"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

Hmmm...

[SuperMo0]

Now where have we seen the "Fog of Bullshit" before.... *wink* *wink*

Re:Hmmm...

[JustNiz]

It seems this game will be a Microsoft product then...

Real Real Time?

[Vargasan]

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't want to play a game that takes 5 - 8 real-time months to build a barracks. Might lose it's feel.

Re:Real Real Time?

[cgenman]

Yes, but it would be great to use a percentage of your units to shuffle around some nosy reporters, keeping them away from any real carnage (except for returning boxes) and thereby getting your enlistment numbers up. Use all of your military to fight, and you aren't harvesting that resource.

You could have an amorphous fog of war, where you could see that something is there, but you can't be sure it's a bomb factory or a house. Your roving reporters, vulnerable to crossfire (and shuffling) by either side but attackable by neither, could report back questionable locations and information, but can also turn the tide of public opinion when gathered by your enemy.

Negotiating with "private" corporations could also be fun, as a resource which either side could utilize. "asshole allies" are already in the game, but nurturing that competition could provide a lot of fun. As for friendly enemies, there might be trade relationships with an ally of the enemy, or "side deals" for percentages of land. Without absolute victories or defeats, such negotiation could become very interesting.

Friendly fire is an interesting concept that could help counter the "Mass a million man army" problem that all modern RTS games have.

In short, there are a lot of interesting things in real life that could go into a more real RTS.

Re:Real Real Time?

[AvitarX]

People do play a game that lasts 2 to six months though. I t is an RTS none the less.

Games usually have between 4 and 100 people so it definatly has people playing it.

The "Fast" game is 24 hours, real time, with action to be taken every ten minutes to keep up.

I never played, I think I am too young to really appreiciate a telnet game (later era DOS games are about as old school as I can handle).

Re:Real Real Time?

[AvitarX]

Jesus Christ.

Preview Your posts dumbass (is that too gratuitus)

corrected link.

Re:Real Real Time?

[sindarin2001]

Friendly fire does affect a few games out there. Specifically I seem to remember loosing many many kbots to friendly fire in total annihilation. Of course this really isn't a good way to make it so that you can't identify your own troops as your own.

Real != Fun

[I_Love_Pocky!]

I have always thought that a realistic real-time war sim would be nothing like the Warcraft/Comand & Conquer type games, because those give you way too much control. In real warfare you can't control individual soldiers. As a general you can map out a very general battle plan, and then kind of sit back and hope it works out. Even with the best communcation systems in place at best you could give orders to individual soldiers, but you wouldn't have any control over how they carried them out.

Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?

Re:Real != Fun

[{8_8}]

I suppose you could adapt the current RTS interface. It'd pretty much be like the article says. You'd click to build units. These units may or may not have defects, psychological issues, anti-war beliefs, etc. etc. Corruption might or might not result in your shiny new BigEffingTank8000 being sold to street gangs somewhere in Asia, or that vital shipment of anti-aircraft batteries being delayed until Senator Bob gets his vital SUV legislation passed. You select the units and tell them to go to area X and kill anything along the way. Along the way, the aformentioned problems might kill some, none, or all of your units, or maybe your units desert and go searching for Saddam's hidden gold cache. Once they reach area X, they sit there until you tell them to do something, unless those ugly problems rear their heads and new orders conflict with the heroin smuggling operation on the side. When you give the units an objective, they'll try and follow your orders until things go to hell, at which point they bail and return home. Once again, inherent unit problems might result in friendly-fire casualties or an aspirin factory explosion instead of a chemical weapons factory explosion.

This actually sounds like a fun game, if really frustrating.

Re:Real != Fun

[stienman]

I agree with you, and add that games are mere simulations. Any simulation of a 'real' activity is, by definition, simplified.

You can't account for all the random acts that may occur in any simulation. You can try to program in as many as you can think of, but how many game designers want to add the "Stupid soldier smokes while filling vehicle and blows up fuel depot" option? Now imagine that there are thousands of people, each with their own misadventures. Then you get to account for random environmental factors (more predictable than humans, I bet) and only then can you start looking at random enemy actions.

Even if you could program a large portion of these things in, gamers don't want them. Gamers like predicatability. You've seen, I imagine, all those "Perfect run" videos where a gamer practices a game until they can run through it in a short period of time, gaining maximum points? They don't want to fail a level because of something they can't control such as the aforementioned chainsmoking fuel depot lackey. Further, once they remember that the lackey blows up the depot they want to assume that it'll happen the same way every time they go through that level - that way they know they should frag him first.

Even RTSs with 'random' events (such as sim city) are extremely predictable. You just have to have a set of rules you follow, and 'stay ahead of the game.' Of course the real issue with the article is not how real the scenario is, but how the public, at a distance, interacts with the war. This is something gamers don't want - to be judged and scored according to a set of rules that they not only don't know, but that are dynamic.

-Adam

Re:Real != Fun

[Vaevictis666]

What you have just described is the Natural Selection mod for Half-Life. There is a human commander that has an RTS interface, and gives waypoints and stuff to his fellow marines. The marines are free to do whatever they want though, even if it pisses off the commander.

Presumably it's fun, they're doing beta for version 3.0.

Re:Real != Fun

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?

Fun, fun... when you introduce the concept of taking turns.

America's Army works like that, albeit at the squad level rather than the campaign level. Every "turn," i.e. every engagement, one of the players gets elected squad leader, and he's responsible for coming up with the plan of battle and ordering his fire teams around.

Now, the squad leader is basically just a guy with a pair of binocs in addition to his M-16, so it's possible for him to go running off into the fray. Some players, especially inexperienced ones, do just that. At that point, the game devolves into Counterstrike.

But the real fun happens when the squad leader finds a good place to oversee the battle and gives his fire teams orders. Suppress this enemy position, advance under cover to that position, circle around to the rear, lob a smoke grenade, storm the compound.

It's about as realistic as squad-level combat gets, I think. No god's-eye view or anything like that: just a pair of binoculars and some radio channels to communicate with your teams.

It's wicked fun.

Re:Real != Fun

[WoodenBoy]

Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?

Done properly, it can be quite fun. Take a look at Majesty. You place your buildings ane recruit heroes, but you have no direct control over them. You can influence them and the world using spells and reward flags, but the heroes do their own little thing. While it can get frustrating, it's still one of my favorite games.

Re:Real != Fun

[wed128]

i definately agree... America's army is so well done, five years ago i never thought a game with so much realism would be so much fun.

and heck...even without planning...counterstrike aint bad.

Re:Real != Fun

[stevey]

In real warfare you can't control individual soldiers.

Just wait until the film of "Enders Game" comes out, likely they'll be a game of the Battle Room shortly afterwards.

... lets just hope it doesn't suck!

Re:Real != Fun

[Sigma 7]

In real warfare you can't control individual soldiers.

Nor would it be recommended to do so even in those style of games(except for stealth/infiltration missions, but those are a seperate story.)

In all my time playing RTSs, the focus seems to be generally around moving individual units rather than moving around groups. Sure, you can select multiple units and give them an order, but the interface is very rarely refined in that manner - they usually all try to move to a single point (and are blocked by the other units ordered to move ther), attack one designated target, or all perform the exact same command as if they received the order individually. There has been limited attempts (if any) to correct these kinds of problems.

For example, in some generic RTS (other than Command & Conquer: Tiberiun Sun and its later installments), you select a group of 35 infantry units and order them to attack a bunker. The bunker gets destroyed, but you now need to reinforce the group with 15 more infantry, and immediatly order the entire group+reinforcements to destroy a second bunker. The result is that your fireteam destroys the bunker before reinforcements arrive, resulting your fireteam seperated in two groups of units in different areas of the map - the reinforcements just stop in their tracks waiting for more orders (rather than regrouping into one area.)

Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?

That sort of view implies that you are looking for an intense action game. Fast-paced action is not suitable for strategy, mainly because of the difficulty in keeping units under control, combined with various other flaws prevailent throughout the genre.

