Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Military Personnel Weigh In On Being Taliban In Medal of Honor

Posted by Soulskill on from the identity-conflict dept.

SSDNINJA writes "This is a feature from gamrFeed that interviews nine US service members about playing as the Taliban in the upcoming Medal of Honor. One soldier states that games like MoH and Call of Duty are 'profiteering from war.' Another says, 'Honestly, I don't really see what the whole fuss is about. It's a game, and just like in Call of Duty, you don't really care about what side you're taking, just as long as you win. I don't think anyone cares if you're part of the Rangers or Spetznaz, as long as you win.' An excellent and interesting read."

39 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Sheik Mahmoud sez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    something like "When our youth is playing "Swordsofthe Faithful"; it really tweaks my turban when they play the infidel 10th Army Division soldier... I mean, cmon, it really takes the bang out of suicide vest boys who are giving their lives for our cause....."

  2. It's just a game by Nick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Get over it.

    --
    Fuck Ajit Pai
  3. Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    profiteering from war is bad?

    Except for all those nice upstanding defense contractors and other related service companys we give billions to....

    Damm... now i'm confused.

    1. Re:Profit by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The soldier in question makes the same point:

      More importantly, the creation of games like these is war profiteering; the same profiteering that Blackwater, civilian contractors, and companies that produce ACU backpacks for school children participate in.

      He even seems to suggest that movies like "The Hurt Locker" are war profiteering. Maybe he's right?

    2. Re:Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, he's not. Making a profit from and profiteering are not the same thing. The soldier is not taking advantage of the war to make extra profit, he's simply doing the job he was hired for and being paid his standard wages.

    3. Re:Profit by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      No they are not.

      "A war profiteer is any person or organization that improperly profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war."

    4. Re:Profit by spiralpath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't think there are any intelligent, committed people willing to sacrifice themselves for an ideal? I don't deny that both bloodthirsty murderers and naive idiots join the military, but do you really think that's all there is?

    5. Re:Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are being overly cynical. You take something that may be partially true and inflate it into an entire worldview.

      He's just being a fuckhole.

    6. Re:Profit by orphiuchus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I usually don't bother posting, but I just have to say something here. The whole idea that the within the military minorities and the poor are over-represented is simply not true. In my Marine infantry platoon back in 2006 there was 1 black guy, 1 Asian guy, 2 or 3 Hispanics, and the entire rest of the platoon was white. The majority of the platoon was middle class, with only 2 or 3 people coming from actual poverty. There were even 2 pretty wealthy guys, ones family had oil money and the others father owned a law firm if I remember correctly. The demographic in the military actually roughly represents the population of the US in general, with few exceptions(The upper class is very under-represented overall). As for the idea that all service men are blood thirsty murderers... I don't feel like I can keep an even head responding to this, so I'll just say this: You have no idea what people go through with the intention of keeping you safe and you don't deserve the protection those of us who would risk our lives provide.

    7. Re:Profit by DriedClexler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure. And a game company is not taking advantage of a war to make extra profit; it's simply focusing on its core mission of developing engaging games with themes people care about, and one thing they care about is the ongoing war.

      Let me guess: When a newspaper (back in the good ol' days) sold Extra! editions of a day's newspaper because of developments in a war, is that "war profiteering"? Or, I don't know ... maybe just telling people up-to-date information they want to know about?

      You're an idiot, but sadly, not alone.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  4. Ha! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One soldier states that games like MoH and Call of Duty are 'profiteering from war

    Oh boy, if that soldier only knew who was REALLY profiteering from war.

    1. Re:Ha! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Informative

      One soldier states that games like MoH and Call of Duty are 'profiteering from war

      Oh boy, if that soldier only knew who was REALLY profiteering from war.

      Maybe you two should have a conversation. From the article (the quote from the soldier in question):

      More importantly, the creation of games like these is war profiteering; the same profiteering that Blackwater, civilian contractors, and companies that produce ACU backpacks for school children participate in. War profiteering of any form is unjust and constitutes a true insult to those who have served overseas.

      It seems that he might have a better handle on this than you'd give credit for.

      I don't agree with him - but that's a different conversation.

    2. Re:Ha! by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He's a soldier. He directly profits from war, since if there were fewer of them then there would be fewer soldiers and hence he would be unemployed or on lower pay.

      And yes that's a stupid argument, but not that much more stupid than his claim.

      If the video game wasn't the US vs the Taliban, it would instead be the US vs the Nazis, or the US vs the Russians, or the Terrans vs the Zerg, or the Persians vs the Greeks. I guess the nightly news is profiteering from the war too since they dare report on it and run ads.

