Slashdot Mirror
"Real" Real Time Strategy?
Mr. Fluffyhead writes "This hardcore RTS gamer's rather thoughtful wish list asks the question, if somebody made a 'real' war sim, would anyone want to play it?" From the fake Newsweek cover story about the "Ultralisk Rape Scandal" to Mr. Wong's yearning to break the Geneva Convention in pixel form, this one's a humourous yet realistic look at real time war games.
Let's catalogue your sins.
there are a lot of not nice governments and we aren't invading their countries
Sin of false equivalence. If you are unable to distinguish between the government of Iraq and the government of, say, Yemen, then you are either insufficiently informed or lacking in moral conscience. To wit: Iraq invaded a neighbor, fought a war, lost, surrendered, and agreed to a set of terms that included verifiable disarmament. They refused to comply with those terms.
Saddam does not seem to have posed any serious threat to the United States
Sin of willful blindness. Saddam was personally writing checks in the amount of $25,000 to families of murder-bombers. He was paying for terrorism. The fact that that terrorism was not, at the time, directed toward the United States is hardly a point on which I'd like to bet my family's lives.
There is no evidence to suggest any relationship between Saddam and Al Quaida
Sin of willful blindness, instance #2. You're ignoring the intelligence we have from the Czech republic tying Iraqi Military Intelligence to al-Qaida before 9/11, the documentary evidence of same uncovered in Baghdad after the invasion, and the extensive evidence uncovered by our own treasury department linking Iraqi Military Intelligence to al-Qaida through Ansar al-Islam.
if Saddam had any deployable WMDs (which is unlikely) they were certainly far from a state of readiness at which they would pose any threat to the even the neighbors of Iraq
Sin of willful blindness, instance #3. We know without a doubt that Saddam had deployable WMD, because one of them went off in Baghdad yesterday. An artillery shell is about as deployable as it gets.
But that's not all. We know that Saddam had proscribed long-range missiles aimed at both Israel and Kuwait before and during the invasion because (1) our special forces troops on the ground destroyed them in the western desert, and (2) Iraqi forces fired them at Kuwait City during the invasion.
The lead up to war and the intelligence supporting it demonstrates either gross incompetence or deliberate misleading on the part of the administration.
I don't even know how to describe this sin. You're choosing to believe false accusations and ignore evidence. You're blinded by your prejudices.
The handling of Iraq since the invasion has been a complete disaster, mostly due to an (apparhent) complete failure to anticipate anything but the most rosy of post war senarios.
Yeah. Willful blindness again, I guess. "Quagmire!"
Do you get all your news from The Guardian, or what?
I write in my journal
I tend to stop reading AC posts that begin their arguement calling me a 'liberal fuck'.
I suggest you take a course on effective communication, or spend your time somewhere far, far away from society.
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
I guess it was hoping too much that you would argue with proper reasons as to why I was wrong rather than just an ad hominem attack and some name calling
Yes, I'm a goth, so what? And I think I'm goth because I go to goth clubs and take past in the UK goth community, though I will admit that I have lapsed somewhat in the last year or so. I'm also a 25 year old software engineer, and I'm not on drugs.
Here's a few things though, fucktard:
When you grow up you will realize that real life doesn't fit your broken idealism
Indeed, my idealism does not fit the world. That's the point of idealism, to aspire to ideals that don't currently exist. Te world is full of arseholes who are too willing to treat other people badly for their own ends. A few more idealists would be a good thing, not a bad thing. It seems like realism is actually all too often an excuse for atrocity and abuse.
The block they were on was used for iraqis OR FOREIGN FIGHTERS who were capture plotting against, or who had taken action against the US.
and this was proved in a verifiable and just way exactly how?
POW's don't get trials
No, but they do get basic rights accorded to them by the geneva convention, which even the USA is a signatory to. And one of those is freedom from physical or psychological torture.
Tortured to death? Are you on fucking crack?
No, I've been reading the news reports, unlike you it would appear. Having dogs set on them and being tortured severely enough to cause death are things that have been reported. They just weren't in the photos.
The pain of having panties on their heads? Yeah that must have hurt just as much as Nick Berg getting his throat cut right?
1) by this point I was talking of a hypothetical situation in which an innocent man was under torture by mistaken identity or mistaken evidence.
2) There is significant material to suggest that the Nick Berg video has been tampered with, the sound effects are taken from stock and also that the body was dead before the beheading. Things like the lack of blood, the lack of movement from Mr Berg (even when the soundtrack is screams).
Also, i don't get why (if the nick berg thing is the truth) the fact that some time later, after all the abuse takes place, the death of an american by extremists/nutballs suddenly excuses the american nation from systematic abuse charges? Yes, they did that. they are the bad guys, you are supposed to be beacons of shining light, goodness, democracy etc (by your own words). And you fail miserably.
In conclusion, I portend that it is you that is the fourteen year old in this discussion, or that you are just hoplessly naive and unquestioning of authority.
One more reason that the rest of the world has fallen out of love with the US of A.