Re:Real != Fun

[Engdy]

It's actually pretty fun. Combat Mission does exactly what you describe.

Re:Real != Fun

[DerekLyons]

I have always thought that a realistic real-time war sim would be nothing like the Warcraft/Comand & Conquer type games, because those give you way too much control. In real warfare you can't control individual soldiers. As a general you can map out a very general battle plan, and then kind of sit back and hope it works out.

Hardly. Most every nation across the span of time has worked very hard to create communications links that work during battle to carry reports upwards and new orders downwards. From scouts and couriers on foot or horseback, to spread spectrum encrypted data links, C4I (or C4I2, or whateverthehell the acronym is this week), command and communications have been central to warfare.

The element most wargames ignore, or simplify to absurdity, is what really wins wars... Logistics and supply; The ability to put the right tools in the hands of the right troops in the right place at the right time.

Re:Real != Fun

[Tholian_Ted]

Maybe you should try Shogun Total war. You control up to 2000 units, but by controlling the commander. When they get tired, they slow down, and when they get scared, they run away, and you can't stop it.

Re:Real != Fun

[FrenZon]

As a general you can map out a very general battle plan, and then kind of sit back and hope it works out. Even with the best communcation systems in place at best you could give orders to individual soldiers, but you wouldn't have any control over how they carried them out.

Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?

I don't know, Highway to the Reich simulates the chain of command situation perfectly, and it's nothing short of amazing as a result. You can, for example, just order your top-ranked units to take a town, and they'll organise all the units under their command into a proper attack. But heck, that might takes two hours to get everyone together, so planning and timing is the name of the game.

Want to order individual units around? Sure can, but the order can take a while for you to get to that unit, and that unit under your command may leave its parent unit without capabilities it needs.

Add to this an opponent suffering the same problems, and perhaps the foresight to take advantage of any weaknesses in your chain of command, and you have an EXTREMELY tense, thrilling wargame.

Re:Real != Fun

[king-manic]

Just a note: People are very very predictable. Weather is more unpredictable then people. It's one of those comforting myths that people hold about themselves. Like we're all individuals, and that you matter, and humans are different from animals, or hundreds of other such notions.

Re:Real != Fun

[king-manic]

It's simplified, but macro makes up the majority of "strategy" in games. The micro is "tactics". Good players master both. Decent players get one or the toehr right. You might say grabbing naother mine is simplified, but it's resource aquisition. Or building 3 barracks instead of one is just a small decision but it affects army tunr over rate and the conversion of resources into soldiers. HEck even choosing a tech path is a notable strategic choice. IT all may be simplfiied btu it has value.

Re:Real != Fun

[stienman]

The problem is not that people aren't predictable - the problem is that you cannot predict what a person might do if you do not know that person. Cultures mold this to some degree so you can safely say that in the US a person might reasonably be predicted to answer a phone with 'hello', but beyond cultural norms you cannot predict human action for an unknown human.

Further, when two humans who do not know each other interact (of whom you know neither) then the possible interactions multiply due to their two seperate unpredictable courses.

Do you know many computer gamers that like to experience new, unfamiliar situations and people on a daily basis? No? It's because they like the familiar, and predictable routines they've developed. Of course you're going to find a few, but my experience has been that most people, in general, dislike frequent unpredictable events.

-Adam

Re:Real != Fun

[king-manic]

Generally people will do a certain set of things. There are always a few outlyers but those are few and far between. A soldier sees his borther and best friend shot in the chest. Well 99% of soldiers who went through boot camp will suck it up. Try to find the shooter and move on, he'll grieve later. some small percentage will react in grief and may 1-do nothing and be confused 2-go phsycho. Knowing these precentages you can predict what will happen. There aren't many options besides those 3. HE won't, for instance. Take off his pants and start molesting the body or Start a picnic with the shooter.

People are generall predictable. Outlyers are rare. Soldiers are conditioned. They are even more predicatable.

Re:Real != Fun

[Ptraci]

Well that's sort of how Majesty worked. You built facilities to attract heroes to fight the bad guys and you offered rewards for exploration or for slaying of certain enemies or destruction of enemy facilities. This was a fantasy based one, but maybe a more realistic or futuristic game could be made in the same way.

I would love to play a game like this.

[Pluvius]

Maybe Blizzard or EA should look into it.

Rob

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush isn't stupid

Surely you would agree that such a strong statement requires some sort of proof? All evidence thus far has been to the contrary. Please feel free to point out any evidence I have overlooked.

Re:It has to be said...

[zors]

Huh.

So what is evil?

Killing hundreds of thousands of people isn't enough, apparently.

What about rape? Is that evil?

Just because something is widely believed doesnt mean its wrong.

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

In other words, they were neither purely good nor purely evil.

This is an important point, but in my opinion it's not the most important point.

You won't have a hard time getting your average radical leftist to agree that nothing is purely good or purely evil. In fact, he'll probably beat you to the punch by adopting the nihilist view: that nothing means anything, so everything's equivalent to everything else.

What's more important, in my opinion, is to remember that there are degrees. Yes, what Soldier X did to Prisoner Y at Abu Ghraib was bad. But what Terrorist X did to innocent civilians Y, Z, A, B, C, and D was worse.

The radical leftist would say that we, as Americans, have no right to say that the second thing was bad because we were indirectly responsible for the first thing.

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.

Re:It has to be said...

[orim]

"Bush isn't stupid"

Now that's a misunderstatement of the year.

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...

[garyok]

...especially in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people...

Hearts and minds are just points to aim for with the US Army in Iraq.

Re:It has to be said...

[the morgawr]

Yes, what this small group of soldiers did was inexcusable. The fact that the chain of command failed is inexcusable. That's why the general incharge was removed and the soldiers (and probably the general) will be court marshaled.

In the same vein as above, you cannot justify cutting the head of a civilian off by pointing to what was done at Abu Ghraib. We should actively try to bring these monsters to justice.

None of this changes the grandparent's point: We arn't dealing with absolutes, there are shades of gray. What happened at Abu Ghraib was bad. What happened on the video was worse. What Sadam did to his own people was worse still. While you can't use one to excuse the other, you can make a moral comparison.

Re:It has to be said...

[Rayonic]

1) Allegations that prisoners were tortured to death have not been proven. Also, isolation for extended periods of time is A-OK when it comes to the Geneva Convention.

2) - 4) You can't justify torture, but you can point out hypocrisy and put said torture in perspective.

5) You miss the main point about the torture. It isn't the acts themselves, but A) whether the torture was official policy and B) what are the consequences for the people responsible for said torture.

(Answer key:
A) No.
B) Trial and punishment.)

Re:It has to be said...

[BurritoJ]

ok, you asked for it.... You're a radical leftist!

But seriously...

I agree with all of your statements. There is one thing that is undefined, however. Who gets to define 'torture'? What methods are allowed to encourage cooperation? Should our methods be limited to "Pretty please tell us what you know or we'll lock you up in better conditions than you can expect to achieve on your own?" Should we constrain our techniques to those practiced in the region? Follow the Geneva Convention rules? Make sure they get their Miranda warning and a lawyer?

If everyone played nice, none of this would be necessary, but the world is not a nice place. There are bad guys on both sides and the only thing we can do is punish those that misbehave, on both sides.

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You can't justify torture, but you can point out hypocrisy and put said torture in perspective.

Of course you can justify torture. It's not even hard.

Example: you have, in your custody, a person who set a bomb. You don't know where that bomb is, but you know it exists and you know that the person in your custody set it. You also know that it's going to go off at some point in the future and kill people. If it's a nuclear bomb, it might kill millions of people.

Ta-da: torturing that guy is justified.

Sure, that's an extreme example. I made it simple so we don't have to tackle the question of what "torture" means exactly.

Example: is putting somebody in a cell and leaving him there, without light or human contact, for an extended period of time "torture?"

What about depriving somebody of sleep for an extending period of time? Is that "torture?"

