldiers as dumb as a brick! The rest of the world will be able to trivially infiltrate and take possesion of the government!
Remember MGS?
I hearthly agree with you, it's hypocrite and kindof immature to throw facts to eachother and trying to forget a few for the sake of the argument.
...) poeple who tried their luck for a better life. They reside here with large numbers, and form much of the 'ghetto' overhere.(not to extremes though, but it's very clear it's a social problematic group; And not because of racial differencesn but that's a whole other subject.) We have legal procedures of legalizing them in our country; if they get refused (or are ordered to leave the country) they try again in the same or another country.
And you're right about Islam terror breading here too, but what's the cause of that?
Of all wars and bad life-conditions, we have been getting fugitives, (political, warvictims,
We cannot just "kick them all out", for obvious reasons.(the party trying to promote that idea after immer growing criminality is being boycotted, legacy of hitler(tm))) And ofcourse, the moslims, or whatever grouping (may it be Indian, Chinese, whatever.. *Human") is feeling it's called for their fatherlands' needs or even 'god' in some same cases, and groups up "to protect what they believe is just."
I'm not certain with this statement; but I actually believe it's a EU regulation.
Think there has been stated "we proved a multicultural society can work". Which is true, to some extend.
(here is this 'well.. we invited them in the first place to work for us in the mines, cause we didn't want to' - I'm not mentioning.)
You know, it just goes over and over.. each one has it's arguments, and it's probably all valid in one or more ways.
But, war is just not good;
The EU may be very carefull before it takes actions, but it has the whole "lets not just blow our way through it" thing right IHMO.
I am certain that every war ever has had a motivation which could be considered as an acceptable cause..
But war reminds me at the darkages.. where they bashed eachother skulls in order to persuide someone of their right or wrong. (even with missiles you can hit a fly with at the other side of the world, it's all the same...)
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
OMG, an enlisted loser who talks like a general...
Unfortunately, Islamic terror is hitting a lot closer to home for Europeans. The last time they chose appeasement, in 1938, it didn't work out so well. I keep wondering if they're willing to stop being mad at the US and face the reality of what they've been nurturing, both at home and abroad, or if the King of England will need to send forth crusaders to defend Europe again.
Is that a joke?
I'm not going to waste typing into this (way way OT) and
...
Unacceptable as in; respect for human beings, and acts that show intelligence instead of hate / arrogange / greed /
The "humans who want to kill you for whatever reason" are a threat to the functioning and harmony of a society. Who kills is a murdered and a murdered will be taken of his rights as a member of that society. (eg freedom, you used to lose your head or would been publically scolded / tortured and left to die for that, you still get death-penalty in some US states if I'm correct.)
Look.. I don't hate the US nor you; this isn't a personal attack to anyone...
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
the US has only used nukes once since they were created, the deterent was to other countries with the same capabilities (those countries have since become our allies, tho the theoretical deterent still exists)
the guy with bombs strapped to his chest is going to kill people, as many as he can. not since the 1800's has the US purposely killed as many people as it could just for the sake of killing them. (arguably, but I contend that there has since always been a larger reason for the force used, if miscalculated) terrorists do this to undermine social stability and simply kill those who disagree with them. (note: by being of a different nationallity, you are instantly labelled as disagreeing with them, it's not a choice thing)
it's an apple and oranges thing... when was the last time Bush threatened to nuke france if they didn't do what we wanted them to? in spite thier differences, the US allowed france to make its own choice.
my fear would be that we get a terrorist regime in charge of the US's or another countries nukes... then the deterent is of no value, destruction of the world may well be thier desired end...
"...and I am _not_ intoxicated... YET!" --John Wayne
Man I would love to have a sim where the punishment for TKing and PKing is that the idiot gets a real court marshall!
And you're right about Islam terror breading here too, but what's the cause of that?
It's not America OR Israel; it's the clash of a rigid belief system against a modern world culture that rejects many of its beliefs. Unfortunately, instead of attempting to reconcile Islam with modernity, its leaders have instead chosen a rear-guard action to "defeat" Islam's "enemies".
WTF.....point me one incident where HAMAS attacked US citizens...though Israel has(remember the lady journalist....she was crushed by a tank brutally)
You have completely misunderstood what is going on here. The military is not replacing field exercises in their various urban mockups. Sims like this can replace the old sand tables with a model of terrain, building, etc. to be assaulted. This is an improvement since the troops do not only get the birds eye view they also get the boots on the ground perspective as they maneuver the virtual streets.
