Konami Announces a Game Based On a 2004 Battle In Fallujah

The LA Times reports that Konami has announced Six Days in Fallujah, a video game due out next year that is based on an actual battle fought in Iraq in 2004. Quoting: "The idea for the game ... came from US Marines who returned from the battle with video, photos and diaries of their experiences. Instead of dialing up Steven Spielberg to make a movie version of their stories, they turned to Atomic Games, a company in Raleigh, NC, that makes combat simulation software for the military. ... 'The soldiers wanted to tell their stories through a game because that's what they grew up playing,' said John Choon, senior brand manager for the game at Konami... More than a dozen Marines are featured in documentary-style video interviews that are interspersed with the game's action. The Marines reappear in the game itself, doing pretty much what they did during the war. One tells the story of how he furiously wrote a letter to his wife and begged a chaplain to give it to her if he died. Another, Eddie Garcia, talks about how his right leg was shredded in a mortar attack, and how he suffered survivor's guilt after he was taken out of combat."

Comments

Scumbags

[Pictish Prince]

Do you get extra points for incinerating women and children with white phosphorus?

Re:Scumbags

[Anonymous Coward]

those are featured in the Israeli attack on Palestine (oh noes, they're the good ones! really!)

Re:Scumbags

[Oxygen99]

So this is flamebait why? The US Army did use white phosphorous in Fallujah and did so even according to the US Army themselves. White phosphorous is a terrible substance that "melts people's bodies down to the bone", and requires significant moral gymnastics/cowardice* to justify as a weapon of war. I think it's only reasonable that, as an American soldier, the option to deploy banned weapons against the enemy be an option, just as it should be possible to win the game by not ever going to war on half-truths and lies disseminated by a blatantly evil and corrupt administration. (* Delete as appropriate)

Re:Scumbags

[Hubbell]

If you are colluding with the enemy, providing them aid and shelter, you are fair game if you ask me. This pussified method of fighting 'wars' is why the US hasn't won one since WWII. If your city/village is providing support to the enemy, we tell you to out them or we will level your city. If you don't out them, we level your city. Once enough cities have been leveled, people will get the idea. It worked in WW2 against the fervently nationalistic Japanese, who were even more insanely devoted than most Muslims are, and it will work now too, but the Western world is too scared to do what needs to be done in order to win.

Re:Scumbags

[FMZ]

So you'd much prefer to die in a fire, rather than by being doused in acid?

I'd think the feeling of being burned to the bone is much the same whether it's by thermal or chemical reaction.

"It's not against the rules because it works a little differently than the illegal stuff". Go fuck yourself.

Re:Scumbags

[Oxygen99]

Actually, according to Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, white phosphorous, as an obscurant, is legal, white phosphorous as an anti-personnel weapon against military targets outside of civilian areas is a grey area, usage in civilian areas or against civilians is verboten. Last time I looked, most of Fallujah was a civilian area. Of course, since the United States never signed up to the UN agreement the debate is moot anyway, even if the US's own documentation states, "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.". Still, I'm sure the powers that be thought everything was just tickety-boo, given they absolutely denied using the substance until found out.

Re:Scumbags

[tibman]

We are trying to have a discussion about WP, FMZ. Not a shouting contest.

Re:Scumbags

[tibman]

I completely agree that it shouldn't be used in civilian areas. That the chance of collateral damage goes way way up and we could risk killing/injuring unintended targets. But it should remain as a valid weapon of war, imo. It's a tool. Any tool can be used in an improper way, unfortunately.

Though i haven't personally seen WP go off before. I know the Army has many types of flares and smoke screen devices.. i can't imagine why they would use an incendiary as a either? Dual use munition i guess.

Re:Scumbags

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are an idiot. There are rules for war, and there is a reason why there are rules.

Re:Scumbags

[clickclickdrone]

>You are mistaken. WP is not a banned weapon of war.
It is for most countries. It's just one of those things the US disagreed with and refused to sign.

Re:Scumbags

[Pervaricator General]

The original was a troll: no women or children have been reported killed by WP in Fallujah. The WP was used for anti-personnel attacks on protected positions where high explosives were having no effect. (Paraphrased from wikipedia, but consistent with reports I've heard)

The baby-killers charge was, is and always will be trolling.

Re:Scumbags

[Miseph]

No, it's not a valid weapon of war. Like wooden bullets, white phosphorous was deemed to simply be too cruel for use as a weapon. There are other, actually more effective, ways to kill people which do not mutilate the corpses or run afoul of the Geneva Convention, and white phosphorous simply should not be used as a munition.

Re:Scumbags

[strong_epoxy]

There are no rules to war. If you're losing and about to be extinguished, everything's fair game.

Re:Scumbags

[michaelmuffin]

If you are colluding with the enemy, providing them aid and shelter, you are fair game if you ask me. [...] If your city/village is providing support to the enemy, we tell you to out them or we will level your city. If you don't out them, we level your city. Once enough cities have been leveled, people will get the idea.

that particular tactic is called terrorism

18 USC 2331:

the term "international terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

Re:Scumbags

[sbenson]

No but your respawn time is like 120 Secs or more if you kill civilians.

See: ProjectReality.

Re:Scumbags

[ultranova]

So this is flamebait why? The US Army did use white phosphorous in Fallujah and did so even according to the US Army themselves. White phosphorous is a terrible substance that "melts people's bodies down to the bone", and requires significant moral gymnastics/cowardice* to justify as a weapon of war.

What, exactly speaking, is so much more morally reprehensible about burning someone's body to ashes than splattering their brains to the wall? Either way they're just as dead, and it's not like fire that hot is likely to cause a more painful or slow death than a stomach wound.

Re:Scumbags

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

In the next 4 to 6 years when you finally go to college I strongly suggest you take some (Inter)National Security courses and some history courses.

For one thing aside from the moral issues attacking civilian targets during WWII was never a particularly effective tactic. The reason Britain wasn't crushed by the Nazi's is that once they had air superiority the Nazi's switched to civilian targets. This allowed Britain to rebuild it's devastated military and simply fanned the flames of nationalistic pride.

When the tide turned and the allies started bombing civilian targets the same was true. Germany was able to hold out a lot longer because the reduction of pressure on it's military infrastructure.

If you are looking for a war won by the USA after WWII look no farther then the Gulf War. It accomplished everything necessary to safe guard the US's interests. Going any farther would have been against the US's interest and landed us in the mess we are in now. Keeping Iraq intact was also important because it's primary enemy was actually Iran.

Re:Scumbags

[weiserfireman]

Incendiary Weapons are Protocol III of V of the 1980 Geneva Conventions. The United States is a signatory to Protocols I and II. Protocol I is no x-ray invisible fragments and Protocol II is certain types of Landmines and Booby-Traps. The US does not consider itself bound by Protocol III so WP is not an illegal weapon for the US.

This is an example of the problem with International Treaties, like the Geneva Conventions.

They only apply to countries who voluntarily agree to have them apply.

Re:Scumbags

[tibman]

I agree that there are more effective ways of waging war but WP is but one tool in an arsenal, not the main weapon. Also, WP does not violate the Geneva Convention at all UNLESS it is used to target a civilian population. Like firebombing a city or napalming vast areas. Indiscriminate use would be illegal. But that isn't just WP, it's a LOT of things.. like land mines.

But i think what makes WP such a hot topic is Fallujah. It WAS a civilian area. The US gave ample time and warning for the population to leave safely before hand though. So everyone within the city after that point would have been considered a combatant. Even though we know that isn't true.. there will always be civilians mixed in, right? That's why the use of WP is such a big deal. If there was 100 clearly identified enemy combatants.. the Geneva Convention wouldn't bat an eye if they all burned to the ground. But because it took place in a formerly occupied city it's iffy.

It's possible WP was used as an offensive weapon in Fallujah, i don't know. But i honestly have the feeling it was not.

Re:Scumbags

[dave420]

Because bullets don't indiscriminately burn down whole city blocks (with fire that can't be put out by water), and are aimed at individual bad guys - completely unlike WP. That's the problem. It's not as if you can single someone out for WP - what happened is shitloads of the stuff was dumped on a city that contained shitloads of innocent civilians caught up in the fighting. They got burned, their houses got burned, their possessions got burned, and more people pissed off with the US were made.

Re:Scumbags

[SendBot]

but the Western world is too scared to do what needs to be done in order to win.

I agree with this strongly! If the western world would quit being so greedy, angrily violent, and get their priorities straight instead of working at jobs that create no value for society, then it would be truly FTW.

Most of what I've been seeing over the past 8 years has been americans trying (and succeeding) to be better terrorists than the 9/11 hijackers could have ever hoped to have been.

Re:Scumbags

[Quantumstate]

What you have missed is that since WW2 the US has never fought a nation which could bring troops against it in a serious battle. Instead every war has been against guerilla style fighters which is an entirely different kind of war. There is the odd case such as the first gulf war where the US fought directly against an enemy which was trying to prevent them entering territory but this was over very rapidly.

Re:Scumbags

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC for obvious reasons.

I worked on a semi-automated mortar system.

System supports off the ground detonation of white Phosphorus rounds for illumination. But of course, this can also be used as anti-personnel if set to detonate on the ground.

In the end, it is a weapon, how it is used will be determined on when necessary - and not even in policy.

Re:Scumbags

[Erikderzweite]

Great! I totally agree. And since US society supports this war (and it does because you have both the Democracy and the war) it is perfectly valid to attack any targets on US soil, civilian or not. If you didn't want this, you'd be having a different government.

"Once enough cities have been leveled, people will get the idea."

Re:Scumbags

[Shark]

The US gave ample time and warning for the population to leave safely before hand though.

Leave safely where? With your five kids in the desert with no water? How many of these people even had a car?

Re:Scumbags

[Boronx]

If you're for overwhelming force aimed at wiping out the enemy, why are you against the use of nuclear weapons, or at least express relief that they weren't used? It's a tacit admission that nowadays, there is such a thing as too much force, that it can make things harder, not easier. This has been true since the end of WWII and will continue to be true for the foreseeable future.

Re:Scumbags

[couchslug]

Compare Germany after WW1 (no civilian destruction that mattered) and after WWII, when the Germans became remarkably pacific (as did the Japs).

Killing "designated casualties"/uniformed forces does not impose a cost upon the civilian population. Burning their world down around their ears (and destroying their soldiery) makes an effective point.

Bombing civilians worked VERY well in the war against Serbia. The Serb forces suffered minimal losses because they dispersed, decoyed, and moved often. Their infrastructure couldn't move and was blasted, imposing enough suffering that they gave up without much resistance.

Re:Scumbags

[tibman]

Actually, Baghdad is surprisingly close. Take a look at this: http://www.maplandia.com/iraq/al-anbar/al-fallujah/

It's not quite as bad as being stranded in the desert with no water. The Iraqi people are actually pretty friendly, in my experience. Worst case scenario, bumming a ride or walking isn't too bad. Besides, have you seen their holidays?! They shut down half the interstate and walk for miles and miles to journey to Karbala.

Re:Scumbags

[jtev]

Terrorists kill buildings. Nations kill clans, tribes, and cities. The reason there is terrorism is that some types of it work. Terrorism works if your willingness and ability to inflict it upon your enemies is greather than their willingness to suffer it. If your own willingness or ability is inadequate it just really pisses the enemies off, and that is when nations destroy nations. Happened with Japan in WWII, happend with Al Queida and the Taliban after 9/11.

Re:Scumbags

[neomunk]

Wait, so killing children from afar makes you tough, NOT wanting to kill children from afar makes you a pussy, and pointing out that someone is killing children from afar makes you a troll?

It's morals like that that are destroying the conservative movement in the U.S. The vast majority of people know that there is something wrong with that line of reasoning, and are turning away from it even though they want to feel like our military is strong.

No matter how strongly you want to feel like you're tough, killing children from afar (or even being an apologist for such cowardice) will never make you actually tough, it just shows how desperately people justify any action that makes them feel better about themselves, no matter how illusory.

If, instead, you're claiming that we DIDN'T kill any children in Fallujah, I'd like to see a link to that info, because I do not think it exists.

You can go ahead an mod me "-1 Information that upsets my delicate sensibilities" if you'd like, but it won't change the factual nature of my post.

Re:Scumbags

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

but the Western world is too scared to do what needs to be done in order to win.

Killing civilians and creating further death and violence in order to end a war isn't really winning. In WWII there was an immediate and serious threat. In Iraq there isn't a clear immediate threat and debate over if Iraq was ever a threat.

Re:Scumbags

[4D6963]

I think the point you're missing is that while we want to kill people to win battles and wars, we want to do it as humanely, painlessly and clean-lookingly as possible. Ideally weapons would work like in Call of Duty, they either kill you quickly or you get to resume your life normally.

Besides, killing people in a most horrible way tends to throw oil on the fire of the enemy's hatred.

Re:Scumbags

[Miseph]

Except that it is also not supposed to be used against combatants. Weapons that are considered to be exceptionally cruel or needlessly destructive of dead bodies are banned from use against all human targets... this includes WP. You aren't supposed to target (note that this provides some leeway for collateral damage and inaccurate fire) civilian populations AT ALL, even with acceptable weapons.

If you are firing WP at people, you are in violation of the Geneva Convention... it doesn't matter whether they are civilians or not.

That's not to say WP doesn't have any legitimate uses, because it does, but none of them involve killing people. It's great for destroying munitions and (unoccupied) armor, it works well for smoke screening large areas, and various other para-combat uses.

Re:Scumbags

[Pervaricator General]

I have never found any evidence that WP was used against civilians, nor that women and children were targeted indiscriminately, so no war crimes occurred.

The only reference to children with injuries came from the preliminary bombardment, which is usual, if regrettable, and cannot be avoided when combatants set up shop in a populated city.

Again: the first post is a troll by mistakenly conflating injuries of civilians with injuries of combatants through targeted use of WP.

Re:Scumbags

[yoma666]

The "sick" thing is that given the above definition of terrorism invading Iraq was indeed an act of terrorism.
-violent acts that would be a criminal offence if done in the US:check
-intimidate or coerce a civilian population:check
-influence government policy ("we are there to take HIM out"): check
-affect conduct of government by mass destruction ("Shock and Awe"): check
-kidnapping ("Guantanamo anyone?"): check
-assassination ("Images of Saddams sons anyone?"): check

Are there going to be trials or "pre-emptive" strikes on the US in the near future?
Trial not I guess (I think the US did not sign the correct treaties for those).
Pre-emptive strikes, well only time will tell, but I hope everyone realises that people do have memories.

Re:Scumbags

[Pervaricator General]

War is messy and regrettable and sucks for all involved and we would have avoided Fallujah if we could have. So instead of demonizing the Army who is there with a specific purpose and follows a very strict set of guidelines when fighting, blame the property loss for burned houses on the insurgents, who made those family's houses a war zone. Better yet, use the scalpel of local resistance to the insurgents and kill them, so the US government's sledgehammer doesn't have to. Oh wait, that's what the Anbar Awakening did, so we wouldn't have another Fallujah.

According to official reports and observers, WP rounds were used to target places insurgents were hiding. Whether used for illumination or not is not reported, so characterizing the use of WP as "dumping" is questionable at best and trolling at worst. Again, 10,000 or more fled the scene before the fighting started, and remaining vulnerable civilians could have been escorted out by the insurgents, but were instead left as human shields by a cowardly enemy.

Re:Scumbags

[Hubbell]

Actually I believe the terrorist attacks against US targets is #1 justified (atleast in the minds of those committing them for the reasons that they are doing them as they cannot take out military assets and instead NEED to attack the civilian population as it's the only target they can attack) as they have been at 'war' with us for over a decade, atleast AlQaeda has, and #2 remarkably ingenuitive. Using our own civilian infrastructure against us was a brilliant move, mostly because of the sheep culture which was in place where if anyone threatens you, just back away and do what they say otherwise 'you might get hurt' 4 guys with box cutters taking over a plane with 150+ people on it is just fucking ridiculous, and pathetic if you ask me. 9/11 WAS a horrible tragedy for us, but lets get real, 4 guys vs 150+, armed with BOX CUTTERS. That's like the spartans in the actual battle of thermopylae, except nobody fought back except on United 93 and by the time they fought back there it was too late.

Re:Scumbags

[Hubbell]

Been to college, dropped out, currently joining the army as either a comm operator or a cryptoanalyst in ~1-2months, thanks tho!

Re:Scumbags

[gd23ka]

You're a scumbag. I don't regularly go around slashdot calling people names but you _are_ a scumbag
and I'll point that out. It's time to break with this culture of circumscribing the obvious and calling people,
things and places by their real names.

You're talking about Israeli "Rules of Engagement" or the thousand bomber attacks
against Dresden and Cologne (thousands died in those 'attacks' burned and twisted by white phosphorus
just like the people in Falluja recently).

Quit confusing reality with what's on your Xbox.

Re:Scumbags

[phoenix321]

Well, how many wars exactly have the US won with un-overwhelming force?

One? In Panama? And where else?

War with an adequately sized force is foolish, you want the war to be over as fast as possible and as complete as possible, everything else creates a quagmire, if you excuse the word.

Aluminium-hulled tanks in Vietnam, conscript 17yo footsoldiers in the jungle patrolling 3rd-World villages of a totally different culture, I mean, what were they thinking?

Thank God they learnt so much, even through the hard way, in Iraq the first time and then in Somalia - otherwise we'd have a situation much worse than the current and we'd probably all playing Fallujah, but again as conscripts in the real world.

Re:Scumbags

[cerberusss]

At least we didn't just nuke parts of the place, turn the sand into glass....and start real easy from that point.

Nice fallacy.

Re:Scumbags

[KDR_11k]

In a toy war like Iraq the only rule is "look good for the press".

Re:Scumbags

[Hubbell]

Maybe those people shouldn't have been aiding and harboring those who were attacking the US in Fallujah or Israeli's in their numerous skirmishes? Did that thought ever cross your mind?

Re:Scumbags

[tnk1]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but for the most part, people we weren't interested in killing were told to leave the city beforehand.

Presumably, the people who were left were the ones were were concerned with.

And its not like you dump WP on things with a crop duster. It's fired in shells at specific target areas. If it was used as an incendiary, it would still have a target area, and that target area wouldn't be "all of Fallujah" or "two blocks of the city" or we would have just said "fuck this" and dropped a few 250lbs iron bombs on them from an F-15 and saved ourselves the trouble.

Re:Scumbags

[Aardpig]

Here you go: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-fog-of-war-white-phosphorus-fallujah-and-some-burning-questions-515345.html

Re:Scumbags

[Pervaricator General]

Uncorroborated biased source. That documentary is about as reliable as Hamas' media wing. There is a journalist claiming to have seen burned women and children. No further investigation or aftermath stories have been forthcoming. And again, they were fired at military targets, and are not banned by treaties. Belly-ache all you want, but it is legal, and I'm not alone in condoning its use in war.

Re:Scumbags

[timeOday]

OK, but what if you're just invading someplace to make money and boost your political image domestically? Any rules on those wars?

Re:Scumbags

[Aardpig]

How about this, then: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm

To quote from the article:

"We were told going into Fallujah that every single person going into the combat area that was walking, talking, breathing was an enemy combatant. . . It seemed like just a massive killing of Arabs. It looked like just a massive killing. . . Burned bodies. Burned children. Burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately."

This is from the statement by a Marine who served in Fallujah. Elsewhere in the article, there is a discussion of the continued nighttime shelling of the city with WP. How can that be anything but indiscriminate?

And how about this:

"Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused. . . they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

So, sir, fuck you.

Re:Scumbags

[couchslug]

"There are other, actually more effective, ways to kill people which do not mutilate the corpses"

Not other than (some) chemical warfare agents, for all practical purposes. Rapiers are out of fashion these days.

Why is collateral corpse crisping a concern, especially when ambient heat will have them ripe quite shortly?

Shooty and explody munitions do plenty of damage, although most US media don't show it and take care to crop it out of photos other media run uncensored.

Re:Scumbags

[caitsith01]

The US gave ample time and warning for the population to leave safely before hand though. So everyone within the city after that point would have been considered a combatant.

A participant in a war doesn't get to define who is and is not a combatant. It is an objective question.

If I point a gun at you and say "do X now or I will consider you a threat to my safety" and I then shoot you when you refuse to comply, I am still a murderer.

Re:Scumbags

[caitsith01]

War is messy and regrettable and sucks for all involved and we would have avoided Fallujah if we could have.

Yes, if only those civilians hadn't sat there 10,000 kilometres away doing absolutely nothing to harm the United States, you would have been able to avoid the heartache of having to massacre them in their own city following the fabrication of evidence about WMDs.

blame the property loss for burned houses on the insurgents, who made those family's houses a war zone

So Iraqis in Iraq fighting a foreign country which launched a premeditated war of aggression (for whatever reason) made Iraq a warzone?

remaining vulnerable civilians could have been escorted out by the insurgents, but were instead left as human shields by a cowardly enemy

IT WAS A FUCKING URBAN AREA. They lived there. America rocked up and blew it to hell.

Your morals are so inverted its scary.

Re:Scumbags

[Pervaricator General]

Saddam played chicken with the international community. The US didn't blink and deposed him. Fallujah became a stronghold for insurgents upset that they couldn't oppress their countrymen and made Fallujah their stronghold. Local citizens couldn't or didn't kick them out, so we did it for them. We gave ample warning and tens of thousands left the targeted area. Of a city of 300,000 only 2000 (maybe, insurgents included) were killed. I call that a precision operation with ample consideration for those who need to be sheltered from the conflict as we were best able to give, just like my family is sheltered from the conflict.

Re:Scumbags

[caitsith01]

Saddam played chicken with the international community. The US didn't blink and deposed him.

Ah yes, that would explain why the US has intervened in the more obviously problematic cases of Zimbabwe and Sudan, and why you don't trade with a far more murderous and dangerous regime with nuclear weapons in China. Oh, wait.

Re:Scumbags

[Aardpig]

No, try going and reading the marine's blog (http://www.ftssoldier.blogspot.com/). Oh, but you're not going to bother, are you? Because you've already made your mind up, and you really couldn't give a shit that the world might not be exactly in accord with your blinkered perception. That makes you a bit of a douche, doesn't it?

Re:Scumbags

[Forrest Kyle]

The insurgents used white phosphorus before we did. And before that, Saddam Hussein used it on political dissidents. It's really too bad we put a stop to all of that.

Scumbags are people who hide behind civilians, cut the heads off of civilians, beat and rape women, and perform suicide bombing attacks in the name of their primitive religion.

Dickheads are people who vilify the heroes that fight scumbags.

Re:Scumbags

[gd23ka]

Think for a moment as well. Following your logic: "Hand over your scumbags or we will kill your women and children" that applies to
us as well then. To them "we" are scumbags who starved their people and destroyed their country and that's precisely what "we" did.
Gazing out at the world from their perspective they would well consider nuking Washington as commeasurate retaliation unless we
handed them "our" scumbags.

I wonder what I was to do if I were in say Washington and somebody told me: "Hand over the scumbags or fry!". Chances are even
if people in Washington demolished the White House with their bare fists the scumbags would have long been flown out.. you would
be surprised how little they care for you.

And even applying it to the case of that one village somewhere in Iraq where a guy knows that Habib the guy next door is a
resistance fighter.. do you really expect the guy to turn him in? Do you have any idea what kind of risk that guy is taking in the first place?
What do you think they do with rats and maybe even their families? And then the next thing is, these people have a clear concept of
"us" being the enemy. Do you think he's going to run up to people he knows are trying to destroy him and his family to turn someone
in that he sees as fighting for him and his family?

The way I see it shithead ideas like raze a village to make a point you're mean or shoot 12 dozen partisans for each regular don't pay off in the
end anyways. Raze a village, you killed someone else's family. Same thing when you shoot 12 partisans for each regular. Every time
you cripple or kill someone you're killing someone else's family and people who were otherwise not involved have a million very good
reasons to become involved in a big way. (Which is also intended).

Btw what about the Israelis? Why should I or anybody else care what happens to them?

Re:Scumbags

[jaggeh]

The original gulf war was never won. its like saying someone won a battle against cancer. It just went into remission, the cancer is still there and could flare up at any time.

Re:Scumbags

[phayes]

attacking civilian targets during WWII was never a particularly effective tactic

I read a post-war interview of Bomber Harris where he stated that he was aware that the systematic bombing of German cities was not as militarily effective as it was painted at the time. It was continued:

1. Because it was needed before D-Day to impress in Stalin that the west was doing it's part.
2. Because (in late 44 & 45) the investment in bomber infrastructure had been made so they continued using it.
3. Because in some cases (Schweinfurt, Oil production), it did considerably inconvenience the german war effort.
4. To punish the german population with the longer term goal of making it clear that attacking your neighboring countries a second time within decades was a mistake they did not want to repeat.

As has been pointed out by others, the last point has borne fruit in the general pacifism of the general German population.

Re:Scumbags

[Pervaricator General]

I don't recall us having international obligations to police those countries due to an invasion they conducted on a neighboring country.

/hate China and what Bush did trade-wise
//Sudan is China's fault, nonetheless

Re:Scumbags

[Clock Nova]

Iraq invades Kuwait. US declares war on Iraq to remove them from Kuwait. Iraq withdraws from Kuwait. US withdraws from Iraq. Kuwait remains a sovereign nation.

What's your definition of "won"?

Re:Scumbags

[Gizzmonic]

Compare Germany after WW1 (no civilian destruction that mattered) and after WWII, when the Germans became remarkably pacific (as did the Japs).

There was "no civilian destruction that mattered" in Germany during World War I? Can I have some of what you're smoking? Oh, and I suppose all the rocket attacks and bombing raids on Great Britain by the Luftwaffe made them "remarkably pacific," right? That's why the Axis won WW2. It couldn't possibly have happened that the bombing raids galvanized the British people and them even tougher in their fight against the Nazis, could it?

Killing "designated casualties"/uniformed forces does not impose a cost upon the civilian population. Burning their world down around their ears (and destroying their soldiery) makes an effective point.

Napoleon you are not, my friend. Not only is this incorrect, it's irrelevant in Iraq where the line between civilian and combatant is very, very thin.

Re:Scumbags

[Harinezumi]

This is flamebait because it's calling people who put their lives on the line to fight our nation's enemies scumbags.

There are plenty of valid criticisms that can leveled at those to started the war or those who planned out (or failed to plan out) its execution. Attacking the people who actually got sent down there and served their country is indefensible, however.

Re:Scumbags

[MrResistor]

Are you suggesting that burning civilians are not a source of illumination and/or smoke?

Re:Scumbags

[neomunk]

You cannot just fire blindly into a populated area and then excuse yourself by saying you didn't ACTUALLY target civilians. That is a warcrime. How do you not understand this? A military commander deciding a city needs to be shelled doesn't change that fact at all. Calling the action "preliminary bombardment" adds to the cognitive dissonance involved in war by applying euphemism and thus effecting disassociation, but doesn't change the reality that a military force is indiscriminately targeting civilians.

Re:Scumbags

[Pervaricator General]

Have you no idea how military operations are conducted? The mortar teams are well-trained and munitions are too expensive: shelling is never indiscriminate. They had a known stronghold that was well developed (spider holes, fortifications against HE and the like take time to build). The US was very clear and notified the populace (through leaflets, as is the usual method) on which areas were being targeted and people evacuated accordingly. These were not civilian areas anymore and were subject to shelling after careful thought and planning to minimize impact on the populace and maximize effectiveness (complementary goals).

While I cannot tell why civilians might not have left, I can say that the US did everything in its power to protect them. Notice that no large-scale humanitarian crisis has materialized and Fallujah has become a model for restoring order in the region. The only complaint I can is a Katrina-style management of the aftermath (which can be said about the whole Operation Iraqi Freedom).

Please be assured that your version of events in Fallujah is wrong and that the operation was carried out well and for the benefit of all involved. Your continuing assertions of impropriety are not productive and only serve to embarrass you.

Re:Scumbags

[neomunk]

I'm sorry, but your smug (the last paragraph was obnoxious, especially considering your fiat declarations pretending to be facts) assertions that no impropriety took place are shown to be false by the large amount of personal documentation that has been disseminated via the internet.

In other words, I believe the horrors of the personal accounts I read at the time over you. Sorry. People like you are just going to have to get used to the fact that shelling a city because there are guerrilla fighters in the city will make you look like a perpetrator of a massacre, no matter how much easier it is tactically. Telling people beforehand that you're going to shell their city is not now, nor will ever be again, an acceptable excuse for setting fire to civilians in their homes.

It's rather simple when viewed from a human rights point of view instead of a tactical one, and fortunately for society the human rights view is prevalent.

Re:Scumbags

[Pervaricator General]

[Reliable Citation Needed]

Re:Scumbags

[neomunk]

This isn't wiki, and you're asking for something you yourself have not provided.

Re:Scumbags

[Denihil]

using nuclear weapons at the end of world war 2 was the best and most humane way for the united states to end the war. there. i said it.

This is sick

[epiphani]

I've spoken to some people that were at Fallujah. I guess everyone sees it differently, but they saw it as a massacre. Over 1300 "insurgents" dead, less than 100 Americans.

They told me stories of teams of people that would go into apartment buildings and shoot every single thing in it. These people were all "insurgents". Entire families of insurgents.

I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but screw it. What if someone made a game glorifying Rhwanda? Cambodia? I realize its not the same thing, but there are certain "battles" that shouldn't be immortalized as heroic actions.

Re:This is sick

[yincrash]

Isn't that what happens in most war video games? The side you play on rarely dies, and the other side gets massacred. Sounds like an accurate example to make a video game of.