When we think of "torture," we think of a car battery to the scrotum or bamboo shoots under the fingernails. We think of injury, and in the worst cases, life-threatening or permanently crippling injury.

But there are lots of ways to make people uncomfortable that don't involve injury. Sleep-deprivation is one. Exposure to heat or cold is another. Extended periods of solitude, or nakedness, or loud noise. None of these things is harmful in any physiological sense. They're just unpleasant.

Have you ever had a toothache? It doesn't hurt very much, but the thing is that it never stops. It never lets up. So it's a killer.

You can convince somebody to give you information by exposing them to a low level of discomfort for a long time. Is this "torture?"

I have no problem at all with torture, in the sense of the application of non-injuring discomfort. It's prison, not church camp. You shouldn't expect to be comfortable.

Now, cutting off limbs or applying electricity or fire... that's another question. Sure, it can be justified under certain circumstances, but it's much harder to excuse at least.

Re:It has to be said...

[the morgawr]

As an interesting side note: the knealing, the solitary, etc. are all allowed under the geneva convention. Some countries, like France, have interogation laws that push the border. Other's like Israel have such practices banned. (yes you heard that right, if they catch a terrorist who planted a bomb in Tel Aviv, and the soldiers make him sit in an uncomfortable position to get him to tell them where the bomb is; wham! that's a court martial, forget how many people you saved.)

My personaly opinion is that US policy is about right.

Re:It has to be said...

[uwmurray]

I wouldn't call you a radical leftist. I'd call you naive.

There are certainly cases where the torture of others has saved countless lives. The US and every other country in the world have tortured to gain intellegence and will continue to do so - forever. This is not my opinion, this is history.

The 'torture' at Abu Grab is completely insignificant compared to the greater horrors in the world right now. What about the full scale genocide occuring *right now* in the Sudan? Where is the outcry from the 'progressives' of the world on this issue?

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...

[GR1NCH]

Your lack of knowledge about this astounds me. Why should Bush be tried? It's not as if he had any knowledge that this was happening let alone gave an order for it to happen. Go ahead put him on trial, nobody in their right mind will convict him. Please google 'Antonio Taguba's Testimony' and self-educate.

Re:It has to be said...

[GR1NCH]

Terrible rule of thumb... our enemies are far crueler to us than we can imagine. Don't misinterpret this as a justification for torture, I'm very much against it. I just believe if we gauge our actions by our enemies, we will do much worse things than either you or I approve of.

Re:It has to be said...

[dangermouse]

There are certainly cases where the torture of others has saved countless lives. The US and every other country in the world have tortured to gain intellegence and will continue to do so - forever. This is not my opinion, this is history.

Even if you could name such a case, historian, that is beside the point.

The moral error in reasoning from in the ticking bomb scenario arises from weighing the harm to the guilty terrorist against the harm to the prospective innocent victims. Instead, the harm to innocent terrorist victims should be weighed against the breakdown of key social institutions and the state-sponsored torture of many innocents. Stated most starkly, the damaging social consequences of a program of torture interrogation evolve from institutional dynamics that are independent of the original moral rationale.

(source -- emphasis is mine)

The 'torture' at Abu Grab is completely insignificant compared to the greater horrors in the world right now. What about the full scale genocide occuring *right now* in the Sudan? Where is the outcry from the 'progressives' of the world on this issue?

This thread isn't about the Sudan. What is your point, that a crime should be overlooked because a greater crime is occurring elsewhere? That people who put forth the argument that perhaps the torture at Abu Ghraib was a pretty objectively bad thing are "bad progressives" with no credibility, because what about the Sudan? Come on.

Re:It has to be said...

[dangermouse]

2) - 4) You can't justify torture, but you can point out hypocrisy and put said torture in perspective.

What hypocrisy? The person to whom I was responding was arguing with a hypothetical "radical leftist", a straw man of his own invention. He's inventing hypocrisy to point out.

I also reject the idea that this "perspective" is useful, and that was my entire point. Judging one horrible act relative to another horrible act is only useful when legislating punishment in the abstract, and nobody who's espoused the perspective you mention has been discussing punishment. It's been trotted out implicitly to excuse or mitigate the wrongness of the Abu Ghraib torture, and that's simply a moral non sequitur.

5) You miss the main point about the torture. It isn't the acts themselves, but A) whether the torture was official policy and B) what are the consequences for the people responsible for said torture.

No, I get that. But that was not the point under discussion. If your meaning is "what are the consequences, compared to the consequences Berg's killers will face", I can only say that I hope the punishment fits the crime and the needs of society in each case. I do not see a need to adjust the judgment or punishment of either crime in light of the other's commission.

Re:It has to be said...

[timbit]

In my poli sci 101 class, one of the things that we dealt with was the possibility that torture may not only be justifiable, but that it may even be moral in some (albeit extreme...) cases. The idea was put forward that if many lives could be saved by torturing a single person, perhaps torture was the "right" thing to do. This in a liberal canadian university.... Just an idea.

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

Of course you can justify torture. It's not even hard.

Nietschze said a couple of things you may want to ponder:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.

and

if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

BTW if you *read* the Geneva convention, you will find that pretty much every example you suggest would be considered torture.

If nothing else, would you be okay if the bad guys used any of your examples on captured US troops? If not, perhaps you should re-consider your stated opinion.

Re:It has to be said...

[dangermouse]

Please see my post here for my response to that argument.

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Nietschze said a couple of things you may want to ponder

He said a lot more than that. Please don't pull pithy aphorisms out of context and use them to try to sound insightful.

BTW if you *read* the Geneva convention, you will find that pretty much every example you suggest would be considered torture.

Couldn't care less. If it were my choice, and I were faced with having to decide between complying with the Geneva Convention and saving the lives of innocent people, man, I don't even have to think about it.

If nothing else, would you be okay if the bad guys used any of your examples on captured US troops?

If US troops were planning to blow up an enemy city filled with noncombatants, I'd insist on it. Hell, out of the way, I'll do it myself.

If not, perhaps you should re-consider your stated opinion.

Don't be so smug. Use your brain.

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

He said a lot more than that. Please don't pull pithy aphorisms out of context and use them to try to sound insightful.

Indeed Nietschze wrote many things. Did you know that he wrote in fragments, and the context of those fragments is not relevant to understanding his philosophical position?

Couldn't care less. If it were my choice, and I were faced with having to decide between complying with the Geneva Convention and saving the lives of innocent people, man, I don't even have to think about it.

Whatever. If you apply reason to your stated opinions, you will find that it is not ethically or morally possible to defend the argument that the ends justify the means. If ethics and morality are of no consequence to you, you may continue the argument as you wish.

If US troops were planning to blow up an enemy city filled with noncombatants, I'd insist on it. Hell, out of the way, I'll do it myself.

So, my dear troll, what would you have done during WWII when the US destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Did you know that he wrote in fragments, and the context of those fragments is not relevant to understanding his philosophical position?

Aside from being untrue, that's just wrongheaded. Context is always important.

If you apply reason to your stated opinions, you will find that it is not ethically or morally possible to defend the argument that the ends justify the means.

Of course it is. Let's do it the simplest way possible: body count. If I torture one man to save tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, I've made the right choice.

Let's use the greatest-net-benefit calculus. Same result.

In fact, the only moral/ethical decision calculus under which torture isn't justified in that situation is the naive absolutist one.

So, my dear troll, what would you have done during WWII when the US destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Tortured the living hell out of any Americans who could have given me information about the bombings before the fact.

Of course, in the end, that probably would have resulted in more deaths, because thwarting the bombings would have necessitated an Allied invasion of the home islands, with casualties in the million-plus range, as opposed to the 'prox 200,000 who died as it was.

But a Japanese soldier wouldn't have been responsible for thinking that far ahead. He would have been responsible only for doing his duty to protect his country and his people. So the answer is obvious.

I'm really not seeing your point here.

Re:It has to be said...

