"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.

Comments

It has to be said...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's been said better, that we need moral authority over the world. We really are better than the rest of the world, not perfect, just better. Naked human pyramids, guard dogs, and hoods, while not even half as bad as what our enemy does to us, nevertheless severely erode our moral authority.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the Congress to provide a check over the executive branch when there's ample evidence that our moral credibility is slipping away, especially in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people climbing out of the ruins of a failed state.

Re:It has to be said...

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking troll. Sure, he didn't say "the events in Abu Ghraib require Bush to commit hara-kiri on live TV". Nor did he say "we were right to use torture because it might have prevented one of our soldiers stubbing his toe on a concealed brick". He presented a fair and balanced view: that the actions of the American troops were not as bad as some of the things Saddams have done, but at the same time, they were still inexcusable. In other words, they were neither purely good nor purely evil.

I realise people like you have difficulty understanding that the world contains shades of grey, but keep at it. Try listening to Rush Limbaugh as well as Michael Moore, or even better find someone moderate and balanced to listen to.

Listen to this: Bush isn't stupid and Saddam wasn't evil. Both left and right-wing extremists will say I just said something ridiculous. But I didn't. Come back when you've grown up enough to accept that.

Re:It has to be said...

[dangermouse]

Which is, of course, crap. It is not only possible but also moral to make value judgments. It's not only possible but moral to say that killing a hostage brutally and cruelly on videotape is worse than putting a bag over a prisoner's head for three days.

I keep hearing this. I guess you're the thousandth person to have said it or something, because you're the lucky winner of my response.

1. Bags over the prisoners' heads was the least of it. Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were attacked by dogs, isolated for long periods of time, and tortured to death. So let's not pretend the torture at Abu Ghraib was some minor infraction of niggling rules.
2. You cannot justify, excuse, or mitigate the torture of prisoners by pointing out the barbaric acts of an unrelated group of people.
3. You cannot justify, excuse, or mitigate the torture of prisoners with events that happened after the torture occurred.
4. You cannot justify, excuse, or mitigate torture.
5. Judging the unquestionably barbaric actions of one group relative to the unquestionably barbaric acts of another is a really shitty way to go about morality.

6. Call me a "radical leftist", I guess.

Re:It has to be said...

[gangien]

You cannot justify, excuse, or mitigate torture.

You can't? I can, if by torturing someone, you get information that saves countless lives, I'd call that justified.

That said, I have no idea what they have/would/could of gotten out of this instance. And nore am I condoning it, but I'm not for outlawing it either.

Re:It has to be said...

[Colazar]

It is definitely immoral, except in situations where it's morally imperative. And it's actually a very good way to get information, which is why we do it. And by "we" I don't just mean Americans. I mean human beings in general. We learned thousands of years ago that torture is a great way to get to the truth, so when we need to get to the truth, that's the method we use.

Here's the problem. The kind of torture that actually works to get information is slow. The kind of situations that might actually justify torture are situations where you need the information quickly. If you have the time it takes to properly torture someone in such a way that you have enough confidence that you can actually *trust* the information, there was almost certainly a more morally defensible way to get that information.

Another big problem is when you *don't know* whether or not someone has any information at all. Torture is not a good way to do your sorting, either morally, or from a resource allocation standpoint.

Not very well thought out though

[why-is-it]

I did find the satire and the backdrop of a video game a very interesting way for the author to express his opinion.

It was interesting, but I found his underlying premise that the ends justify the means to be rather immature and more than a little offensive.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Yeah, he made some really good points. But because he came at it from the angle he did, it made me sympathize with Bush about how hard it would be to win a war like the one we are engaged in in Iraq. All of the various things that come up that make it so you lose no matter what you do (even if you defeat the "enemy" you still haven't "won".

So what? Real war is not a game. But to quote Wargames, "the only way to win, is not to play." The article was written as though Bush was forced into some horrible situation he has little chance of winning in. Who forced him to go to war with Iraq? Sometimes I think maybe he wanted to have a real war game, so he made one.

No, it didn't

[why-is-it]

we need moral authority over the world. We really are better than the rest of the world, not perfect, just better.

Time to feed the trolls...

I suppose that the only thing holding you back from perfection would be arrogance and an apparant lack of humility...

Given your obvious superiority, why did you feel the need to post anonymously?

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[protohiro1]

No kidding. To that I say to Mr. Bush: "oh, you mean you are really damned if you do, damned if you don't and you are trapped in an unwinnable quagmire? Well boo hoo, if you'd listened when we told you this was a bad idea and not lied your way into this situation you wouldn't have to deal with it."

I really disagree with him on a lot of his political points, but you've gotta love the "you can't handle the truth" hot key. I love that movie and I really love that scene. But I always interpreted the point of the scene differently. I thought the general looked pathetic, that he really believed that his mission to protect freedom made the ends worth the means. Of course, his mission was to protect Gitmo from cuba, which is a pretty damn useless missions.

But I really like the idea of Donald Rumsfeld, standing in front of some congressional commission:

Senator McCain: Mr. Rumsfeld, did you order the homorerotic abuse?