Re:This is sick

[elrous0]

It's usually the politicians who create "heroes," not the soldiers and marines. Most of them know better.

Re:This is sick

[bistromath007]

Depiction is not glorification. The devs have been labeling this title "survival horror," which basically makes it the most accurate depiction of war I've ever heard of. These Marines want to tell their story, as many veterans have before them, and they want to do it in a way that they know will reach their own generation. Kudos to Konami for giving them a place to do that.

Re:This is sick

[meringuoid]

Over 1300 "insurgents" dead, less than 100 Americans.

I see what you mean. That kill ratio is pretty extreme.

You can't have the player getting killed one encounter in 13. They'll have to tone it down a whole lot, I reckon. Something nearer 100:1 would be nearer the typical FPS ratio.

Re:This is sick

[Yacoby]

I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but screw it. What if someone made a game glorifying Rhwanda? Cambodia? I realize its not the same thing, but there are certain "battles" that shouldn't be immortalized as heroic actions.

You don't understand. We are the good guys, hence the people who we shoot at are the bad guys, so it is OK to kill them.

On a more serious note, I also hope they cover the shooting by the US of civilians who were protesting about the closure of a school, and the killings by US troops in the later protest about killings in the earlier protest.
Maybe about the use of White phosphorus in civilian areas?

Sure, both sides committed acts that could (and should) be considered war crimes, however, if you are going to make a documentary style game, you may as well try and ensure it isn't biased 100% towards the US. One can hope

Re:This is sick

[immakiku]

Certainly not immortalized as heroic actions, but they should be immortalized through documentary nonetheless. This is an opportunity to allow us to see the effects of war that we've never had before. If done right, this could serve as a valuable history lesson.

Re:This is sick

[vertinox]

I've spoken to some people that were at Fallujah. I guess everyone sees it differently, but they saw it as a massacre. Over 1300 "insurgents" dead, less than 100 Americans.

As opposed to every other wargame in history that glosses over war crimes and touchy topics?

I mean how many D-Day games were there that never even mentioned the fact that the Allies were under orders not to take prisoners for the first 24 hour of the invasion and that they were often killing 16 year old German reservists.

And to be fair Germans, Japanese, and Soviets did far worse things...

Yeah, sometimes war is really brutal and people do bad things and have to do bad things in order to survive (at least they think they do).

And then sometime in the future someone will make a game about it, but they are probably not going to include the really bad parts.

I mean in Silent Service series... Do you get to machine gun the Japanese sailors after sinking the merchant ship?

No.

But did it happen sometimes in the real war.

Yes.

Re:This is sick

[Daimanta]

You might as well put tl;dr in there.

Read very closely:

"They told me stories of teams of people that would go into apartment buildings and shoot every single thing in it. These people were all "insurgents". Entire families of insurgents."

This is what he means by massacre. The fact that you aren't able to read the 4 lines of his post doesn't make you insightful, it makes you a moron.

Re:This is sick

[Atlantis-Rising]

No, but I think there is a strong argument to be made that anything with an enormously unbalanced kill ratio is a massacre.

Re:This is sick

[Shakrai]

This is what he means by massacre

War is hell. Given that we sustained almost 100 KIA and nearly 600 WIA, it seems like a safe assumption that we were fighting people who were actually shooting back. Hence I'm skeptical about claims of a "massacre".

it makes you a moron

Also, fuck you ;)

Re:This is sick

[clickclickdrone]

>Winners always write history
Yep but I never thought I'd see the day when winners produced video games about it. How would the average US family feel if they'd lost a son in the Iraq/Afghan war and found out there was a video game made by say the Taliban where they got to shoot Marines, cut off heads etc?

Re:This is sick

[Brimmith]

I've spoken to some people that were at Fallujah. I guess everyone sees it differently, but they saw it as a massacre. Over 1300 "insurgents" dead, less than 100 Americans.

That's may be accurate but the way the US military works requires that outcome. When a squad or platoon is engaged in a firefight, the ratio of American troops to enemy troops is suppose to be 3:1. This varies depending on how well the enemy is fortified and what not. Another reason why this really needs to happen is purely economical. It cost hundreds of thousands to train us and losing even one soldier is both awful but expensive whereas the enemy just indoctrinates their young to kill Americans. This kill to death ratio isn't uncommon because in Vietnam it was around 10:1 for regular line units and 200:1 for SF guys. The US military is not built to take extreme loses and the training and tactics show that.

Re:This is sick

[AppyPappy]

Epiphani

When you get back from fighting in Fallujah, come back and tell us what really happened, Until then, stick to playing games.

Re:This is sick

[0xygen]

Massacre has no implication that people were not fighting back.

A 13:1 KD is still extreme, especially when it is often reported that those killed were non-combatants.

To jump the gun a little, yes I am well aware that during insurgent occupation it is impossible to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.

There are very difficult choices to be made too - if locals are not showing you who the terrorists are, they're enemies. Irrespective of the threat they are no doubt under from these terrorists.

As soon as you are a fighting force hiding amongst the populace you are no longer part of a legal army, you are a terrorist, and anyone assisting these people are also the same.

If you're getting 13:1, you're killing huge numbers of people very easily, be that because of better training or because they are unarmed enemies. That still makes it a massacre.

Re:This is sick

[WaroDaBeast]

What if someone made a game glorifying Rhwanda? Cambodia?

Not gonna happen. Of course not — African people have been starving for decades on end, so now it's all boring. Notice how “cool” covering the Tsunami in Asia was? As I've just said, it won't happen. Not until Westerners stop thinking of Africa as a monolith.

Re:This is sick

[Shakrai]

13:1 isn't "enormously unbalanced" in the annuals of military history. What was the ratio from the Gulf War?

Re:This is sick

[Abcd1234]

As opposed to every other wargame in history that glosses over war crimes and touchy topics?

And now you understand why I find games based on actual wars, ones which glorify those wars and turn them into simple FPSes, to be offensive at best. Taking something like a battle in WWII and turning it into some shallow piece of FPS entertainment is, IMHO, the worst kind of disrespect for the hell those soldiers lived through... seeing the games based on Iraq/Afghanistan/etc, real live wars where people, today, are being killed, only cemented that belief.

Re:This is sick

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Is that right, Anonymous Coward?

Re:This is sick

[eltaco]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/massacre
"The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people."
high kills can mean massacre, but technically war is civilized.

having an unbalanced kill ratio doesn't mean shit. it can mean many things, for instance:
one aside has better
- training
- weapons
- tactics
- body armor
- etc

if you generally compare modern wars to each other, you'll notice how western countries take less and less casualties and it's all thanks (to the greater part) to new and improved body armor. The KIA toll in afghanistan or Iraq would be much higher if GIs still had Vietnam-era flak-jackets. Nowadays we get more (multiple) amputees than anything else.
furthermore, and this is the actual kicker, there were over 600 WIA (wounded in action) in Falluja.
I hope this sheds more light on the matter.

Re:This is sick

[TheP4st]

Given that we sustained almost 100 KIA and nearly 600 WIA

FTFA "November 2004 battle in the Iraqi town of Fallouja that left dead 38 U.S. troops and an estimated 1,200 insurgents."

Re:This is sick

[bitt3n]

These Marines want to tell their story, as many veterans have before them, and they want to do it in a way that they know will reach their own generation

the problem is that their generation gets to play out the story in the only way they know how:

"yo dude, I'm like, totally teabagging the corpses of your entire family of displaced persons"

"goddam wallhacking AWP whore!"

Re:This is sick

[Evangelion]

I dunno, why don't you ask some Germans. Or Japanese.

How many games have been made about WWII?

Re:This is sick

[antifoidulus]

You must not suck nearly as bad as I do at them then.....

Re:This is sick

[Lifyre]

You do realize we made it very public in and around Fallujah that we were going to attack the city before hand right? We encouraged people to leave the city before we took it. These were no unenlightened individuals struck by a surprise attack.

Re:This is sick

[grumbel]

We have to wait and see how it turns out, but so far pretty much any depiction of war in video games was a glorification, because they are always extremely one sited, never have civilians in it and you are always in the winning team. And when they are labeled "accurate" that pretty much only means that they will fill you with straight American propaganda.

Now of course, there are some rare exceptions, such as Operation Flashpoint: Resistance, which starts you as civilian, then your little island gets invaded by the Russians, many of your friends get executed or die and you end up basically the insurgence fighting back the invasion. You also happen to die at the end. But such exceptions are very rare.

Re:This is sick

[BOFslime]

Well, if you get into trouble all you have to do is enter the Konami Code.

Re:This is sick

[bickerdyke]

This is what he means by massacre

Given that we sustained almost 100 KIA and nearly 600 WIA, it seems like a safe assumption that we were fighting people who were actually shooting back. Hence I'm skeptical about claims of a "massacre".

100KIA? Given that about 17000 people get murderd in the US each year, obviously don't need "people shooting back" to kill 100 people. And that compared to the 1300 "insurgents" killed give me some reasonable doubt if they were really shooting back.

and besides that.... do you really think "shooting back" would be a bad thing?

Re:This is sick

[bickerdyke]

As soon as you are a fighting force hiding amongst the populace you are no longer part of a legal army, you are a terrorist, and anyone assisting these people are also the same.

Not immedeatly. It makes you a guerrilla first. And given that a guerrilla army needs the support of the local populace, a guerrilla army can only *defend* a territory as it's almost impossible to act on enemy territory. If some cell manages to do so, attacking civilians, thats terrorism.

Re:This is sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about the Marines ?

Every... single... citizen... of the USA. Because without the Marines we would not exist. Period.

What about the victims story?

There are no victims in war, only casualties.

Re:This is sick

[drinkypoo]

Massacre has no implication that people were not fighting back.

Are you sure about that? To me it looks like Massacre denotes the promiscuous slaughter of many who can not make resistance, or much resistance. It doesn't require that they not be fighting back, but it does require that they be completely overwhelmed. The problem with this idea is that guns make it possible for one person to kill a whole bunch of people. Things often don't play out the way you'd expect. A massacre in this context would be firebombing a whole city to kill just the armed people, because any resistance would be totally useless. But even if you can't win, if you can put a serious death toll into the enemy, at least you've spent your life in some meaningful way... well, by some systems of measurement. I don't personally agree; when your side can't possibly win it doesn't make sense to draw things out. If you're dead, your contribution to your society ends. If you're alive you can at least subvert some attempts to poison your culture and live to maybe fight someday when it might help.

Re:This is sick

[sbenson]

"The side you play on rarely dies,"

not if your teamed up with a bunch of N00bs

Re:This is sick

[vell0cet]

Why do you assume this will be a glorification? (Although I do think it will be). There is the possibility that the developers could take a deep approach to the subject matter. From the summary, "Eddie Garcia, talks about how his right leg was shredded in a mortar attack, and how he suffered survivor's guilt after he was taken out of combat" doesn't sound like glorification at all. It's about time games started covering deeper material. Perhaps one day there will be a "Schindler's List" of video games. Now that would be survival horror.

Re:This is sick

[Nutria]

It will remain that way, and the battles that are fought will always be won by "the good guys".

You haven't been in a classroom lately, have you? (My 4th grade kids were just yesterday taught that the Spaniards looted Mexico and Peru, which is definitely not what the "winners" would have written.)

Re:This is sick

[Anonymous Coward]

It cannot be anything else than glorification and onesided propaganda. You cannot show the real horrors in a video game that you want to sell. The soldiers cannot admit any atrocities they or their comrades committed. And a company not depicting US soldiers as angelic heroes will be shred to pieces by "patriots".

The company's track record of games looks like the usual US-against-the-bad-guy-du-jour series.

Re:This is sick

[Nutria]

starts you as civilian, then your little (town) gets invaded by the Russians, many of your friends get executed or die and you end up basically the insurgence fighting back the invasion. You also happen to die at the end.

Wasn't there a movie about that in 1984, with Patrick Swazye and written by the same guy who did Dirty Harry?

Re:This is sick

[lupis42]

The Germans and Japanese don't seem to complain too loudly about the Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc. games.

No number of offended people is sufficiently high to justify censorship. Not Being Offended is not a right.

Re:This is sick

[Atlantis-Rising]

The argument is very much that simply because you're fighting a war doesn't make it not a massacre.

In fact, I would argue that the greater the technological disparity between the two parties, the more likely the battle is to be a massacre.

From that same source:
"To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made..."

Re:This is sick

[Nutria]

if you generally compare modern wars to each other, you'll notice how western countries take less and less casualties and it's all thanks (to the greater part) to new and improved body armor.

Even in WW2, Guadalcanal to Saipan, the Japan:US kill ratio was mind-bogglingly high.

Re:This is sick

[Nutria]

"To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made..."

And if that "unarmed" "civilian" has an AK or hand grenade or RPG-7 under his (or her) robes? Or if an armed child is standing next to his unarmed mother and sister?

You've just got to understand that guerrilla warfare will, by definition, cause lots of collateral damage.

So, if you don't want your city destroyed, go fight out in the countryside, and get wiped out by America's superior military. Which is why you fight in the city!

Re:This is sick

[Atlantis-Rising]

What exactly is your point? That the use of large-scale weapons against civilian populations will result in civilian casualties?

Can you make a point that isn't tautological?

Re:This is sick

[dave420]

You should spend some money on a dictionary. A terrorist is someone who uses force, or the threat of force, against a people in order to coerce them. Not people hiding among civilian populations. Fucking retard.

Re:This is sick

[Nutria]

That the use of large-scale weapons against civilian populations will result in civilian casualties?

You need to re-read what I wrote. I'll even highlight the important part:

You've just got to understand that guerrilla warfare will, by definition, cause lots of collateral damage.

So, if you don't want your city destroyed, go fight out in the countryside,

Re:This is sick

[4D6963]

they are always extremely one sited

Not true, in most games I've played they have maps of very different locations.

Re:This is sick

[Machtyn]

Having talked with some guys who came back from Iraq, the insurgents use the spray and pray method of shooting their guns. Very inaccurate.

Re:This is sick

[phosphorylate this]

And what were they taught about the disappearances of the American Indians?

Re:This is sick

[Dutch Gun]

Red Dawn. I remember as a kid thinking what an awesome movie it was. I watched it years later, and realized how horrible it was.

Protip: Let pleasant childhood memories remain pleasantly in the past. Drag them kicking and screaming into the present, and they're bound to get a lot uglier.

Re:This is sick

[Atlantis-Rising]

Guerrilla warfare will not by definition cause lots of collateral damage. By definition it simply requires smaller, more mobile forces engaging a larger, more fixed force.

In contrast, engaging guerrilla forces does not require collateral damage at all. It is neither inherent nor implicit in the definition.

Re:This is sick

[Syberz]

I didn't see you complaining when truckloads of "let's kill Nazis" games came out... And don't anybody say that was different. Not all Germans were Nazis, just as not all Iraquis were insurgents.

This is history, it happened, for better or for worse. Better off remembering it (either in film, print or gaming) then forgeting it even happen. Don't look at it as glorifying heroic deeds, look at it as a history lesson that you can actually "live" through yourself, that's how I see Call of Duty, Battlefield 1942, et al.

Re:This is sick

[iocat]

Just because someone sucks at war doesn't make beating them a war crime. The 13:1 ratio of enemies to americans killed doesn't mean the US was massacring people, it may very well just mean the insurgents sucked at fighting the US in a symmetric conflict (eg: they were good at setting off roadside bombs or booby-trapping dead (or merely wounded) comrades, but not so great against the US in a "fair fight" which the battle of Fallujah was). I remember seeing some footage of an insurgent standing in the street, with no cover, literally shooting from the hip at some Americans, who then killed him with one shot. Massacre or Moron? You make the call.

In the final analysis, I will personally trust the Marines' account over the insurgents'. I've known a lot of Marines and in my experience they're pretty truthful and serious about the stuff they've done. Quick to admit mistakes, too. Also, Atomic Games has a fantastic rep and has been making great combat games for years.

Re:This is sick

[spacefiddle]

I was worried for a sec, but it's some Marines who were there behind this, and placing themselves *in the sim.* It's clearly presented as "their story," IMHO, not "objective historic doctrine," so that's fine. Everyone has the right to tell their story, and everyone else has the right to react to it as they believe.

If it addresses the issue of "def Civilians == Insurgents, problem solved, open fire" i will be very impressed. Even if doesn't, this is a telling of events being honest about its subjectivity. To me, that's a major improvement above - hell, most reporting, really.

Re:This is sick

[elrous0]

The problem is that the "casualties" often aren't the ones who asked for, or have anything to do with, the war. Osama Bin Laden no doubt thought he was at war with the U.S. when his operatives crashed planes into the WTC. That doesn't make the people that died there mere "casualties of war" (the Pentagon and USS Cole are different stories--those were at least legitimate military targets). I would argue that the term "victim" should indeed be applied to any non-combatant/non-support civilian killed in a war. And though many victims die in any war (a tragic consequence), that doesn't justify callously dismissing their deaths as mere "collateral damage" or whatever the military euphemism-of-the-week is.

Re:This is sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Geneva doesn't call them a terrorist, they call them Enemy Combatant. And even EC's are afforded very similar rights to a POW. What Bush did was move the goalpost and create a new designation as Illegal EC, which is not present anywhere in Geneva and exists only to create a legal loophole, also something that Geneva forbids. Guerilla and Terrorist are weighted definitions depending on which side of the media is reporting. Rebel, Insurgent, Freedom Fighter, Irregular Militia are also biased terms that serve more to define the speaker than the person they want to paint in one light or another.

Re:This is sick

[dow]

Perhaps the video game will be about giving you the choice, as a player, when entering a building full of families, of leaving the ones you think aren't insurgents, and just killing the ones you think are hiding AK47's in their kitchens.

How many times will you get killed after leaving that nice family on the third floor alone and moving onto the fourth floor then getting shot in the back by the 12 year old son from the third? Don't you think after a couple of times you'll just go clear out each floor regardless of their protests?

Perhaps its this point that they are trying to get across and that this is the reason they are making a game of it as apposed to a film. They want to make you realise the decisions that had to be made, as apposed to judging them because the decision they made in order to preserve their own lives wasn't the same as what the politically correct version might have been.

Re:This is sick

[mr100percent]

So you're the type that thinks everyone who didn't leave New Orleans deserved the wrath of Katrina?

Re:This is sick

[shutdown -p now]

Well, at least in Delta Force: Black Hawk Down, you actually had civilians on the streets (which would sometimes even do hostile things such as throw rocks at you), and if you kill more than two (IIRC), that would be game over for you. I guess two counts as "collateral damage", though in practice you could shoot them point blank in front of your team.

On the other hand, the more recent Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had no civilians at all in all the "Middle Eastern" missions. Modus operandi there is, if it moves and speaks Arabic, shoot it.

Re:This is sick

[tnk1]

If you're getting 13:1, you're killing huge numbers of people very easily, be that because of better training or because they are unarmed enemies. That still makes it a massacre.

It may be an extreme ratio, but the word massacre more than implies that the killing was done while the enemy was literally at the mercy of US troops, as in surrendered or completely unarmed and non-resistant.

While metaphorically, 13:1 might be called a "massacre" in the sense that the outcome resembles what might happen when the enemy is at your mercy, you should not throw around the term lightly in the same thread that people are accusing people of war crimes.

A true massacre would be a war crime. A lopsided victory whose result mirrors the result of a massacre is not a war crime.

The question at issue is whether the US actually did commit a massacre or if they just beat the snot out of a bunch of ill-trained, ill-led, and ill-equipped combatants who decided to contest Fallujah. Therefore, acceptance of the term "massacre" in this discussion is not one that can simply be accepted at face value, as it is what is at contention here.

Re:This is sick

[shutdown -p now]

Ah, but video games about wars do show brutality... when it's the "bad guys" (even when you play for them).

Consider "Call of Duty: World at War". In American missions, Japanese are consistently shown as brutal thugs. In fact, the game starts with a torture and execution scene of an American prisoner. Then there are several cases of bodies of American soldiers being deliberately booby-trapped (but never the other way around), and one case of Japanese soldiers surrendering only to feign it and turn on people who are trying to subdue them when they come close.

Now look at the Soviet missions in that same game, specifically the later ones (on German territory). You play for Soviets, and the missions are pretty much about how brutal it can get. You witness several executions of captured German POWs and participate in some - at one point, you are in fact urged to use a molotov cocktail to set the group of surrendered enemy soldiers on fire. All the time, your commanding officer keeps saying that you should be more brutal, have no mercy on German soldiers or civilians etc.

Now, are those things true? did they happen in the war? sure they did... but for some reason, similar stuff, when done by American (or, say, British) soldiers is quietly omitted.

Re:This is sick

[shutdown -p now]

And that compared to the 1300 "insurgents" killed give me some reasonable doubt if they were really shooting back.

You do realize that casualty figures tend to be very one-sided when one side is well disciplined, equipped and trained, and has modern armor and air cover, while another one is weakly organized militia with mostly anti-personnel weapons, and a few old anti-armor ones which aren't all that efficient against modern reactive armor (there was a comment in this discussion above where a participant mentions that his Bradley took 4 RPG hits, and survived)?

Re:This is sick

[tnk1]

Guerrillas are not part of a legal army either unless they at least operate under a military command.

Of course, the terms "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are words that are redefined to suit the speaker. The reality is that a freedom fighter and terrorist can do exactly the same things, but one does not need to be a terrorist to be a freedom fighter.

It is not necessary to kill women and children or even civilian men to engage in asymmetrical warfare. Terrorists, however, tend to make a point of doing some or all of that as a preferred method.

Re:This is sick

[Norwell Bob]

You also happen to die at the end.

GAH! Spoiler!!!

Re:This is sick

[tnk1]

Yes, this is the issue with the kill ratios. Any assault rife could be fired in automatic, but after the first couple of shots, they become much more difficult to control due to recoil.

A US Soldier is trained to fire in bursts, not on full auto. A three round burst from a M16 will be a lot more accurate than spraying with one.

The AK-47 is even worse, as it is not only an older design, but it fires higher powered ammo. This means that unless you are trained to a two-round burst or so, you're going to be way off.

Having said that... its really hard to make yourself not go full auto if you are exposed. Training helps you realize that you both *can* fire more accurately, and that you are better off if you do. Without that training, you're liable to do a shit load of shooting and not a lot of hitting.

Re:This is sick

[tnk1]

It's a poor choice of a word to use in a discussion where "war crimes" are being used.

It's much better to be precise in such a discussion if you are trying to at least pretend to be dispassionate about it.

A high kill ratio is not a massacre, its results just happen to mirror one. Considering the situation, the facts on the ground and the intent is the difference between massacre and simply a lopsided fight. Since that is what the discussion hinges on, you can't simply throw words like that around because it is prejudicial.

Re:This is sick

[tnk1]

You are right, but let's bear in mind that the initiative in picking the ground for the fight is usually in the hands of the guerrilla, who by their nature, will have better mobility and will hit at a time of their choosing.

If a guerrilla unit decides to fight in a city, they have generally made a decision that it is worthwhile to do so, and when that happens, due to their outward similarities to civilians, there will likely be more civilian casualties.

This does not necessarily reflect badly on the guerrilla leadership, especially if key enemy assets or bases are in urban areas, but their existence as irregular combatants does mean that civilians could innocently be mistaken for them. It's not entirely fair to blame the enemy for shooting civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time when there is a combat with guerrilla forces.

Re:This is sick

[pimpimpim]

addendum: you can enforce "support" from the local populace by threatening to kill them if they don't support.

Re:This is sick

[0xygen]

So why does the very definition you link to not actually say that? Are you kidding me?

noun
1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.

verb (used with object)
4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.

Re:This is sick

[0xygen]

You think people hiding amongst the populace to force an enemy army to constantly expose themselves to danger whilst being unable to identify their enemy does not fit that very definition?

That is exactly that, a threat of force from an enemy you cannot retaliate against.

You should spend some money learning to understand the dictionary you obviously wasted all that money on.

PS. Adding an unqualified "Fucking retard." to the end of your post does not help your argument. At least you're just another troll.

Re:This is sick

[BTWR]

So you're the type that thinks everyone who didn't leave New Orleans deserved the wrath of Katrina?

I see your point, but those are apples and oranges. I'm not sure if you live in a "natural disaster" area, like California earthquakes, Florida Hurricanes, Indonesian tsunamis, etc, - but let me tell you, leaflets/televised warnings of the next "big one" come every other week. And the truth is that these just don't come true often. Hell, it just happened this week - CNN tried to glorify this Italian guy who "predicted" the recent deadly earthquake in Italy. The article was later mocked and ridiculed because CNN forgot to mention (at least in the first version of the article) that this guy makes this rant every few weeks for the last 20 years. Hell, you're going to be correct once.

The point is, most people wisely or unwisely ignore these warnings of natural disasters because, let's face it, in 2009 we're not that good at predicting these things. But, warning against a HUMAN act is something that should be taken very seriously. I don't think CBS in New Orleans warning about yet another hurricane is taken the same way as a warning of a pending US Marines invasion on a specific date at a specific time.

Re:This is sick

[0xygen]

Take a look at how many people are currently calling for Bush to be tried as a war criminal.

Spain is currently pushing for exactly this.
Take a look at
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/03/spain-judge-says-bush-and-iraq-war.php and
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004640 for example.

Re:This is sick

[grumbel]

So, this is your understanding of an 'accurate' game as compared to all those 'propaganda games'?

When I spoke of "accurate" I was referring to those games and movies that get all the details about uniforms, machines and guns right (thanks to often being sponsored by the military), yet utterly fail to make the other side look like anything more then a generic bad guy to shoot at.

Re:This is sick

[Atlantis-Rising]

A lopsided fight can in fact be a massacre. It is routinely used in cases where defenders in fixed positions are attacked by massed, human waves of attackers; to describe units destroyed under massive artillery bombardment; to describe units that are massively outnumbered being encircled and destroyed; etc.

All a massacre requires is that one side stand no chance against the other and be slaughtered en masse.

Re:This is sick

[drinkypoo]

Read down a little bit further. Trying to understand English by reading one dictionary is like trying to understand Naval Warfare by reading a single treatise. It doesn't work. That's why I linked to a whole bunch of dictionaries. I didn't link to a definition, but to a page. You're not very smart, are you?

Re:This is sick

[caitsith01]

As soon as you are a fighting force hiding amongst the populace you are no longer part of a legal army, you are a terrorist, and anyone assisting these people are also the same.

So if Russia or China invaded Arkansas or South Dakota or wherever you are from, you would line up in the rural plains with your .22 rifle and fight their Spec Ops forces in open warfare?

And if they invaded your home town, and you shot at them from a building, you would consider them justified in arbitrarily killing anyone in the general area, including old people, women and children?

Re:This is sick

[Lifyre]

This is/was war. I know it is a hard concept to understand for many Americans. If you think it is/was a justified war or not it is/was WAR. In war people die, it is how things work. This is not the Mojave Desert, middle America, or any other place where the police force functioned.

It was a WAR ZONE. Right or wrong it was REALITY, the coalition forces make an effort to minimize unnecessary casualties and damage, if the locals decide to ignore us there isn't much we can do. You can only lead the horse to water.

Re:This is sick

[BoothbyTCD]

There should be a (-1 Morally Reprehensible) mod.

Re:This is sick

[bhiestand]

I would argue that the term "victim" should indeed be applied to any non-combatant/non-support civilian killed in a war

non-support? What if they work at a power plant? A factory? What if they work at the bank that is being used for financial transactions between the government and its defense suppliers? America could be severely crippled if key financial institutions were targeted properly, and I would expect any serious military opponent of the US to attempt to do so given the opportunity. When it's your life and those of your citizens on the line, the line between "enemy soldier" and "enemy citizen supporting their war effort" gets rather blurred. And I think a legitimate case could be made that in a democracy citizens are more responsible for the actions of their government. But, in reality, we all know the victor will not see a court room.

Everyone is support. War is a national effort. Even a protester throwing rocks and trying to create problems for the govt can be bolstering the hawks and providing them with increased political power... aka "support".

The current terminology exists for a reason: it's accurate. Mixing words and calling all warfare "terrorism" or all civilian casualties "victims" is just a silly way to attempt to soften the terminology and take away its meaning. Sorry if it offends you.

Re:This is sick

[0xygen]

Keep telling yourself that, and you might even begin to believe it's true yourself.

If you were less hasty, and not quite so prone arguing the irrelevant, you would have noticed I said "definitions", not the "usage notes" that you seem to be quoting as truth.

If only you took the advice in your own sig...

"Please read and at least attempt to understand comment before replying, kthxbye."

Re:This is sick

[0xygen]

If I lived in the US, indeed, I would feel compelled to sign up, uniform up and join the forces if my home country were being unfairly invaded.

And yes, I do believe they would be justified in killing anyone who is not demonstrably surrendering unconditionally at that point.

A tad extreme, but also the safest way to wage war in a difficult situation for the invading force. That actually is the point of invading a country, to achieve compliance within the current populace, assuming you want to keep them alive.

If you're losing in a war in an invaded area, and you are not a soldier, generally you are given the choice of surrendering or dying.

I'm not sure what your idea of a fair war is? Care to explain?

Entertaining horrors of war

[Anonymusing]

FTA: "For us, the challenge was how do you present the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining, but also gives people insight into a historical situation in a way that only a video game can provide? Our goal is to give people that insight, of what it's like to be a Marine during that event, what it's like to be a civilian in the city and what it's like to be an insurgent." ... "Our opportunity for giving people insight goes up dramatically when we can present people with the dilemmas and the choices that faced these soldiers... It's a chance to really give them a better understanding and empathy."

Seems like this is more of a "real" first-person-shooter: it's not only based on history, it's actually built with living combatants in mind.

