Slashdot Mirror
Iraq War Veterans Protest America's Army Title
Via GamePolitics, a story reported by the St. Lois Post-Dispatch of frustrated war veterans protesting America's Army . Roughly 100 veterans of the Iraq war marched near an elaborate demonstration of the military-funded game, outside of an expo center in Missouri. Their shouts of 'war is not a game' must have contrasted sharply with the elaborate simulator the Army had set up to publicize their (already very popular) FPS title.
Wars we are currently fighting are not a game.
Medal of Honor? Bring it.
Wolfenstein, too. I'm not gonna roll over for no Nazi robots...
America's Army doesn't appear to have evil robots.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
FTA:
One onlooker told the protesters they should support their country. Another passer-by snapped back at him: "That's exactly what she's doing."
That might be the most embiggening thing about the entire episode... that people (who are not just typing it on their blog) are starting to realize that.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
It's my position, and one that I see echoed in many online communities, that games don't impact actual behavior. That laws seeking to limit or restrict games based on content are out of line. That lawsuits blaming violence on games are completely out of line. So - while I understand the emotions driving these folks, from a logical stand point, I think they are wasting their time and the army is wasting money.
If someone would like to argue that the game preps youth for war and predisposes them to join the army, then they would seem to be arguing that gta prepares and predisposes players to crime and violence, etc.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
So they want the game to be more realistic?
... Somehow... And yet, somehow, still, ...
More stress disorders?
Trying to get healthcare in a VA Hospital after having a leg or hand amputated?
Being able to play the role of an evil dictator sending armies into war?
There's a very well and good reason games are considered games, and a very fishy reason that a military of any country would put out a game "simulation" of actually being deployed. "Hey Joe, this game is fun! Let's join the army/marines/navy/airforce!"
As long as wars are profitable and corporations are making the decisions, marketing spin will follow. If the morale needs to be pumped from the top-down then maybe the cause is not just, or has not been communicated.
I couldn't agree more. It's not a game, It's a joke.
A war won, is still diplomacy failed.
The belief that you know a thing is a most perfect way to prevent learning.
They're well within their rights to protest the game as far as I'm concerned, the VA and/or local commanders may have other views. I however, do not agree with them and believe part of making an informed decision about joining the military should not in the least be influenced by playing an "Army Simulation". Get information from every source you can about joining BEFORE your sign up, choose a path that suits you and your talents and go from there. War is not a game, it's not a joke, but it exists regardless of whether you want it to or not. The game exists and whether or not it is designed to be a "simulator" which with today's technology could only loosely be called a "simulation", or just a game for fun's sake, is beside point. I say let it go...
Yeah, but we can download it with BitTorrent. That makes it feel like stealing. Comcast will still screw with our connection.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Any time America's Army comes up, I always think about how insane it is that on the one hand many people and politicians in the U.S. are hysterical about video games supposedly causing violent behavior, while at the same time I hear no real objections from these people to their tax dollars being used to develop a game whose explicit point, AFAIK, is to persuade kids to take part in actual violence (by becoming soldiers).
I am not a pacifist, and I don't object to people serving in the military. My father served in the military and so did his father. I think that, whatever the realities, there are some good, noble reasons to become a soldier. I just don't think that "killing people is fun" is one of them.
I also don't really think (in the absence of convincing evidence) that video games generally lead to violent behavior. I do think, though, that a game put out by the Army that touts its realism can shape the ideas of what combat is like in impressionable minds, so I definitely have an ethical problem with them using it as part of a recruiting effort with people who are just coming into adulthood.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
One nice thing is, though, that enlisting always involves a contract - that spells everything out. Anyone who joins the military and later complains that the recruiter lied -- didn't read the document that mattered. Those people, by and large, are idiots. I met tons of them when I was in the military.
I say by and large - because it is within the realm of possibility that someone could have their contract altered after they signed it, but I've never seen it. It would be too much work because most of these folks do no research, just listen to what some e-5 or e-6 tells them and signs on the line without even reading what they've just signed.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
People who believe fanatastic, unlikely, promises deserve to get screwed. I get pissed off at those people I know that have been accepting paychecks from the government all these years and then start bitching about actually having to earn them when the war started. I could have used some spare cash too but I didn't sign-up because I didn't want to go fight in a war. It's obvious that they're not giving you cash for the hell of it. Of course when there is a war you're expected to go fight. Doh.
