UN Food Programme Releases Game

bobbis.u writes "The UN World Food Programme has launched a game (for Windows and Mac) to educate people about their work. Although aimed for children, I'm sure some Slashdotters will enjoy it. It includes six different missions and is a hefty download."

Comments

Great game!

[yotto]

I love the 3rd mission the best, where it is "implied" that you give the food to a local tyrant so they can sell it for guns.

Re:Great game!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is in contrast to the Army of the America's simulator, where you sell arms to terrorists and deluge the inner streets of your own country with addictive cheep drugs to fund the Nicaraguan contras.

Not only can you be a contra causing destruction to most of your country for the 'protection' for a dozen rich human rights violators, you can also be a member of the 316th Battalion commiting your own human rights violations. Better be careful with those electrodes!

I understand that the next version is going to have new missions where you can be John Negroponte defending American interests in Iraq, Elliot Abrams as director in the National Securty Council, Oliver North as a famed reporter for FOX news or Admiral Poindexter defending the rights of private institutions to use government resources to mine customer information.

Supposedly this picks up after a full pardon from President Bush and each character has certain strengths you can you use to your advantage.
For instance as Negroponte you have thief abilities to help in 'misplacing' 9 billion in taxpayer funds into secret accounts for personal use.

Re:Great game!

[superpulpsicle]

No way man. That bonus level where Bush challenges Al Qaida to see who can kill more middle-easterners was the best.

The /. effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotted in 0.2mseconds...that's gotta be some sort of record.

solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

they wouldnt be so hungry if they started eating the weaker children.

Re:solution!

[TeXMaster]

Bah. Old Stuff. A modest proposal by Jonathan Swift wasn't printed yesterday ...

XXX Version Available Soon

[wolf-]

The upcoming "Congo Adventures" addon will be rated Mature. In the upcoming addon, not only will you be providing food to a distressed population, but you will also be able to open your "red light" district. In exchange for food, local girls will be able to offer "sexual favors" to you and your men.

/.'d already

[Red Moose]

Dammit I wanted to play this. Already SLashdotted and barely any comments yet even.

hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm seeing nothing, did we slashdot the- ...

oh sh*t this can't be good.

Re:hmmm...

[Meagermanx]

The UN got slashdotted?
Man, we, as a group, wield unbridled power we can barely begin to comprehend.
If someone could only figure out how to properly wield it...

Re:hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, how many 5 year olds could we beat up if we worked together?

Food-force website slashdotted.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Way to go, guys...the site is slashdotted, and now the children won't learn about hunger.

Won't someone think of the children???

Re:Food-force website slashdotted.

[DHalcyon]

Well, torrent anyone?

Re:Food-force website slashdotted.

[yotto]

I was the FP and I tried the site before posting, and it was already slashdotted. I can't imagine many of us getting a "hefty" download before it died for a torrent to be available.

Re:Food-force website slashdotted.

[FidelCatsro]

It didnt make me think of the children but after playing it I really felt like a sandwich..

Re:Food-force website slashdotted.

[gl4ss]

their fault, really.

what were they thinking? that they wouldn't get a shitload of hits with something like this?

Re:Food-force website slashdotted.

[Anonymous Coward]

now the children won't learn about hunger

Just send them to bed without supper.

Children

[bobbis.u]

I didn't really think, but I'm sure some Slashdotters are children!

My submission was "edited": I made an appeal for Torrents - think of the starving children when you are running up the UN's bandwidth bills.

marginalization

[mabu]

It's really sad to see all the pedantic jokes and offhand comments about the UN and these efforts; people making fun of the UN's use of technology as a diversion from the associated goal of feeding the hungry, but the reality is if there wasn't such an overwhelming amount of ignorance and misinformation being spread about by partisian groups on the UN's purpose and accomplishments, they wouldn't need to release software like this, but unfortunately, many of the sopmoric comments herein show exactly why they do.

Re:marginalization

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN food programme has been around for a long, long time. Are you seriously asserting that it was invented solely to divert people's attention from one (very serious) scandal?