Some folks are going to call it tasteless to "present the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining," but how is it any less tastless than playing a fictional character in such a game??

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[SirGarlon]

This would make a lot of sense for training Marines, but why a mass market game? They say they want to tell their stories, but that's what memoirs are for. Looks to me like they are out to make a buck.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[meringuoid]

Looks to me like they are out to make a buck.

Something wrong with that? Way I see it, they're upholding the finest traditions that made the free world what it is today.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[Theaetetus]

This would make a lot of sense for training Marines, but why a mass market game? They say they want to tell their stories, but that's what memoirs are for. Looks to me like they are out to make a buck.

... and since we were in Iraq keeping the world safe for Socialism, we must stamp down any attempt to make a buck. Highly insightful, Comrade!

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[saider]

Video games, blogs and podcasts will be the memoirs of the 21st century.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[bistromath007]

Find people among the Marines' age group and cultural background who will read memoirs.

Now find some that will play a video game. This is specifically why the vets working on this thing have said they're doing so.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[hobbit]

Way I see it, they're upholding the finest traditions that made the free world what it is today.

Are you being sardonic, or do you really think the free world is better off for being run by Halliburton?

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[Anonymusing]

By that logic, nobody should produce or watch any war-related movies -- and Call of Duty is a crime against humanity.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[AaxelB]

This would make a lot of sense for training Marines, but why a mass market game? They say they want to tell their stories, but that's what memoirs are for. Looks to me like they are out to make a buck.

They want to reach people like them: people who are growing up playing video games. Sure, a memoir would get the story out there, but few potential marines (a demographic which overlaps heavily with video-game-playing teenagers) are going to pick it up. The point isn't just to be heard, the point is to be heard by the people to whom it matters.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[Anonymusing]

Blast, I ruined that comment. Retake:

By that logic, nobody should produce or watch any historically-accurate war-related movies. Why is it OK to kill historically-suggested fictional characters in real virtual wars, but not OK to kill historically-accurate characters in real virtual wars? Call of Duty [wikipedia.org] must be a crime against humanity.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[AndersOSU]

you mean like this guy?

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[Abcd1234]

By that logic, nobody should produce or watch any war-related movies

Umm, I think it's safe to say that a person attending your average war movie isn't doing it because they expect some good ol' fun entertainment.

Or, to put it another way: it's a *lot* hard to avoid trivializing war in the context of a game, as it's just that, a *game*.

Similarly, I have no problems with a movie examining, say, the horrors of child abuse. But a game about it would, indeed, be incredibly tasteless.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[DeepHurtn!]

Hopefully not. Memoirs were traditionally written on paper, which have great interoperability and can be read for centuries. I doubt the same can be said of most digital data.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[Pervaricator General]

Glorification tends to be minimized as you build games close to reality.

Saving Private Ryan presented the horrifying nature of combat and was able to avoid glorification. It also made millions of dollars. It is high time video games were able to do something that visceral.

A review of GT I read noted how the ragdoll physics pull one out of the cartoon violence and make you realize what horrible things you are doing. The documentary footage of the soldiers will do just the same, and will add an anchor akin to movie dialogue that helps you empathize with the character.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[guyminuslife]

I think covering actual, horrifying events requires a much more nuanced and subtle touch than you find in most video games. When I watch Kill Bill, I munch down on popcorn; if that stuff were real or "based on a true story," I'd probably throw up.

On the other hand, I think there's a lot riding on this, because if they do manage to pull it off tastefully, then they may finally push video games across that elusive boundary between pop culture and art.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[gknoy]

Honestly, I would like to play a game that tried to portray their experience. If the soldiers have a story to tell (and every one does), I want to see it.

I've always enjoyed FPS games, but what I've found is that playing the more modern ones (Rainbow Six, and the Call of Duty series) has made me appreciate how fragile my life is. Playing these games has made me even MORE adamant that I never want to be in a situation where someone is pointing a weapon even remotely in my direction.

The "realism" of uniforms is even more scary: how can you tell friend from foe!? I remember playing America's Army, and past a certain distance I couldn't even tell who was the enemy: I could guess, based on the fact that they were firing at me, but TKs were common. Worse, if I played more cautiously, I would get shot by the enemy while I was trying to determine their friend/foe status. I wouldn't call that glorifying war, as it depicts some of the ways that it's absolutely Bad Stuff. Similarly, in games like CoD, your squadmates (and you) die extremely easily -- and it even cheats in your favor! The urban combat levels of that game were terribly chaotic, and I cannot imagine how anyone would voluntarily subject themself to such horrors. I wouldn't. I wouldn't want my kid there, or my neighbor's kids there.

The multiplayer portion of COD4 is pretty much glorified paintball. It's only mildly stressful. Playing through the single player mode, though, especially on a harder difficulty, makes it very clear to me just how much of a fiction it is to expect to survive armed conflict. If this game is based on real memoirs, it'll be interesting to see just how fortunate those survivors were.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[zaffir]

The key word from that quote is "entertaining." Notice what it is NOT: "fun." Watching a D-Day documentary or Saving Private Ryan is not fun, at least not for most people. It is entertaining because it is interesting, dramatic, etc. but not a joyful experience. This is a major stumbling block for this game. The vast majority of the population assumes that digital games are all about fun, joy, etc. And that's partly due to the title of "game." That type of thinking will have to change, and this game will have to treat the subject appropriately, for the game to be accepted.

Done right, this is a step forward for video games as a mature media.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[paralaxcreations]

I agree. I would also add how is it any less tasteless than having an actor paid millions to play a fictionalized version of a real soldier?

Truth is, movie-goers rarely see a war flick to see the horrors of war. They go to see a familiar star act like a soldier and have their seats rattled by the mortar blasts. If they're good, and with enough luck, the director and writer may actually get their point across to the viewer. And of course, the studios want only to see a return on their investment, so they have to strike a balance between realism and entertainment. Let's face it- nobody would pay to see and experience a movie accurately depicting the TRUE horrors of war, let alone eat overpriced popcorn while doing it. If they would, I'd be very VERY concerned about the state of our society.

The same is true for video games. Storyline is always a good thing, realism is always good as well- but if the game is too realistic in its violence, it actually turns the player off. For example, take almost any FPS- a headshot almost always ends in the head being blown off- even with a relatively weak handgun. Replace that with the more realistic scenario: A hole in the head, blood dripping down the target's face. Not as violent, but much more disturbing.

Or a war situation: a mortar blast hits and everyone dies, or loses health. Maybe some polygonal limbs are detached, and there's a blast of dirt. Either way, you go on and shoot down the guys that did it to you until there's none left. Replace that scene with the more realistic version: Actually having to care about your team mates, rushing over to your friend for the past 4 years to try and push his intestines back in, not so he can live - it's too late for that - but so he can at least die with a shred of dignity. And as your doing this, you see another of your friends face down on the ground, drowning in his own blood. All of this is happening in first person. Would you play that game?

I think it would make me think twice about rushing home from work to score a couple of frags before bed on a Wednesday night. And for that reason I HIGHLY doubt this game is going to portray the *real* horrors of war; it would be financial suicide, a legal minefield, a moral quandary, and a technological revolution.

Re:Entertaining horrors of war

[SalaSSin]

Certainly a nice example of someone who is able to write about what he's experienced, true.

I only wanted to make clear that it's not given to everyone, the possibility to make stories (fiction or non-fiction) that people would want to read, or in this case, play...

Tagged 'tasteless'...

[meringuoid]

... don't we really mean something like 'too soon'? After all, Fallujah was a fairly trivial battle by historic standards. Surely it's in far worse taste to make fun videogames out of World War 2?

Anyway, I just hope there's an option to play as the Iraqi resistance. I remember once playing one of the Call of Duty games - it began with a pretty well made Pearl Harbour, and I was terribly disappointed to learn that you had to be the Americans.

Re:Tagged 'tasteless'...

[drinkypoo]

'Too Soon' is nonsense. We desperately need the real, on-the-ground perspective now (assuming that's what we get) so that we can have some kind of actual connection to what's going on. What we need is some understanding. Military men have said over and over again that if more people were actually in wars, less people would think they were so great. If we could achieve that level of understanding without everyone having to go to war, it would be pretty great.

Hm

[Uthic]

While the prospect of playing something like Operation Flashpoint in an urban setting is appealing (which it won't be, probably end up like COD4, heh) I'm not that excited over this. I guess it's a case of too close to the actual event more than anything, and sort of trivializes what went on there and was experienced by the Marines, the insurgents and any civilians left. Also the story, if there is any, will probably be censored and adjusted (not to mention it's one-sided).

Who's the target audience?

[Lord Byron II]

The left won't play because they don't support the war.

The right won't play because they don't want to glamorize American soldiers getting shot at.

Everyone else won't play because it's tasteless.

Re:Who's the target audience?

[need4mospd]

Libertarians. They're free to shoot whoever the hell they feel like.

Re:Who's the target audience?

[hansamurai]

Yeah, games like Call of Duty never sold well.

Re:Who's the target audience?

[rpillala]

Left and right are largely contrived political categories, in that they're so vague as to be meaningless. Lots and lots of people are not into politics at all.

Re:Who's the target audience?

[Lord Ender]

... so they can advertise on 4chan?

Re:Who's the target audience?

[kabocox]

The left won't play because they don't support the war.
The right won't play because they don't want to glamorize American soldiers getting shot at.

Everyone else won't play because it's tasteless.

Um, there kids on both sides. Heck if it is really historically accurate, I could actually see it be used to teach. I haven't played FPS games in awhile, but I'm sure 1/2 of /. would play it even if they called it tasteless here.

Heck, if this was really good, I could see the military paying for it just for a training aid. Historically, the hardest part of military training is getting your average civilian where they will kill other humans on command. So in that respect, this game series could have an extremely long life span if it can take your average civilian and get them to mentally accept performing these acts.

Re:Who's the target audience?

[Nidi62]

The left won't play because they don't support the war.

The right won't play because they don't want to glamorize American soldiers getting shot at.

Everyone else won't play because it's tasteless.

Ever play America's Army? You get to play on the side of insurgents, and this was a game created by the Army specifically for recruiting purposes.

Re:Who's the target audience?

[drinkypoo]

I haven't played FPS games in awhile, but I'm sure 1/2 of /. would play it even if they called it tasteless here.

Half of slashdot would play it because "they" called it tasteless. But who the fuck are they anyway? And for the 'toosoon' crowd, why is time supposed to be the magic ingredient that heals these wounds? Why is it okay to make video games about Viet Nam, just because we didn't paint lines on it? Or for those who say that's not okay, but movies are; what's the difference there?

Heck, if this was really good, I could see the military paying for it just for a training aid. Historically, the hardest part of military training is getting your average civilian where they will kill other humans on command.

Well, the summary makes it sound more like an antiwar polemic in the form of a video game rather than a glorification. But only time will tell (if the thing even gets made, heh.)

Re:Who's the target audience?

[kabocox]

Half of slashdot would play it because "they" called it tasteless. But who the fuck are they anyway? And for the 'toosoon' crowd, why is time supposed to be the magic ingredient that heals these wounds? Why is it okay to make video games about Viet Nam, just because we didn't paint lines on it? Or for those who say that's not okay, but movies are; what's the difference there?

I'm talking about those that call it tasteless here, but will still end up playing it. Come on you know them. Heck, back in college the average person that liked FPS games would play it just to see.

Heck, doom was only acceptable because you were going around shooting demons and such. Wolfenstein was because you were shooting evil nazis. Would those games be the same if you were going around shooting bunnies, puppies, or petting zoo animals? If wolf3D had you shoot Nazi youth folks that were under 12 rather than adult nazis, would it have been popular? I'm guessing that we all know the answer to those questions. That's the reason most FPS have really evil looking bad things coming at you that excite your fear/ "kill it!" instinct.

Imagine an alien first encounter FPS game where the goal was peaceful first contact with various aliens, but the aliens that get displayed/pop out of the shuttle craft are from your average FPS shooters and you start off as an armed guard. Don't you think most of us would fail that as we blast away at every alien that triggers our danger/kill it/run instinct?

Re:Who's the target audience?

[shutdown -p now]

I'm going to play, so long as it's fun.

You know, a lot of American-made games are actually extremely tasteless in some regions of the world. Like, any game where you slaughter Soviet soldiers left and right in the name of freedom is likely to be considered tasteless in Russia. But such games are played there nonetheless.

Re:Who's the target audience?

[FishWithAHammer]

AFAIK, your team always appears as American soldiers and the opposition always appears as "other."

What a great thing.

[tjstork]

I think its good that Americans who fought Fallujah get to tell their story. We've had plenty of insurgent friendly lefties tell theirs for long enough, indeed, some are posting here. The fact of the matter is that Fallujah was the one place where insurgents tried to make a pitched battle rather than hit and run as normal. Urban fighting ensued, and the insurgents ultimately lost.

Re:What a great thing.

[Leafheart]

I like how "defending your country from a foreign invading army" suddenly becomes "insurgents that needs some killing".

War sometimes is a necessity, invasion, hardly.

Re:What a great thing.

[Shakrai]

I like how "defending your country from a foreign invading army" suddenly becomes "insurgents that needs some killing".

Given that most of the insurgents who were fighting us were Sunni's aligned with the former murderous regime, I'd say that it's quite fair to label them as people who need killing. You do realize that the people you are claiming were defending their country are the same people that killed more Iraqis than Americans, right?

Re:What a great thing.

[Leafheart]

Probably yes, and still don't matter. You were the invading force. Searching for WMD that didn't exist. Or you really believe you were invading Iraq to give them freedom? And if that is the truth, why hasn't America invaded Sudan, North Korea, Israel, and any other very violent regiments?

Re:What a great thing.

[Shakrai]

Our soldiers go out there to protect innocent lives.

Actually, no, our soldiers go out there to execute the policy of the United States of America.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to give a shit about other nations' innocents, only American innocents.

That's generally how military forces work.

Re:What a great thing.

[dunkelfalke]

superiour orders is not a valid defence against war crimes.

Re:What a great thing.

[Shakrai]

Probably yes, and still don't matter

The fact that the insurgents were killing innocent people doesn't matter? Yet somehow I think that if we had stood by and allowed them to continue killing you'd be complaining that we didn't live up to our obligations as an occupying power.

Or you really believe you were invading Iraq to give them freedom? And if that is the truth, why hasn't America invaded Sudan, North Korea, Israel, and any other very violent regiments?

I'm not here to debate the wisdom of the Iraq War. I opposed it back in the day because I felt that we should have sent 150,000 troops into Afghanistan instead of outsourcing the job to local tribesman of questionable loyalty. My only point is to demonstrate the stupidity of portraying the Sunni insurgents as some sort of noble freedom fighters when they were engaged in the process of killing their fellow Iraqi citizens. I must have missed the part where Ghandi, Washington and Mandela killed their own people to obtain their freedom.

Re:What a great thing.

[Shakrai]

No, but the country you hail from having thousands of nuclear weapons generally is ;)

I don't regard what our forces did as a war crime but even if it were do you think we'll be turning our troops over to the Hague any time soon? Doesn't seem very likely.

Re:What a great thing.

[tibman]

FMZ, i have actually seen what happens when a bomb turns a kid into legos. You, sir, don't know what you're talking about. Your description of US troops is cold and simply untrue. There have been so many, so many many Iraqi's killed by other Iraqis. The deathtoll of Sunni against Shi'ite is larger than you think.

Re:What a great thing.

[meringuoid]

I must have missed the part where Ghandi, Washington and Mandela killed their own people to obtain their freedom.

I think you're correct about Gandhi, but Mandela was a terrorist all right - he was in prison all those years for a reason you know. As for Washington, plenty of the colonists had no desire to rise up in treason against the Crown, and I am far from certain that they were well treated by the revolutionary factions either during or after the war; certainly some were executed for collaboration with the British forces, and I do not doubt that many more instances of violence go unrecorded as part of the campaign of intimidation against opponents of the revolt.

Re:What a great thing.

[Shakrai]

but Mandela was a terrorist all right - he was in prison all those years for a reason you know

Mandela was targeting an oppressive government. Bit of a difference between doing that and random killings of an opposing sect (what the Sunni insurgents were doing)

As for Washington, plenty of the colonists had no desire to rise up in treason against the Crown, and I am far from certain that they were well treated by the revolutionary factions either during or after the war; certainly some were executed for collaboration with the British forces, and I do not doubt that many more instances of violence go unrecorded as part of the campaign of intimidation against opponents of the revolt

Being executed for collaboration is still not the same thing as acts of terror committed against whole populations. Do you have a single shred of evidence that the Continental Army engaged in actions remotely similiar to what the Sunni insurgents were doing?

Re:What a great thing.

[FMZ]

What part of my description of the soldiers is untrue?

I think I need to explain a little. I am not against the soldiers here. Fuck, if I was in their situation, I probably would have done the exact same thing. I can completely understand being driven mad, being in a foreign city and constantly being the target of insurgents. Give me a rifle and a helmet, and hell, throw some WP in there too, and I'd probably be the first into that building. But the thing is, no matter what, my actions would be wrong if I were to kill innocents just because I was confused and scared.

I blame those who put the soldiers in that situation in the first place. I blame those who gave the orders.

I have a number of friends in the military, a couple who have served in Iraq. I know what war out there is like. I know that most of the soldiers don't go out there to kill and maim, but to defend their country. They are put in a bad... no, terrible situation and have to deal with it as best they can. I am not against the soldiers, and nor am I "insurgency friendly", but their actions, while understandable, are still wrong.

Re:What a great thing.

[FMZ]

To further illustrate my point, imagine in front of you, there is a line of 10 people. You are told that one, some, or all of them may have a gun and want to kill you. You are handed a rifle. You have no idea who, if anyone, wants to kill you. Can you justify killing 10 people because 9 of them want to kill you? How about 5 of them wanting to kill you. Or 3? How about one? Can you rightfully kill 10 people because one of them wanted to kill you?

I understand the desire of self-preservation, but when the price for self-preservation is an innocent life... it need not be glorified.

Re:What a great thing.

[griffinme]

I like how "defending your country from a foreign invading army" suddenly becomes "insurgents that needs some killing".

War sometimes is a necessity, invasion, hardly.

The US purposely stationed troops in the Philippines in the 40's and parked a large number of battleships as far West as possible even though Japan viewed this as hostile actions. And we were surprised when Pearl Harbor happened. Here in the US we viewed Pearl Harbor as a sneaky dirty sucker punch. I imagine that if I was in Japan and we had won the war it would have been looked on as a stroke of genius.

I have no delusions about our troops being angels but I will not condemn their actions. I heard one Vietnam vet that was a gunner in a helicopter describe it this way; "When you fly over a rice patty with some farmers working in it and they smile and wave at you, you feel good and wave back. Then, as your flying away they suddenly pick up rifles and start firing at you. What do you think happens the next time you see farmers in a rice patty?"

I read another report from troops in Iraq that talked about the frustration of taking prisoners, "It gets real hard when you see people that you took prisoner back on the streets a few weeks later taking shots at you. It makes you really question the benefits of taking prisoners and the justice system."

When you choose to fight a guerrilla war that means your willing to sacrifice innocent civilians for the cause. If you want to hide among them then you can expect them to get hurt. This does not make it ok to hurt civilians but it is a reality.

I am amazed that their are not more reports of bad things happening.

Re:What a great thing.

[ethicalBob]

Washington? What do you think the revolutionary war was? English settlers killing English Colonists (and vise-versa in order to succeed from the current government structure.

The Sunni-Shite problem is a civil war. One that wasn't active until we invaded (U.S. analysts, INCLUDING the CIA warned that our invasion would be the spark that would start this fire).

In our civil war, were the Union soldiers noble protectors of the nation? To the North they were.

And Mandela? No Violence? You better read your history a little closer...

Were the Rebel soldiers Heros fighting a repressive regime? To the South they were.

Hell, I'm a conservative and I could see the folly in our invasion of Iraq.

Being a conservative doesn't mean "follow the party line, no matter how foolish it may be"... It means being conservative, g*ddammit! Waiting and following good intelligence and insight to make informed decisions. The last administration set back the conservative cause back decades.

Re:What a great thing.

[Shakrai]

And Mandela? No Violence? You better read your history a little closer...

Where did I say no violence?

Hell, I'm a conservative and I could see the folly in our invasion of Iraq.

Did you not see the part where I said that was opposed to the war?

The last administration set back the conservative cause back decades.

No kidding :(

Re:What a great thing.

[tibman]

The US Army isn't that way man. We train every day, we're professionals. Every shoot house i've ever run had civies mixed with targets. Every multi-million dollar MOUT site i've run through had "actors" to play civilians and other well trained soldiers as opfor. Take a look at the Zussman, top of the line man. They literally trained us to clear buildings EXACTLY like you are talking about. Nobody went into a building freaking out or shooting wildly. Practice makes perfect.

I don't know of anyone who ever knowingly shot an innocent. I don't know of anyone who would allow such an act to stand. Eventually, every act sees the light of day.. nothing can hide forever.

Re:What a great thing.

[SoupGuru]

So killing innocents is reprehensible?

There's the blood of innocents on our hands too.

Re:What a great thing.

[dunkelfalke]

Times are changing.
Eichmann never thought he could be tried and executed in Israel. The history proved him wrong.

Re:What a great thing.

[tibman]

Again, it doesn't work that way, there are Rules of Engagement every soldier MUST follow. You cannot use deadly force unless it is to prevent the loss of life of either yourself or another. Then there's a whole set a steps you have to go through. Verbal, non-lethal, presentation of deadly force, and lastly deadly force. Unless they point a gun at you (or somebody else), deadly force isn't authorized.

I'm just saying that the sort of scenario you presented isn't real life. You would probably say something like "everyone point to the guy with a gun" Then make him disarm, go through the steps, ending with killing him if he makes it escalate that high.

Re:What a great thing.

[Blakey Rat]

We don't invade North Korea because they have enough rockets and artillery aimed at Seoul to level the city and kill all its residents in a couple hours. The same reason nobody else does anything about North Korea.

Re:What a great thing.

[Red Flayer]

Being executed for collaboration is still not the same thing as acts of terror committed against whole populations. Do you have a single shred of evidence that the Continental Army engaged in actions remotely similiar to what the Sunni insurgents were doing?

It's commonly known. Typically there were irregular units or private forces doing it, not the Continental Army... but it's well known and documented that Crown supporters in NJ, the Carolinas, and other places were badly mistreated by American troops. Southern and Central New Jersey were hammered particularly hard, due to their strategic value. There are first-hand accounts of crops being razed, livestock slaughtered (when not taken as forage for the Army), and civilian farmers being killed due to allegiance to England.

Google is your friend -- but contemporary history works are an even better friend, since we've mostly gotten over the whole "America can do no wrong" theme. Let me give you a hint -- the history you were taught in grade school and high school is far from complete, and is probably contained as much propaganda as history.

Re:What a great thing.

[Boronx]

What are you saying here, that the insurgents cunningly tricked the US into invading, or that the US has given up subtly provoking aggression in favor of unleashing it themselves?

Re:What a great thing.

[goose-incarnated]

Actually, Mandela was (mostly) a pacifist. He did found and control the ANC's armed forces, but note that he has been preaching peace and reconciliation, probably for longer than you have been alive. His control of a guerilla force (from wikipedia) ...

Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kadesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela: "When we knew that we [sic] going to start on 16 December 1961, to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like pass offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... the government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed."[31] Mandela said of Wolfie: "His knowledge of warfare and his first hand battle experience were extremely helpful to me."[9]

... shows what he thought the armed forces were to be used for. Violent resistance on the part of the ANC became really popular once he was imprisoned.

Re:What a great thing.

[Apolloin]

I think its good that Americans who fought Fallujah get to tell their story. We've had plenty of insurgent friendly lefties tell theirs for long enough, indeed, some are posting here. The fact of the matter is that Fallujah was the one place where insurgents tried to make a pitched battle rather than hit and run as normal. Urban fighting ensued, and the insurgents ultimately lost.

I'm surprised to see you state that "insurgent friendly lefties" have media dominance in this arena, when it's virtually a necessity for any FPS protagonist to have pure apple pie running through his veins. I'd love to know what AAA titles have presented things from the Sadr Army perspective...

Re:What a great thing.

[Apolloin]

Actually it was so bad that a huge proportion of the population of Canada after the Rebellion was made up of American Loyalists fleeing persecution and the British Government had to make restitution for their losses at the hands of the American Rebels by making them grants of Canadian Land.

Re:Oh man...

[Shakrai]

If Fallujah is ok we should have a gas chamber game. You go around in a big truck and kill thousands of jews

Oh give me a fucking break.

I'm normally ok with this sort of thing but this is up there on the offensive scale

The only thing that's offensive is some jackass invoking the memory of genocide to describe a battle where less than 2,000 people died.

As much as we would like to believe it

[olddotter]

We haven't really evolved much since the days of the Roman Colosseum. At least we are not flying "insurgents" here to be killed live before large audiences. Its a small step forward. Still RE is a lot of fun, and the enemy there is always some unfortunate zombie creature.

Re:As much as we would like to believe it

[GleeBot]

At least we are not flying "insurgents" here to be killed live before large audiences.

Ah, if the Romans only had television...

Well that's war for you...

[tjstork]

Honestly though this is sick. It was a wholesale slaughter of people. Burning corpses hanging in chunks from buildings. People having their flesh burned to the bone while they are alive. I'm normally ok with this sort of thing but this is up there on the offensive scale. Not going to leave out the fact that the US violated weapons treaties are we?

What the fuck do you think war is dude? A bunch of people running around like in Unreal Tournament or HALO with fake manly voices going "Roger Roger" and shooting all the time?

Phosphorus bombs are not a violation of any weapons treaty. And besides, we had no treaty with the insurgency, so screw them.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[CmdrGravy]

I'm actually not sure what sort of war it is when one side decides to simply pro-actively attack the other but it's surely not one I'd like to glorify in any way.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[hobbit]

Um, it's not war, because you never declared war, precisely so that you could do things like break weapons treaties.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[tjstork]

That's great then! We should nuke North Korea then. I mean we have no treaty with them, right?

Read up on the Korean War. Last time the USA overran North Korea the Chinese roared to their defense with an army of roughly 300,000 men, and the Russians chipped in some of their fighter aircraft. Recall that in the face of this, Doug Macarthur wanted to start nuking the Chinese and there were some people that though that the thing to do. But Truman decided that he had had two world wars in his lifetime and he did not want a third.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[tjstork]

Um, it's not war, because you never declared war, precisely so that you could do things like break weapons treaties

Not declaring war is like splitting hairs. The President sought the permission of Congress to go and invade somebody else, and he got it. In my mind, that's a declaration of war sufficient for the other side to understand that trouble was coming.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[tjstork]

I'm actually not sure what sort of war it is when one side decides to simply pro-actively attack the other but it's surely not one I'd like to glorify in any way.

I don't think you need to glorify any sort of war. Indeed, perhaps the sickest vocabulary thing that has happened to humanity is that the word "glory" that comes from war was taken to be a good thing, when its really meant to describe a door that only some people pass through. Not necessarily that its a good door.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Idiomatick]

It is forbidden by the Geneva Convention. But I guess that is one of those unheard of unimportant ones right? The US merely hasn't signed it. So it is legal for the US. Just fantastically depressing knowing that you won't sign the fucking geneva convention.

War involves death, and innocent civilian death too. But do we need to highlight the worst atrocities committed by the US in recent time. Going into buildings and sweeping out families including children. Trapping groups of people with phosphorous then bombing them. If they are made out as heroes as I guess they will be since marines are part of the game making process it makes me sick.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Shakrai]

So it is legal for the US. Just fantastically depressing knowing that you won't sign the fucking geneva convention.

Why the hell should we sign it? If the US is dragged into a war I want us to use the most effective weapons possible to kill as many of the enemy as possible while exposing as few of our troops as possible. That's been our policy since WW2 and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[InspectorPenny]

So it is legal for the US. Just fantastically depressing knowing that you won't sign the fucking geneva convention.

Why the hell should we sign it? If the US is dragged into a war I want us to use the most effective weapons possible to kill as many of the enemy as possible while exposing as few of our troops as possible. That's been our policy since WW2 and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it.

The purposeful killing of civilians goes against the rules of just war. Colateral damage should be minimized as much as possible. The general civilian public is as innocent as any of our people. We might not like all of their views, sure, but they re not part of the war. Herding people into buildings, telling them they'll be safe there before bombing the place to bits, is just wrong. And it does nothing to help save American lives... in fact, it makes the remaining populace so disgusted with American activities that more hatred brews, giving rise to more war.

Wouldn't WE be outraged if our civilians were suddenly killed?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Idiomatick]

It is a deal. Thats the purpose of war conventions. If you don't sign it you are fair game. Enjoy seeing US troops have their faces melt off from unconventional weapons. How about bio-warfare? Nuclear weapons? The idea is one of detente. You are supposed to bring down the horrors of war with these deals. If we did and believe me we CAN went the opposite direction. And had a war with the UK, gloves are off no treaties apply. There would be likely only a fraction of the population of the planet left standing within a month. I for one am happy that we do NOT have a nuclear powered cruise missile that kills everything it flies near for months, launching nuclear bombs as it goes. (Something the US had planned before detente came into effect)

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Shakrai]

The general civilian public is as innocent as any of our people.

Actually when the general public supports the insurgents with weapons, shelter and information they cease to be innocent. When our people work in weapons plants they cease to be innocent. War is hell and no civilian is ever completely "innocent" in the age of industralized warfare.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Idiomatick]

Err so everyone that pays taxes qualifies as an enemy combatant during war? I certainly have never heard that definition before.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Shakrai]

Enjoy seeing US troops have their faces melt off from unconventional weapons.