I do think it'd be nice if it was easier to find more realistic information on what being in the military is like. So that people that are interested can get a real picture of how things are before joining.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The military is, at the very least, being disingenuous and misleading when it advertises and recruits. Recall the old National Guard slogan? No? Probably because they stopped using it... "One weekend a month, two weeks a year." Sounds like a sweet deal "Come on, the National Guard doesn't do shit! At best you work a couple months and get paid well!" It was the NG's big selling point in advertisements and television for years. That was until the Iraq war when the National Guard was required to stay for excessive and extended tours of duty... soon it wasn't enough to convince people that the "Easy" National Guard was just a couple months of training and work.
Absolutely, the military doesn't LIE and it spells out exactly what you may potentially be asked to do... but they're very good at using semantics to mislead people. In this case it is a Kickass(tm) action game meant to entice children to join the military.
According to this ad for the army, the army seems to think that war is just another game on another level. sickening.
A random member of the public told AN IRAQ WAR VETERAN to support his country?
It's unethical because it is a lie.
In this simulation (I had a chance to play it because I used to work where they designed it.), the players are veritably invincible. The only thing realistic about it is that they are ambushed by a terrorist force of surprising size and ferocity. IEDs are blowing up all over and no players get hurt or die in any way. Also, these HMVs that you are riding in are apparently made of duranium alloy and surrounded in a force field, because the HMVs were not even affected by nearly constant rocket fire.
It supports the idea that our Army is invincible and if you join it, you will be, too. That is why it is unethical.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
Next time some senator wants to censor games, how about sending him a copy of AA and ask him for a comment?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I knew I forgot to download something! Thanks protesters for reminding me!
But really, saying the game isn't like war is like pointing out real life doesn't have a "respawn" key. It also ignores the quite probable fact (I don't know this for sure, I don't have any data to back this up, this is just what I think is probably true) that plenty of people play FPSs... including AA... without ever intending to join the army or pick up a real gun.
Plus, let's say it WAS very close to the real thing as a virtual game could get... I don't think anyone who died even once in the game would want to try their luck in the real army...
> Of course when there is a war you're expected to go fight.
Forever. Until you die or go crazy. None of this "limited tours of duty" crap that we did with WW2, no sir. It's Warhammer 40K in the corps: life is war, war is life, venerate the immortal emperor.
That's what joining the army now means. Army Strong means huddling in a corner when someone drops a book behind you.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
I worked for the America's Army team when they were located at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. I wanted to get some more game industry experience on my resume and it was the only local job of its nature. It was a cool bunch of people working on the game, your typical bunch of gamers and artists. The only major difference was that we were all working on a piece of major recruitment propaganda for the Pentagon.
You had these guys in military uniforms talking about how great it was that this game saves them hundreds of millions of dollars in recruitment costs. How it has gotten millions of downloads and been very successful in weeding out people who sign up for service without knowing what they are getting into. Instead you get guys like FPS Doug who might be thinking "hey, war is just like FPS, so why not sign up for the military and get paid to goto college!"
After two weeks I couldn't take it anymore. The job was great, the environment was great, the people were friendly, and the product was encouraging young Americans to sign their lives away and be sent off to Iraq. It bothered me too much so I staged my own little protest, I just walked out of the office and never went back. Not like I was crucial to the team, but I didn't want to have something on my resume which I completely morally objected to.
The WW2 generation and their children have a sickening level of governmental trust. I heard the "we are at war" line from some old guy in the grocery store, but we are NOT AT WAR. The playtime in Iraq police action wasn't important enough to merit a declaration of war from Congress, nor a draft! I dunno about you, but I don't think we really need to be in Iraq. We should have kept in Afghanistan and found Osama, even if we did have to invade our 'allies' the Saudies.
Blar.