I'll admit that it's likely PR, but what the fuck - what you're suggesting is that the UN is first and foremost interested in corrupt profiteering and maintains humanitarianism as a sideshow. I'll admit that the UN is pretty damned ineffective, but this claim is totally incredible.

Re:marginalization

[mabu]

You're right, we shouldn't make fun of the laudable goal of feeding the humgry... even if it's only a diversion from the associated goal of Oil for Food kickbacks.

I was waiting for this issue to come up. You should do some research into that scandal and find out the real truth and which countries were behind it, not the least of which was under any control by the U.N. This is exactly the ignorant generalizations being spread inappropriately.

Re:marginalization

[mabu]

The UN food programme has been around for a long, long time. Are you seriously asserting that it was invented solely to divert people's attention from one (very serious) scandal?

People like that poster bathe in their ignorance and self-righteousness. They're the same idiots who keep propagating partisian myths like the "Al Gore invented the Internet" lie.

Re:marginalization

[Elkboy]

Yes, one has to wonder why the members of the Security Council, and the US and the UK specifically, designed a program that handed money over to Saddam. The UN bureacracy that is wrongly blamed actually flagged many contracts under the program for potential overpricing, but the US and the UK approved most of them.

This might be the reason why Saddam scammed most of his money from smuggling, which the UN itself had no jurisdiction over or means to stop. That again falls on its member states, and in this case the US and the UK.

Also, the $21 billion figure reoported by media and quoted by politicians is wrong. Over $13 billion of that money has been shown to come from oil smuggling, and can't be said to be a failiure of the program.

Re:marginalization

[iridium_ionizer]

The sex abuse scandal in west Africa is NOT misinformation. Nor is the oil-for-food scandal. Yes the purpose of the U.N. is laudable, but in practice it has left something to be desired (watch Hotel Rwanda). You could probably say the same thing of U.S. foriegn policy. In regards to sopmoric comments, as long as the U.N. wants to be a player on the global stage they will be subject to the world's criticisms, jests, and sopmoric comments.

Re:marginalization

[mabu]

I'll admit that the UN is pretty damned ineffective, but this claim is totally incredible.

Ironically, the majority of the UN's problems are the DIRECT result of the United States making the organization completely incapable of accomplishing much or enforcing important humanitarian mandates.

It's funny how the U.S. criticizes the U.N. whenever the organization doesn't exclusively promote the US's agenda, and then two seconds later, after veto'ing numerous resolutions, they cite UN sanction violations as a means by which they can engage in preemptive war. And when the UN's members get upset, the U.S. calls the UN "useless" and ignores them.. until the next time the UN's agenda coincides with their own.

This would be all fine and dandy if this planet were one singular culture and nation, but it isn't. And the UN, while not perfect, is the best attempt thus far to provide a forum for the world's people to work together. It's pathetic for ignorant, small-minded people to marginalize the U.N. when they don't know much about it.

Because of so much propaganda and misinformation spreading about on the UN, educational programs like this are probably a good idea. They're no counter to the hundreds of hours of right-wing media lies being spread about the organization, but it's a start.

Re:marginalization

[Col. Blackwolf]

It certainly is a start, but it fails to address the root problem. The US, along with everyone else, ignores the UN because they can. The UN, while an organization with lofty, laudable goals and asperations, lacks the infrastructure and means to achieve those goals.

The real solution is to give the UN the means to actually enforce its mandates and impose its will on nations. And let's be honest, foreign policy is exactly that: imposing one nation's will on another. As it stands now, the UN must rely on the good will of its member nations to provide the means of enforcement, ie military forces.

And there is the solution. When it comes to the game of nations, force is the only thing that matters, be it military, economic or social. The UN has social force, but that is such a weak force that it hardly matters. And as it is not an actual territory, it is very difficult for it to have any real economic power. That leaves military force as the only viable option. The UN needs its own independant military. Then it will cease to be a national social club and will become the powerful arbitrator it was intended to be.