[wembley fraggle]

Example: you have, in your custody, a person who set a bomb. You don't know where that bomb is, but you know it exists and you know that the person in your custody set it. You also know that it's going to go off at some point in the future and kill people. If it's a nuclear bomb, it might kill millions of people.
Ta-da: torturing that guy is justified.

Really. You know that this person set a bomb somewhere. Maybe, if this were a movie, you'd know that for certain. But in the real world, you probably don't know that this person set a bomb. Perhaps he admitted to it under torture. But people who are being tortured will do anything, especially lie, to escape torture.

The point: torture is not only immoral, it is not even a very good way to get information. It's a great way to make people sign confessions for crimes they may or may not have committed, but it is not a good way to get people to tell you useful things.

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But people who are being tortured will do anything, especially lie, to escape torture.

Funny thing: that's not actually true. When you're subjected to torture, especially the psychological kind like being deprived of sleep for days, you lose the ability to lie. It becomes psychologically impossible, or at least very difficult. You might try to lie, but your attempts would out as incoherent ramblings. Asked the same question twice in a row, you'd give two different answers.

By that point, you know that your lies aren't fooling anybody, and you give in to the fact that your only choice is to tell the truth.

This is called your "breaking point."

The psychological effects of torture are very well understood. We've been doing it for a long time.

The point: torture is not only immoral, it is not even a very good way to get information.

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.

Re:It has to be said...

[king-manic]

Whether you follow the geneva concention or not, the enemy won't. The only reason to is that when the enemies actions come to light, you can moan about it to the UN and it has some PR value. Other then that it's pretty usless. In fact the UN is pretty useless, giving petty dictators a international voice. Like having Rwanda on the human right commisions.

Re:It has to be said...

[king-manic]

I'd go one step further in our lives calculus. I'd argue that one american or european or canadian life is worth at least 5 third world lives. They produce more and contribute more to the totality of humanity. I'd argue one scientist is worth at least a dozen soldiers and the value of a person is dependant on his socio-economic status and the duration of his predicted life span, so a kid born to two brilliant scientist is worth 10000 more then a old beggar in palastine.

To this end, I think killing 25,000 iraqis to revence the killing of 6000 amricans is abotu par for the course.

What do you think of this.

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.

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

Context is always important.

Not when reading Nietschze. You can read the fragments from back to front, or skip a few pages if it isn't interesting. So I was told by a leading scholar of Nietschze. Rather suitable, given Niethschze's nihilism...

In fact, the only moral/ethical decision calculus under which torture isn't justified in that situation is the naive absolutist one.

Or not. You may of course believe what you want, but it seems to me that if you espouse such ideals you are no different than the villains you oppose!

Tortured the living hell out of any Americans who could have given me information about the bombings before the fact.

I respect your honesty. Not many would choose to extract information from their own countrymen in such a manner.

Not that the information would necessarily be of any value. Information extracted via physical torture is notoriously inaccurate. People will say anything to make it stop.

There is also the cost to one's own humanity. As we brutalize other people, so do we brutalize ourselves.

But, as you say, the end justifies the means and apparently we must have victory at any cost.

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

it seems to me that if you espouse such ideals you are no different than the villains you oppose!

Did you get your penchant for false moral equivalence from Nietzsche, too?

Use your brain. I implore you.

Information extracted via physical torture is notoriously inaccurate. People will say anything to make it stop.

That's not so. Just the opposite. As I explained elsewhere, it's basically impossible to lie once you've reached the breaking point.

As we brutalize other people, so do we brutalize ourselves.

That statement includes no content. It's just an aphorism, devoid of truth.

But, as you say, the end justifies the means and apparently we must have victory at any cost.

I don't mind when people put words in my mouth, but I'd prefer it if you could at least make them interesting words.

Re:It has to be said...

[Nursie]

Yes, their torture IS justified because the US was trying to get information out of them to save US lives.

And that's what makes the rest of the world see the US as a nation of arseholes.

Seriously, if you did that to your own citizens you would be up in arms about it. So why do it to anyone else?

And if you think that torture can ever be justified then you are already a barbarous idiot. You say that the people captured where terrorists. How do you know? Were they put on trial? Or is it just somehow obvious? what if an innocent man was in there and tortured to death, is that still OK? What if there's an innocent man in there that starts giving out false information just to make the pain stop? What of your precious intelligence then?

Fscking moral relativism. TORTURE IS BAD mmkay?

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

Use your brain. I implore you.

How ironic that you request something from me that you refuse to do yourself!

False moral equivalence? Let's see, you advocate acts of violence against people who commit acts of violence. Both you and the terrorist would claim to be acting towards some greater good. I fail to see how you would automatically occupy the moral high ground here.

The war on terror will not be won by adopting the practices and methods of the terrorists.

it's basically impossible to lie once you've reached the breaking point

Citation? Proof of any kind? I expect that someone being tortured would insist that their grandmother was really Hitler in drag if that is what they thought the torturer wanted to hear. Coerced confessions will not make you any safer because you have no guarantee of the veracity of the information that is extracted. If anything, the purpose of state-sponsored torture is the effect it has on the general population rather than the effect on any one individual. But you need not take my word for it, check the research.

By the way, there is a great deal of psychological research to back up my aphorism that is devoid of truth about the effects of violence. apa.org is a good starting point. Search on "effects of violence"

Reply if you wish. but please add some content to the discussion this time.

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Let's see, you advocate acts of violence against people who commit acts of violence. Both you and the terrorist would claim to be acting towards some greater good.

That's where your reasoning starts and stops? You don't bother taking a moment to contemplate whether there really is a greater good?

Not everything is relative. Sometimes there is good and evil, right and wrong. And you, despite your evident unwillingness to do so, have the power to make those judgments.

The war on terror will not be won by adopting the practices and methods of the terrorists.

Sigh. You just don't get it.

I expect that someone being tortured would insist that their grandmother was really Hitler in drag if that is what they thought the torturer wanted to hear.

It isn't so, though. If that were true, torture, whether psychological or physical, would be useless. It's not. It's a highly effective means of gathering intelligence.

Coerced confessions will not make you any safer because you have no guarantee of the veracity of the information that is extracted.

We're not talking about coercion. We're talking about shattering a human being's ability to conceal the truth. We're talking about so deeply affecting a person that they lose all volition and are literally unable to lie or to deceive.

But you need not take my word for it, check the research.

I know a thing or two about "the research," if that's what you want to call it.

By the way, there is a great deal of psychological research to back up my aphorism that is devoid of truth about the effects of violence.

We're not talking about violence. We're talking about torture.

I don't think you really understand what that means.

Imagine being stripped naked and put in a room. There are bright lights shining on you 24 hours a day. There's very loud noise. The room is either very cold or very hot. Ammonia or another foul-smelling agent is pumped in to irritate your eyes and sinuses.

Imagine being in that environment for a week.

Now imagine a month.

We're not talking about violence. We're talking about psychological torture. We're talking about the complete destruction of a person's will.

I don't think you really understand that.

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

That's where your reasoning starts and stops? You don't bother taking a moment to contemplate whether there really is a greater good?

From my perspective, there is not. But from the terrorist's perspective there certainly is and it does not matter to that individual whether you or I or anyone else who does not subscribe to the terrorists's beliefs agree. That would be the point *you* are missing. Evil people by and large do not consider themselves or their actions to be evil you know. Psychotic individuals see their actions as being in their own best interests and disregard the impact those acts have on others.

If that were true, torture, whether psychological or physical, would be useless. It's not. It's a highly effective means of gathering intelligence.

As I said before, the "effectiveness" or torture is not the impact it has on any one individual. It is useful for the impact it has on the greater population. Torture is *not* an effective means of "making people talk". Naturally those who use and advocate torture are disinclined to agree, quite possible out of self interest. But the notion that torture is effective for gathering information was rejected more than 20 years ago. Check out some whitepapers at the international red cross or amnesty international if you would like some justification for those claims.

We're not talking about violence. We're talking about torture.