What, being killed by a 5.56mm slug is somehow better than being killed by WP? You are just as dead.

How about bio-warfare? Nuclear weapons?

Bio-warfare and nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction. WP is anything but.

You are supposed to bring down the horrors of war with these deals.

Bringing down the horrors of war is the reason why we fight so many goddamn wars. Let them be as horrible as possible and maybe people will stop trying to engage in them. A real war represents a nation-state fighting for survival. If you were fighting for your life would you fight fair or would you fight to win?

And had a war with the UK, gloves are off no treaties apply

Huh?

I for one am happy that we do NOT have a nuclear powered cruise missile that kills everything it flies near for months, launching nuclear bombs as it goes

How a discussion about WP turn into a discussion about nuclear weapons?

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Shakrai]

In a total war, yes, they do.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[sesshomaru]

Yes, even the babies, as American military philospher Lieutenant William Calley was wont to remark (paraphrased), "Well, wouldn't those babies have just grown up to be Viet Cong anyway?"

Of course, some of the babies in that case were decapitated for their necklaces, and some of the women, even underaged girls were raped. I'm sure there were important military reasons for that as well... and it wasn't just that the soldiers who did it were a gang of murderous thugs whatever their nationality.

We should probably take back Hugh Thompson's Soldier's Medal, in fact... the nerve of that guy!

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Idiomatick]

By your logic we could have ended the Iraq war by nuking all the major cities. And tell the Iraqis for each terrorist act you vow to kill 1000 civilians. The fight would be over sure. And no US soldiers would die but at what cost? I realize I'm taking this to an extreme but that is the purpose of wartime conventions. To stop things from getting to far out of hand.

Also WP is a sticky cloud. It gets into your lungs and starts to cook you. On your arms it begins to burn taking off your hair and then burning off your skin slowly you turn black and holes start to punch through you. Eventually the stuff in your lungs makes it near impossible to breath until you have holes going right through you. You try to wash it off but the water only speeds up the process. You eventually suffocate with no lungs and die. The phosphorus keeps going, melts off your face burns out your eyes, blackens your bones leaving a skeletal zombie corpse behind. So yeah, most people prefer a bullet to WP.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[CmdrGravy]

Fair enough if you're 'dragged' into war but there's no way the US was dragged into the Iraq war, it actively sought a war and invented no end of trumped up lies to justify having one.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Shakrai]

By your logic we could have ended the Iraq war by nuking all the major cities.

No, I'm pretty sure I made a distinction between WP and weapons of mass destruction, but thanks for twisting my argument to support yours.

And tell the Iraqis for each terrorist act you vow to kill 1000 civilians.

That would be kind of counter-productive, given that most of the terrorist acts were directed at civilians and not our troops.

I realize I'm taking this to an extreme but that is the purpose of wartime conventions. To stop things from getting to far out of hand.

Things already get far out of hand. The conventions just allow us to feel better about ourselves. The Brits and Germans promised not to bomb cities in 1939. How long did that last? The Germans promised not to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare. How long did that last? War is hell and I think we do ourselves a disservice by trying to pretend that it isn't.

Also WP is a sticky cloud. It gets into your lungs and starts to cook you. On your arms it begins to burn taking off your hair and then burning off your skin slowly you turn black and holes start to punch through you. Eventually the stuff in your lungs makes it near impossible to breath until you have holes going right through you. You try to wash it off but the water only speeds up the process. You eventually suffocate with no lungs and die. The phosphorus keeps going, melts off your face burns out your eyes, blackens your bones leaving a skeletal zombie corpse behind. So yeah, most people prefer a bullet to WP.

So come out into the open where we can kill you with bullets and our guys won't have to use WP. Point being that our forces are under no obligation to place themselves in harms way just to make sure that our enemies receive a humane death. Would you have likewise objected to our use of flamethrowers on Iwo Jima? Should our guys have gone into the caves and taken many more casualties to kill the Japanese more humanly instead? What purpose would that serve? The end result would be the same but many more people would have died.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[hobbit]

In my mind, that's a declaration of war sufficient for the other side to understand that trouble was coming.

I think you missed my point. Formally declaring war binds you to certain standards of behaviour arising from international treaty obligations. Of course the other side knew that trouble was coming; that's neither here nor there.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Daisy Skye]

Wait, why SHOULDN'T we sign it? I fail to understand why America feels entitled to play by different rules than the rest of the world. If America believes she should have the ability to wage total war, then so should every other country.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Daisy Skye]

...Which is why having total war is obviously a bad idea. Either you pay taxes and are an "enemy", risking getting killed when the opposition attacks your city, or you don't pay your taxes, and get thrown in jail/are killed by your own government. Seems like this would lead to genocide.

And if everyone is guilty for simply paying taxes (because people have SO much of a choice in that), then surely your explaination of how total war should work would lead to one country commiting genocide as they conquer the other.

Either way, something tells me that the soldiers didn't stop to ask each woman and child they killed if they paid taxes.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[bickerdyke]

dragged? DRAGGED???????

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Shark]

Phosphorus bombs are not a violation of any weapons treaty. And besides, we had no treaty with the insurgency, so screw them.

I think you forget that they're human beings. Maybe human beings that don't like you, apparently human beings you have absolutely no respect for... Which might incidentally have something to do with them not liking you.

If you believe you're right to the point of thinking others should die because of it, at least have the courage to go there and shoot them yourself. Then maybe you only shoot the ones who disagree with you strongly enough to shoot back.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[dave420]

Jesus you're really showing your lack of knowledge in this thread. Truly amazing. You seem to think it's OK for someone to invade another country and destroy an entire city using banned weapons on people. What a cunt.

Re:Well that's war for you...

[caitsith01]

Jesus you're really showing your lack of knowledge in this thread. Truly amazing. You seem to think it's OK for someone to invade another country and destroy an entire city using banned weapons on people. What a cunt.

Thank you, I thought I was going insane.

The twisted morality of some of the posts in this thread is truly scary.

1. We invade your country, you fight back, you are now a terrorist.

2. Anyone who fails to immediately betray you to our invading forces, whether civilian or soldier, man or woman, child or old person, is also a terrorist.

3. We are justified in killing anyone who is a terrorist, whether they engage us in direct combat or not.

4. In addition, because you are terorrists we are not bound by any laws of war in dealing with you, and may thus use any weapons and/or tactics we want.

5. ???

6. Profit!

Re:Well that's war for you...

[Apolloin]

My friend, in remembering the term 'total war' I ask you to remember who first used it as a definition of rules of engagement in a political speech. In addition Total War does not suggest that every asset becomes a military asset, it simply advocates attacking whatever target diminishes the enemy's ability to make war.

Victory

[uneek]

1300 enemy vs 100 of our guys?

Sounds like a victory

Re:Victory

[digitig]

Only if you don't understand the difference between insurgents and "insurgents". For all you know from those figures it could be 5 enemy, 100 of your guys and 1295 innocent bystanders. Although I grant that in that case you would have made enemies of quite a few of those innocent bystanders as they saw you massacre their loved ones.

Re:Victory

[johnlcallaway]

Until "it" can be "proven" otherwise, those "figures" are only cause for "thinking", without "evidence" to back "them" up.

I think the men and women that go overseas are some of the bravest and most honorable people around, and that while a few may be gung-ho and shoot everything in sight, most do their best to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

At least, I don't recall reading of any pits with thousands of bodies in them, or our GIs beheading "insurgents" on live television for everyone to watch. Instead, I read of our GIs helping rebuild hospitals and helping to rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the initial fighting.

Go ahead and live in your dream world where you read only about our guys being the bad guys, and those who think nothing of purposefully attacking civilians with suicide bombers are just victims.

And I'll live in mine.

Re:Victory

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, I read of our GIs helping rebuild hospitals and helping to rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the initial fighting.
Of course, you read about this in your own press.

Re:Victory

[digitig]

Go ahead and live in your dream world where you read only about our guys being the bad guys, and those who think nothing of purposefully attacking civilians with suicide bombers are just victims. And I'll live in mine.

One in which you don't bother to read the actual words you're responding to?

Re:Victory

[hjrnunes]

Yeah. That's what most of you people have been doing for the last years. Then you get terribly surprised that someone drives a couple of planes against a couple of buildings in your country. Then you go and set Abu Ghraib up. Nice PR move... So you don't behead them - you attach dog leashes to them while... I'm sure you get the point.

But I wouldn't blame the G.I. only. In fact, I would blame the Administration instead. I'm sure they hardly tell you this in your country but, terrorists are not evil. They're just pissed at you. Go figure why when all your soldiers do is rebuild hospitals and infrastructures. With Tomahawk missiles...

Re:Victory

[Reapy]

As was said it is our own press that release things.

But again the problem is the soldiers. They are 18 year old kids, most of them from low poverty (generalizing but that seems to be the prevalent stat) areas, given assault rifles, essentially turned into police in an occupied country with probably no training what so ever. God, you see kids online power tripping when they can beat most of the people in a video game, how do you think they act when they hold ALL the power in their interactions with the population?

On top of this, they get picked of slowly one by one by god knows who, they have no targets in front of their face to take their anger out on, and hell, they are probably bored most of the time.

Don't expect to see press footage of the iraq cops full of holes cause they didn't put their guns down fast enough, or the family who's car got chewed up by 20 marines at a check point cause he drove up too fast and one guy panicked and shot, so then everybody shot, or catching a guy with an ied and the 5 minutes 'with the boys' he got. They won't let press near those things, and why would they?

You put a bunch of young kids with guns, in a f'ed up situation, where they are already alienated with the population, whom you cant tell whos going to shake your hand or try to drive a car bomb into your check point, or tell them they cant shoot at their enemies who've been putting bullets down range on you from tress...hell yeah bad shit will happen.

Spend 5 minutes talking to a marine and he'll probably have 10 to 15 stories of crazy shit like that happening. But hey, for every f'ed up situation happening in iraq, I bet you'd be surprised about the shit going down in your neighbors basement.

Re:Victory

[Reapy]

Edit, i meant the problem "ISN'T" the soldiers. I guess I should reread comments.

Re:Victory

[BTWR]

Instead, I read of our GIs helping rebuild hospitals and helping to rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the initial fighting.

Of course, you read about this in your own press.

And why exactly doesn't your press report on this?

Let's see what it looks like

[Tgeigs]

As a former member of the military, and someone who spent time in the Gulf, I can tell you that NOTHING is as cut and dry as civilians try to make it. When you're a twenty year old stuck half way around the world in a dessert city and people are literally trying to kill you everyday with road side bombs, sniper attacks, and suicide bombs as they HIDE AMONGST the innocent public, it is very easy to cross the line and hurt/kill the wrong people. It's also just as easy to get a limited viewpoint of what happened and say things like, "The military is bad", or "Fallejuh was a massacre", or "What happened there is sick". No, it wasn't bad, a massacre, or sick...It was war. Label the politicians with those monikers, not the war itself. Along those lines, I think that if this game accurately depicts both the good and bad sides of war, the internal struggle of the soldiers as they tell their stories and follow orders they might not like, the reactions of ALL the towns people, favorable and unfavorable...Well, dammit, I think that would be a great game and one that US Citizens might actually be better off having played it.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Em Emalb]

Very well said. It's one thing to sit on the sidelines and spout your views, it's another to go there and be "in the shit" and try to deal with it.

Some of the people responding here are acting like these Marines went in, killed everything in sight and then sat back drinking a beer laughing about it.

WTF? They're human just like you and I. (I should know, I was in the Corps) This crap affected them the same as it would anyone else. This is an attempt at telling their story, and people want to treat it like it's either an attention grab or a money grab.

To them I say shame on you.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Uthic]

"WTF? They're human just like you and I. (I should know, I was in the Corps) This crap affected them the same as it would anyone else. This is an attempt at telling their story, and people want to treat it like it's either an attention grab or a money grab." And you don't think this is an attention grabber which will help lead to increase profits for the game ? There's a reason they went for the "real" aspect, and it's not out of good feelings for the Marines.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Tgeigs]

I have no problem believing that the US Military will have its hand in this for recruiting purposes as well. I kind of accept that. As member of the US Navy, I just don't think we should trivialize the game just yet before we get an idea of its content. If it's real, and I mean REALLY real, it could be a great thing for people on this side of the world to get an accurate depiction of what happens over there. If that accomplishes getting more benefits for our veterans or helps convince people to elect people in into office that respect the soldiers' lives that are under their command, I'll call this a win.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Em Emalb]

And you don't think this is an attention grabber which will help lead to increase profits for the game ? There's a reason they went for the "real" aspect, and it's not out of good feelings for the Marines.

The average enlisted military man doesn't make much money at all. If they receive residuals for telling their story in this game, and Konami makes a buck because it's "realistic" then what's the problem here? Konami is doing ok by me, they're giving these Marines the medium in which to tell their story (and they wanted to use a video game as the means) and they're also taking the chance that this game will sell well because it's based on a true event told by people who were actually involved.

I have 0 problems with this.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[PhxBlue]

No, it wasn't bad, a massacre, or sick...It was war.

I was over there, too. Just got back in January. Unlike you, I wasn't on the front lines, but as you and I both know, the front lines aren't always easy to define.

Yes, it was war. Still is. That doesn't preclude it from being bad, a massacre, or sick, because that's what war is -- especially when you consider that it wasn't a necessary war. That doesn't mean it's your fault that war's bad, and you're right that the politicians should be the ones held accountable.

Which leads us to the real question: When are we going to hold the politicians -- both the ones who lied and the ones who willingly chose to believe it -- to account for their actions?

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Tgeigs]

Out of respect for a great many other soldiers, I feel obligated to say that I wasn't really on the front lines either. I spent most of my time aboard an aircraft carrier, and while I spent some time on the ground and in some danger, very little of it was inside Iraqi borders. Most of it was aboard a carrier. I know this isn't a political forum, but one thing that I think tends to get lost in these conversations is that the Iraqi people are a proud, historic civilization. The picture that gets painted of them in the media simply isn't accurate, just like those of the ground soldiers doing the fighting. Everyone appears to be misrepresented by a class of elite shitheads trying to make a buck off of their back. To see Konami attempt to do it right...well, I guess I'm proud of what they're doing.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[drinkypoo]

It's also just as easy to get a limited viewpoint of what happened and say things like, "The military is bad", or "Fallejuh was a massacre", or "What happened there is sick". No, it wasn't bad, a massacre, or sick...It was war. Label the politicians with those monikers, not the war itself.

I'm no Christian but I can still hate the sin and not the sinner.

It might not have been a massacre (my previous comment argues as much about Fallujah let alone the collective Desert Windfall operations (only an ill wind, after all, blows no one any good. but we could talk about politics some other time.)

I believe that war is bad and sick. It is a sign of a kind of sickness when we must resort to war to solve our differences. I think that to believe otherwise is to completely miss the point. Violence can only be justified by preventing violence (any kind of oppression is a kind of violence; it doesn't work when not backed up by same) and if you're not doing that, what are you doing? When you have had to resort to violence, you have already failed. You might as well just move into a wolf den under a fallen tree or something.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[funkatron]

"No, it wasn't bad, a massacre, or sick...It was war."

So it was bad and sick. I agree that massacre might be a bit harsh.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Nimey]

Kind of hard to do that when the people shooting at you are mixed in with civilians and dressed like them.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[ArsonSmith]

Great, until the enemy realizes this and is trained and able to look indistinguishable from civilians.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[dave420]

Great - the ol' "lack of training" / "conveniently forgetting we are the invaders, and single-handedly caused the war" line of reasoning. Fantastic. That makes it alright, I guess.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Tgeigs]

Er...1)Lack of training -- I never said anything about that, but how do you train to fight enemies that look like civilians and in fact ARE civilians w/o killing innocent civilians? 2)"onveniently forgetting we are the invaders, and single-handedly caused the war" -- Actually I think all I said was place the blame at the feet of the politicians instead of the soldiers. Bush/Cheney fooled MOST of us, on both sides of the aisle, but to try to over emphasize some of the negative things going on in Iraq to drive home a point diminishes that point and just makes you look foolish to the people that bothered to serve their country. 3)Single handedly caused the war? That's so provably false as to be ridiculous. If we have learned anything from the conflicts we've participated in over the last 200 years, it should be that there are NO MORE good guys in the world on a macro level. I happen to also believe that the US was wrong to invade Iraq, even though I think that toppling the Saddam regime was the right thing to do. But if Saddam had wanted to grasp on to his power and avoid a war altogether, all he had to do was let the inspectors do their jobs. HE threw them out, not us, and when he did that, he broke the CEASE FIRE (not peace treaty, as so many citizens thought existed), and in effect redeclared war on the USA. Again, no one handled this correctly, but the truth isn't that the USA single handedly, or even unilateraly went to war in Iraq, and suggesting otherwise is reprehensible as it confuses the sacrifice that SOME of us were willing to make.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Tgeigs]

I'm with you most of the way. I don't LIKE war, but I think it's unreasonable to think that you can peacefully work things out with everyone out there. Some people are just plain evil, the problem is they don't get punished early on and are allowed to go completely out of control (I.E., some Nazis might have been punished, but what about the bankers/politicians/industrialists in Germany, Europe, and AMERICA most of all that brought themm to power because they thought they could use them). What it boils down to is this: I would much rather YOU be in charge of things in every possible case, but there are people out there that will use your peacefulness against you. That's when you need me, to preserve an arena where you can operate peacefully.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[Boronx]

Of course it was bad and sick, otherwise, what reason is there to condemn the politicians that ordered it?

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[jafac]

When are we going to hold the politicians -- both the ones who lied and the ones who willingly chose to believe it -- to account for their actions? apparently, we get that choice every 4 years.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[jafac]

Nobody was resolving differences. There were no differences to resolve. It was all about "harsh business practices" - Fact is; Saddam didn't want to sell access to oil fields to western companies. He wanted to hang onto it until AFTER global oil production peak passed - as it would be worth much more in the future. These companies made sure the right people were elected (in the US, the UK, Australia, and Italy, to be specific) to get the job done.

The result?

You and I get stuck with the tax bill (and the economic fallout (ie. the housing bubble) from dumping interest rates so Bush could borrow the money for this adventure); and we all look like dumbasses. Poor dumbasses.

The western oil companies decided it wasn't worth the effort/risk anyway, and bailed.

I hope the Iraqis love their "democracy" - as much as the Afghanis appear to.

Re:Let's see what it looks like

[_Sprocket_]

Nobody was resolving differences. There were no differences to resolve. It was all about "harsh business practices" - Fact is; Saddam didn't want to sell access to oil fields to western companies. He wanted to hang onto it until AFTER global oil production peak passed - as it would be worth much more in the future. These companies made sure the right people were elected (in the US, the UK, Australia, and Italy, to be specific) to get the job done.

So Iraq rolling in to Kuwait was what - liberating more oil fields from Western influence?

An unfair fight is the point of war

[tjstork]

You seem to be under the delusion that wars are meant to be fair. That, somehow, an equal number of people should be killed on both sides and that's the good way to do a war.

That is stupidest thing imaginable.

The fact is, we spend 500B a year on the military so that when we do fight people, it is a massacre. We do not want our guys to die. We want their guys to die.

If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA. That the USA can massacre its opponents is a GOOD thing, as it brings more American soldiers home alive.

Now, if you don't want this, then don't send soldiers off to war, but that's a different debate. Once they are there, you want Americans to be able to kill enemies like a Power'd up dude in a video game.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Anonymous Coward]

So in your sick, sorry world, once we are at war we can kill all the civilians we want, and that is a good thing. Fuck you. I would be glad to go into more detail about what a fucked up world view you hold, but if there is one thing I have learned, it is that the wilfully ignorant cling to their ignorance like a drowning man clings to a liferaft.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[hobbit]

If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA.

Be subjugated or be dead? Fuck you.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tjstork]

So in your sick, sorry world, once we are at war we can kill all the civilians we want, and that is a good thing.

Dude, that's what war is. If you don't want war, then don't fight them. Don't sit there and pretend that war is a noble thing like a video game with so many rules. That only makes it more palatable to fight. I'd put this to you - if civilians understood that they would get killed in wars too, they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight them.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[meringuoid]

I'd put this to you - if civilians understood that they would get killed in wars too, they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight them.

This was more or less the reasoning behind the 2005 bombings on the London Underground.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Reality Master 201]

You seem to be under the illusion that the international treaties the US is a party to are only valid when we feel like obeying them. In fact, they have the force of law in the US, making deliberate violence against civilians in war not just immoral, but an actual crime.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[jafiwam]

Congrats, noob. You just discovered "war is hell".

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[FCAdcock]

As someone who was there, F you man. It's easy to sit here at home and call us murderers and bastards for what we did, but the fact remains that the people we put down were bad people.

Sure, There are bound to be a few innocent people killed in any war. This war has been great in that we have greatly reduced the number of innocent people killed as compared to historical numbers.

But when you take a town of 25,000 where the vast majority are violently anti-american and put lots of american soldiers in the center of town, you're going to have lots of people die. You choose who you would rather have die. Your neighbors and countrymen, or some terrorist raghead who is hell-bent on destroying america and is practicing building bombs in his kitchen.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[u38cg]

From a military point of view, yes. If they want to fight, rock their world. But the calculus changes when you are talking about operations in an environment where substantial numbers of civilians are present. You have serious and substantial obligations under military law and you cannot ignore them just because it is convenient. A great deal of what supposedly went on in Fallujah falls under that.

Western militaries are still tooled and trained to fight WWII. We need to wise up and move on and recognise that blindly teaching the doctrines that won the last war may not win the next one.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[epiphani]

If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA.

Excellent point. I'll do everything I can to avoid getting into a fight with the USA - open my facilities to UN inspectors, abide by no-fly-zones, generally do whatever I can. That should work, right?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tjstork]

This was more or less the reasoning behind the 2005 bombings on the London Undergroun

This is why we say that terrorism is an act of war, not a police matter.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Yacoby]

If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA.

I don't seem to remember many countries (Apart from the Japanese) who have tried to fight the US in the last 100 years. It always seems to be the US deciding who to fight.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[evohe80]

I'd put this to you - if civilians understood that they would get killed in wars too, they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight them.

Actually, aren't armies supposed to defend countries and the civilian population? By your reasoning, American citizens should stop supporting their own army, as they may get killed in the even of a war. Fortunately for you, there has been no war on US soil for more than a century.

And yes, there are rules in war. They are international law. They are made to protect civilians and human rights as a whole, in all situations. If you don't like them it may be because you are on the winning side, and you don't suffer the massacres.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tibman]

You read something in his paragraph that didn't exist. He never said "once we are at war we can kill all the civilians we want" or anything close to it. In fact, your entire reply was based upon that one sentence that wasn't actually in his comment at all.

It's ok to be passionate about a subject but please read what he said and argue against his points... at a minimum.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tjstork]

Which is why I pray to the imaginary God that we will see the civil war the wing-nutters predict, so I can do to you what you so casually believe we should do to others.

I think you basically just can't admit that you are a killer yourself. You hold your righteousness up no differently than any of the bible thumping protestants you despise, and, at the end, when people walk away from your grandstanding and go get pizza, you can only clench your fists in frustration, and say, "that's why I'm going to kill you all". All of this stuff about saving the planet, cutting back on standards of living, being pro-choice, is just your expression of that... you want to people to be poorer, people to kill their unborn, people to die, all because nobody listens to you. Liberals the people of peace? They are the biggest murderers of them all and always have been.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[EddyPearson]

"We want their guys to die."

I think his primary objection is that "their guys" often turn out to be women and children.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tjstork]

I don't seem to remember many countries (Apart from the Japanese) who have tried to fight the US in the last 100 years. It always seems to be the US deciding who to fight.

Germany declared war on the USA in World War II, otherwise, its very likely that the USA would not have fought Germany. Americans were very much opposed to going to war in Europe both in World War I and in World War II. In the case of World War I, the Germans were offering pieces of the USA to the Mexicans, and in World War II, Hitler declared war on the USA as a show of solidarity with Japan. Dumb on both counts.

Frankly though, I do agree with your premise. I really -don't- want the USA to have soldiers deployed anywhere except the UK and USA. UK because we have a meaningful military alliance with them, and USA because its my country. The rest of the world, all of NATO, South Korea, Japan and then some, can go defend itself.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Rich0]

I don't think the GP was trying to suggest that he advocated the deliberate targetting of civilians. However, it is true that when one side in a war fights the battles in the middle of a town, not wearing uniform, that lots of civilians are going to be killed. When a sniper opens fire from a window they're inviting artillery fire on the building they're firing from. Lots of people are going to die, and that is unfortunate.

When soldiers raid a building and nobody reveals who the insurgents are, and then some soldier gets shot while trying to systematically search every person, then the next time soldiers go into a buliding the grenade will go through the door first. That is unfortunate, but that is what happens in war.

Many "civilians" in these kinds of wars give shelter and comfort to the combatants, and do their best to conceal them. Those are not the actions of a noncombatant, and while it shouldn't be punished by summary execution it will lead to escalations in the level of force employed.

Look, we can all argue about whether it is right or wrong or whatever. That won't change history - when you conduct combat operations in a town people living there are going to die. If you don't want people to die the solution is to not get into a war in the first place, but that is an action that requires two parties to agree upon. Wars are never stopped unilaterally unless it is the result of the complete destruction of the ability of the other side to make war.

I'm also the first to question US foreign policy in the Middle East. However, the dead civilians are the natural result of these policies (and the counter-policies adopted by US opponents) and not merely the result of a few soliders getting out of hand.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[0xdeadbeef]

all because nobody listens to you

Nobody listens to me? I just got you to blow your whole troll wad. You've been neutralized. I win.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[madjia]

You have more meaningful Allies than that. The Netherlands has been working together with the US for the last few years in Afghanistan and has had it's casualties too.

But apparantly that is not meaningful enough?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[McKing]

I was there in 2004 alongside the Marines (Army Infantry), and coalition psyops basically blanketed the city for weeks prior to the invasion with the message that all civilians needed to leave the city and any male over the age of 15 who stayed would be considered a combatant. We all but told them exactly when we were coming and "you want to fight, let's fight...you want to live, get the hell out of the town".

The civilian casualties that I saw were caused by bombing the city prior to the attack and bombing/artillery on specific buildings that insurgents were using as strong points that couldn't be taken any other way.

At no time did I or anyone in my company fire upon any civilian. In fact the only civilians that I saw were after the fact when they came out of their hiding places and surrendered. We sent them on their way with the MP's, safe and sound.

What I did see was a lot of AK and RPG's fired at my Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I took 4 within the span of 15 minutes. Thank $DEITY for that reactive armor.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tjstork]

Nobody listens to me? I just got you to blow your whole troll wad. You've been neutralized. I win

The whole point is that you think a discussion like this is about winning or losing. Like I said, you are a warmonger.

It's just sad, it really is, that a people who argue so much for self-examination never have the guts to really do it themselves. Look at yourself.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Rich0]

First - I agree with your points about the obligations of armies to follow the Geneva Conventions even when inconvenient. Of course, that is a two-way street - you can't cry foul when lots of your civilians die if your own soldiers dress as civilians and you have civilians sit on bridges (which doesn't release the other army from trying to prevent unnecessary civilian loss of life, but I don't think that there is anything wrong with bombing a military target that has civilians sitting on the roof if they have freely chosen to be there (prisoners are another matter) - they are no longer non-combatants).

However, I find your reference to WWII interesting. WWII took a HEAVY toll on civilian populations - largely as a result of ariel bombardment (and also as a consequence of the sheer destructive power of other forms of bombardment). In many cases WWII involved total war and while there was a goal of reducing civilian loss of life it was very much secondary to accomplishing military objectives. By the time the war was grinding into years of duration generals were happy to destroy anything if it would shorten the war.

WWII also had its share of fighting in urban areas. Of course, the solution to this was often to turn the urban area into rubble first, and then fight in it.

The main thing that has changed since WWII was a greater disregard for civilians by their own governments. At least the Germans didn't have civilians stand on bridges/etc to keep them from being bombed (not that this would have really deterred attacks by the time those bridges were targets). The fact that governments consider human shields an effective tactic is actually a testimony to the restraint that the US has shown in dealing with civilians. You don't find human shields in places like Rwanda since the opposing force would just mow them down - their only military value would be in consuming enemy amunition and maybe slowing down advance just out of the need to bulldoze bodies off the roads.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[fatboy]

You seem to be under the delusion that wars are meant to be fair. That, somehow, an equal number of people should be killed on both sides and that's the good way to do a war.

That is stupidest thing imaginable.

Perfectly symmetrical warfare never solved anything. ;)

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tjstork]

As someone who was there, F you man. It's easy to sit here at home and call us murderers and bastards for what we did, but the fact remains that the people we put down were bad people.

Actually, that was rather my point! My point is really simple. Everyone sees what the USA does, using advanced weapons, better training, tactics, etc, and concludes that so many lopsided victories are unfair. They look at the the invasion of Panama, Desert Storm I and the whole trail of death, bombings over Kosovo, the original battle of Iraq and the battle of Fallujah that its somehow not fair that the USA can go and blow away thousands of people for every man that it loses.

The point to decide whether or not to be "fair" is before the war starts, not during, that's what I'm saying.