Yeah, personally I'm all for sending the next generation of draft dodgers (Both sides had 'em back in the day) straight into combat. Maybe the National Guard will actually be able to produce something better than burned out ex-frat-boy next time we go digging through their retirees for a leader. (OK Clinton at least wasn't entirely burned out... apparently still had a little juice left in him!)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Really? Have you been in the military and done basic training?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Contrary to the opinions expressed by others here, I think that video games make a great contribution to educating young people about the realities of war. In your average war game, the fighting begins with no real purpose (indeed, such things are often considered irrelevant by the players) and the only real costs of mounting casualties are to the players' egos, and to the effectiveness of their side as they begin to "win" or "lose". How does this not reflect the attitudes and outlooks of the people who lead us to war ? The analogy goes further - at the conclusion of each match, the contestants (whether they have won or lost) are encouraged, by pride and by their own excitement, to "try again", perhaps on a new battlefield with a familiar group of people but a different set of alliances and opponents. The modern war video game is in many ways a most accurate model of modern warfare, and I think it behooves parents and leaders alike to encourage young people to play these games, and to reflect for themselves on what the games might mean to them.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
I would hardly make the assumption that the generally state controlled national guard is going to be fighting in other countries.
Of course they are supposed to help in the case of disaster reliefe within our borders too (too bad they arn't here any more).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
...And ask for his comments, Florida anti-gaming lawyer Jack Thompson took a moment to share his views with us:
"This is not a situation in where the ESRB will be blind-sided by hidden or embedded content. This game promotes the killing of innocent people.
The goal is to make it such a negative thing that the retailers won't carry it. This thing hasn't really reached critical mass as a public relations problem yet; that's what I'm trying to do.
Towards that goal, I have half a mind to sue the Department of Defense and get this whole thing scrapped."
On a related note, 96% of the 1081 people polled agreed with Mr. Thompson. As one person stated: "Of course it's obvious, Jack Thompson has half a mind."
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Like any other marketing team - they are going to push what they think will sell. Have you seen the commercials on t.v. for floam? My kids bought some and it sucks. It isn't like the commercials at all. We through it all out and they learned a very good lesson. As my 6 year old said, "They say that just to get your money".
For years the reserves, gaurd etc. was easy money. I was in the Naval reserves for 4 years following my active duty and the hardest part about it was the boredom. (Though some of it was pretty cool - just depended on where I was.) I think one guy from my reserve center got called up for the first desert storm.
Disingenuous, misleading? I can't say it's not - but not any more than most other advertising. So we're back to idiots getting suckered - anyone with half a clue should know the score.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Well, I'm glad that you think of me as an intellectual. As to missing the truth, I never said that we ("we" as a people, not "we" as in you and me) were any more reasonable, intelligent or otherwise enlightened than this, somewhat ambiguous, enemy. And if, as you seem to suggest, that the best solution is to sink to the level of the lowest of the low in order to defeat those who hate us, then I'm afraid that you've contradicted yourself.
By the way, fear is the breeding-ground of hate. Simply getting your enemy to fear you is a sure way to get more hate directed at you. Governments have toppled (violently) because they thought that they could rule with fear.
The belief that you know a thing is a most perfect way to prevent learning.
I think that at worst games can be a waste of time, at best they are art. They can engage the mind - but this does not translate directly to actions. They do not create mindless zombies out to kill. I don't think they 'trick' kids into enlisting in the army. I don't think they even make kids more likely to want to join or fight in a war. Their ability to do good falls within the same restrictions, yes.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
It's St. Louis, not St. Lois. :-)
As a military member, I agree with a lot of what these veterans are saying. War is NOT a joke, it is NOT a game, and its consequences are very real. I've been injured in the desert, and getting health care from the Army-- even while I'm STILL on active duty-- is a very difficult task. I don't know that these elements are covered by the game. I'm also wary of the government spending taxpayer money on a video game-- I certainly don't consider it the *wisest* use of my tax money, but then again, I think the same thing about OIF.
That said, I have no desire to see the game discontinued because it might-possibly-theoretically-kinda-sorta convince a kid that joining the Army is something worth doing. The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all offer something to those willing to take up the challenge-- whether it be educational benefits, travel opportunities (eight countries and counting), or just a steady job. For a lot of people, these are great opportunities. If a video game provides people with a more detailed view of military life, and helps somebody decide that they want that life, then I'm not sure it's such a bad thing.