LOL!! One of the greatest problems of American society is the desensitization of the general population to violence. If you don't consider torture to be an act (or acts, as per your example) of violence against another human being (regardless of what "greater good" is being served") than I see no further point in continuing this discussion!

We're not talking about violence. We're talking about psychological torture. We're talking about the complete destruction of a person's will.

I also understand that no decent human being would ever commit such acts of violence towards another human being. If you believe otherwise, you have my sympathy and pity. There are animals that exhibit signs of empathy, how regrettable that humanity chooses not to.

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

From my perspective, there is not

Let's be explicit. Are you saying, for the record, that you would disagree that democracy and pluralism are inherently better than Islamic theocracy?

Evil people by and large do not consider themselves or their actions to be evil you know.

Let me repeat myself. NOT EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE. THERE REALLY ARE SUCH THINGS AS RIGHT AND WRONG. Simply saying "evil people also believe they are good" doesn't invalidate this key point. Heck, it doesn't even dispute it.

As I said before, the "effectiveness" or torture is not the impact it has on any one individual.

You are mistaken. You are speaking about a subject with which you have no personal experience.

Have you ever reached your own personal breaking point? There are certain lines of work in which people are subjected to psychological torture as part of their training. In my youth, I was put through that kind of training. For me, it was four days. Some in my "class" lasted five, some only three. For me it was four.

I know what it's like to be broken. I know, firsthand, what it's like to be literally, cognitively unable to tell a coherent lie.

You don't have firsthand knowledge, and that's fine. But you refuse to accept the limits of your own knowledge on this subject, and that's not okay. You just keep repeating, "Nuh-uh." That's crap. You're out of your depth here. Back off.

One of the greatest problems of American society is the desensitization of the general population to violence.

You think you're saying something here? You think you're being insightful? You're not saying anything at all. Your words are devoid of meaning.

If you don't consider torture to be an act (or acts, as per your example) of violence against another human being (regardless of what "greater good" is being served") than I see no further point in continuing this discussion!

There's no violence involved in psychological torture. We're talking about confinement, deprivation of sleep or respite, discomfort. These are not acts of violence.

I also understand that no decent human being would ever commit such acts of violence towards another human being.

You are mistaken. Any decent human being, when facing the threat of harm to his person, his family, his people, or his country, would do whatever is necessary, including torture and things much worse, to defend against that harm.

If you don't think so, that just illustrates that you've never actually faced that kind of threat. You've never internalized your own responsibility to your people or your country.

You are, in short, untested. There's no shame in that. In fact, it's a luxury that a lot of people have fought and died to provide to you.

If you believe otherwise, you have my sympathy and pity.

Yawn.

There are animals that exhibit signs of empathy, how regrettable that humanity chooses not to.

Empathy gets trumped by survival every time.

Enough with the abstracts: let's get concrete. You have certain knowledge that a terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb somewhere in your home town and set it to go off at a future time. Depending on the yield of the bomb, where it's placed, and when it goes off, the death toll will be anywhere between the tens and hundreds of thousands of people. You know this without a doubt. Let's say, for sake of argument, that you had situational awareness of the bomb but lost it at some point. It's out there, but you don't know where.

You have, handcuffed to a chair, a person who knows where the bomb is and how to disarm it. But he's not talking.

What would you do?

If you have the tiniest shred of either decency or intellectual honesty, do NOT dodge the question. Do NOT spin off onto a tangent about how "you can never know something like that with certainty." That's not the point. This is an example of a situation that does occur in the real world. Don't wimp out. Don't refuse to face it. Answer the question.

What would you do?

Re:It has to be said...

[gangien]

I think this is quite wrong, but since everything is driven by money, this is the state that the world is in right now.

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

You are mistaken. You are speaking about a subject with which you have no personal experience.
you've never actually faced that kind of threat. You've never internalized your own responsibility to your people or your country.
You are, in short, untested

All you know about me is what I have posted here on slashdot. You do not know me or anything about me, yet somehow you feel entitled to draw significant conclusions about my life experiences ?

Your ad homenim attacks aside, it is clear to me that there is little point in continuing this argument as you pretty much side-step any points I make that you cannot refute by dismissing it as empty rhetoric.

Please feel free to declare yourself the victor. Add me to your foes list, if you like. This discussion thread is way off topic now as it is.

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

BTW forgive me for responding to myself, but I pressed submit and not preview.

I would like to think that I possess both decency and intellectual honesty, even though I am not going to respond to your loaded example. You may of course draw whatever conclusion you wish.

:-)

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

you, like all armchair intellectuals, have no idea what it's like to make real decisions about life and death.

Abusive ad homenim attack. The character or actions of a person do not have any bearing on the truth (or lack thereof) of the claim being made, or the quality of the argument being made.

Until you understand what you're talking about, you will therefore please stop criticizing those who make such decisions.

An excellent example of "poisoning the well". An argument stands or falls on it's own merit regardless of who makes it.

Please consider reading a book or taking a course in critical thought. You need to be able to construct a valid argument if you want to debate.

Thank you so very little, it's been a slice.

Re:It has to be said...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Abusive ad homenim attack.

You're not in high school debate class any more.

The character or actions of a person do not have any bearing on the truth (or lack thereof) of the claim being made, or the quality of the argument being made.

Of course it does. Two things: first, you're not making an argument. Invited to make an argument to defend your assertions, you're choosing to avoid the question instead. Second, have you ever heard the phrase "consider the source?"

An argument stands or falls on it's own merit regardless of who makes it.

No, it does not.

And you haven't made an argument yet. All you've done is said, "Torture is not justifiable, and anybody who thinks it is is morally equivalent to a terrorist." Except you haven't made an argument to back that up. You've merely asserted it. Repeatedly.

You need to be able to construct a valid argument if you want to debate.

If by "debate" you mean sling around remarks like "Abusive ad homenim attack," then forget it. I would love to have a substantive discussion, but it's been a long time since a 2AR has been able to hold my attention.

Re:It has to be said...

[why-is-it]

you haven't made an argument

Actually I made several, but you ignored what I had to say...

Second, have you ever heard the phrase "consider the source?"

Heard it, but it simply does not matter as far as valid argumentation goes.

No, it does not

The previous link should give you access to a number of pages that clealy refute that claim.

If by "debate" you mean sling around remarks like "Abusive ad homenim attack," then forget it

"Abusive Ad Homenim" is a sub-class of the Ad Homenim fallacy, and is not a derogatory comment.

You may of course use whatever fallacious arguments you like, but please do not become offended when called out for it.

Kind regards,

Re:It has to be said...

[rjthomas61]

The Council on Foreign Relations has an FAQ about torture, especially in relation to the events at Abu Ghraib. It seems to be a solid, non-partisan source of information, with primary sources hyperlinked in-line.

Combat mission real enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had to play real time, you would be there for years.

I find Combat Mission:Barbarossa to Berlin to be just the right balance, some of those engagements can last days in RL, an that's often to much for most of the people.

Re:Combat mission real enough

[CaptainCheese]

If you had to play real time, you would be there for years.

Perfect - Longevity is important in a full-price strategy game!

Interesting way to make a political statement

[the morgawr]

Guys, in case you didn't realize, he's not talking about any game; he's making a political statement. I did find the satire and the backdrop of a video game a very interesting way for the author to express his opinion.

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.

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

[metroid composite]

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".

Look at how well the war in Afganistan went. Rebuilding is going well as far as I know, and the new government regime seems to be fine, and international support is posititve about that war. If it's so hard to win such a war, how did he win so thoroughly in Afganistan?

I agree: this article does miss the point, in that wars are not all lose-lose situations. On the flip side, not playing the game should always be a strategic option, which was his point I guess.

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

[Mongoose Disciple]

I never thought quasi-defending Saddam would seem logical to me, but, here we are...

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.

Well, let's think about this for a minute from the perspective of Iraq. So you get slapped down for messing with Kuwait, with the US/World insisting all the while that it's about the freedom of the Kuwaiti people, and that it's certainly not just an "oil war."