Of course, the idea of a UN military is about as likely SCO successfully proving that it owns Linux. But there you have it.

Re:marginalization

[Anonymous Coward]

Over $13 billion of that money has been shown to come from oil smuggling, and can't be said to be a failiure of the program

Who the hell was supposed to be policing them if not the U.N.? It doesn't matter where the damn money came from anyway. It matters where it went!

the US and the UK specifically, designed a program that handed money over to Saddam

Don't forget about France, Germany, and Russia!

Bah... don't know why I bother.

Re:marginalization

[Xiver]

You're right. We shouldn't be upset that the U.N. is only responsible for 8 billion dollars going into a genocidal maniac's pockets. The fact that he used it to kill many of the very people it was supposed to benefit shouldn't bother anyone.

You are an idiot.

Re:marginalization

[Elkboy]

Dispense with the insults, please.

I didn't say we shouldn't be upset, but I think we should be equally or even more upset at the Security Council members who are also responsible, if not more responsible.

Re:marginalization

[JavaLord]

The US is the teeth behind the UN. Whenever armed conflict is needed, the US is called upon.

In all reality the US should pull out of the UN, the UN is nothing but a bunch of rapist scam artists from third world countries trying to bring down the US.

Re:marginalization

[Xiver]

Dispense with the insults, please.

OK. I apologize for the insult. I'm just sick of that spin.

Re:marginalization

[ConceptJunkie]

Lighten up. It was a joke.

Although I do stand by the statement that the U.N. is horribly corrupt, ineffective and politicized and should be dissolved.

However, the food programs are one of the few things I think it's done well, overall.

Re:marginalization

[Anonymous Coward]

' Because of so much propaganda and misinformation spreading about '

"Propaganda" meaning information, opinion, and facts that you do not like. Face it: telling the truth about the UN is a good thing.

' They're no counter to the hundreds of hours of right-wing media lies '

Oho! Paranoid conspiracy theories used to slander anyone who dares to question the authority of the organization which presided over the Serbian holocaust against Kosovo, and has issued many antisemitic proclamations. What a boob.

Re:marginalization

[AtariAmarok]

"They're the same idiots who keep propagating partisian myths like the "Al Gore invented the Internet" lie."

No myth: Al Gore actually claimed to have invented the Internet during a CNN interview. (exact words: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"). It was merely a misstatement during an interview. It is rather clear that Gore did not intend to lie about his accomplishment, so the word "lie" is not the best to use.

Re:marginalization

[Anonymous Coward]

"misinformation being spread about by partisian groups on the UN's purpose and accomplis"

Presenting facts about this organizations many outrageous actions is not "misinformation". The oil-for-food scandal, the UN "peacekeeper" rape scandals, and the neo-Nazi "We hate the Jews!" UN resolutions are a matter of historic record.

Again, you are lying about matters you know so little about, and are also appealing to paranoid conspiracy theories. When an organization you like commits crimes, you "blame the messenger".

Some good could come of the UN. Perhaps the organization can only be improved if you see to it that the genocidal dictators like Syria, Libya, China, Zimbabwe and scores of other tinhorns are removed from having any say in it.

Re:marginalization

[Anonymous Coward]

(grumble grumble) Just a joke. (grumble grumble)

This country's being taken 3 steps closer to the Stone Age so that some political party can gain and keep the Fundamentalists as a voting bloc. "Evolution is just a theory." "Condoms are ineffective at preventing disease." "Social work is EVIL." (note that they're not even claiming "wasteful" anymore, which I might agree with; no, they've decided to cut past reasonable debate and appeal to religious emotion. Fuck 'em.)

I'm TIRED of these jokes, dammit.

Re:marginalization

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah. They did that kind of thing to Dan Quayle on a daily basis for years, but do it once to Gore, and they're all crybaby about it. Oh, the humanity!

Re:marginalization

[ConceptJunkie]

I'm TIRED of these jokes, dammit.

Well then stop making them.