      Of course none of that is profiteering anyway...

    3. Re:Ha! by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, yes. Profiteering in wartime is usually taken as things like smuggling operations, black markets, people trafficking. War stories, war comics, war movies - when they edge into propaganda and black propaganda - are questionable, but people expect heroes and villains in stories. However, in no context are they remotely profiteering. My guess is that the soldier in question has played many a FPS and probably many a wargame of other sorts. I doubt he had any problems with those.

      I would also guess that he - and probably many other soldiers - bought weapons for their family after 9/11. Gun merchants who rely on fear by their customers are far closer to profiteering from wartime. Games are not bought out of fear or panic, they don't rely on scare tactics (such as a Democrat getting elected), if their sales alter during a conflict it is because of increased interest and nothing more. But if you asked those same soldiers if gunshops should be penalized for profiteering, there's no way on this planet they would agree. If they even accepted that that is what it was (unlikely), they'd tell you that weapons are a fundamental right (which they're not, since there are many classes of people in the US who cannot own one) and that it doesn't matter if profiteering takes place in a free society (dubious, but of all the arguments it's the most convincing).

      So why are games a problem? Ah, well, you see the game itself is NOT the problem. Neither, I suspect, is the fact that you can play a bad guy. (Certainly hasn't hurt game sales where you can only play the bad guy.) I suspect the problem is that the military is extremely good at dehumanizing and that makes it very difficult to connect with a game that starts from the assumption that neither side is less human than the other.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Ha! by eln · · Score: 5, Informative

      You, the soldier, and most of the other posters seem to be confused by the difference between profiting and profiteering. Profiteering is specifically the act of exacting exorbitant or excessive profits, usually on essential goods that are in short supply during a crisis. Companies like Halliburton or Blackwater could be considered profiteers because they charge the government huge amounts of money, and rake in enormous profits, for providing essential goods and services during a crisis (even though in this case it's a crisis of the government's own making). If we were under any kind of rationing for this war, someone who had access to rationed goods and sold them back to the public at exorbitant prices would be profiteering as well. The black market for essential goods in the war zones of Iraq (assuming there is such a thing) is profiteering if the amounts charged are excessive.

      On the other hand, a game manufacturer who charges the same amount of money for a war game (a decidedly nonessential good) that they charge for any other game, and makes their standard profit from it, is not profiteering. They make a profit, but it's not profiteering because the good they're selling is not essential and the profits are not exorbitant. The only part of the definition of profiteering that applies to them is the fact that they're taking advantage of a crisis to increase sales by making the game based on the current war. Likewise, the soldier is not profiteering by accepting his meager paycheck for his services. Profiting (barely), but not profiteering.

      Clearly there's room for hand waving when you start talking about what exactly constitutes an excessive profit or an essential good, but I can't see how the game developer or the soldier could be considered profiteers (or Senator McCain for that matter).

    5. Re:Ha! by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

      More likely digging foxholes. Trenches involve sharing and that's a socialist principle.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Ha! by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Informative

      The winner always profits from war.

      Not necessarily. If I spend, say, $10 billion and win control over Sealand or another relatively worthless chunk of territory, I'm probably not going to win out in the end.

      Winners can profit, but neutral parties who trade with both sides can often profit more. For instance, the Dutch made a significant profit as a major supplier of weapons for the Continental Army.in the American Revolution, without experiencing the violence and devastation that go with fighting a war. Most major corporations are effectively neutral traders in wars, which is part of why IBM could make a bunch of cash selling punch card systems to the Third Reich.

      Or, you know, let Maj General Smedley Butler explain it back in the 1930's:
      http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Ha! by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I like this man's thinking. Does anyone think we are getting a real deal on UAVs, cruise missiles, MRAPs, etc? And now private security forces. Ugh.

      The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation - it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted - to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

    8. Re:Ha! by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have family in the USMC. Trust me, they get paid alot better than that.

      I think they would be laughing at you right now, for a few reasons probably ;)

      Hey, you should call them right now and tell them how crazy this Smedley Butler guy is!
      They teach us about him in boot camp though, so I would advise against doing that before reading more about him.

  5. Just like those kids playing cowboys and indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There was always something wrong with the kids who wanted to play indians. And how dare they fight back.

  6. It isn't me. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
    Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
    And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
    Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,

    Yeah!
    Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
    Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
    But when the taxman comes to the door,
    Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

    Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
    Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
    And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
    Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.