(I would also like to note that military recruiters in EVERY branch are known for not showing "the whole truth" to recruits. I've seen tons of recruitment videos, pamphlets, and presentations that show the same above-listed benefits and opportunities-- while showing none of the downsides. It's the nature of the recruitment machine. If we want to change it, perhaps we should start with the top, and institute reforms throughout the recruiting corps-- not just the video game.)
The game is propaganda, and we should recognize that and make sure that our kids who play the game realize it, too. Once we've done that, we have to allow the next generation to make their own decisions about whether or not to enlist. For those who do-- I thank them for their service and wish them the best. For those who don't-- I thank them for their consideration and wish them the best, as well.
Yeah you are right, it would be wrong for me to draw that conclusion based only on my experiences. But hey, my 'gut' says that the older generations are more trusting of government, especially given the "we are at war" fallacy that they have, in my experience, bought into.
Blar.
This is kind of an aside; just recollecting what's been floating though my mind for the last few days. It seems to me that the leadership of the United States of America is losing it's way. As a frightening parallel in history, in Germany the Nazis rose to power by gradually placing more and more control into the hands of selected capitalists. We called it Fascism then. The same can be seen in the USA today, war profiteering is being funneled into the wealth of those who made the decision to war in the first place! An old-boys network such as this sadly is a fact of life but what strengthens the parallel between the Nazis and the current USA is that the leadership is also paying less heed to the wishes of the people they claim to represent. I hope that those who are ignorant of history don't drag the rest of us through it. Again.
If you read a book called Earth by David Brin, he describes his vision of the near future as basically including a war where the bankers and anyone on their records are shot - cleansing the parasitism from societies fabric.
What do you think? Because in the age of Information you can make a difference!
Shh.
That is a good point. I do think that the National Guard should not be deployed outside US borders. IMO they are here to protect the US in case of attack and to help with disastors etc. They should not be used like the Army Reserve. But that comes down to reading the details when you sign-up I guess.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
In Clinton's defence how many people would turn down about the most prestigous scholarship there is to serve as a drafted grunt in a war in South East Asia that was increasingly looking as if it had nothing to do with the USA? Actually being in the forces and going AWOL for months is a different story to refusing to enlist for a legitimate reason.
Have you ever managed anybody, raised a child, trained an animal, dealt with a bully, or anything that really requires dealing with behavior control? You don't get anywhere by being weak. You don't have to be an asshole but you do need to take charge and show that you're strong.
There are more than one types of fear. Some are more likely to breed hate than others. These people are already taught to fear and hate us. We're scary in the way of someone you can still run up to and punch in the nose. We need to become so scary that they see us as being on a whole different level than themselves. At the same time we need to be seen as kind and forgiving - by helping them improve their country, improve their quality of life, etc. We need to pour enough force into Iraq that we seem overwhelmingly strong, crush violence with an iron fist, and meanwhile help the average person live a better life.
By using more force you'll have the strength not to cause as much harm. The less harm you cause while helping them the least hatred you'll get.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
it seems that this depends heavily on how high up in the administration one is
No one turned this into a nerd discussion of the merits of the game. Which, given the topic, is somewhat OT.
... something like 3 or 4:1.
... don't get suckered by the propaganda - but for those of you who didn't play based purely on that, you missed a great game. I'm not sure how well that game engine has stood the test of time (especially now that the next gen games are on their way out, bioshock, etc), but it certainly was a blast.
I will comment that it's a shame the US Army put this game out, since it's (and I will argue so) one of the more realistic FPS games out there. Fuck Rainbow Six. Fuck Counterstrike. This is the game where I can easily give out orders, or better yet, USE HAND SIGNALS to quickly communicate with my teammates. In fact, it's better to use hand signals since the sound of your own f'ing radio can give you away.
Cover-fire, positioning, and tactics all made this a great squad based game - it was a dream come true to find yourself on several teams that actually knew what they were doing.
And bless whomever made 'Pipeline'. Truly an awesome map - balanced and interesting.
I played up till I was about rank 90 or so - I had a fairly high kill to death ratio as well (no, I did not just sit around and whore on defense - I played roughly 50/50)
So yeah, for those of us anti-war / our government
Good lord! At least somebody will "cut them some slack" for exercising their First Amendment rights!