You surely can't think your rant is any less specious than my joke.

Very funny

[Elkboy]

The Oil For Food Program succeeded in its humanitarian mission.

"International aid efforts and the U.N. oil-for-food program helped reduce the ruinous impact of sanctions, and the rate of acute malnutrition among the youngest Iraqis gradually dropped from a peak of 11 percent in 1996 to 4 percent in 2002."

- The Washington Post, November 21

That's not the only aspect of the OFFP "scandal" that has been twisted.

With the risk of ruining the UN-bashing with a little US-bashing - the US can't even feed the dogs down there.

Re:Very funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they are busy doing something else.

Re:Very funny

[Elkboy]

I know, the US-bashing was in jest.

But to be fair, the focus on corruption, prostitution and such, while obviously justified, easily obscure what the UN accomplishes too, just as any negative news from Iraq jumps ahead of positive ones.

Interesting

[Stormcrow309]

So, we have a game that educates us on the UN Humanitarian efforts. So, options will be feed the populace, get kickbacks, or go home?

I would like the UN to live upto its charter and worry about Human Rights and Genocide. BTW, 'Ethnic Cleansing' is a term for Genocide that does not envoke the Genocide Resolution (Resolution 260 (III) A) in the UN Charter.

Re:Interesting

[Stalyx]

I am assuming you are refering to the events that are happening in Sudan and what happened in Rwanda where millions of people were killed and nobody really gave a shit. The United Nations is as strong as its members want it to be. I am not particularly sure why every balking from going into Sudan but in the case of Rwanda what really happened was that the genocide happened in a time frame where people were still thinking about the disaster that happened in Somalia. It was close to an election and President Clinton had no choice but to agree with the popular sentiment not in the US but the whole world and stay out of Rwanda

Is this a failure on the UN's part? Hell Yeah it is... a million or more people died because people were worried about what was popular and not only the Americans, the Dutch, the French anybody could have sent troops and saved lives but none of them wanted to even call it a genocide.

The problem here is not that the United Nations ineffective, they do a lot of good stuff we never hear about. But when it comes to hot topic issues like Rwanda and the Sudan they are forced to toe the line of the Security Council. Each of those 15 members have the power of veto. And they use it frequently. The case in Iraq for example. The french vetoed first if they brought up a claim saying that America's action was illegal the British and the Americans would veto it.

What I am getting at is that its easy to be critical of the United Nations. But the UN is not a democracy and all this talk of, we need to get out of the UN is not only silly and shortminded. For everyone who says the UN is not doing anything really the counter claim is that if the US or the French does leave the UN would they really go help Sudan? I mean the claim is that Sudan is the UN's role, so if you broke away from the shackles of the UN, would you do whats right?

Re:Interesting

[Stormcrow309]

Unfortunately, they are required to act in cases of Genocide. The UN is broken if they cannot handle a core issue like Genocide. The fact that the US did not act Unilaterally is a point of shame on my part; but hell, I voted Dole.

Re:Interesting

[faloi]

I mean the claim is that Sudan is the UN's role, so if you broke away from the shackles of the UN, would you do whats right?

Depends on what's right, obviously. NATO had no problem acting without UN sanction in Kosovo, but decided to toe the line in Rwanda. I can't discuss it reasonably, because it's a hotbutton for me. I don't know that every country would do what's right in the absence of the UN, but we (as a global community) obviously don't always do what's right WITH the UN present. So essentially we spend money supporting an orginization that may or may not make a difference. It's at least worth revising the way the global community uses the UN.

Re:Interesting

[Stalyx]

Yes, I agree. the United Nations HAS to act whenever a genocide occurs. Guess how they got around it, they did not use the G word :(

If its not a genocide, guess what the rest of the world need not act. The US does not need to act unilaterally, what is needed is leadership. I mean I do understand that we Americans are not the worlds most favorite people right now but I think we would be surprised at how many people would support (millatarily and morally) if any country goes to stop whats happening in Sudan.