    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  7. Officially licensed by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those soldiers would a lot more angry if they knew about the license fees paid to the Taliban to use their logo, names and likeness.

    But the gameplay would suffer if it weren't an officially licensed Taliban product.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  8. Interesting by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think anyone cares if you're part of the Rangers or Spetznaz, as long as you win.'

    just like real life.

    Haliburton profits from war. Churches profit from war. The Boy Scouts profit from war. Flag makers profit from war. That soldier profited from war.

      Games just wrap the same thing in different skins. If you put modern equipment skin on Halo, then it's profiting from war?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Interesting by rasper99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      During the Vietnam war one of the protest slogans was "War is good business. Invest your son".

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "That soldier profited from war."

      To a certain extent, you are correct. Military people off fighting wars do indeed make good money. We get tax-free wages while in war zones. We get lots of freebies as well: Free food, lodging, movie rentals, MWR - all while still earning our full paycheck. We also get hostility pay, separation pay (if you're married) and many other interesting bonuses. A few friends of mine just got back from Afghanistan a while ago and were treated to full paid vacations to Disney for themselves and their family. It's a perk, to say the least. Profit? I guess.

      And then I have other friends... They didn't come back in such great shape. One took shrapnel from a motar and sometimes has numbness in his leg. Another member was part of a mass-causality recovery and now can't stand the smell of fuel. Myself? I have constant headaches. I have to see a shrink every week and take anti-depressants. I've lashed out violently for no good reason at all. Dog pissed on the floor? I've picked him up by his collar and threw him into another room, just because of latent anger issues. This isn't who I am. I go through counseling now, but maybe in a few years I'll start feeling normal again. Maybe I profited a bit. In the end, it wasn't worth it. The profits are insignificant compared to the stress. So don't you fucking dare say soldiers profit from wars. We're always dealt the losing hand.

      PS - I hope this shit is really anonymous.

    3. Re:Interesting by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "That soldier profited from war."

      To a certain extent, you are correct. Military people off fighting wars do indeed make good money. We get tax-free wages while in war zones. We get lots of freebies as well: Free food, lodging, movie rentals, MWR - all while still earning our full paycheck. We also get hostility pay, separation pay (if you're married) and many other interesting bonuses. A few friends of mine just got back from Afghanistan a while ago and were treated to full paid vacations to Disney for themselves and their family. It's a perk, to say the least. Profit? I guess.

      That all sounds very nice. But the pay sucks. The free food is rarely that good. The lodging tends to suck (to what degree depends largely on your branch of service). The movie rental selection isn't that great. MWR... well, they do a really good job with what they have, but MWR facilities rarely measure up to civilian counter-parts. Hostility pay / danger pay is a pittance for the risk. Separation pay is a pittance. The perks help make rough situations easier. But I'd be really wary of listing them as selling points.

      As an aside - I remember the yearly report coming out that quantified all the perks to civilian dollar amounts. They were a joke. I know, for example, my local MWR gym was nothing like any of the health clubs in the nearby (small) town yet the report counted it as a perk in my salary comparison. No wonder we had congresswomen complaining about military housing as over-priced little Peyton Places (she was probably shown the best examples of officer housing). And Shades of Green? Nice. But a cut below even the mid-level Disney resort.

    4. Re:Interesting by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here is the thing I don't understand. Why did they even put boots on the ground? They should have just air dropped a million mines across the middle of the country and called it a day. Then invade Camboia and Laos to make sure the VC didn't do an end run around the minefield.

      They did. Didn't work. And now Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are still clearing them (and farmers losing limbs) today.

    5. Re:Interesting by hairyfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "In the end, it wasn't worth it." It wasn't worth it in the start either. It was never worth it. At no point was that debacle ever worth it. But you still got paid for doing it, and no-one forced you to do it, so ultimately you are partially responsible for it.

    6. Re:Interesting by ncgnu08 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would like to apologize for the people that feel as if the military (and by that I mean the soldiers, not the big companies) are profiting from these wars. I doubt anyone joins our military to make money. I also am pretty sure these men and women would trade that money to have watched their kids grow up, rather than being in Irag or Afk for 2-6 years. I doubt the money was worth the PTSD (best case) or lost limbs, or the lost life (worst case). When I first read that posting I could understand most of it, but I immediately wanted to write about the "soldiers making a profit. Some of us appreciate your service. I may be biased, as I was headed to Annapolis until health problems stopped that, but I am very thankful it is not me being shot at everyday. I would imagine the worst is being the target of IED's everyday for 16 months, and on top of that having to reintegrate with society. How much is the strain on one's marriage worth? How much money does it take to justify not seeing your child for 16 months? So while yes the bank account may grow, I hope any American will think hard before jumping on that bandwagon.

