Military Personnel Weigh In On Being Taliban In Medal of Honor

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."

Comments

Sheik Mahmoud sez

[Anonymous Coward]

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....."

Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Profit

[Dr. Hellno]

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?

Re:Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ha!

[Monkeedude1212]

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.

Re:Ha!

[_Sprocket_]

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.

Re:Ha!

[eln]

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).

Re:Ha!

[jd]

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

Re:Ha!

[ToasterMonkey]

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.

Just like those kids playing cowboys and indians

[Anonymous Coward]

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

It isn't me.

[AnonymousClown]

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,

Officially licensed

[MrEricSir]

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.

Interesting

[geekoid]

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?

Re:Interesting

[rasper99]

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

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Interesting

[_Sprocket_]

"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.

Re:Nazi Barbie?

[eln]

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

They could always do what the military does...

[rwa2]

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

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

It was always going to be just a matter of time

[Zocalo]

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.

Counter-Strike?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Profiteering vs Profiting

[Anomalyx]

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).

Backgrounds?

[c_jonescc]

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.