This is not unlike flight simulators. Before a mission flight sims have been loaded with a model of the approach terrain and target and pilots have flown the simulated mission a few times to get familiar with waypoints, references, terrain, hazards, target, etc. Pilots have said this can be helpful before flying the real mission. Again, its better than only looking at photos
I'd suspect a lot of them got into it just to earn a living, or to get an education. I don't think everyone was basically thrilled to go get shot in Iraq.
Or to put it otherwise, it's like saying that everyone who got a drivers' license knew that accidents happen, so they don't deserve any sympathy. Well, they did know, but they believed it would never happen to them.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Actually, this piece of software is just going to waste our (U.S. tax payers') money. I've seen a demo of the civilian version and it's a bunch of crap. The military has too much money to spend on extraneous garbage (America's Army PC game, prime-time recruiting commercials, general's salaries, TIA). Someone at the software company had a line to a procurement officer at the Pentagon, showed them technology that wouldn't wow you if you knew anything about 3D worlds, and sold them on it.
" I felt extremely disinfranchised from both sides."
Yeah, that is correct.
There was no difference between France being "occupied" by US and Czech Republic being occupied by SU after WW2.
Both of them ended up with a similar social system and similar personal freedoms.
God damn!! You are fucking wacko! The world is a much better place BECAUSE of America. I sware, I wish people like you would be wisked off to an alternate universe where America was never born. In that case...
You might still be dealing with the Nazis. (Europe = total clusterfucked part of the world)
You you would Japan to deal with.
You would have the Soviet Union to deal with.
N. Korea would have ruled over S. Korea.
Life is not for the lazy.
We are fighting for the freedom (=prosperity) of those who matter, the people from developed nations.
Mankind advances by the progress of its leading edge, not the mass of backward, tribal, religious "useless eaters" in the rest of the world.
Freedom vs tyrany = war. It's a never ending battle between those who want to oppress and those who want to fend of oppression. Who knows, in a few hundred years America may need the help of Europe to free itself from some nasty communist regime. Freedom must be protected at all cost regarded who you are and where you live.
Now you know. And knowing is half the battle. YO JOE!!!
Life is not for the lazy.
I was only half joking. But truth is, I would NEVER want to be in combat without real military training. However, these games did teach me more about combat firsthand then simply reading a book on the subject alone.
Life is not for the lazy.
It is true that nowadays the European military union doesn't exist and that the Kosovo was a disgrace, but I don't remember the US intervening in Rwanda. The UN eventually did.
Nobody intervened in the Rwandan genocide. UN peacekeepers did eventually move in to Rwanda, but at that point the killing was over. About a million had died.
Dude, there are certainly other ways to make a living or get an education (and I don't mean having rich parents).
And having to fight other peoples' wars when you enlisted in the military is hardly comparable to an accident. After all, that's the whole purpose of the military. Seeing in how many conflicts all over the world the US is involved, you should really consider that when signing up.
You might still be dealing with the Nazis. (Europe = total clusterfucked part of the world)
Uh, no... in that case: Europe = A strong, united empire with a high tech military.
You you would Japan to deal with.
So?
You would have the Soviet Union to deal with.
Who knows, they might as well have been blitzed in that universe...
N. Korea would have ruled over S. Korea.
Who the fuck cares? Let the Japanese take over that crap country if they want it.
not the mass of backward, tribal, religious "useless eaters" in the rest of the world
True, no one needs those parasitic Republicans...
Interesting Theory. Except the sunni triangle is not Basra or Northern Ireland.
... can it be too far behind?
"Medic! Medic"
"Inaminute, I'm almost to the 15th level!"
feloneous
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
"But war reminds me at the darkages.. where they bashed eachother skulls in order to persuide someone of their right or wrong."
That is correct.
On the other hand if you want to have you skull bashed without even attempting to defend yourself then this is your right.
Do not forget that there are people and regimes that will use against you every bit of reason and "good will" you afford to them.
If you want a peace - prepare for war.
Thank you, you've shown me a new level of stupidity.
You mean Rachel Corrie. And of course there's the USS Liberty.
There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of. No one else seriously wants to do this.
Change against to to help and you have a different point of view, eh?
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
of course you'll notice that the grandparent post (the guy who said we should blame his commanders and that he's blameless because he's doing what they said) was an Anonymous Coward too.
How about we get the soldiers to play a MMO game, then we elect a president that isn't a warmonger (not that we elected this one in the first place), stop using 9/11 to advocate perpetual fear and justify power grabs and stomp on civil liberties, respect Kyoto and ballistic missile treaties, and not use the Constitution for toilet paper.
Overall I like the video game idea. It'd be neat to simulate urban ground assaults.