Then, they tell you that they aren't going to sell you any food and that you're going to get to watch children starve unless you trade them oil for that food. I'm sure that doesn't already stink of thirty-one flavors of international corruption.

Now, given that program, did Saddam act in the best interest of the Iraqi people? Well, of course not. But it seems silly to expect anyone in Iraq to not be cynical and incredibly suspicious of US foreign policy after that, don't you think?

I sure wouldn't play nice if you tried to starve my people and told me they could only have food if I gave you something you insisted you didn't want from me. I'd know you were completely full of shit and I'd probably sink to that level to compete.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[VultureMN]

I take it you haven't been paying too much attention to the news from Afghanistan, then. The new government has control of one city, and even then it's kind of shaky. The rest of the country is hell. I wish'em luck; it's just too bad that Bush and friends don't seem to be paying too much attention to that area anymore.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[aruil]

I feel embarrassed responding to such an obvious troll. However, in politics the best and most troll-like of opinions. are genuinely held by many. The US obviously wants oil. That was never doubted. The US never claimed not to want oil. Especially not in the context of the oil for food programme. That was the whole advantage of the programme. The US does (dubiously?) claim that this conflict in Iraq was not about oil. Very well. You can't argue that Saddam should have been suspicious because the oil for food programme suggested the US might want oil. It doesn't fly. regards

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[the morgawr]

> if Saddam had any deployable WMDs (which is unlikely)

WMD? Like the Vx rockets found by the Brits?

The mustard gas bomb used on U.S. troops a few days back?

The (probable) Serin bomb that went off yesterday?

The Vx gas they tried to use in Jordan a few weeks ago? British, Israeli, and Jordanian intellegence all point to the stuff comming from Iraq via Seria. The Al-Qaeda member behind it was in Iraq at the time we invaded and is probably still there (he is on tape cutting off some poor guy's head...).

There is plenty of evidence that Sadam had WMD programs and could make batches of the stuff at whim. There is strong evidence that shows he was at least harboring Al-Qaeda members if not providing training and support. The media just doesn't like reporting it and the public doesn't want to hear it.

Furthermore Sadam's desire to control the oil in the entire region was a clear threat to the U.S. that would have had to have been delt with eventually. In addition, the US put Sadam in power and is morally responsible for what he did. The US inflicted the SoB on the world and now they are paying the price to get rid of him. What goes around, comes around.

> 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.

No, the handling of the war has been REPORTED as a complete disaster because the media ignore success and focus on failure. There are a FEW problems, but when you stop and realize that Iraq is the size of California, that Iran and Seria are actively working against the US, and that there are a bunch of arm chair generals who will bitch about every little thing that happens claiming they would have had perfect foresite and done the "correct thing", the U.S. is doing a damn good job and the people over there are a hell of a lot better off.

Interesting, this all brings up the long term implications for the U.S. Long term, I think the U.S. will be better off too. A free, democratic, arabic country will drastiacally help the region stabilize. It will also provide a ready source of oil that Americans can be reasonably sure isn't funding terrorists. Furthermore, there arn't and won't be any U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, a major agravating factor. I think if the American people realize that war isn't all rosy, and tough out the hard part, the world will be better for it.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Rayonic]

Look at how well the war in Afganistan went. Rebuilding is going well as far as I know, and the new government regime seems to be fine, and international support is posititve about that war. If it's so hard to win such a war, how did he win so thoroughly in Afganistan?

The press was better. That's really the only thing.

For example, things aren't going all that great in Afghanistan. The national government is having trouble projecting its power, and the new constitution is rather un-Progressive. But did you hear about that? No. Because the press, by and large, don't dare question the Afghanistan war.

Iraq, on the other hand, is a center of attention. So, not only does this create the (false) image that the U.S. is somehow losing in Iraq, but it also serves as a magnet for foreign troublemakers and governments (who don't care about Afghanistan nearly as much.) So the stakes are higher and the press coverage is more negative.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Mongoose Disciple]

The US obviously wants oil. That was never doubted. Obviously. But you'd have had to somehow slept through all of the media coverage of the Gulf War to not hear the U.S. Government say that it was not concerned with oil loudly and repeatedly. (At least, if you lived in the U.S. at that time, which I suspect you may not have.) Their concern, supposedly, was for the Kuwaiti people. This was not to be an oil war. The fact that these two countries were rich in oil, we were told, was in no way a factor in U.S. involvement.

Probably, I should let this go here. We're meandering further from the topic of the article.

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

[Daetrin]

WMD? Like the Vx rockets found by the Brits?

According to all the reports i've seen that and every other chemical weapon you mentioned was identified by the military as being forgotten leftovers from before the first Gulf War, ie over a decade old. There's been no evidence to show that Saddam was manufacturing or stockpiling any WMDs since then.

There is strong evidence that shows he was at least harboring Al-Qaeda members if not providing training and support. The media just doesn't like reporting it and the public doesn't want to hear it.

What evidence is that? All the evidence i've seen shows that the fundamentalist Islamics hated the seculraist Saddam. Near the begining of the war Al-Queda released a tape stating that although they thought Saddam should be removed from power, they thought the Americans were the greater threat and should be resisted. There may well have been Al-Queda groups in Iraq, but it seems doubtful they were on good terms with Saddam.

In addition, the US put Sadam in power and is morally responsible for what he did. The US inflicted the SoB on the world and now they are paying the price to get rid of him. What goes around, comes around.

I agree with you on that one to some degree. Yes, we were responsible for him being in power, and in a certain way we needed to atone for that, however just because you _should_ do something doesn't mean that you can actually do it successfully.

You can only "liberate" a country if there is a vast majority of the population that supports you, and no minority that will forcibly oppose you other than those in power. We seem to have miscalculated for Iraq on at least one of those.

Things seem to be going better in Afghanistan except that A: the media doesn't pay much attention to it so it's hard to know for sure and B: the military doesn't seem to be paying much attention to it and is allowing the Taliban and other tribal lords to get away with far more than they should. Some reports seem to indicate that the entire country is in chaos except around the major cities where US forces are.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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?

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Huh? source?

Google it. We ain't your momma.

Already shown to be unexploded ordinance from Gulf War 1.

Well, first of all, no, that hasn't been shown, by anybody. And secondly, the leftover stockpiles from Iran-Iraq are precisely what Saddam was accused of hiding.

And that VX likely came through Saudi Arabia

Except that's not where it was found. It was found at the Jordanian-Syrian border.

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

Except it was true. Again with the googling.

Al-Queda/Saddam links are non-existant.

Al-Qaida/Saddam links are plentiful and persuasive. One: the Czech connection linking Iraqi Military Intelligence to al-Qaida before 9/11. Two: the Ansar al-Islam connection. Three: documentary evidence uncovered in Baghdad during the occupation. There's more. You just need to open your eyes to it.

I think that the US media has painted the brightest picture possible and still be considered independant.

Is this some kind of funny, funny joke?

Try thinking for yourself for a change.

Right back atcha. Use that big old brain of yours.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Then, they tell you that they aren't going to sell you any food

That never happened. The sanctions imposed on Iraq never covered food or medical supplies. What happened is that Iraq wasn't allowed to sell its oil on the open market, which was its only significant source of revenue. So a program was set up through which Iraq could sell some oil and use the revenues to buy certain things, like food and medical supplies. Only instead of, you know, doing that, they handed oil vouchers out like bribes instead.

But it seems silly to expect anyone in Iraq to not be cynical and incredibly suspicious of US foreign policy after that, don't you think?

Nope. That's tin-foil-hat talk.

Educate yourself. You are ignorant of the facts.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[the morgawr]

Twirlip's posts above and below have a few good points you might want to look at BTW.

> According to all the reports i've seen that and every other chemical weapon you mentioned was identified by the military as being forgotten leftovers from before the first Gulf War, ie over a decade old. There's been no evidence to show that Saddam was manufacturing or stockpiling any WMDs since then.