Rumsfeld: I did the job you sent me to do.

Senator McCain: Did you order the homorerotic abuse?

Rumsfeld: You're goddamn right I did!

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Rayonic]

Frankly, I find it frightening that some people can just assume the worst about the President of the United States.

Arguably, we were doomed to re-invade Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War. Obviously Saddam wasn't interesting in holding up his end of the cease-fire agreement, and the sanctions/no-fly-zones/etc weren't meant to last for all eternity.

No, something about the fact that he created a giant international web of corruption around the Oil-For-Food program kinda tipped me off that Saddam wasn't planning on ever playing nice.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[protohiro1]

You know what, you're right. Saddam was never planning on playing nice. But I still don't see why that means we were doomed to re-invade. I know its a tired arguement, but there are a lot of not nice governments and we aren't invading their countries. Saddam does not seem to have posed any serious threat to the United States, immediate or otherwise. There is no evidence to suggest any relationship between Saddam and Al Quaida, and 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, let alone the United States.

I assume the worst because their is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The lead up to war and the intelligence supporting it demonstrates either gross incompetence or deliberate misleading on the part of the administration. 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.

So its not an assumption. I wasn't against this war because I'm naive, stupid or ignorant. (although its possible I'm all three and don't know it...) This war never struck me as necessary. If it was the administration has completely failed to demonstrate that it has been worth the cost in lives, money and international esteem.

If that frightens you, well, sorry. The president frighens me

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Wubby]

Like the Vx rockets found by the Brits?
Huh? source?

The (probable) Serin bomb that went off yesterday?
Already shown to be unexploded ordinance from Gulf War 1.

And that VX likely came through Saudi Arabia, who are known to support terrorism, have links to the 19 highjackers and family ties to GWB!

I see it from the other perspective:

The scant information that DOES support WMD is the little that could be found and the press is hawking it for all its worth.

The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to buy uraniam from Niger.. AFTER being told it was NOT true (Translation: lied)

Al-Queda/Saddam links are non-existant. There is not one credible source that says there is and plenty credible ones that says there isn't (CIA, Brit Intel, UN).

I think that the US media has painted the brightest picture possible and still be considered independant. There are plenty of documented cases of government planted news stories that make seem a lot better than it is.

If you wanting Soldiers, Marines, and Sailers to die over known lies that's fine... but I've served my country and would rather the friends I know are there to come home safe. Disregarding international law on the treatment of prisoners will only put them in danger. That is why the US Military has ALWAYS supported the Geneva Convention and fought against the current Administrations attempts to side step it. Real fighting men know how the world really works: "Senetors Son (GWB)" and deferment takers (VP) don't!

Try thinking for yourself for a change.

I see the US media trying to make it seem better than it really is.

Side note: You can't force a democracy. History has shown that only creates terrorists. (Haiti, Somalia, Viet Nam, Korea, etc.)

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Dr. Manhattan]

Okay, let's game it out. It's post 9-11, and Saddam actually has WMDs. What are his options?

• Attack one of his neighbors, either conventionally or with WMDs.

  Result: Gulf War II, only with full international support, and they don't stop short of Baghdad.

• Attack Israel, either conventionally or with WMDs.

  Result: At least airstrikes. If he actually used WMDs, I wouldn't be shocked if Israel used nukes in retaliation. Conceivably Gulf War II.

• Attack the US, with or without WMDs.

  Result: Gulf War II, squared. Probably not nukes, but every single 'palace' is a smoking crater and few if any are willing to hide him.

• Give Al Quaeda WMDs.

  Result: If it's ever traced back to him (and keeping secrets like that isn't all that easy), see above. He was mostly a secular leader anyway; hooking up with religious fanatics who didn't like him much wouldn't be a great idea.

• Maintain the status quo.

  Result: Pretty good, from Saddam's perspective. He's still rich and comfortable. He can jerk the price of oil around a bit by rattling sabers if he wants to tweak the U.S. He gets a bit of support from his neighbors by appearing to stand up to the 'Great Satan'.

Saddam's a sick, evil SOB, but (a) no sicker than a lot of other Thugocrats in the world that no one seems to care about, and (b) he isn't stupid. He can see the consequences of the above actions the same as anybody. They'd be hard to miss after Kuwait. He was, pretty much, contained by the status quo. He certainly posed no serious threat to the U.S. except by his influence over the price of oil.

He had no connection to 9-11, and I call BS on anyone who claims different. And, as has become increasingly clear, he didn't have vast stockpiles of WMDs. He just didn't. He had some, but I think he was mostly running a bluff. He tried to make it at least seem possible that he did have a signficant amount, to make invading Iraq seem more costly.

But he didn't think the current U.S. administration would use that bluff, along with the specter of 9-11, to ram through PNAC's war. He overestimated us.

A side point: we had plenty of support for, and little to no active opposition to, our invasion of Afghanistan. We had a population that didn't like the existing theocracy and were willing to go for a more secular government. If we'd spent the kind of money there that we are currently hemmoraging in Iraq, where would we be now?