We want our soldiers to come home alive, and if the other sides soldiers don't go home at all, well, that's a good thing. If the USA were able to kill 10,000 insurgents rather than a 1,000 for every man lost in Iraq, that's 3000 more Americans coming home alive, that's what I'm saying.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[rpillala]

You seem to be under the delusion that Americans have more of a right to live than everyone else, and seemingly by virtue of a large "defense" budget.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[xeoron]

There are rules to war of what is allowed and not, which is defined by the international community (one of the reasons the UN was created). Knowingly targeting civilians is considered a war crime.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tjstork]

The Netherlands has been working together with the US for the last few years in Afghanistan and has had it's casualties too

My apologies. On the Continent, the French tend to drown everyone else out.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Comatose51]

Unless of course you have two oceans to separate you from the realities of war. Maybe the terrorists wanted us to have a taste of our own medicine? We're technically at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Korea (no peace treaty) so does that make it OK for an Iraqi or a Taliban to drop a bomb in the middle of NYC? I agree with the spirit of what you're saying and I think we agree that many of us are shielded from the suffering of war so have a distorted view. However, I'm not sure it's correct to say that all civilians are fair targets during war. As much as possible, we should avoid killing civilians and causing a humanitarian crisis. There's a lot grey areas in between never going to war and massacring everyone you see.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[QuantumRiff]

Wasn't it Patton in WW2 that said "dying for your country is no way to win a war, the key is to make the other bastard die for his!"

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[grumbel]

If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA.

They didn't, the US invaded their country and started the war.

hat the USA can massacre its opponents is a GOOD thing, as it brings more American soldiers home alive.

How about not sending them oversees to fight unjustified wars in the first place?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[dcollins]

So in your sick, sorry world, once we are at war we can kill all the civilians we want, and that is a good thing.

Dude, that's what war is. If you don't want war, then don't fight them. Don't sit there and pretend that war is a noble thing like a video game with so many rules.

Dude, that's the definition of crimes against humanity. People have been tried and executed for doing that, such as in the Nuremburg trials. The rules are laid down in internationally-binding documents such as the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Protocol, and the London Charter.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Cyberax]

So, terrorists should be treated as prisoners of war then? Right?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[drinkypoo]

Which is why I pray to the imaginary God that we will see the civil war the wing-nutters predict, so I can do to you what you so casually believe we should do to others.

He'll come around so queer and quiet
Inside, rebel and riot

Now look, kid. There's nothing good about violence. Also, stop being such a fucking coward, you might as well just log out if that's your game. If you really believe that doing violence against this guy will make the world a better place, why not go and do some violence? Are you really so short on principles that you'll just say any old thing you don't believe? Or were you just generating hot air?

If you want the world to go another way, go that way. Don't say stupid, violent shit. All you do is bring yourself down to the same sorry level.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[0xdeadbeef]

It would not end well for undisciplined civilians like you.

Please, realize your Red Dawn fantasies. I have the federal government on my side. It will be fun.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[loutr]

My apologies. On the Continent, the French tend to drown everyone else out.

Uh, we have soldiers, and have had casualties, in Afghanistan too. And we recently joined NATO.

But maybe what you really meant by "meaningful military alliance" was "willing to blindly accept Bush's lies as facts and go wage a useless and costly war in Irak"...

And please stop using France as an excuse for not giving a shit about anything beyond your own borders.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[drinkypoo]

This is why we say that terrorism is an act of war, not a police matter.

No, we don't. We have classed terrorism as a wholly separate thing. Most societies in fact view terrorism as a far worse thing than war; war involves declarations. This is why the whole Pearl Harbor thing got our collective goat so deeply. Of course, this is a nationalist view; if you don't have a nation you probably don't have taxes so you can't build a military... you can't afford cruise missiles and shit like that. So you have to use lower-tech means to make your point. It's no less valid than any other form of violence -- and no moreso, of course. That is to say, when you resort to violence you have already failed; violence on a massive scale is indicative of massive failure.

As indicated by sibling comment: prisoner of war != terrorist. The two are [theoretically] treated very differently.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

As someone who was there, F you man. It's easy to sit here at home and call us murderers and bastards for what we did, but the fact remains that the people we put down were bad people.

No, fuck you, seriously. You seem to have forgotten that a) you were in their country, b) they were defending their stuff, c) you went in there based on lies and fabrications, c) you went in there as a glorified mercenary (very much like a Roman Centurion) in order to pave way for the rulers of your Empire to dictate to your victims your Imperial Way Of Life, which they must accept or die, including which of their stuff is to be stolen by your country's top thieves.

You had absolutely zero fucking moral high ground, no matter what tactics they used to oppose you.

Sure, There are bound to be a few innocent people killed in any war.

Blame for all of whom is always assigned to the instigator of the war. Always, with no exception. That would be you.

This war has been great in that we have greatly reduced the number of innocent people killed as compared to historical numbers.

Irrelevant. In a war of Imperial Conquest you are still a suck-ass villain, even if you somehow managed to kill "only" the soldiers defending their homeland.

But when you take a town of 25,000 where the vast majority are violently anti-american and put lots of american soldiers in the center of town, you're going to have lots of people die.

You shouldn't have been there in the first place, remember? It was you who were the invading assholes, not them. Their being "anti-american" is qualitatively no different then being "anti-invader". Sort of like the French Resistance, Polish Partisans etc. I am sure that to a Wehrmaht conscript (who at least had an excuse of being a conscript instead of a mercenary) they all looked rather "anti-german" too.

You choose who you would rather have die.

In this case, in accordance with all the historical evaluation of "right" and "wrong" in war, that would be you, the fucking invader.

Your neighbors and countrymen, or some terrorist raghead who is hell-bent on destroying america and is practicing building bombs in his kitchen.

Yes, the residents of Fallujah were born only so that they could become "ragheads" to some supremacist asshat, so that they, and their whole families, could be mowed down by that very supremacist swine who invaded their country for fun and profit. And yes, I do know that you are a supremacist swine with certainty, because of your use of the term "ragheads". So how many of these "sand niggers" (another term I am sure is dear to your oh-so-noble heart) did you "put down" and then took pictures of so that you can masturbate to them later?

And to all of you "America Right or Wrong" types, before you start modding this down, remember that it is your own words, like this killer-for-hire who I am responding to, which condemn you as American Supremacist Asshole Uber-menschen. No amount of censorship will change that what you are. I am sick and tired of your whining moral relativism and duplicity. This one issue was always black-and-white, and it will remain so no matter what mental gymnastics you try to perform.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[GauteL]

While I completely agree that you want a massive ration between your kills and your enemies kills, it isn't at all a different debate to "to go to war or not".

If the US hadn't predicted a massive kill ratio, they would not have invaded Iraq at all. So these things are linked.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[bickerdyke]

Are you REALLY saying that because the US now is at war with half of the middle east, it's ok for say, Iraq hijackers it's ok to kill 3000 american civilians?????

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[mike2R]

I think you're missing the point. The point of a war is to win, if that can be accomplished by filling body bags then great. If, as the US military realised in Iraq, doing so actually hurts your cause then you need a different approach.

I'm not trying to moralise at you or anything. I'm just saying that your approach to the Iraq war DID NOT WORK, which is why the US changed tactics late 2006/early 2007, and why Iraq got much better once they did.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Random_Goblin]

But when you take a town of 25,000 where the vast majority are violently anti-american and put lots of american soldiers in the center of town

hmm i wonder why they find it so easy to be violently anti-american?

some terrorist raghead who is hell-bent on destroying america

ah i see, not perhaps the possibility that you unlawfully invaded their country then, and then pissed all over them

You choose who you would rather have die

well i would have chosen to have neither of you die for a deeply flawed war.

it is a great shame the US administration seemed to forget the reason they didn't push through to Iraq at the end of the 1st gulf war was that they knew it was a no-win quagmire

oh and please don't try and tell me that 2nd gulf war was anything other than a phyrric victory

it was the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[strong_epoxy]

Sure, If they surrender, lock them up in a place like Gitmo until 'the war is over' which could be a _very_ long time when dealing with terrorists.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[bickerdyke]

Your neighbors and countrymen, or some terrorist raghead who is hell-bent on destroying america and is practicing building bombs in his kitchen.

For a moment I thought you were talking about Timothy McVeigh.

Basicly you're right. But you should remember that each innocent killed gives at least 3 of his relatives some really good reason to be "hell-bent on destroying america"

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Cyberax]

But you can't torture prisoners, they must be kept at a certain level of comfort and you definitely can't sue them for murder.

Also, once the authorization for use of military power given by Congress is over you won't have legal premises to hold people further.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[ilitirit]

The fact is, we spend 500B a year on the military so that when we do fight people, it is a massacre. We do not want our guys to die. We want their guys to die.

You shouldn't want their guys to die, you should want their guys to surrender.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Nick Ives]

We managed to deal with the IRA as criminals and not prisoners of war, although we did have the Army deployed in NI - I'll admitted fighting terrorism takes big guns. Spain manages to deal with ETA on the same terms.

Should we instead have declared war on Eire and the USA for their support of the IRA?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Phrogman]

Since we are tallying up allies, please note that Canada has had a large proportion of our combat capable troops in Afghanistan since the beginning of the conflict. We have lost a lot of those troops as well, and the only reason we are there is solidarity with our friends the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Please note our first casualties were sadly from a friendly-fire incident involving the US AF. Yet we are still there.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Wootie Woo]

War is worse than hell because hell is supposedly for the evil; war affects everyone.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Americans are the best at war because we have to be. We are the liberators of the oppressed,

Looks like you've been eating your own propaganda dog-food. It is rather curious that the only people who seem to see themselves as the "liberators of the oppressed" are American Supremacist idiots like you. Neither the "oppressed" nor the "liberated" somehow do feel the same way. A fucking surprise too, that. I am sure that you are still awaiting your "flowers and sweets" mass welcome by the Iraqis, all these years after their "liberation". Just make sure you wear your combat gear while you attend.

But then again it was always the view of supremacists that their Glorious Way of Life, is the Only Way, and everyone else better conform. If they did not, they were to be "liberated" and "civilization brought to them" by fire and sword, and of course the "noble and heroic" bringers of "civilization" had to be compensated by the "barbarians" in slaves and gold and general boot-licking. Nothing has much changed apparently since the time of Rome, except that the asshat Centurions now ride in APCs.

The list of countries who owe their independence to the fighting spirit of the American soldier is staggering.

And the list of those whose governments were "regime changed" for the benefit of the USA is even longer...

Kuait

A former province of various pan-Arab empires, arbitrarily made property of a sycophantic Kuwaiti familiy by the British (the one before yours) Empire.

Israel

A European Jew religious-supremacist colony in the center of what was formerly Arab majority neighbourhood, violently expanding ever since. Note that it is not a democracy, as only Jews (a religiously selected sub-set of the population) enjoy the full citizenship rights there. Arab residents (those who remain after being cleansed out) only have some of the rights. Of course the US has supported financially and militarily all the conquests Israel embarked on, with no questions asked. Which is one of the issues at the core of all the "anti-americanism" in the Middle East.

France, Poland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Belgum, Netherlands, Greece, Egypt, Italy,

To burst your America-centered bubble, in WWII in Europe, 9 out of 10 German soldiers died on the eastern front. In the days after the invasion of Normandy, all the combined America-led military effort faced around of 40 German divisions in 1944, while the Eastern front had over 200. Also, I do wonder how did the USA get to liberate Poland, it having been on the side somewhat facing the wrong front.

Tripolli,

Tripoli is a city in Libya, asshat.

Panama,

You "liberated" Panama? Your self-delusion has no limits apparently.

Spain,

This is ridiculous. Spain's General Franco, a Hitler-sponsored dictator, remained in power well into 1970s, fully supported by the USA. Same is by the way true of Greece, where US-sponsored military junta ruled also into 1970s.

South Korea,

The only post WWII case that has any resemblance to "liberation". Of course ruled by a succession of US-sponsored dictators.

and now Iraq and Afhganastan.

That would be Afghanistan, you dolt. Most of citizens of whom see you as thieving invaders. A wee bit removed from "liberators".

You also forgot the "we destroyed the village in order to save it" Vietnam "liberation".

We could also add the soviet countries who fell out after the US broke the soviet republic during the cold war.

No you could not. If you could, they would be blood-soaked, crater-filled ruins still, having been beneficiaries o

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[ultranova]

Which is why I pray to the imaginary God that we will see the civil war the wing-nutters predict, so I can do to you what you so casually believe we should do to others.

He didn't say that you should go and massacre others, he simply said that if you get to a fight it's good to be able to massacre your enemies rather than get massacred by them. It's no difference than saying that it's a good thing to be a karate champion if you ever got into a fight.

You, on the other hand, just prayed for a war simply because you happen to dislike one of the potential victims, you bloodthirsty maniac.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[malv]

Dude, how do people mod up your heartless arm-chair commando dribble?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[malv]

I find it sad that people mod you as flamebait instead the original poster that is basically claiming that in war there are no rules of morality. I liked Slashdot a lot more when it wasn't overrun by an audience of chickenhawk Republicans.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[ultranova]

And please stop using France as an excuse for not giving a shit about anything beyond your own borders.

When the US deploys troops somewhere in the world it's "invading". When it doesn't, it's "not giving a shit about anything beyond its own borders". I guess this is one war the US really can't win ;).

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Erikderzweite]

USA has started the war based on lies about WMD's, against a country which has posed no real threat to the USA, ignoring the rest of the world. It is called agression.
In this agression about a million people die, only a few thousands of them being US soldiers because the country has most advanced and well-equipped military.
And that's supposed to be a good thing? Tellyou what, nazis had similar approach valuing others' lives.

And now you tell me "that's what war is"? Think again who has started it. Sadly, your own civilians are now safe from your war, otherwise they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight for them.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[dunkelfalke]

Yes, a glorified mercenary.

yes, a mercenary. in a country without draft every soldier is a mercenary.

99% of the citizens of the US don't give two flying fucks about you, your country, or any other country out there

stay home then.

Do you HONESTLY think we're a nation of cowboys who get off on killing people and blowing shit up?

well, it seems that at least half the nation is. lots and lots of nationalistic rednecks.

I am pretty certain that you're posting from a country that would have been speaking German right about now if it were not IN LARGE part to the heroic effort of the US servicemen and women who came to the aide of most of Europe.

large part? sorry, but russians did the most work back then. and yes, before you mention that if it weren't you yanks, i'd speak russian now, i do speak russian. it is a nice language. and - coincidentally - i do speak german. learning foreign languages helps broadening the horizons.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[ultranova]

I'd put this to you - if civilians understood that they would get killed in wars too, they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight them.

Or they'd be even more eager to build a strong one, to ensure that in any conflict their army massacres the enemy and not the other way around. "Hannibal is at our gates" is a pretty good argument to increase military spending.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Liath]

I didn't know Ireland participated in the Iraq war?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The internet, where common sense, etiquette, and respect for fellow posters goes right out the window.

I am sorry, should I reply to a murderous thug, who used the "F" word himself first, with a great deal of respect and decorum? I think not.

You know what's funny? You wouldn't DARE say this directly to his face because you know you'd get your ass kicked. But on the internet, it's ok to be an asshole.

Yes, I agree. It is a well know practise not to say things to the faces of murderous asshole thugs, because they will, well ... murder you. This one even boasts that he did precisely that to people who dared to stand up to him.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that this whole quaint "democracy" and "freedom of speech" stuff was precisely to avoid having thugs end up always running the place based solely on the amount of their murderous inclinations coupled with firepower ... no?

Oh, two "C"s...guess in your zeal to lay into the guy you couldn't hit the D key huh? Figures.

Yes, I had committed the unforgivable crime of a single-letter typo, which apparently wholly invalidates my argument, or some such ... or maybe you could elaborate on the terrible negating influence of the letter "c" on my stating the rather self-obvious.

Here's a tip for you, you ignorant elitist prick, 99% of the citizens of the US don't give two flying fucks about you, your country, or any other country out there.

Which would be the very definition of them being ... ignorant elitist pricks. You apparently do not even see the black irony overflowing from your own lines.

However, since we're (unfortunately)) the last remaining "Super Power" at least for the time being, we're the ones getting screwed over time and time again by being backed into a corner by the governments of the world who DEMAND that the US lend support to whatever country is currently blowing themselves to hell and back.

Which, I say, which country exactly, demanded that you invade Iraq?!! Or more to the point, what pills are you on?!

Do you think we wanted to go to fucking Somalia? Do you think we wanted to run around in the fucking sand in the Middle East?

Short answer: yes. There are factions in the USA who see every war as a profit centre, which it is for them. Those same people continuously advocate the use of the military force, as opposed to a myriad of other ways of exacting influence, precisely because it makes them money, lots of money, and empowers them politically. There are also powerful factions in the USA who are really foreign agents subverting the USA for the benefit of their own supremacist efforts in their own country, i.e. the Israeli Zionists.

Do you HONESTLY think we're a nation of cowboys who get off on killing people and blowing shit up?

No, your whole nation is not made up from idiot cowboys. Unfortunately you have way too many of them and they seem to have the uncanny ability to climb into positions of power. And you all reap the results of their belligerent ways. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the affairs of cleaning your own house before trying to "help" others at a point of a gun. But then "do what we say, don't do what we do" was always a popular attitude.

I swear to God, people like you make me absolutely SICK.

Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

The US is damned if we do, damned if we don't.

No, you are only "damned" if you do hypocritical, self-serving, vile things dressed up as "help" and "liberation".

I am pretty certain that you're posting from a country that would have been speak

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[spyder913]

If you're firing RPGs, you're not a non-combatant, no matter how wrong you think the invasion is.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Erikderzweite]

Think about it yourself: killing civilians is a bad thing. Let's think further -- a soldier only obeys orders, so it's "better" to kill officers instead. Even better -- generals or Supreme Commander-in-Chief, target the tops, those who are responsible for the war if you want to stop it.
But if you are at war with a country like USA, even the President isn't the highest-ranked person. Because he is elected. The people shape the course of USA and support its wars while thriving in safety of their suburban homes, separated by two oceans from the battle theatre.

So, while I don't like the idea of killing civilians, it is they who should share responcibility for the mistakes their country makes (provided USA has the Democracy they claim to have).

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Random_Goblin]

well said sir

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[gknoy]

I can understand your distaste for "mercenaries"; I personally am not a member of the US armed forces, nor am I likely to be. (I'm fairly risk-averse.) However, I think you are too harsh on the poster you initially laid into.

No one joined up to go to Iraq. They joined to serve, to fund their college educations, or learn skills they can use in future careers. By all means, blame the president, and blame our congress of sending our troops over there ... but please don't blame the soldiers. It's their job. Once they've signed up, they can't decide not to go, or they go to prison for a Long Time. A mercenary, on the other hand, can (I believe) decide to terminate his employment. Yes, being in the military is a career ... but you have fewer freedoms than a true mercenary would.

From what another poster said (a few posts above yours), they appear to have worked hard to ensure that civilians had ample warning to leave. If the military wanted a massacre of civilians, they could have firebombed the city, shelled it indiscriminantly, or just rolled in shooting. They didn't. They told the city residents, "We're going to invade, as your town is full of insurgents... you should leave now." Frankly, if an invading military told me that my city (let's say Los Angeles) were full of insurgents, and that the city would be invaded shortly, I'd be getting the hell out of there as soon as humanly possible. Wouldn't you? I'm not saying this absolves them of civilian deaths, but they sure sound like they made significant effort to ensure that civilians were not harmed.

In ages past, when cities were considered to contain enemies, they were destroyed. Whether physically razed, or shelled from afar, or ravaged by disease during a siege, the population was considered to be an expendable statistic. In World War II, we (and others) carpet bombed for months; Tokyo was torched, and I'm sure we can remember the other horriffic things that were done to civilian populations.

In contrast, Falluja had extended efforts to get the civilians OUT. Given that the military forces were ordered to remove the insurgents, how would you prefer it were done?
- "No.": Commander is slapped in irons, and replaced with someone who WILL follow orders. The orders will be followed, by someone, so this isn't a valid answer. (It is on an individual level, but it won't affect whether or not the city gets invaded or destroyed.)
- Warn the people ahead of time, give civilians time to leave. When you do invade, the people remaining know you consider them enemies.
- Don't warn the people, and invade. We lose more people, and even more civilians die.
- Don't warn the populace. Level the city with aerial bombardment.

Considering which of these we did NOT choose to do, I think our soldiers went about it the right way. I understand you don't like the idea of an invading force at all, but when one IS an invading force, please at least acknowledge that they're not trying to massacre civilians. It's possible to condemn the strategic decisions (invade Iraq) while still respecting the soldiers responsible for carrying out the tactical decisions.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[gknoy]

If the US were invaded, I would consider attacking the invaders. However, I would then no longer be a civilian, but a resistance fighter. If I fire on that column of tanks, or snipe their officers, I can't really complain when they shoot back at me. That'd be a risk I would have to accept. If I attacked them and then expected to be considered an "innocent civilian", I'd be a fool.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[phosphorylate this]

One violent person in a neighbourhood does not make the whole neighbourhood complicit merely because they have done nothing. It's rather difficult to tell the guy with a gun what to do when you have no real police or army to turn to.

Actually I don't really think the people of Iraq ever had much of a say in military budgets.

I would guess that the weapons of todays insurgents are financed from good-old mafia-style intimidation tactics and a peppering of out-of-country support. As such the majority of people just trying to get by have never had too much REAL choice.
 

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Erikderzweite]

>This war has been great in that we have greatly reduced the number of innocent people killed as compared to historical numbers.

Let's have a look :

In the first World War civilian casualities were about 41% of all died people.
In WWII this rate was about 65%, greatly increased by US' carpet bombings (think about Dresden for instance).
In Iraq -- about 90% of all dead are civilians . So tell me -- how exactly did you "greatly reduced the number of innocent people killed"? Compared to what?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

There are VERY clear ties that the Afghan gov harbored the Taliban (which I think you seem to forget, attacked not a military target but a civilian target directly and killed almost 3000 civilians. Now thats a direct attack on civilians. The american army spends billions of dollars on systems to stratigiaclly target the "bad guys" But what are we supposed to do when taliban uses women as shields?

If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. So in the case of Afghanistan, true, the Taliban (a band of blood-thirsty medieval religious wackos) had indeed sheltered Osama Bin Laden amongst all the general havoc they wrought in there, but that does not mean that brute, large-scale military force was the only, never you mind the best, option.

If the plight of the Afghanis and the justice for the victims of 9/11 were truly the objectives, Bin Laden would have been captured by special forces in the middle of the night, while still in Khandahar, and the Taliban would have been undermined (slowly, as these things take a long time) by carefully orchestrated cultural and economic warfare centred on good works and exemplary conduct of the Western democracies, led by the US. There is simply no military way to "defeat" the Taliban, as they are not a military force but ideological one. Ideologies can only be shown false by real-life examples of the effects of superior ideologies. And on this front, as far as the average Afghani is concerned, the US and NATO military efforts are not only a total fiasco, but utterly counter-productive as they lead to the spread and reinforcement of Taliban-like ideologies throughout the region.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[0xdeadbeef]

You, on the other hand, just prayed for a war simply because you happen to dislike one of the potential victims, you bloodthirsty maniac.

If it doesn't hurt, they won't learn. Sometimes you have to make a man walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

And besides, I am the one representing the rule of law. The cheerleaders of the Iraq war are the ones on Fox News whining about indoctrination camps and black helicopters when they're not blaming liberals for provoking Richard Poplawski.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Cowmonaut]

Mod this guy up. Every one of his points is valid, and in reality the truth. Civilian casualties are a given and in war you do not take chances. The line may very well of been crossed in Falluja but its a very fine one to be treading and the people behind the gun are just as terrified as the ones in front of it. War is hell in every sense of the phrase and its NEVER a good thing. The only sad part is that it is sometimes necessary, if you want to keep your own anyways.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Can you really blame a man like that for demand that it means he did his job, and made the world a safer place? That he holds the belief that he isn't evil?

I keep pointing out that "doing one's job" is an insufficient criteria for being a "good guy". The soldiers of Werhmacht also "did their job", so did those of the Imperial Japan. Amongst them many believed that they were "making the world a better place" as their respective ideologies assured them of "manifest destinies" and the like. And still, they were in the end nothing but villains.

The criteria is not "doing one's job" or "believing in one's goodness", but objective, external benchmarks, chief amongst them this: who attacked whom. This one test alone determines a majority of the "moral capital" of one's party in the war. Note that both Germany and Japan were the unambiguous military aggressors ... as was the US in Iraq.

And so the answer is yes, I can, and I do blame you for not standing up for some basic, fundamental principles and instead "pragmatically" choosing to murder and maim others, all so that you can save your job. You gave up any claim to "not being evil" the moment you chose the far easier, self-serving path.

This NATION, the nation you, and I live in decided to invade another nation. We, the military, did the job our civilian masters asked of us. We didn't go out seeking to kill innocents, but yes we did. War is a horrible thing for that reason, and so many others. Drag your political leaders over the coals for it. Drag those civilians who support it over the coals.

So was the case with both Germany and Japan. And in both there were those who refused, deserted and were in many cases executed for it. They were the true heroes of their nations, men of conscience and courage. It is them we should remember and honour.

In light of this, a mercenary who whines that he is not culpable for his actions, that "he did not choose or want this", in the face of much lighter punishment for disobeying, all so that he can continue to earn money while killing and maiming, does not deserve any sympathy whatsoever. He is in fact fully responsible for the bloody outcome, along with his paymasters.

Also, I am not an American. My nation did not participate in that clusterfuck.

Please though, don't drag the men, and women who was doing the duty this nation asked of him over the coals. It's only natural for someone so heavily invested in something to support it. Yes obviously there are exceptions to this, but just don't hate. There's plenty of that all ready.

Hate is a wrong word. Disgust is more like it. Your whiny, dishonest attempts to evade responsibility are truly pathetic, and are unlikely to change any of your victims' opinion of you.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tnk1]

I wouldn't pray for that...

The wing nutters are better prepared for war than you are.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[jafac]

Yeah - internationally binding, but ONLY if the people who commit the crimes are on the LOSING side. The winners basically do whatever the hell they want.

Tell me I'm wrong - but wait until AFTER Dick Cheney's body is pulled down from the gallows having been executed for ordering torture. (hint: ain't ever gonna happen.)

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[R2.0]

"Hate is a wrong word. Disgust is more like it. Your whiny, dishonest attempts to evade responsibility are truly pathetic, and are unlikely to change any of your victims' opinion of you."

You know, it's funny, but I think the exact same thing in regards to Europeans. The vast majority of today's international and civil problems are a direct result of 19th century European imperialism, in which the US played almost no part. The only 2 instances I can really think of are Liberia and the Panama Canal - Liberia was established as a place for African slaves to go, and we didn't stick around for that long. As for the Panama Canal, we weren't the first ones to try to build it - we were just the first to succeed. How many times did the French try?

The entire map of Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and the Americas was drawn by Europeans for their own greed. And now they get to wash their hands of it because there's someone else to blame? Right.

I'm not happy with what my country did and is doing - it's a poor reaction to the political situation in that area of the world. Who created that situation? Look in a mirror.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Anonymous Coward]

At no time did I or anyone in my company fire upon any civilian. In fact the only civilians that I saw were after the fact when they came out of their hiding places and surrendered. We sent them on their way with the MP's, safe and sound.

What I did see was a lot of AK and RPG's fired at my Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I took 4 within the span of 15 minutes. Thank $DEITY for that reactive armor.

The reason you didn't see them was because they were, as you said, "hiding." After you got done bombing them they were buried in rubble.

By way of comparison, consider this: all citizens in Detroit are blanketed for weeks with news that another country is coming to tOWN. Any male over 15 is a target. To get that local boy a lot of buildings will be RPGd. Some of those buildings are homes but hey, gotta get that combatant teenager. The number of innocent dead will be counted by some guy in an armored vehicle from a distance. Oh, and the reason the other country invaded was to steal resources, use up military surplus, and allow international business to run the country.

Civilized people consider the above morally and criminally wrong.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[jafac]

I think the main problem with this discussion is that there is a deliberate conflation of the legal term "war" - which refers to a legal state of matters, with the common term "war" which can be just about anything, including a "war on poverty" "war on drugs" "war on terrorism" or "jihad on infidels".

In the common use: yeah, pretty much anything goes, and truth be told, all civilians are legitimate combatants; because every day we fight, by working our jobs, having children, and teaching an ideology to them.

But in reality - we like to use rules and laws to sort of, keep things "real". It's hard to talk about condoning things like the 9/11 attacks as legitimate war; just as it's hard to talk about condoning things like prisoner abuse, Fallujah, and Pat Tillman, as legitimate, legal, war-activities.

There's a latin phrase that says: "inter arma silent leges" which says: "at times of war, the law is silent". Well - that's also a convenient excuse for criminals, isn't it?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[loutr]

I was referring to the fact that he didn't know that European soldiers were fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[jafac]

That said;
Someone invades MY country, I don't care what religion they are, or how well-meaning they are. Invade my country, destroy my roads and bridges, kill my neighbor's kids, bomb my place of work so I'm cut off from any constructive livelihood. . . ?

I guaranfuckingtee you, I will not only be building bombs in my kitchen, but I will be teaching classes on how to build bombs. I will kill your invading soldiers. I will go to your homeland and kill your civilians. I will defend my home with my dying breath.

I am an American, and I don't own any firearms. But that can change, easily enough.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[jafac]

Someone else is going to complain on your behalf. They might even distort facts a bit here and there.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[spacefiddle]

massacre its opponents

Yes, women and kids who have the poor judgement to be born in a country we invade should be obliterated. After all, if we stop the enemy from breeding, they won't grow up to become more enemy.

Fuck, why bother with the guns and soldiers thing at all? Just spray-bomb-sterilize rogue states from the air and let the problem solve itself.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I will defend my home with my dying breath.