US intellegence actually made two claims (that then got blown WAY out of proportion by the media):

1. Sadam hadn't gotten rid of his old WMD.
2. Sadam had programs that researched WMD and had the capability to rapidly produce it, when and if he wanted to.

Both of these have very convincing cases behind them now; check google.

Futhermore, the reason cited for going to war was that Sadam was an evil SoB who was going to become a major threat to the US and that we were better off dealing with him now instead of later (after an incident).

> What evidence is that?

More evidence in addition to that listed by Twirlip:

The Al-queada terrorist who killed the US ambasador to Jordan was in Iraq and being paid by Sadam.

Osama's right hand man (who is seen in a recent video cutting the head off of an American) was living in Iraq. Sadam insisted bebore the war he was not; Iraqi Documentation shows Sadam knew he was there. This guy has made several attempts to use WMDs on innocents, the most recent being the failed attack in Jordan. Are we to honestly beleive that his secretly living (on Sadam's payroll) in Iraq and aquiring WMDs that Sadam had the know how to make is somehow a coincidence?

> You can only "liberate" a country if there is a vast majority of the population that supports you, and no minority that will forcibly oppose you other than those in power. We seem to have miscalculated for Iraq on at least one of those.

I call BS. See Germany and Japan post-WWII. (Interestingly it looks as if some major papers are simply re-running old headlines...)

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Wyatt Earp]

The problem with Afghanistan is, it has never been going that great there.

Never ever, in many places people can point to how good it was before Colonialism or before trade came through, in Afghanistan, it's always been dodgy. So it's impossable for it to get better over night (which is what 2.5 years is in historical or political science terms).

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Talondel]

I'd just like to point out that GOOGLE is not a source. Heck, the INTERNET is not a source. As inconvienent for you as it is, if you're going to try to convince (or just piss off) other people it's your job to back up your claims, not their job to research them for you.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[cgenman]

I'd like to point out to whoever modded parent "insightful," that he's actually a troll.

Well, first of all, no, that hasn't been shown, by anybody. And secondly, the leftover stockpiles from Iran-Iraq are precisely what Saddam was accused of hiding.

Which, with Iraq's shelf-life problem of the time would have been mostly harmless goo by the end of the 80's, let alone by 2003.

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

Except it was true. Again with the googling.

Again, you're a troll.

Your so-called Czech connection consists of one of the hijackers maybe metting ONCE with an Iraqi Miliary Intelligence officer in April 2001 according to an unverified Czech report by a resturant entrepreneur.

The Ansar al-Islam - Al Qaida connection may or may not be real, but it doesn't matter as links between the ultra religious sect and the militantly athiest Saddam Hussein remain circumstancial and second hand.

As for the documentary evidence... What documentary evidence? Do you mean this?

Google it. We ain't your momma.

You know, I've got a ton of information which is all true and totally proves my point. Saddam was actually working with Bush to cement Bush's presidency and get Saddam out of the country before the rebellion. The fact that you can't find any of my sources just proves that you're ugly.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Which, with Iraq's shelf-life problem of the time would have been mostly harmless goo

That's only true of actual agents. The weapons we're talking about here were composed of two binary reagents that, when combined, form unstable chemical agents.

Look, we look at it this way: you don't want nerve gas to hang around long. If it does, you run the risk of exposing your own men to it. So you want nerve gas to degrade in minutes, or hours at the most.

On the other hand, you don't want to have to process and dispose of chemical shells every year or two. So you want your reagents to be highly stable.

Your so-called Czech connection consists of one of the hijackers maybe metting ONCE with an Iraqi Miliary Intelligence officer in April 2001

Okay. So? Do you have some kind of information in your hands that disproves the link?

The Ansar al-Islam - Al Qaida connection may or may not be real

No, it's real all right. We have financial records linking them. Ansar al-Islam was founded in late 2001 or early 2002 with $300,000 of Osama bin Laden's own money.

but it doesn't matter as links between the ultra religious sect and the militantly athiest Saddam Hussein remain circumstancial and second hand.

Except for the fact that the link between Ansar al-Islam and Iraqi Military Intelligence is well documented. You're just ignoring facts because you'd rather believe that Saddam was unjustly overthrown by the big, bad Americans.

Saddam was actually working with Bush to cement Bush's presidency

Ah. Now the tin-foil hat stuff comes out.

Yawn.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[cgenman]

Saddam was actually working with Bush to cement Bush's presidency

Ah. Now the tin-foil hat stuff comes out.

Glad to see you don't have to duck for the irony of the statement to go whizzing by your head.

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[zeno_2]

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

Except it was true. Again with the googling.

Don't think so

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[why-is-it]

There is plenty of evidence that Sadam had WMD programs and could make batches of the stuff at whim. There is strong evidence that shows he was at least harboring Al-Qaeda members if not providing training and support.

Uh, no. There is no credible evidence that there were WMD in Iraq prior to the recent invasion. They could not, as you claim, make as much as they want, whenever they wanted. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please contact the government ASAP, as they are politically desperate to find such evidence.

Likewise, your assertion that Saddam Hussein collaborated with Al Queda is also false. The truth of the matter is that Iraq was probably the most secular middle eastern nation before the US invasion, which is totally contrary to the radical fundamental Islam that Al Queda preaches.

Surely you must have noticed by now that the rationale behind the war has been quite fluid, and none of the contrived excuses Bush and Blair presented to the world held any water.

Truth certainly is the first casualty of war!

It will also provide a ready source of oil

I stand corrected. You really do know what the war was all about after all!

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[why-is-it]

The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to buy uraniam from Niger.. AFTER being told it was NOT true
Except it was true.

If you are right, why did Colin Powell, George Tenet, George Bush acknowledge that the statements made in the State of the Union address were not true? Dude, what are you smoking and where do I get some?

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?

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Dr. Manhattan]

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.

I interpreted it as a challenge to the audience. If ours really is a government "by the people", then that general was our employee. We're not just 'entitled' to the truth; we have a positive duty to judge what he's doing, because we aren't subjects of a mideval feifdom, we are citizens and he's acting on our behalf.

We don't have the "luxury" of ignoring such things. In a real sense, we're doing them. Our employees did those things at Abu G. If you think CEOs should be held responsible for corporate actions... then welcome to the hotseat. Personally, I want my country to be held to a higher standard than just "somewhat better than Saddam Hussein".

Re:Interesting way to make a political statement

[Peter Cooper]

Bzzt, you can't just blame Bush. Even if it were his idea, he got the backing and approval from other political houses.

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:Not very well thought out though

[king-manic]

I'd argue it's not immature but rather cynical and pragmatic. Immaturity is to expect being on the moral high ground would benefit you if only you knew it, or if you didn't re-enforce it with something else.

India won it's independence not just through ghandi, ghandi was a peacful PR face to put onto the movement and was a sympathetic figure, he helped. But so did the terrorists who bombed the hell out of the railways and the threat of a colonial war.

Isreal wasn't just constructed from guilt, the jewish terrorists all over europe made the point more poignant.

The weakness of western society is that given a sympathetic enough cause, violence and terrorism will sway our politics. Thus we will forever be victims of it. If our media gave short thrift to causes that use violence. Blow up some poeple in a market, fine we'll nerve gas all your people and see if you do that again. Violence works. Why els would tyrants like saddam stay in power so long. So does torture and genocide and a whoel bunch of WRONG things.

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?

I see better option . . .

[Nomihn0]

Why emulate the world when you can be an active participant in the real thing? Sure, this functions as a political statement (and a good one at that). But I don't need to see the world in a videogame to be able to laugh at its irony.

In the article, Wong says "I want an RTS game that will give me a stress headache after an hour and an ulcer after a week."
Why bother with a game when you can easily get this from watching any fine news station. You'd even get a bonus shot of ignorance for watching Faux News! For blood-loss, watch Al Jazeera! For contrast watch CNN Headline News (the only station on which body pyramids are followed by what dress Troy McClure's husband wore to the Oscars).