      Thank you to those that do serve; we need to be doing much more as a society to "do our part" than we are. I find it sad that we claim to honor out veterans then do so little to support them.

      --
      Member of American Sarcasm Society - Motto: "Like we need your help!"
  9. Re:Nazi Barbie? by eln · · Score: 3, Funny

    My sister had a Nazi Barbie, and it was her favorite toy. She always said playing with that doll was a real gas.

  10. They could always do what the military does... by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    During military wargaming exercises, it's pretty much always Red vs. Blue.

    But I guess Halo covered that already.
    http://redvsblue.com/

  11. Seriously... by stms · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do these people continue to try to make controversy around games. They're just going to make the game more popular. I remember the first time I heard about GTA was on the news about the controversy surrounding it and I remember thinking wow that game sounds really cool. If they don't like the game and don't want people to buy/play the game they should shut their mouth. Doing things in games that you can't do in reality is just part of what makes them fun.

  12. It was always going to be just a matter of time by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There have been computer games that let you play as the "bad guys" almost as long as there have been computer games, in eras ranging from pre-historic times, through to the World Wars, Cold War, Vietnam and even fictional SciFi enemies such as the Sith. Sometimes being the bad guys and blowing of steam is also a heck of a lot of fun! The only thing that seems to have changed is that as modern society has had increasingly immediate access to current events, the period between the event and the entertainment based on it has reduced. Well, guess what? If you fight a war for a longer period than that grace period, then you are going to start seeing entertainment while the combat is still on-going.

    Besides, one of the tenets of the military is "know your enemy"; I'm pretty sure Sun Szu's "Art of War" is still going to be required reading at West Point, and the like. If the simulation is good enough, then why not use it to train the troops in Red Team / Blue Team exercises. Surely, it's better that people get their asses kicked and then learn from their mistakes in a simulator than getting their asses kicked on a battlefield and not getting the chance.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    1. Re:It was always going to be just a matter of time by scaryjohn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There have been computer games that let you play as the "bad guys" almost as long as there have been computer games, in eras ranging from pre-historic times, through to the World Wars, Cold War, Vietnam and even fictional SciFi enemies such as the Sith.

      I realize Custer's Revenge was a primitive game but the 1980's were hardly prehistoric times. I don't think those cave paintings in the south of France count as video games.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
  13. Counter-Strike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've enjoyed (mostly) playing Counter-Strike for years, and one of the two teams is "Terrorists" whose purpose is to shoot police to death and plant explosives. I've played along side numerous soldiers and marines and they don't seem bothered.

    I think the difference is the nebulous nonspecific "Terrorists" vs the specifically named Taliban, which strikes a much deeper tone.

  14. Profiteering vs Profiting by Anomalyx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think somebody mis-vocab'd

    Profiteering is bad, but definitely didn't happen here.

    There's nothing wrong with Profiting. The game profits from the war, the soldier profits from the war, the citizens profit from the war (hopefully).

    --
    No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
  15. Candy Land! by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Funny

    If games about frolicking through Candy Land killing unicorns sold millions of copies every time an expansion came out, you'd see just as many of those types of games, guaranteed.

    Classic game, I have such fond memories of it as a 6 year old. I look forward to a remake that involves both more frolicking and more unicorn killing.

  16. Backgrounds? by c_jonescc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not that curious how 9 random soldiers feel about playing as the Taliban. What I am curious about is how 9 soldiers that have been in combat against the Taliban feel.

    Just as I'm more interested in an interview with a WWII soldier about WWII games than in anybody else's sense of the emotions. Everyone else is only anticipating offense or ambivalence.

    As far as I can tell from a skim of TFA, there's no indication of these soldier's backgrounds, other than rank. Have they been in combat? Was it in this conflict? It's lazy reporting to ignore the detail, or to not make the effort to find people with an actual experience to found things on.

    I worked on a grant from NASA. Are you going to expect special insight from me about the emotions surrounding the Columbia disaster? I'd hope not. I don't have any more connection to it than a shared high level boss.

    --
    Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
  17. As a former military member, here's my two cents by mykos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They can do what they want. I don't care. It's a damned VIDEO GAME. And I'll play it, too, regardless. There are much more offensive things than then Taliban in games right now.