What Freedom? 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendment rights have been suspended. Gun Control Act Terrorism Act Patriot Act 1 and 2 War Powers Act 1 and 2 ... many more
Not that I agree with either post, but we don't protect our borders or our economic stability.
Full Spectrum Warrior is where its at june 9th i believe it comes out.
np, you bloody piece of shite
It would be a wrong point of view, but it would certainly be different, yes.
Hello!
I am a liberal pinhead, you insensitive clod!
"He who runs away lives to fight another day."
I don't understand your thought process. I assume that you're not from the United States given your analogy of the United States being terrorists to the world. The United States is protecting itself from a perceived threat while a terrorist will outright kill civilians. Terrorists attack those who cannot defend themselves... they attack civilians who may not even be aware of the issues they are fighting for, and not those trained in the military who represent the government they oppose. They do this because they are cowards, plain and simple.
To imply that The United States is a terrorist organization is a gross exaggeration, and an ill-informed statement. Perhaps instead of the rest of the world criticizing the United States, they would help contribute to our fight against terrorism.
I am an American, a natural born citizen, and a student of liberty. I think the US's foreign policy stinks, and our use of unilateral force is totally hypocritical.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
What are you smoking?Assault rifle rounds might penetrate 2 feet of earth (depending on the type of earth we're talking about) but thick trees and concrete walls?
Funny... that's I was taught in the military. Maybe not your puny 5.45s but those Iraqis use AK-47s with 7.62 rounds, which will go through 2 inches of concrete or a tree more than a foot thick.
Terrorists attack those who cannot defend themselves...
The US attacks third world countries without real armies and no real chance of defending themselves. If that isn't cowardly, then I don't know what is.
the "benevolent dictator" the US installed so as to get a nice, compliant secular regime in the area?
Mmmmmm..... MMOTTS.....
And this is the point, the more time kids spend infront of the computer, the fatter and lazyer their ass will become. And as far as I know, mouse movement speed and precision are not critical for handling an M16. Not to mention the effect of long hours of gamming will bring to the player's eyes. I mean, would you like your l337 sniper unable to see more than 3 meters without his glasses?
I konw it's good for training navigation and stuffs like that, but isn't it better to just send people to a huge shopping mall?
My how you've become a stout ignoramus these days...
"Where does the Al Qaeda thing fit with the Iraq war?"
They came in when the parent said "they don't any real enemies."
But even then I don't think the actions of al Qaeda are justification to use stratiegic nuclear weapons on anybody.
But why do you compare The United States to terrorists? Can you think of a specific example where this is true? Maybe I'm wrong, give me an example... Otherwise your argument has no merit....
The US sponsors petty dictatorships in little countries all over the world.
The US response to 3000+ civilians killed on 9/11/01 was to kill many more than that number of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with "legitimate" military targets. Of course, anyone attacking "legitimate targets" in the US command structure would be illegal, but it's perfectly OK for the US to attack anything it perceives as a threat.
We're good, so it's OK for us to point guns at you, because we need to be safe and free. But you can't point guns back at us, because that's an illegitimate use of fear to advance your agenda, which is the definition of terrorism. When we "accidentally" kill civilians of other countries, it is "regrettable" but when other power kill our civilians, it's cause for retributive war. To my way of looking at things, the civilians are dead either way.
But for some reason it's OK for the US to wrongly kill people accidentally in the pursuit of justice and to secure freedom for "everyone". And it's OK for the US to dismantle the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms because they make controlling the government unsafe and make business unprofitable.
Buy a clue: you can't establish democracy by pointing guns at people and telling them they must govern themselves in such and such a way in order to become "free", and shooting some of them when they don't react the way you expect they should react.
All of this was precipitated on an extremist unilateral position, with US leadership proclaiming that you're either with us or against us. Rather than making anyone safer or bringing "justice" to the world, these actions have resulted in decreased global stabilization and many more recruits for all the terrorist organizations.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The United States is reacting to what they think is a threat. Of course we weren't running down civilians with our tanks for sport as you suggest, but we declared a war and there are guaranteed casualties! We didn't send a jumbo jet into a large city, or flat out nuke them. We are attacking these governments because they harbor and support these terrorists that hurt/kill civilians ON PURPOSE... Not because we simply object to their way of life.
As for sponsoring petty dictatorships, which countries? Do you know people that live in these countries? Have you been to these countries?
You think it's more important to have the freedom to control their resources (which they will have anyway) than to have the freedom to practice the religion of their choosing, to speak out against the government, and freedom from torture?
That's sad.
(PS - almost none of the Iraqis had any control over their countries wealth under Saddam. Why do you think they starved while he built palaces and accumulated billions of dollars of wealth?