If you're really angling for some pain, you can even try to participate in the political arena itself at either the Democratic or Republican National Conventions!

Death Animations

[CyberVenom]

20. I want better death animations.

Actually, I thought the animations from SOF were pretty realistic. You get to watch as the soldiers writhe in pain from a severed limb, or as they clutch intestines spewing from a hole in their gut, or as they choke to death on their own blood after being shot in the neck.
Of course, when (inevitably) the celebrity-media unit is near a soldier who dies a gruesome death, you get replay clips with national news anchors condemning you for allowing such horrible things to happen in "your" war...

Oh, and while we're at it, lets make it an RTSS like Savage (http://s2games.com/savage). Let real humans control those soldiers, and let the commander get frustrated when they completely ignore his orders...

The real question....

[hopemafia]

...is what SC map is that in #2?

Come on...somebody besides me has to recognize it....

Re:RATHER THOUGHTFUL WISH-LIST MY ASS

[spooky_nerd]

Simple: The article may, in fact, be a troll. But it is a very, very funny troll. And that makes all the diference.

Forgotten feature

[Wubby]

He forgot the '"Info-tru" Generator' that can be used to update the information being disseminated through the news media (which have the "CIA Influence" option set to true).

This of course has the default settings of "Constantly Change" and "Optimize on Personal Agenda".

And don't forget to select the "Blame the victim" option, so that when poor civilians get thier heads cut off by religious psychos, you can defame their families without having to reset your "Look like I actually care" level.

Good news! Chocolate rations are UP!

Conflict Zone

[Marc_Hawke]

I'm having a hard time finding a web-page. But here's a review.

http://www.cgonline.com/reviews/conflictzo-01-r1 .h tml

Conflict Zone is an RTS that incorporates the press and public opinion. You build units based on how popular you are and how well you act for the press.

If you have an heroic defense of a bridge or something you get lots of 'popularity' points. If you wipe out a village of civilians with misplaced fire, you lose a lot of points.

Also, they have 'sub-commanders.' You can put entire sections of your army under control of an AI commander, with orders to defend, attack, etc.

Overall, the game wasn't anything special, and never gained any popularity, but it actually incorporates some of the articles jabs.

And, there is a demo....if you can find it.

Re:Fragsuit

[WormholeFiend]

have you ever been to a paint-ball game?

it's quite fun, in spite of the pain.

Let the FPS'ers play the soldiers

[raygundan]

I've always wanted to see a multilevel MMO game that was playable as RTS (decides where units are sent), FPS (play as an individual in the unit), vehicle sim (pilot or drive something), or engineer/artist (create more buildings/items/stuff).

At the simplest level, you'd have RTS'ers engaged in some massive war at a high level, ordering troops around and sending out objectives, while the FPS'ers charged in with the vehicle players to try to take their objectives. The depth and randomness created by making all the footsoldiers real people would be almost like reality, although you'd probably have more "i'm stuck running in a corner" than in real life.

Re:Let the FPS'ers play the soldiers

[Wingnut64]

We've sorta got that already, Natural Selection, a HL mod where a commander views the battle from above while his troops battle aliens. Still, you're limited to 12 units a side, so it's more a FPS with stratagy then an RTS with smart (human) soldiers.

Re:Let the FPS'ers play the soldiers

[jaybird144]

You mean like Savage? Fairly new game, it's basically what you just described. Commanders see the game as an RTS while people in "Action mode" play a FPS.

Total War

[FortKnox]

Total War (there's Shogun, Medieval, and soon Roman) gives you control over battalians, much like a field general, but once they engage, you have to sit and watch what happens. Some retreat, and you can't order them back, some will get too much adrenaline and keep attacking, even if you ask them to fall back, and it isn't total death... eventually the losers will start running, and, unless you have a great deal of horses, they usually escape. Truely a fantastic RTS. Definately worth trying.

A crock I say! A crock!

[WinnipegDragon]

Umm... What a thinly veiled pro-Bush, pro-Iraq-War rant. Sorry, I'm not trying to derail, but basically half of his points are essentially taking shots at those that question things like the abuse of prisoners and civilian casulties.

The fact that he is doing it in the form of a questionably 'funny' video game list, and that it was posted here as a games topic is pretty lame.

funny, but something bugs me

[Flunitrazepam]

The bit satirizing the reaction over the U.S. sponsered torture was a downer.

He seems to feel what happened was no big deal, excusing it because we are "at war".

These prisoners were tortured, in some cases murdered, and (in my opinion worst of all) forced to sodomize one another. And it almost went completely unnoticed by the world.

I think I would rather be killed in a terrorist attack.

Re:funny, but something bugs me

[node159]

Or they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and had the wrong things done to them. Hell even the media and US citizens got fucked over (Routers & Nick Berg).

There is a reason for those rules, and that is so EVERYONE can live with themselves as best as they can afterwards.

Think of it this way, would you want your [future] kids being looked after by someone who tortured people to death?

No way to win that game.

[node159]

Did the author consider that the only way to win such a game would be to not play at all?

How about a diplomicy option and a moral meter?

Remeber that the rest of the world was against this invasion which was based on personal motivs (name me another one that makes sense). No one forced it.

Re:No way to win that game.

[morgdx]

Where's the fun in that you hippy?

Oh, now I get you, lull them into a false sense of security then lay mines all around their positions before bringing in the daisycutters.

That would be a good game.

inline advertising

[kwoff]

The article's tone was seriously ruined by the inline "Free Tickle IQ" advertisement. Tee hee.

The world doesn't make sense

[xconslash]

That's why we play games. If games ran the way the rest of the world really worked, we wouldn't want to play them. The world is irrational and confusing, with the many impossible situations the articles author described. What he, and all of us should be asking instead of a game that mirrors the world, is a world that mirrors our games. If we were always sure that Nuclear missle silo really was a silo, and that there were never any kids getting turned into chunky salsa by a Sunken Colony. If everything operated on a set of principles that didn't change, and that everyone abided by.

Perhaps it is a naive vision of utopia, but that's why we put it in games, so we at least know what it would be like.

Get a Sense of Humor

[Primis]

All of you who immediately are complaining that it's a political piece are missing two very important things:

1) Try getting a sense of humor.

2) He's right, and I'm not sure the article *is* a political piece really. I *DO* want to blow up orphanages. I *DO* want my aircraft every so often to just crash for no reason whatsoever. I *DO* want to be given a choice of whether or not civilian casualties are acceptable.

If I take prisoners, I *DO* want to be given the choice of whether or not to push the Happy Button so the prisoners make the Happy Sounds and go away (Medieval: Total War fans will know what I mean).

But he's right. Both RTS and true grognard-targeted startegy and wargames and too straight-forward and don't really let you do much of anything.

One of the whole reasons I liked playing Superpower was the fact that I could pull off some very Wrong things on other countries (rig elections, etc). A war isn't 100% fought through military anymore, so how come wargames are still 100% focused on the "legal" military actions? I want to be Evil sometimes,and sometimes I just want stuff to happen that I didn't plan on but have to deal with anyways. It's more fun that way.

For some godforsaken reason game designers seem reluctant to let a wargame be an actual wargame. Why is that?

-- Primis.

More bigoted crap then huh?

[Nursie]

I haver only one thing to say.

"We don't give a fuck. One day soon we will take our ball and go home, god willing."

And on that day the world will rejoice.

Maybe a second thing actually - personal attacks do not an argument make. I'm not going to bother you with my software credentials, needless to say I am not a web designer, my page which you have found is a pile of crap and that is freely admitted. But I would wager a years earning (more money than you'll ever see by the sounds of the state of your education) that my software is in far wider use than anything you have ever acheived. Bye now.

FYI

[Nursie]

tortured to death

You wanted a news report, well there you have it.

Re:A crock I say! A crock!

[Tailhook]

...those that question things like the abuse of prisoners and civilian casulties...

Impossible. There are no such people. Before one might attempt to question anything about the Bush administration, Rummy has them disappeared...

Right?