I reccommend watching a documentary called "Ghosts or Rwanda". It shows what exactly is wrong with the UN. And it shows how the security council fails. Reform is neccessary, but probably not going to happen because the biggest reform would be changing the current system one country can dictate the will of the world. The Russians did it in Afganistan in the 1980's the French have been guilty of it. The Americans with our hardline support of the Isreali's. And thats what needs to change. But realistically would that ever happen?

Re:Interesting

[Stalyx]

No question. There should be more of an outcry about Sudan, someone has to do something :( and soon. When people are presented the oppurtunity to save lives its mind boggling that countries do not take that oppurtunity. But then we come again to your initial question. What is right? Is it right to depose of a dictator like Saddam and bring democracy to the Middle East, it depends on whom you ask.

So I agree with you but in reality I rather spend money on an organization that MAY however remote the possibility to make a difference. And in reality they do help, its just that its more of a news topic when they do fail. And in my opinion they did fail in Sudan http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

' The Americans with our hardline support of the Isreali's" '

There is nothing "hardline" about defending Israel against neighboring countries which have been trying to exterminate its people. If prevention of genocide is a good thing, here is an example of it. If this is "hardline", what sort of compromise do you want? How about Israel's enemies get some of what they want and get to kill off only half of the Jews? Is that something more "moderate" for you?

Re:Interesting

[Stormcrow309]

I have seen the Movie "Ghosts of Rwanda". The issue with the UN is that every country gets a vote in the General Assembly. Considering the shear number of petty dictators out there, there is no surprise that we have the issues that we have. The change has to be political reform inside countries first.

As for Israel, all I see is a country beset by enemies that we help. The issue isn't Israel, but the Countries around it.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it have the level where Koffi's son bilks the system for millions?

PC

[Reignking]

Well, this has to be more politcally correct than FEMA's Tsunami game, where you had to put things back where they belong after the tsunami came through town...

The server is as quick as...

[9mm Censor]

the UN.

Re:The server is as quick as...

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Why, is it underfunded and vetoed by the US?

Re:The server is as quick as...

[Quill_28]

Is it corrupt too?

Re:The server is as quick as...

[AtariAmarok]

"Why, is it underfunded and vetoed by the US?"

The UN is often vetoed by the US, true As for the funding, the UN is overfunded if anything. The lavish lifestyles they give their leaders and the ways they waste their money on enriching the already rich shows that they have more than enough right now.

Direct link

[9mm Censor]

ftp://62.173.160.118/food-force/Food_Force_Install er.exe

Re:Direct link

[Anonymous Coward]

if your lucky enough to get it from ftp://62.173.160.118/food-force/Food_Force_Install er.exe

please repost your own link or torrent, I will be happy to host it on someone's webserver I obtained access on.

Re:Direct link

[Anonymous Coward]

I was lucky enough to get a connection after 46 expenentially backed off retries. The problem is it's going to take over 6 hours to download it at 5K/s.

Boy you've bought into the propaganda

[Banner]

Or are you just a UN employee?

There is no more corrupt organization on earth currently than the UN. Supporting genocide, peacekeepers raping young girls and boys, the oil for food scam.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. How come no one mentions all those documents kofi had his aid spend NINE months shredding before starting the investigation?

The UN must go. It is a complete failure, it promotes and supports the worst despots in history and kofi is no better than one himself. Time to try and build something that beleives in freedom and human rights. Not murder, rape, and robbery.

Didn't Intellivision originally do this one?

[mopslik]

Only then it was called Burgertime?

Media continues to distort UN food programme facts

[mabu]

Hyman trashed U.N. with distortions about oil-for-food

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504140003

Sinclair Broadcast Group commentator Mark Hyman used the April 12 edition of "The Point" to attack United Nations and European leaders with false and misleading accusations regarding their involvement in corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program.