That is an understandable attitude and that is why no one would have accused the US soldiers of utter lack of conscience if that is what they were doing. But they were not, instead, they were the villainous party in this war, attacking other peoples' homes, as the aggressors, not as the defenders.

What really gets my goat is that the very Americans who, like you, would have done their patriotic duty, fail to recognize in their victims the very actions they, themselves, would be proudly undertaking in their place. The cognitive dissonance is frightening.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[bmsleight]

Hunger Strikes. I think we did treat them as political prisoners.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Anonymous Coward]

What you said to the nth power.

There are many good kids who naively join up to defend their country, the stereotypical "fresh meat for the grinder", who once they sign their life away are put into horrible situations that they likely do not agree with from a moral perspective but see no way out from. They may have done things they are not proud of, that the armchair liberals like myself would find hard to condone. But war is hell, and I will by any of these men a pint, at any time.

There are also the utterly ignorant, gung-ho, America uber-alles morons that you have been replying to though. They are the scum of the earth and sadly all too common. How anybody can be so ignorant as to think America gave "independence" to all those countries in an age where the internet could have given them the facts in seconds is truly staggering.

Perhaps he could tell us how America did/has done in ending the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur? Or Palestine for that matter.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You may see a thug but honestly each small little war staves off another global war as dictators are allowed to amass power, ignore the UN, and rattle their sword anytime they want something.

Which is yet another self-serving "justification". Saddam was not in a position to "amass power", he was isolated and neutered. His days were numbered. If democracy in Iraq was truly a concern, promotion of home-grown dissidents would be much more effective in the long term. The invasion was motivated however by quite different concerns, most of them having nothing whatsoever to do with the lofty claims being made.

I did not support the war even though a large part of me thought it was needed.

No war, other then the purely defencive kind, is ever needed. War is the absolute last resource, an acknowledgement of a complete failure of civilization and return to a barbaric, animalistic method of "solving" things. War is only justifiable if you are a defender, having been assailed on your own soil by a military foe. Like the Iraqis were. Or like the Kuwaitis were, or the Iranians before them. If the US had chosen, as a part of a true multi-national coalition, with true UN mandate, which it had in Gulf War I, to pursue Saddam, provided that Kuwait was the leader in the assault, then the moral high-ground would have been on their side, as Saddam's Iraq was the aggressor, provided of course that the coalition adhered to the Geneva Conventions to the letter. The attribution of responsibility for a war is not a very complicated issue.

... while nations have poisoned the minds of their children to hate the US and the western world...

The correct counter-move to this is to un-poison these minds by leading by example, demonstrating the moral superiority of your ways, the rule of law, the respect for democratic principles etc. What you have done instead is to furnish these poisoners with more ammunition. This is not a winning long-term strategy.

The real question is if we would have been forced to take such actions if you did not allow such a dictator into power in the first place...see you on the battlefield.

Well, the belligerent, villainous, corrupt and self-serving party is recently not these dictators but ... you. Until one of these nations assails another, you have no grounds whatsoever to intervene militarily, and even if they do, you must make sure that your actions do not reek of underhanded selfish ulterior motives, lest you be just another villain in the fray.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tnk1]

Under the applicable conventions, combatants need to be in uniform, under a military command. Otherwise they are spies and can be executed.

Prisoners of war are those who follow those conventions, spies, saboteurs and terrorists are those who do not.

Let's be clear, simply the fact of your inability to win a war in uniform does not mean you get a pass when it comes to being captured. You may be a "freedom fighter", but you are not a Prisoner of War.

Terrorists are definitely not prisoners of war, but they are also not necessarily simple criminals. They are foreign nationals engaged in hostilities in regard to your people. I believe the closest "old" parallel for what they would be are pirates, and pirates could legally be hung at the yardarm by military vessels or shot.

The Geneva Conventions and others are not some humanitarian bill of rights, they are in place to ensure reciprocal treatment by an enemy in a war. While that does not mean we should abuse others at will, it does mean that the Geneva Conventions themselves are not a sufficient reason that we should start opening the umbrella to all people who we have some sort of reasonable doubt about their motivations. Otherwise, we end up in a situation where the humanitarian act of accepting a surrender actually weakens, rather than strengthens our ability to prosecute that war.

In the end, if conventions like this are allowed to become so easy to circumvent, and even use against the victor, few of the less scrupulous countries out there will agree to such things, and even fewer will actually comply with them in good faith.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Cyberax]

"Under the applicable conventions, combatants need to be in uniform, under a military command. Otherwise they are spies and can be executed."

Combatants need not to be in uniform, they just need to be identifiable as military personnel (for example, they can carry a visible badge).

And if you keep calling terrorism is a warfare, then why not extend Geneva Convention?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[bob.appleyard]

Taliban were the government. People associated with Al-Qaeda did 9/11. Taliban were harbouring Al-Qaeda members because they asked for some evidence of their involvement in the attacks. There was more to it than that, of course. Those were the actors though.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tnk1]

One might have argued that you spent a good 800 years at war with Eire. All the IRA was is a bunch of people who didn't really like the side of the ceasefire line they ended up on.

The UK has never really been known for shying away from unilateral actions by its military for its own goals, good bad, or indifferent.

If the IRA were treated like criminals instead of as combatants, there was a sound pragmatic or political reason for that. Let's not make that calculation seem like it was necessarily the best one. It took quite awhile to deal with the IRA.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Rich0]

Hardly. However, they might be gassing their own population, or generally destabilizing the region.

I'm not sure that there wouldn't have been some kind of invasion sometime if I were running the show. However, one thing that is for sure is that every dollar of it would be paid for by taxes on imported mideast oil. If that were threatened I wouldn't be surprised if OPEC figured out some way to take care of the problems on their own. If wars in the middle east are the cost of oil imports, then those who use this oil should pay for it. If that makes other energy sources more economical then our dependence on oil would be reduced, and that would lower the power of Mideast regimes, and make it less likely that their civilians will end up on the wrong end of smart bombs.

It's all about economics and incentives. Remove the incentive and you get rid of the war...

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Pervaricator General]

Or they'd be whipped into a fervor and fight even harder, like happened in WWII...

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Pervaricator General]

but even as I typed that, look at what happened to Japan after the bomb, though most of that was due to the Emperor saying Uncle and bowing to the undercurrent that was tired of seeing their sons off. To mix metaphors, bring it home hard enough and you'll wipe them out, but only maim the giant and you reap the whirlwind.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Pervaricator General]

Maybe if we hadn't destroyed the oppressor of 70% of the populace (angering the other 30% who were at least comfortable), established transparent elections with puppets (with a newly reintegrated Baath party as well), rebuilt the country after removing said oppressor (undoing some of the damage of war), and established a time-line to leave (which is coming along swimmingly) I might agree with you. Flawed intelligence (no false charges of lies, now people) or no, Saddam played chicken with a populace in no mood to be f-ed with (UN sanctions, inspections of weapons, previous record of oppression). A remarkable 6 years later, the violence has ebbed.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[BTWR]

The country I am in was never in danger of that, as Germany would have lost to the USSR quite handsomely, just a year or so later. How would have history looked after that is anyone's guess.

Wow. That's quite the talent you have there for speculation! So you can accurately describe the events of WWII had the USA not come in? You seem extremely sure that Hitler would have broken his peace agreement with the USSR?

Wow, can you please tell me what will happen in next 25 years of Pakistan, Venezuela, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Taiwan and all the forver Soviet blocs?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[lessthan]

What a lovely black/white viewpoint. He simply said that it is a bad idea to match a superior force against an inferior force and that we spend a lot of money to make sure that we are the superior force. Should we be faulted for wanting our people to survive?

Subjugation or massacre aren't the only choices. Diplomacy is pretty much the art of settling things without violence.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[dajak]

It was undoubtedly also the Nazi's reasoning behind the 1940 Rotterdam Blitz, which made the Allies abandon the policy of not deliberately bombing civilian targets (first British bombardment on a German city was on the evening of the day after the Rotterdam Blitz). No Allied government bought the Nazi argument that carpet bombing Rotterdam was legitimized by the Dutch defense of the river bank inside the city.

The Dutch did indeed surrender to prevent additional civilian casualties, but receive very little praise in the history books - their own and those of others - for that civilized decision. Why would anyone expect Iraqi insurgents to follow that example? Stalingrad is the historical example to follow.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[lessthan]

lot of AK and RPG's fired at my Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[laddiebuck]

I think you and the GP are missing the point that yes, civilians are off-limits in war, for good reason. This is why we have so many conventions named after capitals of neutral European countries.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[FCAdcock]

You know, there's a reason they call it the Anonymous Coward. You say you hate me, but can't even tell me who you are because you're afraid someone might be offended.

Grow a pair and stop reading so damn much. Spend more time with your boots on the ground and you might learn what is really happening in the world.

When you jump into combat with 200lbs on your back and a rifle strapped to your chest, THEN and only then will I listen to you talk about war. Until then you have about as much knowledge of the subject as I do on particle theory. (none at all)

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[ptbarnett]

No, the country I am in was never in danger of that, as Germany would have lost to the USSR quite handsomely, just a year or so later. How would have history looked after that is anyone's guess.

It's not too hard to guess, given the fate of East Germany and the rest of Eastern Europe. The only question is how long the Iron Curtain would have stayed up under those circumstances.

Perhaps you should ask someone who lived under the influence of the Soviet Union before the Berlin Wall fell. You would probably find that it wasn't much fun.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Maybe if we hadn't destroyed the oppressor of 70% of the populace (angering the other 30% who were at least comfortable),

If that was truly the case, which is not transparent at all - the argument you parrot having been made by long discredited ex-Iraqi stooges employed by the likes of CIA, it was an Iraqi problem to be solved by the Iraqis, not the USA. You could have provided material assistance to pro-democracy groups, but there are lines that cannot be crossed, lest your true intentions become apparent. You did cross them.

rebuilt the country after removing said oppressor (undoing some of the damage of war),

Except you did not. Instead you spent a vast majority of the "reconstruction" funds in pointless projects designed to syphon funds back into US-aligned corporations, built an Imperial Embassy complex converting a good chunk of Baghdad to do it, divided Iraq into ghettos, complete with concrete walls around them, all the while failing to restore basic services like water and electricity .... not to mention that a large chunk of the money simply went missing. In the process nearly all national heritage of Iraq, which has survived millennia, was destroyed or allowed to be stolen.

and established a time-line to leave (which is coming along swimmingly)

Your "leaving" is designed to be very much like your "leaving" of Korea. A set of permanent bases housing tens of thousands of troops, and the said Imperial Embassy complex meant for controlling the Iraqi affairs for indefinite future.

Flawed intelligence (no false charges of lies, now people) or no

Bullshit, lies they were. This is confirmed by people like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, one the chief of UN inspections, the other senior member of UNSCOM. Then there is of course the PNAC, with its "regime change" plans published as far back as 1997, and its crew of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc. So you can stop with the smoke and mirrors bit. We know what happened, there is no hiding it.

Saddam played chicken with a populace in no mood to be f-ed with

You mean "with a bunch of blood-thirsty fuckwads determined to conquer and rule Iraq no matter what Saddam did" ...

A remarkable 6 years later, the violence has ebbed.

After millions are refugees in places like Syria and Jordan and the whole of Iraq is ethnically cleansed ghettos separated by concrete walls and checkpoints, women can no longer attend school or walk around while not wearing burkas and one set of thugs was replaced with another ... some fucking progress, that.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Wow. That's quite the talent you have there for speculation! So you can accurately describe the events of WWII had the USA not come in? You seem extremely sure that Hitler would have broken his peace agreement with the USSR?

You do understand that the US did not enter the war with Germany (December 1941) until months after the plan "Barbarossa" was executed (June 1941), and as such your "question" is utter nonsense, don't you?

Wow, can you please tell me what will happen in next 25 years of Pakistan, Venezuela, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Taiwan and all the forver Soviet blocs

The question is entirely different. We know the historical strength of the German army in 1941-1945, the state of its industry etc, the respective strength of the USSR and its industry, and there were no possibilities of any miraculous reversals. In this I do not "predict" anything, simply observe the inevitable outcomes based on long established historical data. The Germans simply did not have the sufficient military strength, nor the personnel to achieve victory, which was plainly apparent even long before the landings in Normandy. Your comparison is that of apples to oranges.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Perhaps you should ask someone who lived under the influence of the Soviet Union before the Berlin Wall fell. You would probably find that it wasn't much fun.

But then again the USSR got progressively less despotic, until it eventually crumbled from its internal inefficiencies. There was no need for an apocalyptic war to achieve its destruction. Also, you will probably be surprised, but some former East Germans are quite nostalgic about their old ways, many not having adjusted to the dog-eat-dog economic realities of the West and having found most of the cunningly implied innuendos and outright false promises of prosperity that were made to them during the Soviet times to be just that, the prosperity never having materialized after the unification.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[BTWR]

The question is entirely different. We know the historical strength of the German army in 1941-1945, the state of its industry etc, the respective strength of the USSR and its industry, and there were no possibilities of any miraculous reversals. The Germans simply did not have the sufficient military strength, nor the personnel to achieve victory, which was plainly apparent even long before the landings in Normandy.

Wow, another brilliant analysis by you! Too bad, um... GERMANY apparently didn't know as much about the strength of the German Army in 1941 as well as you did. Because, um... they still were thinking they'd WIN the war in '41. Too bad they didn't hire you.

Oh, and since you can make sweeping predictions, what stats do you need about the strength of the Pakistani, Tainwanese, Israeli armies do you need to better make your prediction? I see you cleverly dodged that question by simply stating "apples and oranges." Please - make a 25 year prediction about all of those countries, since you're so good at (snicker) backdating past historical events and then predicting that they were inevitable.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Draek]

You people make me sick. The world's finest minds have tried to define what exactly constitutes being a 'good man', from Aristotle to Kant, without reaching consensus yet you throw around the word simply to justify the murder of your fellow men? FUCK YOU.

Don't ever call your enemy "bad people" until you can do what Aristotle couldn't and define the terms in a clear, precise and universally-accepted way. Until then, it's just pointless rhethoric aimed to gain points from the intellectually incompetent, nothing more.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Wow, another brilliant analysis by you! Too bad, um... GERMANY apparently didn't know as much about the strength of the German Army in 1941 as well as you did. Because, um... they still were thinking they'd WIN the war in '41. Too bad they didn't hire you

Since you do not comprehend the difference between a rather straightforward analysis of readily available post facto historical data and predicting the future there is little point talking to you.

Oh, and since you can make sweeping predictions, what stats do you need about the strength of the Pakistani, Tainwanese, Israeli armies do you need to better make your prediction? I see you cleverly dodged that question by simply stating "apples and oranges." Please - make a 25 year prediction about all of those countries, since you're so good at (snicker) backdating past historical events and then predicting that they were inevitable.

Again, you show total and complete lack of comprehension of a difference between filling in a year or so of blanks in a well established trend, all major variables of which have been known in detail for over 60 years now and predicting the future 25 (no less) years in advance based upon not even a comparatively fractional amount of such data.

But then again you are just a dishonest jerk.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[dajak]

The list of countries who owe their independence to the fighting spirit of the American soldier is staggering. Kuait, Israel, France, Poland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Belgum, Netherlands, Greece, Egypt, Italy, Tripolli, South Korea, Panama, Spain, and now Iraq and Afhganastan.

And the US owes its independence to the fighting spirit of French, Spanish, and Dutch soldiers.

Note that by your logic Poland owes its independence to the US twice! You liberated it once in WWII, and then a few decades later from Soviet oppression.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Sure, our grand-fathers responsible for much of the mess the world is today. And their grand-fathers, and on and on.

But there is a major difference between having some historical culpability, which none of us can change, and determinedly continuing to perpetuate idiocy, despite of all that history teaches us. Most of the old empires have learnt, usually the hard way, all about the fallacies of empires. Why is it that in the age of nearly universally available information you do insist on repeating all of the bloody fuckups? And more importantly, why do you try to pose as "liberators" while doing so? Do you really think no one will notice?!

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Aardpig]

Here, here!

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[BTWR]

Since you do not comprehend the difference between a rather straightforward analysis of readily available post facto historical data and predicting the future there is little point talking to you.

Great - so you won't respond to this then. Easier for me I guess. Now, you already said, let me quote you on this, "We know the historical strength of the German army in 1941-1945, the state of its industry etc, the respective strength of the USSR and its industry, and there were no possibilities of any miraculous reversals." I correct my earlier statement before. Nazi Germany shouldn't have hired you back then to help them with your brilliant clairvoyance. They should have hired 2009 IgnoramusMaximus instead, so that 2009 IgnoramusMaximus could have told them the "obvious" outcome (you words "observe the inevitable outcomes based on long established historical data."). Again, they also knew their strengths and weaknesses, but only YOU saw it better then they did! As a bonus, 2009 IgnoramusMaximus would have also been able to brilliantly "predict" the past 68 winners of the World Series, based on the fact that "We know the strength of the New York Yankees in 1941-2009, the state of its industry etc, the respective strength of the Red Sox and its industry, and there were no possibilities of any miraculous reversals."

But then again you are just a dishonest jerk.

Please list the specific things I said dishonestly. Oh, wait... you already promised not to respond. Oh well, I guess you'll never be able to back up your accusations. Unless you're the dishonest one and you do respond. Oooh, the excitement is killing me! Please cave and respond! Oh please please please!

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Erm... You do know that, even though the US wasn't actively fighting Iraq, the two countries were technically at war, right? I mean, the US went to war on behalf of Kuwait, and entered into a cease fire agreement (which is not a peace accord - a cease fire is only a lull in the fighting) which the Iraquis broke. Now, that wasn't the argument used for going into Iraq (at least, not the argument presented by the mass media) and it wasn't the only good reason for going into Iraq, but the two countries were *already* at war.

No. The "ceasefire" was between the UN coalition which conducted Gulf War I and Iraq, not the US (admittedly the chief member of that coalition) and Iraq. That is why the US so desperately sought a UN resolution authorizing the second war, complete with that famous dog-and-pony show performed by Powell at the Security Council. The UN declined to authorize.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[ptbarnett]

But then again the USSR got progressively less despotic, until it eventually crumbled from its internal inefficiencies. There was no need for an apocalyptic war to achieve its destruction.

Forgive me if I missed something, but I don't remember an apocalyptic war with the Soviet Union.

Also, you will probably be surprised, but some former East Germans are quite nostalgic about their old ways, many not having adjusted to the dog-eat-dog economic realities of the West and having found most of the cunningly implied innuendos and outright false promises of prosperity that were made to them during the Soviet times to be just that, the prosperity never having materialized after the unification.

Were they among the estimated one in seven East Germans that worked as informants for the Stasi?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Forgive me if I missed something, but I don't remember an apocalyptic war with the Soviet Union.

I am not sure what your objection is, I merely pointed out that direct warfare (which would indeed be apocalyptic in the case of USSR) is not the only way to achieve victory.

Were they among the estimated one in seven East Germans that worked as informants for the Stasi?

Did it cross your mind that thinly-veiled politically-motivated witch-hunts are also possible in post-Soviet times, not just during? You are probably not familiar with all the crass opportunistic finger-pointing and mutual accusations of past "collaboration" that are going on in places like Poland and Ukraine for years now. And if one were to believe all the hoopla, every one in the ... err .. other political party was a snitch! In contrast, naturally, with the snow-white moral purity of our party officials! Etc and so on.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[initialE]

Wow, remind me never to piss _you_ off.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[caitsith01]

So in your sick, sorry world, once we are at war we can kill all the civilians we want, and that is a good thing.

Dude, that's what war is. If you don't want war, then don't fight them. Don't sit there and pretend that war is a noble thing like a video game with so many rules. That only makes it more palatable to fight. I'd put this to you - if civilians understood that they would get killed in wars too, they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight them.

No, that's what a war crime is. Look it up some time.

No wonder the US doesn't want to sign on to the International Criminal Court...

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Aardpig]

I think the real problem here is not that he's dishonest, or a jerk. Put simply, he's just fucking stupid. So stupid, in fact, that he can't even understand the holes in his argument. You see, this is what you get when you let cousins fuck...

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Aardpig]

Yes, but the liberals have the educated people, and the educated people can build tactical nukes.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[raind]

I'm glad you made it back! Thanks for what I hope is a accurate account of what you saw.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[Gregoyle]

By your writing style you are from the US.

1. You sent us there. If you don't like the government of the country then do something about it, but don't complain that the soldiers who swear to go wherever your government sends them are "glorified mercenaries". Verbally attacking the soldiers themselves is just childish.

2. Moral absolutism is comforting, especially when you're sitting in a comfortable chair in your favorite free-trade coffee shop talking to people who think just like you do. It doesn't work when people are trying to kill you. Try it some time on a dirt street with an open air sewer running through the middle and bullets cracking around you.

3. "So how many of these 'sand niggers'"... "did you 'put down' and then took pictures of so that you can masturbate to them later?" Umm, yeah, now people want to listen to you. Does it really seem highly likely to you that this practice *ever* took place? For the sake of argument say there was one person sick enough to do this. Do you really think it's likely that the practice is common enough to justify accusing a poster in an online forum of such a thing? Or do you think that what you said amounts to a fallacious (and ridiculous) ad-hominem/appeal to emotion...

Try getting out of your coffee shop a little more and you will see that there is a whole world of people who disagree with you with very good reason. And that doesn't even count the ones who would kill you on sight because you are American.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[jaggeh]

i support this message

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[gonzorob]

well said!

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[PhilJC]

Brilliant. And True. Not something you see often on Slashdot.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

By your writing style you are from the US.

Canada. Close, but no cigar.

1. You sent us there. If you don't like the government of the country then do something about it, but don't complain that the soldiers who swear to go wherever your government sends them are "glorified mercenaries". Verbally attacking the soldiers themselves is just childish.

See above. Also, if I were a German in 1939, even though my "government" and even the majority of citizenry supported the Führer's little adventure, I would still expect men of conscience to scoot (along with me) away from the Wehrmacht (preferably with their guns). If there were enough of us, that little mess called the WWII wouldn't have happened, no? Isn't this how the Reds put the brakes on the Czar's fun with his toy-soldiers in the WWI?

Note that the penalty for desertion from Wehrmacht (as well as Czar's army) was death, along with a high chance of the whole family of the deserter landing in some concentration camp ... and they still did it. The penalty for deserting from the US Army is jail time measured in few years. So the excuse "Moooooom! They ... they ... made me do it! Waaaaah!" rings rather hollow ... or should I send you some spare diapers?

2. Moral absolutism is comforting, especially when you're sitting in a comfortable chair in your favorite free-trade coffee shop talking to people who think just like you do.

Bullshit. "Moral absolutism" is supposed to be the foundation of our whole civilization. And one of the "absolute" rules, as old as the first tribe that formed somewhere on the steppes of Africa is "if one group attacks another the villain is always the attacker". You cannot change this now, when it becomes inconvenient to you. Neither could the Nazis.

It doesn't work when people are trying to kill you. Try it some time on a dirt street with an open air sewer running through the middle and bullets cracking around you.It doesn't work when people are trying to kill you. Try it some time on a dirt street with an open air sewer running through the middle and bullets cracking around you.

More bullshit. If people are shooting at you because you invaded their country, it is their right to do so. And you have exactly zero moral authority to whine about it. If they are shooting at you because they invaded your country, then you are in the right and are entitled to shoot back for all its worth. So the whizzing bullets themselves have nothing whatsoever to do with the shooters being "right" or "wrong", it is the determination of who attacked whom. Your whining is akin to some gang-banger who shot up the neighbourhood, killing innocent bystanders and is now squealing in front of a jury about how the cops were shooting at him too and so the jury has no idea how it is when people are shooting at you ...

Umm, yeah, now people want to listen to you. Does it really seem highly likely to you that this practice *ever* took place?

It has been widely reported, example here.

For the sake of argument say there was one person sick enough to do this.

Far more then one. The "bad apples" crap is starting to wear real thin. Try more like "cultural problem". If you keep pounding into the heads of the mercenaries that they are the "good guys" no matter what they do, sooner or later they start believing that crap and the enemy becomes "ragheads" instead of "people".

Do you really think it's likely that the practice is common enough to justify accusing a poster in an online forum of such a thing? Or do you think that what you said amounts to a fallacious (and ridiculous) ad-hominem/appe

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[dunkelfalke]

it's not a distaste of mercenaries, after all, a real former mercenary (su-25 pilot) is one of my best friends (and he sais he deserves to burn in hell for what he has done), it is that i don't like hypocrisy.
if someone voluntarily becomes a soldier, he should expect the possibility of going to war. otherwise it is a wish of having a cake and eating it, too.

anyway, warning the city populace of an invasion is pretty much useless, most people have nowhere to go. it is not like they could just pack their bits and pieces and move to the next town. every american soldier knew that, their just wanted to wash their hands of it. and this is hypocrisy, too.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[hobbit]

Take a look at the bit I quoted from tjstork in my reply. He'd already created the dichomoty.

Of course America doesn't want its soldiers to die. The best way to avoid that is to put them out of harm's way rather than sending them on imperialist oil wars.

tjstork's perspective is pragmatic, but morally subterranean. Hence "fuck you" rather than "you're incorrect".

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[R2.0]

Sorry - still trying to dodge culpability.

Europe could change the situation in Africa and the Middle East, but in order to do that Europe would need to spend the wealth that was gained by exploiting those countries. Belgium could pour back in the wealth stolen by King Leopold from the Congo; Britain could pour money into the Middle East and South Asia.

Wait - that money's gone already? What happened to it? Gone in internal fighting (WWI & II) and social programs to keep their citizens content. That doesn't even account for the massive support Europe got from the US post WWII - direct aid and a continuing subsidy of European defense. Europe could do lots more to help their historic victims, but until it gets over its patriarchal views and xenophobia (How many generations of Turks are living in Germany yet not considered Germans) it never will.

You view the US as this pathetically underdeveloped, emotionally stunted child who would do so much better if it just listened to and copied it's elders. Well, Dad, you better listen to more Harry Chapin - we really have grown up just like you.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[BTWR]

Hi 2009IgnoramusMaximus! How are ya?

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Europe could change the situation in Africa and the Middle East, but in order to do that Europe would need to spend the wealth that was gained by exploiting those countries. Belgium could pour back in the wealth stolen by King Leopold from the Congo; Britain could pour money into the Middle East and South Asia.

Well, by that token the denizens of the USA should promptly get out and restore all of the land ownership to the Apache, the Cherokee etc. Then Canadians out of Canada, all those Spaniards and Portuguese out of South America back to Europe, then of course a wee bit of re-shuffling there ... and by the time we restore the "status quo" to, say, 6000 BC, you might be finally satisfied ... no?

Actually, wait, the Europeans did get out of (or at least restored the nominal control to the natives) Africa and Middle East ...

You view the US as this pathetically underdeveloped, emotionally stunted child who would do so much better if it just listened to and copied it's elders. Well, Dad, you better listen to more Harry Chapin - we really have grown up just like you.

I never said that no one else but the US has these sins ... but then no one else has these day the amazing hubris to call themselves the "leaders of the Free World" and trumpet themselves as the "liberators of the oppressed" ... and then proceed to invade, murder, maim, bully, dispossess, and generally oppress their victims for self-serving purposes, chief amongst them profit of some politically connected kleptocrats. The silly old Europe and even the likes of Russia and China are rank amateurs compared to what USA (and its side-kick Israel) has been pulling off in these last 4 decades.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[tnk1]

What would be the reason for extending it? Do you think the terrorists are going to sign it?

As I mentioned, the Conventions do not protect people because they are some sort of law that transcends warfare, they work because there is the hope at least, that reciprocal treatment will be accorded our soldiers by theirs. If the other side is unwilling or somehow incapable of doing so, there is no point in extending the convention, as all it does is handicap you.

Now we may well handicap ourselves in this way on purpose, due to our moral qualms, but in that case, there is absolutely no obligation for us to apply a convention in detail in relation to captured enemy combatants. Without an agreement, you may feel free to pick and choose what your treatment of captured enemy will be, because the enemy have no limits either.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[breagerey]

All of this stuff about saving the planet, cutting back on standards of living, being pro-choice, is just your expression of that... you want to people to be poorer, people to kill their unborn, people to die, all because nobody listens to you. Liberals the people of peace? They are the biggest murderers of them all and always have been.

This was modded 'insightful'?

Assigning somebody membership to a group and then ascribing all of the negative things about that group to that person isn't 'insightful' it's 'prejudice'.

If this were about race it would be 'racist'.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[pcxmac]

But when you take a town of 25,000 where the vast majority are violently anti-american and put lots of american soldiers in the center of town, you're going to have lots of people die. You choose who you would rather have die. Your neighbors and countrymen, or some terrorist raghead who is hell-bent on destroying america and is practicing building bombs in his kitchen.

Seems like they might have had "good" reason to hate the "Americans." :) Maybe if we had never gone there in the first place you wouldnt have had to been hopped up on so much bull. Congrats for justifying the slaughter of human beings, your a winner in life. No really you are, you lived and they died. Good stuff.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

We were only the villainous party to the people who wanted to retain a dictatorship filled with fear and death around every corner as applied by that dictatorship and its alliances.

No, you were and are considered villains because the repercussions of unprovoked invasions greatly outweigh any possible gain from stopping what was going on in Iraq, even if all of the exaggerated claims by the paid CIA ex-Iraqi stooges were true, even if your meddling had resulted in less bloodshed in the long term, which it multiplied many, many times instead, and even if you did not switch to this "noble sentiment" of "freedom and democracy" only after all the lies and fabrications about WMDs got exposed. So you can stop with all the dishonesty and lies. No one is buying your crap. Incidentally, you can also stop posting as an AC so that you can down-mod the very posts you are replying to. But then again it goes so well with your overall mindset of a whiny spoiled petulant coward who thinks that rules apply to other, "little", people.