You think these soldiers have been misled by the liberal media just because they oppose the war? They saw the war. You didn't. My friend Jim, 25, was a medic in Falluja. He is against the war. He came back and his hair was gray, and he is 25. I think that gives him more than the right to have any opinion he wants.
Anecdotes aside, even if I disagree with someone who is pro-war, I can at least argue with them because I think they are wrong, giving them some credit for coming to their own views through experience or rationale...no matter how stupid I think the conclusions are. So "pray" they change their minds about it, wow. Sounds like you are ashamed of them for having minds in the first place.
Think about your argument: the big thing I hear from pro-war people with the "support our troops" line was that after Vietnam, troops came home and were spit on by anti-war people; now troops come back from Iraq and are given crap by pro-war people? And simultaneously told they need to "support the troops" by people who didn't even serve? Unbelievable.
i am the opposite of tom_good, i am the XOR of ]=9fÆ"ÝÕ and ÖÆ\KF, i am 746F6D5F6576696C00.
Right, I agree mostly. Read before you sign.
1) But take someone who signed up after 9/11 who is now in Iraq saying, "I signed up to get Osama and now I drive past IEDs each day in the middle of a civil war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11..."
2) Or, someone who signed up in 2000, was at the end of their contract in 2004 after serving in Iraq, who gets their deployment extended indefinitely through stop loss orders. That IS happening, and it was not what they signed...
3) Or, someone who truly believes that this war is breaking the military, and is harming the country...
4) Or, that the war is an unconstitutional war, launched without a declaration, unilaterally by the President, when the Constitution reserves that right to Congress (whether or not Congress is ignorant to that Constitutional authority or too spineless to reassert their authority). Kind of conflicts with the whole swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, or do soldiers not have to swear an oath anymore?
Lots of issues here. A stupid person may not have read before they signed, but coming to conclusions like these requires thought.
i am the opposite of tom_good, i am the XOR of ]=9fÆ"ÝÕ and ÖÆ\KF, i am 746F6D5F6576696C00.
I'll just stick with the numbers and give my opinion.
1) This would not be thinking it through. Joining the military means serving the wishes of the military and ultimately the elected government. Right now US serviceman and woman are all over the globe doing all kinds of things.
2)The normal enlistment contract is for 8 years last I checked. So the end of the contract you mention in 2004 would be the completion of the active portion, usually followed up with 4 more of IRR. So yes, it's what they signed.
3) If soldiers were allowed to run the military from the bottom up- we'd have never gotten past the revolutionary war. Someone capable of maintaining this mindset should never join - they are going to be miserable because for many enlisted personnel in the military a great portion of their time is spent on things that will appear to them (and quite probably are) harmful and counter productive.
4) The enlistment oath is very simple. I'll drop the whole thing in here:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.(The national guard oath is the same but with the governor included along with the President.)
I think there are a couple things here worth mentioning. First, and the most obvious is that part there about obeying the President and officers. It carries just as much force as the defending of the constitution. But of course the reality is that the officers appointed and the UCMJ are much more immediate and understandable than the fine points of constitutional law. The second is that while you may feel confident that this war is illegal, it seems that others don't hold to the same level of certainty. I have sympathy for someone who has decided that this is the case - though I would say that once again, they've chosen to enter into military service while at the same time displaying willful ignorance of American history - and most especially American foreign policy in the last 50 years or so.
I think it is safe to say that no country has ever gone to war without some portion of the populace of that nation questioning such action. I know for sure that this has been the case with the United States of America. I personally think this is good - as I detest war and what it does. It is also evident from history that these people don't often get their way. Joining the military of any nation is, on some level, agreeing to the possibility of being involved in military action that will be judged by some to be unjust.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Problem there... Here's the situation:
The fictitious country of Libenstal and their nearby neighbour, Grapphin, have been at odds for hundreds of years.
Libenstal is a massive superpower that has a thriving economy and a military at least ten times the size of Grapphin, but yet Grapphin vocally complains about many of the things that Libenstal does; let's say in this instance, Libenstal decides that the Grapphin border doesn't actually encompass a vast, untapped deposit of oil that was recently discovered, and it lies, instead, within their borders. They agree that, while conflict may occur, their military can easily overwhelm the Grapphinian military, and therefore the risk was worth it. Spinning a tale about how the land was unjustly stolen from the Libenstalian forefathers, the government carries out its plan.