Gotten some balls? You mean gotten slaughtered, like the Kurds (you remember? the ones who had balls and resisted?).
What does the motive matter if the end result is the same?
*I* don't support the war because the US could benefit from it. Canada won't be getting much out of the war.
But wait, the US was supposed to be hijacking their oil lines. They could easily do that if they wanted to, but they haven't.
The last time they chose appeasement, in 1938, it didn't work out so well.
"Last time they chose appeasement"... are you really sure about that? How do you know?
Appeasement is the sort of thing that only really gets noticed when it fails.
Only a fool would assume that they would do it so openly as "hijacking the oil lines"...
More like the current crop of FPS teaches you that, unlike what the military thinks:
1. Weapons have some ludicrious spread, so you have to go point blank to use them. (E.g., if a squad support weapon had the idiotic spread from CS, it would be f***ing useless at its rated effective range. Noone takes cover if the probability to get hit is once in half an hour of full auto firing.)
2. Which is ok, because all battles happen at 100 ft ranges. Any battlefield will be small and surrounded by conveniently placed fences, barriers, small twigs, and other unpassable obstacles.
3. Suppression never works. Not on NPCs, not on players, never.
4. The enemy always wears clearly identifiable uniforms or outfits, and you know exactly where they spawned.
5. For that matter, you know where everything is on the map.
6. There are no surprise attacks, and no standing guard for 3 hours in the rain. You know when they attack, because the round just started.
7. Jumping is always better than running. Experienced veteran troops bunny-hop their way to the enemy lines.
8. Just as good that you can jump, because you can't _climb_ over any obstacles. Ever. Even if it's a small chair or a low chainlink fence, you just have to jump over.
9. If it's too tall, you can always grenade/rocket jump. Shooting a grenade at your own feet won't hurt you much.
10. For that matter, they don't hurt the enemy too much either.
11. Everything is solvable by camping in... erm... sniping from a hidden corner. Even attack missions. Heck, _especially_ attack missions. Even if nothing comes in front of your sniper scope, at least you didn't get fragged in that round.
Etc, etc, etc.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Do you know people that live in these countries? Have you been to these countries?
Is that important? You even been to Iraq other than on government paid vacation (read "duty")?
1 foot != thick tree and 2 inches of concrete is a far cry from wall thickness in most applications. So the claim of "concrete walls and thick trees" is still overstated.
Ok, fine, you can blame Americans all you want. So now what? It's our fault. Let's go home and let the place collapse into chaos. Great! That'll work. Or we can finish the job. We can stay, stablize the country and rebuilt it.
That is what needs to be done. We can crumble and buckle to terrorism like Spain, but that would be a bigger sin. Whatever your thoughts on invading are, leaving now is worse. We have to stay and help rebuild. We need to stablize the government. You do realize a free, stable, and prospurose Iraq would radically alter the reigon.
If we stay and demostrate that we are willing to sacrifice ourselves and rebuild the country and help them achieve peace and stablitiy, then it will be awfully hard for extremists to recruit new people.
But, I guess, since it's all our fault, we should just leave now, say we are sorry and go home. I mean, Spain was attack, that is what they did. Would that make it better?
No. The best thing possible for the country is to have American troops stay there and work together to rebuild.
Blaming America doesn't help at all. What does that accomplish? All is does is stir up anger and drive more people to extremist groups.
You blame America, you don't get people cooperating with American forces. Then, you get groups bickering over provisionary constitutions, nothing gets set up, and everythign goes to hell.
Maybe it's time to stop being childish and blaming america for everything, and to start blaming the whackos blowing themselves up, trying to win over a piece of the city for the local warlord.
It is important. He is implying that the government is not truthfully reflecting the situation in Iraq. I happen to believe the government, so I want to know what the basis for his statements are.
You think it's more important to have the freedom to control their resources (which they will have anyway) than to have the freedom to practice the religion of their choosing, to speak out against the government, and freedom from torture? That's sad.
No, that's not sad. How about I assume control over all of America's natural resources and let you practice your fucking religion and speak out against me. Do you think that shit really means anything in the long run?
It doesn't.
almost none of the Iraqis had any control over their countries wealth under Saddam. Why do you think they starved while he built palaces and accumulated billions of dollars of wealth?
Oh, I nearly forgot to answer that... here's a hint: it could have something to do with a certain embargo... Iraq was actually not all mud and desert before the first war, you know.
Perhaps building a sim where the idea is to think about what you are doing before you kill thousands of civillians would be a good idea.