Remember how so many of the iraqi soldiers of the 1991 gulf war just surrendered?

They surrendered because they a) knew they (at that time being invaders) were in the wrong, b) they faced an up-to date army with 1950s equipment, particularly no air-force of any kind, which made them into cattle to be slaughtered even if they run, which the US did gleefully.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[R2.0]

"(and its side-kick Israel)"

DINGDINGDING! We Have A Winner!

Invoking Israel to bash the US certainly tells me a lot more about you.

And that I don't want to get any of what you are on me.

Re:An unfair fight is the point of war

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Invoking Israel to bash the US certainly tells me a lot more about you.

Why don't you just come out and use the old canard of "antisemitism" to describe all those who point out that Israel's activities are immoral (and in the long-term self-destructively insane). Sure, the thing is these days severely deflated, having been so overused and overplayed by various bigoted supremacists over the decades that it now barely gets a raise anymore, but I am sure that if you bray at just-the-right-volume, hyperventilate at just-the-right-speed or foam at the snout in just-the-right-amount, there will be some takers who would be willing to turn off their brains and mindlessly do what you tell them. Although it must hurt that the number of such tools is shrinking rapidly in the US. Must be that dreaded "access to information" thing. Maybe you should work on censoring that access some more or fabricating revisionist histories instead ...

Also, the fact that you would even attempt implying this nonsense, tells me (and I am sure a lot of other readers) quite a bit about you.

And that I don't want to get any of what you are on me.

That pleases me immensely because the feeling is mutual.

Really not good material for a 'game'

[clickclickdrone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury/

Re:Oh man...

[hobbit]

So genocide is about numbers, not actions? Take your own fucking break.

Speilberg

[Demonantis]

Why couldn't Speilberg have directed the game. I think it would have have been much more awesome since he understands how an audience would react to what they are showing.

Re:Speilberg

[Destoo]

Speilberg has already signed for three games with Electronic Arts, first one released being Boom Blox, which is an amazing game. The other two should be epic, too.

Re:Speilberg

[Trunklebob]

Because no one wants to play a first person SHOOTER where you have no gun, only a walkie-talkie.

slashdot and hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

hundreds of games exist whee you murder people for fun and profit. you even kill prostitutes o take their money in GTA.

now, finally, actual soldiers want to make their own game, and slashdotters think it is 'sick'.

what is truly sick is the utter disconnection of slashdotters with reality. the site is replete with stories on 'cool new weapons', the video game reviews and mentions are legion, star wars is almost a religion.... the political and history and philosophy discussions are strictly on a high school level.... this article is a perfect example of that.

people who sit around pretending to be soldiers for hours a month, are 'discomforted' by the real stories of actual soldiers. they find it 'sick' and 'disturbing' that actual soldiers want to tell a story.....

but if anyone protests against video game violence, they are instantly shouted down as 'prudes' or 'against freedom of speech' by the slashdot legions.

it is no wonder the the USA makes bad decisions, its own people are apparently repulsed by reality, and prefer to live in a fantasy world.

Re:slashdot and hypocrisy

[Em Emalb]

I was with you up to the "USA makes bad decisions" part.

The US is the 900lb gorilla of the world right now. The US is EXPECTED to "fix" issues in the world simply because we're the US. We're expected to give more aid, give more money, and give more troops/technology/weapons when the UN decides to do something.

It's rather funny that "the world" at large hates the US (apparently) so much. Sometimes I wish the US would go back to Isolationism so the world at large can realize that while the US is not perfect, in most cases we're doing two things: 1) trying to help out and 2) protecting our interests. It's the same things every other country in the world does (minus the 1st point there, which is trying to help out) but since the US is such a global power, we're vilified.

It would be extremely intriguing to watch what would happen if say..the US pulled completely out of South Korea, for example.

Re:slashdot and hypocrisy

[stjobe]

in most cases we're doing two things: 1) trying to help out and 2) protecting our interests.

I think you got the order reversed there, it seems to be
1) Trying to protect your interest, and
2) Help out, (if it's not in opposition to #1).

Re:slashdot and hypocrisy

[skeeto]

I haven't seen anyone say that Konami shouldn't be allowed to make and distribute the game. Therein lies the difference. There is no inconsistency here.

Re:slashdot and hypocrisy

[Abcd1234]

hundreds of games exist whee you murder people for fun and profit. you even kill prostitutes o take their money in GTA.

And those games are also morally disgusting. But it's important to note, I would never advocate censoring such games.

now, finally, actual soldiers want to make their own game, and slashdotters think it is 'sick'.

Yes, because that's also, at best morally ambiguous (I won't go so far as to say 'disgusting' because, quite frankly, I don't know what the end product is, yet... though, if it's anything like your average war game, I think 'sick' is a reasonable adjective).

That said, once again, I would never advocate they be censored.

but if anyone protests against video game violence, they are instantly shouted down as 'prudes' or 'against freedom of speech' by the slashdot legions.

That's because there's a difference between fantastical violence (say, in your average Half-Life game) and the glorification of war for the sake of entertainment (glorification in the sense of presenting only the "heroic" side, without showing its ugliness).

TBH, the fact that you can't see this difference just illustrates to me that you don't understand the difference between fantasy violence and the real thing. That's a little disturbing.

Re:slashdot and hypocrisy

[grumbel]

you even kill prostitutes o take their money in GTA.

You can do that, the game however doesn't require it by any means. Most of those 'evil' games out there, are far less evil then the media likes to paint them. That of course doesn't mean that there isn't to much violence around, but most of the time its about hero vs monster or gang vs gang, not about executing innocent civilians.

they find it 'sick' and 'disturbing' that actual soldiers want to tell a story.....

Well, that completly depends on how it is executed. If they try to do it as realistic as possible, including views from both sides, the civilian casualties and such. Sure, I welcome that, since most war media out there is far to filtered and clean, not showing how war really is, but just showing some American soldiers shooting at invisible bad guys in the distance. However, when the game becomes just another mindless run&gun shooter, then yeah, its pretty sick and disturbing, because it yet again just turns the death of people into entertainment and we already had more then enough of that. Even worse it might yet again paint the other side as face less bad guys, instead of actual real people like you and me.

but if anyone protests against video game violence, they are instantly shouted down as 'prudes' or 'against freedom of speech' by the slashdot legions.

There is nothing wrong with protest against violence in video games, I like to do that myself every now and then, there is however a lot wrong with trying to outlaw or ban them, especially when the banning is based on misinformation about the actual game, as is most often the case (German politicians try that all the time).

Re:slashdot and hypocrisy

[Forkenhoppen]

It would be extremely intriguing to watch what would happen if say..the US pulled completely out of South Korea, for example.

Well, I can predict what would happen on the stock market; there'd be an awful lot of folks shorting ATVI. (That's Activision-Blizzard..)

Re:Oh man...

[meringuoid]

If Fallujah is ok we should have a gas chamber game. You go around in a big truck and kill thousands of jews, I see no moral reprehensibility. (Is it still a Godwin if its relevant?)

Your forces have conquered Jerusalem!

* Install a new governor
* Raze the city

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I'm normally at my genocidal best when it comes to playing Alpha Centauri: sunspot activity gives you twenty turns in which the international community won't pay any attention to your atrocities, and missile needlejets equipped with nerve gas pods are such a wonderful weapon in your first major wars...

Re:Oh man...

[DavidR1991]

"People having their flesh burned to the bone while they are alive."

No, no, you seem to have misunderstood, this game is about Fallujah, not Viet Nam

Re:Well so much for gamers being able to say...

[meringuoid]

Maybe we will have a Columbine game or some such.

Like this one?

Yet another Medal of Honor re-spin and rip-off

[0xdeadbeef]

The only thing that would make this game interesting would be for both factions to be playable.

Better yet, make the entire Iraq war an MMORPG.

Re:Yet another Medal of Honor re-spin and rip-off

[shutdown -p now]

Prestige Class: Suicide Bomber
Alignment: Chaotic Non-Good (a non-Chaotic or Good Bomber immediately loses all special abilities of the class)
Min Level: 1
Max Level: 1

Special Attacks:

Suicide Bombing - detonates the bomb, immediately killing the wearer, and delivering 20d8 piercing and bludgeoning area damage to all creatures in 50ft radius, indiscriminately. The action takes 1 full round to complete, during which time the bomber is flat-footed; furthermore, it provokes an attack of opportunity. If hit while performing the action, the bomber has to make a Concentrate check to succeed.

Allah Akbar - emits a chilling shriek which temporary freezes the surrounding foes (Daze, 1 round, Will save), giving more opportunity to perform Suicide Bombing.

Re:Yet another Medal of Honor re-spin and rip-off

[0xdeadbeef]

Yeah, Blizzard already did that.

Re:Oh man...

[Sir_Lewk]

If Fallujah is ok we should have a gas chamber game. You go around in a big truck and kill thousands of jews...

Please do not downplay the sevarity of the holocaust to such extremes. Millions of jews were killed and you are doing history and society a great disservice in attempting to compare it to something as relatively tame as Fallujah.

Re:Oh man...

[Shakrai]

So genocide is about numbers, not actions?

Genocide is defined as the systematic extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Do you really think that's what our forces were doing in Fallujah? If you do you are a moron. If you don't then you ought to be calling out morons like the GP who make dumbass comparisons with the Holocaust to stir up emotion.

Re:Oh man...

[Idiomatick]

White phosphorus is even better than napalm.

If you don't want massacres...

[Peter Simpson]

"If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA."

Ummm...they didn't "fight us", we invaded them, based on our president's dislike of their ruler and a bunch of trumped up "evidence".

Yes, they fought back, but think of what would happen if some foreign power invaded us. Certainly, there would be some who would choose to fight back.

Guerilla war is like that...the innocent die along with the insurgents, who shelter among them.
But, let's remember who started it, and not place *all* of the blame on the opponent.

Re:If you don't want massacres...

[_Sprocket_]

But, let's remember who started it, and not place *all* of the blame on the opponent.

And while we're tracking "blame", let's keep in mind that the whole reason we're involved in Iraq is the Iraqi government. Or, at least, the old government.

Which then I suppose opens the discussion to Iran, the old USSR, and the Cold War.

Re:If you don't want massacres...

[damionfury]

You know, it's been largely ignored, but there is a very good reason why we should have gone in anyway. We created the problem. It's our mess and we had a responsibility to clean it up.

How is it our mess? We trained, funded, and equipped Saddam Hussein. That's right, we made him what he was. We trained him (and several of his top officers) at places like the Inter-American Air Forces Academy (IAAFA) at Lackland AFB. We funded and equipped him to fight Iran back in the 70s. We turned him into a barely leashed fighting dog.

Maybe he would have gassed the Kurds anyway. Maybe he would have brutally oppressed his people without us. Of course, Iraq might have been taken over by Iran or someone else. We'll never know. What we do know is that we helped him, and that makes us responsible for his actions from that point on.

Our reasons for going in were wrong. That doesn't change the fact that it needed to happen.

Re:If you don't want massacres...

[_Sprocket_]

Nope. But they did try to get their hands on additional oil fields that happened to be in other sovereign countries. Countries that the US has had strong ties with.

You want to claim this is all about oil, fine. There's more than a grain of truth to that. But you're going to have to pick up all the baggage - not just pick out the few pieces that fit your ideology.

Wrong Medium

[sunking2]

Honestly, if they really cared about their story being told the way they invisioned it would have become a movie by a good directory who cares about the story being told (ie: Spielburg, Scorcesse (sp?)). Has a video game ever been able to accurately display the raw emotions of an Apocolypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, or Saving Private Ryan? Not even close. This will be nothing more than a Call Of Duty where you get a kick out of flame throwing people and watching them run around.

The emotional cut scenes will become nothing more than a chance to go to the bathroom or get a drink so you can hurry back to the killing.

I'm fine with the game, but lets advertise it as what it is. A slug fest that might be a little bit better done because they have some really good maps and military advisers.

Re:Oh man... agreed.

[Em Emalb]

Where are you from? I want to go back through the history of your country and list all the atrocities committed by your countrymen to show just how big of a hypocrite you are.

Re:Oh man...

[sesshomaru]

You are thinking of napalm, the grandparent is talking about white phosphorous, "shake and bake." Napalm doesn't really burn to the bone the way white phosphorus does, it's more like gooey gasoline.

White phosphorus is the stuff that burns down to the bone. The US military used white phosphorus in Fallujah, according to U.S. military spokespeople. See this article for reference, US used white phosphorus in Iraq

Now, the U. S. also used gooey jet fuel in Iraq, but technically it wasn't napalm. Here's another article for a reference, Napalm by another name: Pentagon denial goes up in flames.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oh man...

[Shakrai]

Think about that when YOU'RE on the business end of an AK47. As the bullets blow your world away, know that in the country where your murderer came from you will be immortalised in a computer game, where for a split second some ignorant brute bursts into your house and shoots you as you cower in your bed.

If I was on the business end of an AK I'd be hoping that the Americans came and saved me from the fellow who wanted to kill me ;) Perhaps you meant on the business end of a M16A2 or M4? :P

Fuck. Off.

Wow, how original. Did you have to stay up all night to think of that witty retort?

Re:Oh man...

[Idiomatick]

I said slaughter not genocide... Anyways the scale wasn't the same but in Fallujah the US spat on the geneva conventions which it hasn't signed. Killed tons of innocents. Basically they got emotional because of the corpses hanging at the entrance to town and in turn slaughtered everyone the could.

Re:Oh man...

[sesshomaru]

I'm reminded of the game Sacrifice, in which my character remarks, "I don't know why, but I slaughtered all the villagers." Then Charnel appears and tells me I am "an artist."

Re:Oh man...

[AutopsyReport]

Burning corpses hanging in chunks from buildings. People having their flesh burned to the bone while they are alive. I'm normally ok with this sort of thing

Whatever floats your boat, man...

How Is This Different?

[Comatose51]

If they had made a movie would it have been not so tasteless? If you think the game is tasteless but a movie isn't then it's a matter of the limitations you think of games as a medium to convey some human experience. Also, why is a game about a recent war tasteless but WWII is a very popular theme for most games? Do you think WWII was somehow cleaner or easier? From what I gathered WWII was pretty gruesome too, as is any war.

How the battle was is a foregone conclusion as is any historical battle. Putting 50 years in between or showing it in a different medium doesn't change the nature of war itself. So before making up your mind about it, how about giving the production a chance to do something meaningful? It could end up tasteless but it could be transcendental but that has to do with how they make the game, not the era they're depicting. If nothing else, how recent the battle was gives us more information about its actual nature rather than some glorified account that we often see about past wars.

Re:How Is This Different?

[bickerdyke]

If they had made a movie would it have been not so tasteless? If you think the game is tasteless but a movie isn't then it's a matter of the limitations you think of games as a medium to convey some human experience.

A game is by definition about "winning". In movies its probably much easier to show that "sometimes the only way to win is not to play" or that in a war, both parties are loosing, no matter who might be "winning" in the end.

Re:How Is This Different?

[grumbel]

A game is by definition about "winning".

If you take the classic game definition, sure, video games however have long ago ventured into the area of storytelling where winning isn't really necessary any more to make a compelling game.

In movies its probably much easier to show that "sometimes the only way to win is not to play" or that in a war, both parties are loosing, no matter who might be "winning" in the end.

And yet your average Hollywood war movie fails miserably at that. Even the so called anti-war movies, far to often portrait nothing more then brave US soldiers fighting an evil faceless enemy. The movies that portrait both parties or at least give the enemy a human face are few and far between (Das Boot, Tunnel Rats).

The thing that makes video games interesting is that it not only lets you watch the events, but that its lets you control the events. If bad things happen, you are the one doing them and this in turn gives a much better understanding why those acts where committed. You can think of it as an @home version of the Stanford prison experiment or the Milgram Experiment. Now given, the number of video games that ventured into that direction hasn't been many and probably close to zero when it comes to realistic settings, but we had games going in a similar direction, like Shadow of the Colossus.

All that said, the likelihood that this will be just another brainless FPS without any reflections on the ethics of your doing is huge, after all thats what most war games are about.

Re:How Is This Different?

[bickerdyke]

All that said, the likelihood that this will be just another brainless FPS without any reflections on the ethics of your doing is huge, after all thats what most war games are about.

If you're lucky, they'll use a brainless fps as a hook to tell the memoires of those guys.

I'm afraid putting in some ethics would make it a very frustrating game.

Level 5: Stopping a civilian van at a checkpoint.

Options: a) Shoot them, start a massacre, you loose.
b) Deescalate the situation, and with a 10% probability, one of the guys is a suicide bomber. He pulls the trigger, you loose. :-(

Re:How Is This Different?

[GleeBot]

A game is by definition about "winning". In movies its probably much easier to show that "sometimes the only way to win is not to play" or that in a war, both parties are loosing, no matter who might be "winning" in the end.

Winning doesn't mean killing everyone. "Winning" in a game can mean a lot of different things, even including "losing"--"winning" is just whatever the game designer decides is the outcome they want you to pick. Maybe that outcome is that you sacrifice yourself for the greater good, instead of waving a flag over a pile of skulls. You have just as much freedom to tell a complicated story in a game as in a movie.

I especially like the idea that there'll be video where Marines who actually fought will have a chance to tell their story. A little more meaningful than your typical video game cutscene, no?

Re:How Is This Different?

[grumbel]

I'm afraid putting in some ethics would make it a very frustrating game.

I don't think so. The game shouldn't force you to be the good guy not killing civilians, but instead it should simply show the consequences. Maybe add in some flashback sequences like FEAR for each civilian you kill or whatever.

People don't get killed in war because all soldiers are evil, but because its a fucked up situation right from the start. If you have two groups of people shooting at each other with civilians in the middle, innocent people will die. Add some weapon overkill into the mix where calling an airstrike is easier and saver then searching the area on foot and you have a disaster waiting to happen. If the game would show that war is a fucked up situation where nothing good will happen, that'd be a good start.

Atomic Games

[rpillala]

They developed Close Combat, which was an innovative game in the war genre. This suggests to me that the game won't treat the subject like an arcade shooter or a Michael Bay movie. So that's good, at least. I don't see how this production is different from, say, the tv miniseries Generation Kill, which was based on a book about the invasion. When you watch (or read) that, you see a lot of conflicting viewpoints about the war, even among the military personnel themselves. If this game preserves that feature, it can only be good. That is, unless you're a war cheerleader who doesn't want anyone saying anything about the inherent evils of war.

Re:Atomic Games

[smooth wombat]

Unless I'm mistaken, aren't they also the same company who produced the V for Victory series of games way back when? I have the original boxes, discs and documentation stored away and up until a few years ago, still played them on my W95 machine.

Great stuff they were. Allowed for an overall view of the combat area, tried to depict real-life supply situations, aerial attacks, armor vs infantry, etc.

I was able to demonstrate that in some cases, the Germans could have stopped and repelled the allied forces. It was always fun when you overran a beachhead and stole their supplies.

Re:Atomic Games

[rpillala]

They are and they aren't. After only a cursory examination of their www site, I posted my post from earlier, but it seems that the company was "re-formed" in 2006. There's no way to know if these people simply want to cash in on the company's name reputation or want to continue the tradition of war games with depth.

Re:Oh man...

[Shakrai]

I said slaughter not genocide

While Godwin'ing yourself to make your appeal to emotion.

Killed tons of innocents

There were around 1,300 enemy KIA for almost 100 American KIA. Given that ratio it seems like a fair assumption that our troops were meeting heavy resistance and I don't see a whole lot of evidence to back up the claim that we killed "tons" of innocents.

and in turn slaughtered everyone the could.

Citation needed.

Re:Oh man... agreed.

[Idiomatick]

Unless he personally participated or has overwhelming pride for said atrocities it isn't hypocritical...

Re:Oh man...

[Idiomatick]

They used WP in Vietnam as well just they used a ton of napalm. They also used forest killing chemical weapons. And a bunch of other shitty stuff. All that aside you think we would have learned since vietnam. It was a shitty horrible thing back then. The after effects were terrible. Why the fuck do it again?

Re:Oh man... agreed.

[Em Emalb]

I was referring to the "Hey America, want to know why everyone hates you" part of his ignorant post.

why is this one war off limits?

[misanthrope101]

I'd guess most battles are horrible at the time, and only get turned into noble grit-and-moxy John-Wayne (Or Achilles) stories over time. I've seen plenty of games based on WWII. I'd wager that Stalingrad was a bit worse than Fallujah. As abhorrent as I find the fact, people think war is cool, so long as it isn't them getting shot. The historic proximity of Fallujah may make it harder to sterilize the vicarious fantasies of heroism and noble sacrifice, but I can't fault this one game for our basic tendency to lie to ourselves about stuff that is a bit further in the past than the horror that happened in recent memory.

Re:why is this one war off limits?

[drinkypoo]

We have been glorifying violence for as long as we've needed a steady stream of violent young men to go off and kill people (or even animals) in foreign lands (or near home, even.) There are also numerous tales of violence which are not glamorous, which certainly show the darker side* of war. A certain segment of the population will always see them as being more glamorous than the baseline. This segment is currently being funneled into the military; many of them were encouraged to be lazy or violent, then punished for laziness or violence with incarceration. A bunch of these kids think it's a good deal to go into the military to get a reduced or suspended sentence. Hint: it isn't. The society that cares whether they have a criminal record is the society that thus far is murdering the human race by impairing the biosphere's ability to support it. Opt out! It's got less and less to offer you as time goes by, anyway.

* is there a lighter side? Hitler on ice?

The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[tjstork]

I don't really advocate the deliberate killing of civilians.

I mean, if the USA wanted to, we could have just pulled the troops into a ring around Fallujah or any other Iraqi town and firebombed it. We could have issued the Iraqi equivalent of Commisar orders like the Nazis did - and incidentally, were followed by the Wermacht, and have shot any tribal leader or Islamic cleric on site. We could have had reprisal hangings in villages.

But, the USA didn't do -any- of that.

If anything, the soldier in Iraq has been -more- fair with his opponents than ever before.

I mean, we hung the Nazi's at Nuremburg for waging war on civilians, when our own strategic bombing strategy was in fact to kill as many German civilians as possible to bring about a quicker end to the war. There was no military need to firebomb major German cities. Yet, the truth is, in the scale of the war, American firebombing was actually far less terrible than what the Germans did to everyone else, so the USA came off as far more humane.

If you don't want people to die the solution is to not get into a war in the first place

Bingo.

Re:The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[Belial6]

Comparing US civilian deaths in WWII to countries where the fighting actually took place is disingenious. I would leave that part out the next time you make that argument. It seriously hurts your credibility.

Also, Nazi Germans are not usually considered "Brown People".

Re:The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[jtev]

Um... I think you missed the point. The GP specifically stated that the US killed more civilians than Gemany, but was PERCEIVED as the humanitarians. Also Fallujah held on a hell of a long time after the war was clearly lost. Bad things happen. All the deaths in that city were for more or less the same reason as until the 19th century the standard laws of war allowed a complete sack of any town that resisted beyond a practiable breach. There was no longer any chance to win, only to inflict more casualties on the victor, so as a deterrant a city that continued to resist would be destoyed. As the aggressors in the war there are certain standars that we should be held to, but those standards should not include a requirment to lose.

Re:The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[Khashishi]

A major difference is that the Axis were the clear aggressors here.

Re:The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[david_thornley]

Are you aware that the Germans and Japanese killed civilians by other means than bombing?

Germany ran death camps that murdered several million civilians, and murdered more millions in other ways.

Japan was not as organized, but their civilian toll does run in the eight digits somewhere. Let's not forget Unit 731 in Manchuria, where among other things Japanese surgeons practiced amputations - on healthy limbs, without anesthesia.

The Western Allies (including the US) committed plenty of atrocities. I'm unaware of any major power in a large war that didn't. However, they weren't anywhere near on the scale of the Germans and Japanese. The Western Allies, for all their faults, were the humanitarians in that war.

Re:The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[shutdown -p now]

I mean, if the USA wanted to, we could have just pulled the troops into a ring around Fallujah or any other Iraqi town and firebombed it.

True, and you don't even need to look back to WW2 to find a comparison. During the Second Chechen War - that's 1999! - Russian forces besieged the capital, Grozny, for 2 months, constantly shelling it, firing at any building which could even potentially be used as a rebel hideout. Only then the infantry and armor went in. By that time, the city was basically reduced to rubble.

Of course, there was a reason for that, too - Russian military remembers the first attempt to take Grozny by "lightning strike" tactics back in 1994, which turned out to be an awful mess with insane casualties. No-one wanted to risk the repetition of that, and politically, if such a thing happened again, it would be instant political suicide for everyone on the chain of command. So they played it self for themselves, with corresponding civilian casualty figures...

Re:The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[tjstork]

Do you consider nuclear bombs dropped on Tokyo and Nagasaki humane? Me neither.

They weren't humane, but they deserved it, and I would rather have 250,000 Japanese dead than even 50,000 Americans killed in an Operation Olympic. In fact, I'd rather have had 250,000 Japanese dead than even 5 American dead killed in an Operation Olympic.

It's war, they declared it. We finished it. If the Japanese did not want to get nuked, they should not have invaded China, demanded the annexation of Hawaii and Midway, and then bombed the USA at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese at the time thought it was honorable to die in war, well, I have no problem with the USA helping them to achieve their greater glory.

Re:The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[david_thornley]

No, I didn't forget about the nukes on purpose, or on accident. Nor have I forgotten about the Spring firebombing of Tokyo, which killed more people than either nuke.

The nukes, total, killed about as many Japanese (military and civilian) as Chinese civilians as were killed every month or two of the war (my best estimate; the numbers for everything are rather uncertain), and fewer than some very reasonable estimates for the Rape of Nanking. They were nowhere near as lethal as what the Germans and Japanese did.

Not to mention that the Western Allies did some pretty awful things to win the war. Once Germany and Japan surrendered, the bombardments stopped. On the other hand, the German genocides were of people already in German power, as Nanking and most of the rest of the Japanese victims. The Germans and Japanese waged war in order to do some really horrible things.

If you think the nukes were anywhere vaguely somewhat close to the worst things that happened in WWII, then you either have an irrational hatred of the United States, or an irrational fear of anything nuclear. It's hard to tell.

Re:The USA is kinda hypocrites, but not in Iraq

[jr0dy]

Yet, the truth is, in the scale of the war, American firebombing was actually far less terrible than what the Germans did to everyone else, so the USA came off as far more humane.

We came off as more humane because we won, and we claimed the monopoly over the historiography of it. The same could be said regarding what I prefer to call the War of Northern Aggression.

Re:Oh man...

[Tolkien]

I would mod you up if I could.

Re:Oh man...

[Tolkien]

The type of gun isn't the point, it's the emotion he's trying to convey. An American soldier could just as easily be using an AK47 if his primary rifle is out of rounds. Note, I don't know if they take the same kind of ammo or whatnot, that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Ugh.

[Shaltenn]

I am so sick and tired of listening to people whine about the way war is conducted. War is not some pleasant little tea time where people come out and politely wave flags at you and say "Hey I'm the bad guy! Please shoot me!" or "I'm the innocent bystander! Please let me walk by".

What I fail to understand is why people think we spend so much money on our military budget to just have people sitting around. The military is trained, equipped, and prepared to go in, do as much damage as possible, then get the hell out with minimal casualties. 1300 killed for 100 losses? Good for our guys, but you know what, that's 100 of our countryfolk who did not come home.

Furthermore, everyone remembers the 'massacres' the winning side may inflict upon the losing side (we have years to play armchair general and criticize every movement, every shot, everything basically) but no one seems to remember any atrocities that the losing side may have done. If I recall correctly the reason why the US went in was because we were searching for a group of insurgents/freedom fighters/whatever you want to call them we believed to be responsible for the attack on the Blackwater Security teams and contractors over there who were doing their jobs.

It's all about perspective here people. If you can't at least try to remain impartial then you've already failed at history.

Re:Oh man...

[bipbop]

Some people believe that mass murder of innocents is still evil, even if you aren't as successful at it as some have been.

Thanks /.!!!

[BigDork1001]

As an Airman on active duty who has been to Iraq I want to thank many of you from the bottom of my heart. You clearly believe that every last service member is a blood crazed, baby killing monster. You think that we wake up every morning Hell-bent on going out and killing as many civilians as we can. We don't even shoot at insurgents. If given the choice between taking out someone shooting an AK-74 at us or hitting their granny, we're taking the old lady out. Give me a fucking break!

Thank you for honoring (not at all) the sacrifice of over 5000 men and women. Thank God I know there are many out there who truly do appreciate what we do and what we sacrifice for you all to pretend to know what happened in Fallujah. Were you there? No... well then you have no fucking right to say how it was a massacre of epic proportions, pure genocide, or the next holocaust. I have so much respect for those who do go into combat and risk their lives daily. I could never do what the soldiers and Marines do daily over there. I am so thankful for them because I don't have to. And guess what, because of them you don't either.

I have been coming to Slashdot for years now because I enjoy a level of intelligence that isn't found on many other websites on the Internet. Clearly that intelligence has fled from this particular discussion. Mod me troll because that's 100% what it is. But I couldn't sit back and watch as every service member serving and who has served was demonized by people who don't even truly know what they are talking about.

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[Erikderzweite]

Well, calling others stupid because they disagree with you point of view -- I sure recognize the military bearing here.

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[grumbel]

You clearly believe that every last service member is a blood crazed, baby killing monster.