So the two countries clash in diplomatic negotiations for mere hours before Libenstal walks out, its ambassador claiming that the rain will begin at dawn the next day.
Libenstal launches a massive offensive into Grapphin territory, slaughtering their inferior army and stealing everything that isn't bolted down. Desperate and unable to strike back, Grapphin surrenders and its borders officially rewritten, among several other spoils that drive the country to economic ruin.
Libenstal reigns supreme over a crushed enemy that could never have hoped to survive such an onslaught, and reaps the benefits of the vast oil fields that Grapphin's former lands provide, while also dipping into their tax money and demanding the export of extremely cheap resources into Libenstal, essentially working their people as slaves.
For fifty years, Libenstal continues to thrive, the oil deposit long gone and forgotten as the country continues to grow in power. During this time, the people of Grapphin have become embittered, their spirits worn and their children starving. Facing nothing but lives of misery and poverty, old munitions from abandoned military bases begin to go missing, and soon enough, guerrilla attacks on civilian targets in the Libenstal capitol begin to erupt.
Libenstal immediately responds by reinvading Grapphin, reducing the country to general chaos as they flex their military might once more. Libenstal proclaims that the operation was a success, and Grapphin, the orchestrator of the attack, was now under direct Libenstal control - The country had become Libenstal land. The "state" government is replaced by a puppet organization that pleads, both sincerely and by script, to stop the attacks. But such would not be the case. Grapphin's people have already begun their bloody revolt, and their attacks begin to become more organized, their ferocity increasing by the day. Soon, open fighting in city streets in the Libenstal capitol breaks out, besieged by the blockage of roadways and the destruction of runways.
Libenstal's mighty armed forces continuously comb as much area around the city as possible, never quite able to find where the Grapphin rebels are at any given point in time. All they can find are abandoned makeshift command centres in the hills and old buildings, along with old, decrepit weaponry. The mighty Libenstal military is not capable of directly confronting the guerrilla attacks, and resorts to declaring nation-wide martial law. Its own citizens under scrutiny, many find themselves subject to questioning, detainment, and even torture if suspicion warrants. All who break curfew without express permission and escort by military authority are shot on sight.
As time draws on, several years after the initial attacks, the will of Libenstal's people become weathered, their own government turning its back on them as it instates an emergency 24-hour monitoring requirement for every household. Conscription becomes the primary method for recruitment, and deserters, dissenters, and all those criticizing the "war" are shot. Many citizens join the guerrillas as fighters themselves, or become informants. Others still band their own rebellion, while others unable
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
"What's the button to watch your best friend die, get hooked on drugs, and then return to a country that hates you?"
"I'm not sure there is a... Oh, it's 'Q'."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/17
Interesting concept, but I'm sure that the Iraqi people wouldn't really enjoy seeing more men from the West showing up to patrol their streets. With Abrams MBT's, Bradleys and Hum-vees all over the place, and with armed soldiers everywhere you look, the stories your uncle used to tell you about how the Americans are evil, warmongering dogs from hell begin to ring true. This is the sort of fear that doesn't entail "hitting you in the nose", but rather entails the wholesale sacrifice of oneself to defend their land against invasion.
The Iraqi people, while some, or really, many, see the Americans as a good thing, there are just as many who see them as the opposite. IED's, RPG's, and every other acronym they're using these days are commonplace, and you can bet it's not a welcome mat. What needs to be done is to quell the idea that America is the big bully of the world, out to steal resources from a country incapable of defending itself, to genuinely aid the Iraqi government and people, rather than simply police them. Fear isn't what needs to be done. You can't tame a wild animal by making it fear you - It needs to trust you. If you make it fear you, even if it's compliant for a short time, the end result will be catastrophic.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
The video of this protest, along with a more substantive interview can be found here.
But if it's infinite, you can't complete it!
[/pedant]
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
Yeah, just like the U.S. did after Gulf War I... er... umm... nevermind.