Referring to Benon Sevan, the U.N. undersecretary who headed the oil-for-food program, Hyman opened "The Point" by stating, "Generally, if someone has found to have illegally profited at the expense of his employer, he'll at least get a good swift kick out the door if he escapes prosecution. But if you are caught at the U.N., they pay your legal fees." What Hyman failed to note is that the United Nations stopped paying the legal fees for Sevan in February, when the Independent Inquiry Committee investigation headed by Paul Volcker revealed that Sevan had personally solicited illicit oil from Iraq on behalf a small African trading company and that his actions "were ethically improper, and seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations." Until that time, the allegations against Sevan were unsubstantiated.

Hyman further claimed: "After Operation Iraqi Freedom toppled Saddam Hussein, it was learned that the program was corrupt with officials from Europe to the U.N. profiting from off-the-books deals and kickbacks." But the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council -- which had primary responsibility for overseeing oil-for-food -- were aware of potential oil-for-food kickbacks well before Hussein was ousted and took only minimal steps to confront the problem, apparently in order to maintain support for the sanctions regime, which had effectively thwarted Hussein's ambition to restart his weapons of mass destruction programs by denying him the necessary materials, even as Hussein found ways to gain illicit revenue.

An examination of oil-for-food corruption by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released in April 2004, stated that in March 2001 the U.S. "informed the Security Council about allegations that Iraqi government officials were receiving illegal surcharges on oil contracts and illicit commissions on commodity contracts." GAO noted that the Security Council took action on the oil contracts surcharges by implementing retroactive pricing for such contracts, but that "it is unclear what actions" were taken regarding the illicit commissions on commodities contracts.

Further, The Washington Post reported on November 14, 2004, that Edward Mortimer, communications director for the U.N. Secretary-General's office, stated that beginning in late 2001, "U.N. officials presented the sanctions committee with 70 contracts that were potentially overpriced. ... But 'nobody placed a single contract on hold,' he said -- including the United States and Britain, Baghdad's toughest critics on the Security Council." In testimony before the House Government Reform Committee's subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations on April 12, Fairfield University professor Joy Gordon, who studied the U.N. sanctions against Iraq, confirmed Mortimer's assertion:

Where price irregularities were clear, the customs officers of the OIP [Office of the Iraq Program] staff did in fact inform the 661 Committee [the committee established in 1990 by U.N. Security Council Resolution 661 to monitor Iraq's compliance with sanctions], giving each member the opportunity to block the contract, or to ask for further information before approving. On over 70 occasions, this was done. On none of those occasions did any member of the Council -- including the U.S. -- seek to delay or block the contract for pricing irregularities.

Hyman also claimed that "[t]he involvement of high-ranking U.N. officials in the oil-for-food scandal may have been the deciding factor in the international body's reluctance to hold Saddam accountable for his actions," but Hyman provided no explanation for h

Try something factual next time.

[AtariAmarok]

What you presented was actually an editorial from an extremist group. It was not news, it was not fact. It was opinion. Do you have anything to present that is not wing-nut opinion using as a "Straw Man" the Sinclair bogeyman?

Also, regardless of whether Sinclair is snakes or not, it cannot possibly engage in " continued misuse of public airwaves" by "broadcast[ing] one-sided, politically charged programming without a counterpoint." Such broadcasts are part of free speech, and are an excellent use of the airwaves. There is a First Amendment. Get used to it. No-where does the First Amendment allow for censoring someone because their view is "one sided". "Media Matters" comes across as an extremist group that wants to censor others for expressing opinions they do not like. Even worse is "SinclairAction", a group dedicated to censoring opponents' views.

I know little of this Sinclair group, but you are setting them up in a sympathetic way by saying that they "missues" airwaves merely by freely expressing political opinion. It is impossible to missuse the public airwaves by presenting opinion. Period.. What Sinclair is doing is proper use, and must not be censored.

I am not defending Sinclair because they are conservative. Instead, I am defending them because someone wants them censored, and is blatantly lying about them on www.sinclairaction.com. That makes me defend just about anyone.

Whatever happened to the idea of tolerance of opposing views? Why must someone set up astroturf action sites like www.sinclairaction.com dedicated to promoting censorship?