No, but I believe that that is what war lets you become. Murder is murder, an order from your former President doesn't change that. And I don't need to have been there, there have been more then enough wars fought in the past and in the end the result is always the same. Oh, and self defense doesn't count when you are fighting a few thousand miles away from home.

No... well then you have no fucking right to say how it was a massacre of epic proportions, pure genocide, or the next holocaust.

Interesting attitude. You are the ones commiting the crimes and now we should just shut up because you killed everybody who might have been a witness? That isn't exactly a good defense.

Short Summary in case you might have missed it:

1) you invaded another country for no good reason
2) you killed hundred of thousands of people, most of them either civilians or people defending their country
3) you complain that some people in the world might not be with those crimes

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[khallow]

No, but I believe that that is what war lets you become. Murder is murder, an order from your former President doesn't change that. And I don't need to have been there, there have been more then enough wars fought in the past and in the end the result is always the same. Oh, and self defense doesn't count when you are fighting a few thousand miles away from home.

So what? You clearly don't have an inkling why war happens or what its consequences are. And your cereal box morality is both myopic and possibly suicidal or self-serving (depending whether you're one of the people being protected by the US military or even one of the villains that need killing). My main problem is the lack of alternatives. Killing is bad. Fine. So come up with solutions that don't involve killing, assuming generously that such solutions exist.

1) you invaded another country for no good reason
2) you killed hundred of thousands of people, most of them either civilians or people defending their country
3) you complain that some people in the world might not be with those crimes

1) You've made it clear that there's never a good reason as far as you are concerned. As far as I'm concerned, Iraq and Afghanistan had shown themselves to be dangers to the US and its allies. Now they aren't.

2) IMHO, that number is wrong. The Lancet studies are the only ones that make those claims and there's plenty of indications that they're completely wrong from substantial disagreement with other sources like the Iraq Body Count and the UN, to pathetic safeguards against fraud and deception.

3) That's just the burden soldiers face. Lot of people especially today, don't appreciate their efforts. Maybe it's because they're fools, maybe because they were on the losing side or caught in the middle. Until someone comes up with a better way, war will continue to happen.

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[grumbel]

My main problem is the lack of alternatives.

Iraq was no problem in the first place. Why the hell do you need an alternative solution for a non-existent problem? You already crippled Iraq in the first war. The second one was completly unnecessary and unprovoked by the other side. There was *ZERO* need to invade Iraq. The whole war only has made matters worse and made Iraq a nice breading ground for terrorists, which it wasn't before.

Iraq and Afghanistan had shown themselves to be dangers to the US

Iraq had *NOTHING* to do with 9/11, if you haven't noticed yet. The whole war was completly pointless as "self defense", not only did you attack the wrong guy, you also wasted a gigantic amount of money, troops and stuff in it that you could have used to stabilize Afghanistan, your economy, your skyscraper or whatever.

1) You've made it clear that there's never a good reason as far as you are concerned.

I never said that. I don't really have much of a problem with you playing "world police" if there is an actual need, but that of course has to be executed properly and honestly and not like that clusterfuck that the Iraq war is.

You simply have to take into account the amount of money that was wasted. $600 billion dollar is a lot of money and certainly it shouldn't be to hard to come up with better ways to spend it then blowing things up. A lot of the cause for terrorism can be much more easily be conquered by fixing the underlying social problems, then by dropping bombs, doing the later will only create more people hating you.

2) IMHO, that number is wrong.

IraqBodyCount is scratching the 100'000 mark and that is the low-bar, the true number of death is likely quite a bit larger.

Until someone comes up with a better way, war will continue to happen.

The USA started the Iraq war. If you wouldn't have started it, it wouldn't have happened, its as easy as that. If you don't like people calling you a murderer, stop murdering other people.

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[khallow]

Iraq was no problem in the first place. Why the hell do you need an alternative solution for a non-existent problem? You already crippled Iraq in the first war. The second one was completly unnecessary and unprovoked by the other side. There was *ZERO* need to invade Iraq. The whole war only has made matters worse and made Iraq a nice breading ground for terrorists, which it wasn't before.

The fundamental problem with Iraq has always been the program under Saddam Hussein to develop nuclear weapons. Unlike the other nutcase countries, like Iran and North Korea, that want nuclear weapons and have the capability to get them, Iraq has a history of invasion and has demonstrated that it is willing to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. At the time of the invasion in 2003, the sanctions against Iraq were close to dying (only through the consistent efforts of the US were they still in effect). My take is that within 20 years of the fall of sanctions, Saddam Hussein or his successor would not only have developed nuclear weapons, but would have used them in an invasion. In other words, sure Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat in 2003, but what about 2015 or 2020? How do you keep him from being a threat then? As it happens, the Bush administration found a way.

This is the fundamental problem with nuclear proliferation and militarily aggressive nations. For a number of countries, there's a huge benefit to having nuclear weapons. And a fraction of those countries are also very aggressive. Iraq was the worst of the lot. The world simply is not prepared or willing to counter these countries. Even if we accept the commonly held premise that the US is itself a rogue, out of control country, who's willing to counter US military aggressiveness? Some insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US operates in a power vacuum. It does what it does because no one else is willing to take up that role.

The whole war was completly pointless as "self defense", not only did you attack the wrong guy, you also wasted a gigantic amount of money, troops and stuff in it that you could have used to stabilize Afghanistan, your economy, your skyscraper or whatever.

The post war occupation of Iraq was abominable and incompetent and may yet contribute to a permanent decline in US economic and military power. It doesn't mean that the invasion of Iraq was wrong in the first place.

IraqBodyCount is scratching the 100'000 mark and that is the low-bar, the true number of death is likely quite a bit larger.

And I don't accept the preposterous claim that the US is responsible for every death that occurred or that the IBC numbers are a large understatement of the true death toll.

The USA started the Iraq war. If you wouldn't have started it, it wouldn't have happened, its as easy as that. If you don't like people calling you a murderer, stop murdering other people.

I don't have a problem with people calling me a murderer. Not everyone has an opinion I care about nor do I see any point in trying to placate those who will find fault with me no matter what.

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[Sinterklaas]

The fundamental problem with Iraq has always been the program under Saddam Hussein to develop nuclear weapons.

What program? Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India have got serious nuclear programs. Saddam never had. The only 'evidence' to the contrary were some crudely forged documents from Niger indicating that Iraq was buying yellowcake. Note that getting yellowcake is just the first step in getting nuclear weapons. At worst, Iraq was a decade from creating a functioning nuke (and they were making no real progress at the time). There was no credible evidence at all, let alone a smoking gun.

Unlike the other nutcase countries, like Iran and North Korea, that want nuclear weapons and have the capability to get them, Iraq has a history of invasion and has demonstrated that it is willing to develop and use weapons of mass destruction.

Wow, are you serious? North Korea famously attacked South Korea in 1950. They have a huge army and the only reason why they haven't tried again is because the US has made it clear that they will defend South Korea with nukes. Iran hasn't invaded any countries recently, instead they arm and support various paramilitary groups, such as Hezbollah. Pakistan and India have been at the brink of war several times. Pakistan has sold nuclear weapons technology to several nations. How are any of these nations less of a threat to our safety than a neutered Iraq?

At the time of the invasion in 2003, the sanctions against Iraq were close to dying (only through the consistent efforts of the US were they still in effect). My take is that within 20 years of the fall of sanctions, Saddam Hussein or his successor would not only have developed nuclear weapons, but would have used them in an invasion. In other words, sure Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat in 2003, but what about 2015 or 2020? How do you keep him from being a threat then?

How would anyone know? There is no way you can predict what will happen in 20 years with any accuracy. It's complete insanity to start a war to prevent something that might happen 20 years in the future. What about waiting and making the choice in 20 years. What is the hurry?

As it happens, the Bush administration found a way. This is the fundamental problem with nuclear proliferation and militarily aggressive nations. For a number of countries, there's a huge benefit to having nuclear weapons. And a fraction of those countries are also very aggressive. Iraq was the worst of the lot. The world simply is not prepared or willing to counter these countries. Even if we accept the commonly held premise that the US is itself a rogue, out of control country, who's willing to counter US military aggressiveness? Some insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US operates in a power vacuum. It does what it does because no one else is willing to take up that role.

The US doesn't operate in a vacuum, there are treaties and organizations that determine how civilized countries should act and those constitute a form of international law. Instead of trying to adhere to and strenghten international law, the US practices exceptionalism. In other words: 'We and our friends can do what we want. If we don't like what you are doing, change or you will be invaded'. The US wants a sort of police state at the global level, with the US as judge, jury and executioner. Understandably, many countries don't want to bow to the US and figured out that a good defense is to have nukes. The invasion of Iraq drove this point home extremely strongly. The US invaded a mostly harmless country just because they could, while leaving more dangerous countries like North Korea and Pakistan alone. Iran learned the question quickly and immediately ramped up their nuke program, while the US had their hands full.

Note that your country has treatened to invade mine if we ever dared to try an American for violating international la

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[GleeBot]

Shit rises to the top. Don't let it bother you. It's always the vocal minority that's shrillest.

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[khallow]

What program? Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India have got serious nuclear programs. Saddam never had. The only 'evidence' to the contrary were some crudely forged documents from Niger indicating that Iraq was buying yellowcake. Note that getting yellowcake is just the first step in getting nuclear weapons. At worst, Iraq was a decade from creating a functioning nuke (and they were making no real progress at the time). There was no credible evidence at all, let alone a smoking gun.

You ignore 30 years of history with Iraq from about 1970 to shortly before the invasion. There's evidence, for example, that if Iraq had held off for a couple of years on invading Kuwait that they would have had nuclear weapons in 1993. They also have a history of using chemical weapons both on Iranian troops and on their own people. My take is that sure in 2003, Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program. But it is foolish to assume that they wouldn't restart it as soon as international pressure and observation went away. They had the knowledge, they probably had a good portion of the equipment too, hidden away in Sudan or Syria, along with the other military assets (primarily their air force) they routinely shipped out before any war.

Wow, are you serious? North Korea famously attacked South Korea in 1950. They have a huge army and the only reason why they haven't tried again is because the US has made it clear that they will defend South Korea with nukes. Iran hasn't invaded any countries recently, instead they arm and support various paramilitary groups, such as Hezbollah. Pakistan and India have been at the brink of war several times. Pakistan has sold nuclear weapons technology to several nations. How are any of these nations less of a threat to our safety than a neutered Iraq?

This just underlines my point. Iraq had invaded two neighbors in the past 30 years. They had a long history of developing WMDs including nuclear weapons. They had used chemical weapons and killed thousands. Nobody else in your list has invaded anyone in the past 50 years or used WMDs to kill.

The US doesn't operate in a vacuum, there are treaties and organizations that determine how civilized countries should act and those constitute a form of international law. Instead of trying to adhere to and strenghten international law, the US practices exceptionalism. In other words: 'We and our friends can do what we want. If we don't like what you are doing, change or you will be invaded'. The US wants a sort of police state at the global level, with the US as judge, jury and executioner. Understandably, many countries don't want to bow to the US and figured out that a good defense is to have nukes. The invasion of Iraq drove this point home extremely strongly. The US invaded a mostly harmless country just because they could, while leaving more dangerous countries like North Korea and Pakistan alone. Iran learned the question quickly and immediately ramped up their nuke program, while the US had their hands full.

And what punishment has the US faced for violating this "international law"? It's not a law, if there are no consequences for breaking it. This is the fundamental problem with current international law. You also ignore that every country practices "exceptionalism". It is the norm.

Note that your country has treatened to invade mine if we ever dared to try an American for violating international law. I assure you that I'm not from one of the traditional rogue nations, but I'm still on your hit-list if we dare to go after terrorists or torturers that the US supports.

Your country nor my country (the US) doesn't have the authority to try someone for violating international law, only the laws of our respective country. It's a modest difference. Our countries do have the authority to arrest someone and pass them on to the World Court or other international judicial bodies that may exist in the future.

Re:Thanks /.!!!

[Sinterklaas]

You ignore 30 years of history with Iraq from about 1970 to shortly before the invasion. There's evidence, for example, that if Iraq had held off for a couple of years on invading Kuwait that they would have had nuclear weapons in 1993. They also have a history of using chemical weapons both on Iranian troops and on their own people. My take is that sure in 2003, Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program. But it is foolish to assume that they wouldn't restart it as soon as international pressure and observation went away.

I wasn't that familiar with that part of Iraqi's history, so I did some research. You are indeed correct that Saddam had a decent nuke program in 1992. The program would have taken at least 3 more years, so there would not be a weapon until 1995. A nuke in 1993 would only be possible if they seized the uranium that was under UN safeguards, which would have been a major incident that Saddam clearly didn't want (or he would have seized the uranium).

We are discussing the 2003 situation however. At that point all Iraqi uranium was safeguarded. Why would the UN ever stop safeguarding that uranium? The IAEA was created to monitor nations like Iraq.

They had the knowledge, they probably had a good portion of the equipment too, hidden away in Sudan or Syria, along with the other military assets (primarily their air force) they routinely shipped out before any war.

Do you have any evidence to prove that the air force and other military assets were shipped to Sudan or Syria? AFAIK that never happened, but was simply implied/assumed/made up by various untrustworthy people.

This just underlines my point. Iraq had invaded two neighbors in the past 30 years. They had a long history of developing WMDs including nuclear weapons. They had used chemical weapons and killed thousands. Nobody else in your list has invaded anyone in the past 50 years or used WMDs to kill.

The war with Iran was supported by the US, who also supplied WMD's to Iraq for use in that war. Saddam only began the war with Kuwait because he thought that the US wouldn't mind. He offered to withdraw later, on the condition that he was allowed sufficient time to keep his defensive front intact. This was disallowed by the US. So it seems clear to me that Saddam was receptive to western concerns and there is no reason to assume that Iraq could not be kept in check.

Also, you ignore the huge difference between the Iraq of 1980 vs 1991 vs 2003. In 1991, Iraq was virtually bankrupt. In 2003, Iraq couldn't start any major war or risk one by attacking a smaller neighbour. They had no useable WMD's. So what was the justification for attacking Iraq if it wasn't a threat.

And what punishment has the US faced for violating this "international law"? It's not a law, if there are no consequences for breaking it. This is the fundamental problem with current international law.

The US has been punished for WTO violations, where the WTO has authorized retaliatory tariffs. Various countries have been punished by UN security council resolutions, by instituting sanctions or authorizing war. Obviously, countries with a veto (such as the US) can never be punished there. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is very young and their first trial has only begun this year (of course, they punish individuals, not states). It is possible for US nationals (such as politicians) to be tried by that court under certain conditions. The penalty is jail time. The US has passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizing the president to start a war against The Netherlands to free US personnel from ICC custody. It also instructs the government not to cooperate with the court (although the president can choose to do so). Of course, there have also been special courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which ha

Re:Oh man...

[hobbit]

Genocide is defined as the systematic extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Highlighted that for ya.

Seriously, why NATO

[tjstork]

And please stop using France as an excuse for not giving a shit about anything beyond your own borders.

Why SHOULD the USA should be concerned with ANYTHING beyond its borders? Why should the USA allow foreign goods? Why should the USA have troops overseas? This conventional wisdom is bleeding the USA dry. Why should the United States be in a military alliance with Europe?

The way I see things, if we accept the proposition that USA intervention is driving hostility to the USA, then, shouldn't the USA just let Eurasia fend for itself? That strategy worked pretty well for us for 150 years and I think we need to get back to it.

The EU is big kids now. You guys defend yourselves... from what threat, I honestly don't know. We don't need NATO any more.

Re:Seriously, why NATO

[loutr]

The funny thing is that we are in Afghanistan to help you, not the other way around. You act like we Europeans are depending on you to defend ourselves, but we don't. And actually we don't have anybody to defend ourselves against at the moment, maybe due to the fact that we don't arbitrarily invade foreign countries and act like we rule the world and know better than everyone else.

Nevertheless IMO alliances like NATO or UN are good things because they bring people together around a table rather than on a battlefield ; I guess that's why UN was created in the first place.

Why SHOULD the USA should be concerned with ANYTHING beyond its borders? Why should the USA allow foreign goods? Why should the USA have troops overseas? This conventional wisdom is bleeding the USA dry.

Another excuse... Sorry but you brought this upon yourselves, by electing Dubya 2 times, allowing him to spend billions on the war on terrorism, and to generally fuck up your country's economy.

Maybe if you cared a bit more about what happened abroad your collective head would not be this far up your collective ass, and your country (and the world) would be in a better shape right now.

Re:Seriously, why NATO

[tjstork]

You act like we Europeans are depending on you to defend ourselves, but we don't

Well then fine then, let's dissolve this military alliance, bring the American troops home and be done with it. I'm down with that. If the Polish get scared because they have no real help, we can always give them the bomb or something. But the rest of it really isn't an American problem. Russia vs Europe... not an American concern whatsoever.

Maybe if you cared a bit more about what happened abroad your collective head

True. If Americans realized just how much the rest of the world has no intention of ever really having free trade, it would be much easier politically to get all the foreign goods kicked out of the US market place.

Re:Seriously, why NATO

[tjstork]

Nevertheless IMO alliances like NATO or UN are good things because they bring people together around a table rather than on a battlefield ; I guess that's why UN was created in the first place

The UN and NATO are both useless. If people want to talk each other, they have these things called phones.

Re:Seriously, why NATO

[shutdown -p now]

Why SHOULD the USA should be concerned with ANYTHING beyond its borders? Why should the USA allow foreign goods? Why should the USA have troops overseas? This conventional wisdom is bleeding the USA dry. Why should the United States be in a military alliance with Europe?

I can tell you why. Because, by itself, U.S. is stronger than any other single country, but not all of them combined. But NATO strength is truly overwhelming - it's 2/3rds of world military spending, and can take up on every other country or alliance of such.

hat strategy worked pretty well for us for 150 years and I think we need to get back to it.

I don't know if you're aware of that or not, but Hitler was planning a war of aggression against U.S. sometime in the 80s (not by him, but presumably by his successor). If you'd let the Nazis reign supreme (and without help, there's no saying if USSR could win that war alone or not..), with the combined industry of all European countries and the USSR, and the agricultural base of Kuban and Ukraine, the Reich would be more than a match for the U.S.

Already exists

[Suzuran]

That's a few years old. IIRC it was a modified half-life engine game. I remember seeing screenshots from it.

Except that

[manekineko2]

Except that a group of these soldiers are the ones who wanted the game to be made.

Re:Except that

[Abcd1234]

And your point is...? Or are we now looking to our soldiers when determining our collective moral compass? And when did this select group of soldiers suddenly come to represent all soldiers? Ignoring the fact that a nice, fat compensation for their stories may very well quell any second thoughts they may or may not have.

Now, I may be wrong. Maybe this game will usher in a genre of games that actually look at their subject matter critically. But given the history of mass entertainment, and video games in particular, let's just say I won't be holding my breath.

Re:Except that

[manekineko2]

You say that turning a real battle into an FPS is "the worst kind of disrespect for the hell those soldiers lived through." If the soldiers involved in the battle want to be in the game as themselves, are you suggesting that they are being disrespectful to themselves? They are being disrespectful to other soldiers who were there as well?

Re:Except that

[Abcd1234]

If the soldiers involved in the battle want to be in the game as themselves, are you suggesting that they are being disrespectful to themselves?

For enough money? That's certainly possible. Why not? Or have you never heard of prostitutes?

They are being disrespectful to other soldiers who were there as well?

Yes, I also suggested that.

And third, since we're apparently repeating my points, I also suggested the soldiers may be expected a certain result, but through editing, etc, what really comes out is just another Call of Duty (ie, a piece of war-glorifying shit).

Suddenly

[Daisy Skye]

Suddenly, I understand Jack Thompson's opinion on why video games are evil.

That man's gonna have a field day with this.

Re:Suddenly

[Erikderzweite]

These are not evil games, these are patriotic games which is a Good Thing (tm).The difference is that evil games make you want to kill anyone (at least in Jack Thompson's mind) and patriotic games make you want to kill enemies of the State aka terorrists.

Mod parent up +1 for hell yeah.

[BForrester]

Civilians like things black and white because they need to know that they're cheering for the good guy. They like to think that conflicts in which their country fights are waged honourably, and that casualties are given up gloriously, with dignity (and pithy last words) for the causes of justice and freedom.

For those who are there when boots hit the ground, this is so much bullshit. Very little divides innocents from non-supportive civilians from terrorized civilians from insurgents from terrorists. Black and white are out the window when you're just trying to survive, all you can count on is the grunt beside you, and you have sudden split seconds to award life or death to another human being.

We so quickly forget that America was birthed when mass numbers of disaffected insurgents began conducting brutal and "cowardly" guerrilla attacks against the occupying forces.

Hopefully they'll do it justice

[Nick Ives]

From TFA:

The Marines reappear in the game itself, doing pretty much what they did during the war. One tells the story of how he furiously wrote a letter to his wife and begged a chaplain to give it to her if he died. Another, Eddie Garcia (pictured above), talks about how his right leg was shredded in a mortar attack, and how he suffered survivor's guilt after he was taken out of combat. Their actions are recreated in the game as players encounter the soldiers' avatars.

They freely admit that what they're doing is one-sided but that's because they're just trying to tell the troop's stories. Hopefully they'll make the effort to convey some of the horror.

Re:Oh man...

[Shakrai]

Your point? Were we trying to systematically exterminate the Sunni insurgents? Two things occur to me: 1) The number of prisoners from Fallujah is > the number of enemy KIA. 2) Large sections of the Sunni insurgency later decided to work with us. Interesting choice on their part if we were engaged in genocide against them.

Re:Oh man... agreed.

[Tgeigs]

The question with these types of criticisms always becomes, "How long in the past before you draw the line of irrelevance?" The USA is an easy target right now because of the wars of the 90's and new millenium. But some of the nations criticizing our actions have histories that make our exploits seem laughably small. I mean, when Germany asks us to use restraint, doesn't it kind of make you laugh? Or when Putin thinks we shouldn't get involved in Afgahnistan, given the Russian's long history of involvement there? Or when China decries our sanctions against Cuba as being a human rights violation? At some point, reasonable people are just going to have to agree on what the fuck reality is and leave everyone else to their rabble rousing.

Re:Oh man...

[4D6963]

Actually one main reason you wouldn't have an holocaust game would be because the game play would be boring. A fish-in-a-barrel shooter would be more fun than telling a bunch of prisoners what to do, lock them in a room and push a lever.

Lies and Propaganda

[XJHardware]

The Geneva conventions most specifically did not deal with the use of WP. The Geneva conventions dealt with the treatment of combatants and non-combatants. The Hague conventions dealt with the use of arms and munitions. This is like the old lie about shotguns being illegal weapons or the .50 caliber machinegun not being legal for use on people. The shorthand rule is is that if they are legal combatants they are legal targets (until they surrender or are incapacitated). If they are illegal combatants they are legal targets. If they are non-combatants they are not ever legal targets.

The treaty concerning white phosphorus is The Chemical Weapons Convention, which the United States amongst others has not signed. This is not to say that WP is a chemical weapon like mustard gas or phosgene. It's a fragmentary incendiary, more like napalm in a solid state.

Re:Oh man...

[hobbit]

Okay, fair enough. The OP's analogy was pretty far-fetched.

Ultimately the Germans & Japs Deserved It

[tjstork]

The Germans got about 100,000

Yeah, because the Germans didn't believe in strategic bombing as a doctrine. Sure, they made some half-assed effort during the Battle of Britain but that was a joke because they couldn't think of anything else. But by and large the role of the Luftwaffe was to do air superiority and tactical air support to clear out obstacles ahead of the advancing German army.

Now, that my friend was a different story. Overall, German military forces were responsible for all sorts of killings. The Einzatrzgruppe alone drove all over Eastern Europe, gathered up Jews and other undesirables, and shot them. This they did about a million times, and it was only because too much gore spattered literally on Himmler's face that -he- finally ordered a stop to it and drove the creation of the railway / death camp based holocaust.

By comparison, the armed forces of the United States did NOT go and shoot up a bunch of innocent people willingly the way the Germans did. Did not go and arbitarily execute officers of the German army or even German civil authorities the way that the Germans did...

Quite frankly, you could make a pretty good case that, as terrible as firebombing was, German civilians did deserve it after all.

Now, as for Japan... let's see, the Japanese murdered at LEAST 20 million Chinese, if not more, in the name of their little war... and the only reason Chinese people don't have a count is because China was so devastated by the Japanese invasion following multiple civil wars in China. The whole country was screwed up... but there you go, the Chinese were getting murdered.. in fact, the Japanese were out there experimenting with bacteriological weapons on Chinese civilians, vivisecting Allied Airmen, completely ignoring the Geneva Convention...

The Japanese deserved to get nuked and if anything, they did not get nuked enough.

congrats, you just defined war as terrorism!

[CAIMLAS]

Congratulations, you just defined war:

appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

Short of genocide, that's what war is. It's to get the opposition - largely composed by the civilian population of an area - to surrender, or provoke a surrender. To break the war machine.

This is the danger we put ourselves in by catering to the whims of self-important lawyers. They pass laws and regulations which make even commonsense things "wrong" and "illegal".

Trying to put warfare within the context of war is a loser's game. IE, if you do so, you will lose. Sorting out the right and wrong is for the victor to do, not something which should be done strategically.

Re:congrats, you just defined war as terrorism!

[michaelmuffin]

Congratulations

thank you

Sorting out the right and wrong is for the victor to do

congratulations, you just defined Might Makes Right

Re:congrats, you just defined war as terrorism!

[Lunzo]

The ends don't justify the means. Ever.

Re:Oh man... agreed.

[Idiomatick]

Sounds like a strawman... or like a whole field of strawmen. If you do something evil and fucking kim jong il says thats not right DOES NOT make it ok. It just means that kim jong il can occasionally be correct.

Atomic Games re-traumatizes every survivor

[Nick Arnett]

I am angry. Any sane person who has lived with the horror of deadly violence knows that it cannot become entertainment. The fact that it is based on real events makes it intolerable as a game. Peter Tamte's boasts about it have re-traumatized hundreds of thousands of survivors, at a time when violence is on the rise in our nation.

Nick Arnett, grief counselor with the Bay Area Critical Incident Stress Management Team and extended family of a Marine killed in action in Fallujah 11/10/2004.

Re:Oh man...

[FishWithAHammer]

If you don't know shit about shit, you should shut the fuck up.

White Phosphorus

[foqn1bo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq

White Phosphorus burns to the bone when it comes in contact with skin, and water makes it worse. The use of White Phosphorus as an incendiary weapon in Fallujah (and for that matter Gaza) constitutes deliberate killing of civilians. Any weapon that is used as a blanket over a wide area is, by definition, incapable of distinguishing between combatant and non-combatant.

Heroes at Fallujah

[JBaustian]

A few facts, first. The entire city was surrounded, then leaflets were dumped on it for several days. Everyone who wanted out had an opportunity to leave, via designated checkpoints. If the insurgents prevented some people from leaving, then the blame falls on them.

Then the Marines went door-to-door through the city, cutting it in half, then in quarters, boxing the insurgents into smaller and smaller blocks of buildings.

It was a classic battle, one that will be studied endlessly because this is the kind of war the US Army and Marines will be fighting in the 21st century. It is the toughest kind of warfare -- block by block, house by block, sometimes room by room. It take a lot of training, it takes tremendous leaders who can recognize traps and keep their squads from getting sucked into traps. Sometimes it just makes sense to call in an air strike, but most of the time that just isn't possible because of too much collateral damage.

I'm sure that some folks will say they don't want to fight this kind of war. Either drop bombs from 30,000 feet or just let the insurgents take over the country.

Some would say that those folks are ignorant or misguided, but I prefer to think that they are idiots.

Scoring

[dugeen]

One million points if you kill anyone who's actually an enemy soldier. One billion if your target had any connection whatever with the WTC attacks. And coming soon in the Civilian Slaughter Challenge series - My Lai Melee, Lidice Onslaught, Warsaw Chainsaw, Gaza Firestorm.

Re:Oh man... agreed.

[Tgeigs]

Oh, I completely agree. All I'm trying to demonstrate is that there is NO moral authority anymore: the Vatican is made up of wealthy plutocrats, the UN is controlled by different plutocrats, the Europeans are largely anti-semetic amongst a host of other issues, everyday Americans are so wrapped up in their cheeseburgers that they are sloughing away their civil liberties, and most of the third world nations are dictatorships so evil that Kim Jong Il would point to them and say, "why the hell didn't WE think of that?"...So who do we listen to? I can't support anarchy, because I just don't think the average person would be better off under it.

Re:Lets kill people

[shentino]

Are you a veteran?

To all veterans who read /.:

I'm mighty glad you're around. Without you, our country would be viciously attacked and us civilian folks would be helpless. God bless you!

To everyone:

I personally would like to see the civilian population get a glimpse of what our soldiers have to deal with 24/7 on the front lines. If nothing else, it would give them respect for what really is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. In fact, I can't think of anything worse, except maybe nuke reactor techs and perhaps astronauts in space. Personally I think it's deplorable for military funerals to be rudely disrupted by angry mobs that should be directing their anger at the feds who sent the troops to begin with.

Companies who want to make money off of it would do well to show proper respect for what their products represent. To anyone designing such a game, I would at least recommend hiring military folks on as consultants. You'll do a much better job at recreating a war in a game if you have first hand testimony of what it's actually like on the front lines.

Anyone read the Big Friendly Giant? Particularly the part where a bunch of dreams got mixed together for the queen, but it turned out to be a nightmare dream? That is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Whats wrong with making money off war?

[pcxmac]

Whats wrong with exploitation, people do it all the time. Heres another good game - "So Long Sucker", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_Long_Sucker