Well, you'd be making a wrong assumption:
Throughout the 19th century the regular Army was small, and the militia provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican-American War, the start of the American Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, part of the militia was federalized and renamed the National Guard and organized as a Reserve force for the Army. In World War I, the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France. In World War II the National Guard made up 19 divisions. One hundred forty thousand guardsmen were mobilized during the Korean War and over 63,000 for Operation Desert Storm. They have also participated in U.S. peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo as well as for natural disasters, strikes, riots and security for the Olympic Games when they have been in the States.United States National Guard
What?
Actually, WAR IS A GAME from mathematics point of view. (The outcome of such game are 99.99% of the time nasty, but that does not mean is not a game). Have you heard about Game Theory?
Oh yes, don't think I'm saying that two sets of circumstances were exactly the same. There was a whole lot of draft dodging back in the day. Anyway, I generally find it ironic when a draft dodger talks about supporting our troops, reinstating the draft and setting the system up so that the organizations he used to dodge the draft are the first ones deployed in a conflict.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yes, but i somehow doubt that the army is promoting mathematical game theory in their ads. Would make a nice campaign, though! :)
Anybody know if there are military strategy books/essays based using game theory?
That's the method of ancient Greek philosophy, and while it was great at the time, we've developed this thing since called "scientific research." There were these guys named Galileo and Newton, among a multitude of others, who figured out that merely holding an opinion does not make you right. They went out into the world and found answers.
Sadly, years of research suggest that you are very very wrong. Violence in television and video games leads to aggressive behavior. It's been tested. Over, and over, and over again, flying in the face of what we gamers don't want to believe... but it is nonetheless true.
Want some information on studies? Here you go: this first one is a guy to whom the psychological community basically defers when talking about youths and media-related violence:
Albert Bandura's study: http://www.psychologymatters.org/bandura2.html
In fact, the psychology community is so sure that there is a major link between media-violence and aggression that they have been making statements since the 80's admonishing parents and the community to do something about it:
American Psychological Association on TV violence: http://www.apa.org/about/division/cpmpubint5.html
Or, if you like, here's the meat: "WHEREAS, the great majority of research studies have found a relationship between televised violence and behaving aggressively, and WHEREAS, the conclusion drawn on the basis of 25 years of research and a sizable number of experimental and field investigations (NIMH, 1972, 1982) is that viewing televised violence may lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children" The above goes on to say why they think something needs to be done by parents and the government about media violence. For all of you on
Some people at this point might not yet be convinced, saying that "video games and TV are totally different." This is, of course, ludicrous... video games are becoming so life-like anymore, and I can't say for sure, but I bet that since we're talking about "learned behavior," and younger generations are more apt to learn by doing than by simply watching, video games are actually more influential than TV. But, that's just a guess, and you want a study. Fine.
Since video games specifically are newer than TV, not as much research has been done on them. Still, here's info on study on video-game violence dating back to 2000:
Article citing Anderson's study on video games: http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.ht
We can give anecdotes until we're blue in the face about how we play GTA but we don't shoot hookers. But science holds firm above anecdotes, my friends.
Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
It's the movie Toys: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105629/
Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
Look, I served. I was over there. It sucked.
And I and others came back a little worse for the wear but pretty much the same people we were. So a "peace" movement managed to scrape up some malcontents, big deal. I bet not all of whom were soldiers, much less combat troops. Of the few that actually turn out to have really served and been in theater, a majority of them are REMFS (Rear Echelon Muther Fuckers) and other deskbound dickheads who never saw the real combat other than random SAF blocks away from their safe concrete buildings.
Face it, there are always shitbirds IN the military (look at Swofford), so there will always be shitbirds that get out of the military and try to trash it. More recently, look at Beauchamp and the The National Review and the fabrications he put there. Turns out he was a REMF and a liar. Same for the fakes, like Jesse MacBeth - who was presented bythe peace protest groups as an Anti-War combat veteran Ranger. There are many other instances of that sort of thign as well. The "Peace" movement is very good at latching onto fake soldiers and non-combat vets as long as they are willing to sing the right tune to the cameras and pose as something they are not.
Given the history of such willing fools, I'd highly discount almost all of the protesters - since its likely many of them are either fakes or not combat arms.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Anyone surprised at the above from an Anonymous Coward?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Stop saying that. It denigrates real wars and those who sacrificed in those wars.
Blar.