Check out September 12th, this is precisely the sim you are talking about!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Interesting points.
Got proof? An Iraqi blog may be a starting point, but didn't Slashdot just have an article on how blogs are a horrible source of information? I'm NOT saying I don't believe it. I'm just saying one source for information is not the best way to go about becoming learned on a subject.
We're talking about a whole nother beast here, Dave. If you actually sat and listened to what the crazy things being said you would notice the single most important idea to greet the earth thus far: terrorists are drunks. Thats right. Osama is a bigger drunk than [T]ed[ward] Kennedy. Thanks for trying though Dave, I'll see you in class on monday and discuss it with you further as discussion on the internet is less than productive.
> It seems to me that the America's interests
> aligned more with peace and freedom than any other
> great (former great?) power during the 20th
> century.
I will agree that all the former little superpowers of the 20th century in Europe behaved apallingly. I would still argue that America's interests are certainly not aligned with peace or freedom, certainly not now. America also props up horrible dictators, sells arms to butchers (no name needed) and only invoke peace and freedom when it suits them.
This is a feature of all superpowers, not just the USA, nothing personal here.
> there were a lot of US troops in Germany all
> through the cold war, and they would certainly
> have been killed if a war had broken out. Hence
> my point: the US was willing to endanger its own
> people, viz, soldiers, to defend a geographical
> area outside their homeland.
I don't understand that argument, there were certainly a lot of Russian soldiers in East Germany as well, or for that matter everywhere East of the curtain. Does that implies that the Soviets were somehow good guys?
The alternative is a UN that works. Don't laugh. I mean *that works*. This means everyone giving up a lot of power: no more veto at the SC, majority of 2/3rds in general assembly decides what goes. The UN also needs a stronger army with more on-the-ground capacity for independent intervention. Something along that line will just have to happen eventually. I just hope it won't take another century and another WW.
I don't know why the UN pulled out of Rwanda. Someone was pulling the strings if the advisors were saying otherwise.
"I don't understand that argument, there were certainly a lot of Russian soldiers in East Germany as well, or for that matter everywhere East of the curtain. Does that implies that the Soviets were somehow good guys?"
:-) I don't think America only invokes peace and freedom when it suits them, I believe the western democracies have an inbuilt "moral" compass called elections. This allows governments to be judged on their actions and changed. This is not a perfect system, but I have yet to see a better one.
My argument is that the Americans were here at the "request" of the western european powers as a result of the victory in WW2 to prevent Soviet expansion.
The symmetry between Soviet soldiers in eastern europe and American ones in western europe is broken because after the war, America did not systematically imprison and kill those brits, French, Belgians, etc, that had fought against the Nazis; Russia went about exterminating Poles, Czechs and others who had fought AGAINST the Nazis but who were not communist.
The symmetry is also broken because America did not interfere in the political process of britain, france, etc, in electing their politicians nor back up "their" candidates with tanks rolling down Whitehall or the Champs Elysees. Russia did both. America did get involved in wars that caused huge suffering, but in both cases (Korea and Vietnam) the wars were started by third countries (France in Vietnam) and turned into proxy wars between the two superpowers.
There is no comparison that I can see between America in western europe and Russia in eastern europe, so my conclusion is that the Americans were here for the benefit of europeans, not just their own benefit. Sure, America wanted Russia kept out of western europe, but they didn't have to slaughter europeans to get their aim, europeans were happy to have them. Russia had to continually suppress eastern europeans to maintain their army.
To be frank, I cannot see how you can argue for a symmetry between Soviet Russia's actions in europe and America's. I mean, even DURING the war, Russia behaved appallingly. Over 1,000,000 women were RAPED in eastern europe and Germany by the Soviet Red army. What did America do on this scale? And this is not just a random statistic, A recent book (whose title I admittedly have forgotten but I can find it again) quotes figures and historical evidence for these figures in detail. (And I don't think the bombing campaigns in Germany are relevant here, even though their military use is highly disputable, especially as they were carried out by Britain not America.)
Yes, America has behaved badly during the Cold War, being a superpower means that your actions have larger consequences: and when policies are made with (sometimes) benign intentions they can still do wrong. But, again, you have to look at the comparisons: no other country has behaved better.
As for a workable UN, I think it would be a great help. But I am not optimistic. To get there one has to persuade all large countries that they should cede sovereignty to a body that may be dominated by countries who could gang up on them, risk having their national security threatened by vetoes, or other bureaucratic devices, and have to pay more for other (poorer) countries to benefit. The UN is basically a horse-trading place, where countries vie to gain influence, and no country is in it for the benefit of others. This is the nature of power.
Finally