Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Entertainment Games

Seven Arrested After Protesting Army Video Game Recruiting Center 433

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-mean-there's-more-to-the-army-than-halo? dept.
GamePolitics writes "Seven anti-war protesters were arrested in Philadelphia on Saturday during a protest rally and march which targeted the Army Experience Center, a high-tech recruitment center which uses PC and Xbox games and simulations to attract potential recruits. GamePolitics was on hand to cover the protest, and took video of the arrests. A local news station also reported on the rally, and the Peace Action Network released a statement saying, "In its desperate approach to meet recruiting numbers, the military is teaching the wrong values to teenagers. Sugarcoating combat experience with virtual war is a dishonor to those with real war experience."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seven Arrested After Protesting Army Video Game Recruiting Center

Comments Filter:
  • fp! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CheshireFerk-o (412142) <.kioshi83. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:07AM (#27828161)

    i for one have played America's Army for years, and i would love to play in the vehicles and huge screens with other ppl! sure its a recruitment tool but take it for what it is, a great team-based shooter.

    • This is America (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is America. What the hell do you think gives you the right to peacefully assemble and protest? Only terrorists do that. Now bow down before our magnificent leader. You must go and die for his glory.

      • Re:This is America (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:31AM (#27828529)

        You can't continue to protest on private property once the owner asks you to leave or you are trespassing. Trespassing is an arrestable offense.

        So simple a caveman would get it.

        • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MyLongNickName (822545) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:55AM (#27828653) Journal

          Then the army oughtn't be able to open a center there. Frankly, this whole "hide behind public property" that the government uses is wrong. It is basically circumventing the first amendment by using technicalities. Whether you or I agree with the protest, citizens should be free to peacefully protest their government.

          • Re:This is America (Score:5, Informative)

            by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:01AM (#27829245) Journal

            They have the right to peacefully protest. They did, in fact, peacefully protest. But, the moment they stepped on private property, they were trespassing. I know, why don't I come over to your house and protest your stupidity by taking over you living room. After all, you should not be able to hide behind public property either.

            • by FatSean (18753) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:26AM (#27829577) Homepage Journal

              Who owns the property. Not the gov't. The property owner. If my tax dollars pay for it, it's public. If the property owner doesn't like the protests, he can try to boot his tenant and the protesters out. The gov't can't boot out citizens.

              Different rules apply. This is why we don't like to conflate government and private enterprise. Gets messy.

              We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.

              • by dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:52AM (#27829959)

                If my tax dollars pay for it, it's public. [...] The gov't can't boot out citizens.

                Let's all go protest in the Oval Office or the Pentagon then... Somehow I suspect it wouldn't work out exactly as you expect.

              • by Moryath (553296) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:55AM (#27830007)

                The gov't has the right to rent space where people go (e.g. a mall).

                The mall has the right to evict anyone, at the choosing of the mall owner or their delegated authority such as security guards, from the property.

                What is so hard to understand about this? The mall chose to remove a bunch of lunatics from their property. The lunatics refused to go, so police arrested them under the law for trespassing.

                Stop trying to make this more than it is. A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today (the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place). So they go, do something stupid, refuse to obey a lawful order by the property owner to leave, and get their stupid asses arrested.

                The gov't can't boot out citizens.

                Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute; the Supreme Court has routinely held that reasonable restrictions - such as requirements to get a permit, to adequately prepare for possible problems, and to disperse when ordered to by police - are completely enforceable.

                If you go out of your way to get arrested, you're gonna get arrested. It's really that simple.

                We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.

                They follow the rules same as everybody else. What breeds contempt for the gov't is fuckers who pull "protests" like this and have no grasp on reality.

                • by WNight (23683) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @01:30PM (#27833655) Homepage

                  (the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place).

                  You're either a fucking imbecile or a liar. There's a big difference between the soldiers who actually put their asses on the line and the commanders who decide the hand-wave the realities of war with a video game for recruitment purposes. To think that the protesters can't tell the difference is ridiculous.

                  A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today

                  But this makes it obvious, you're a liar. You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting for but you hate them.

                  I wonder what the opinion of a veteran would be to someone like you, lamely ra-ra'ing everything into a "think of the troops". That sort of knee-jerk objectification of a soldier as this hero-object you send overseas and who dies gloriously for freedom, even if they're sent into an unjust war under false pretenses, seems pretty offensive to me. It's the same kind of handwavism towards the reality of war that the protesters were protesting.

                  The mall has the right to evict anyone ... What is so hard to understand about this? ... police arrested them under the law for trespassing.

                  Isn't that convenient. The only relevant place to protest and it's private property. But how about outside? Oh, the whole area near the entryway is private, the sidewalk can't be blocked by groups, and the nearby park is private too. Guess there just can't be a protest because everywhere is private...

                  Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute

                  The courts, supreme or otherwise, are far from unbiased on this, being the ultimate 'tool' of 'justice' in the land they have far to much faith in quietly following the rules and protesting inside the lines. Sorry, but their opinion is just as irrelevant as that of the most radicalized protester.

                  The truth is that protest MUST be done where it is relevant and will be seen. A public park six miles away might be more convenient for mall management but they rented space to a government propaganda centre and can't simply dismiss this issue as one of troublesome trespassers or they themselves become a legitimate target for protest. Removing protesters for violence, preventing other legitimate access through the area, and so forth would be reasonable, yes. But to remove them for expressing a reasonable opinion against the government, in a very relevant manner and location, simply because it's private property - that is unreasonable.

                  It's fairly well established that the government has the right of eminent domain, and the current US gov claims it has the right to draft its citizens. To think that this doesn't afford the people (the government) the reasonable expectation of a right to assemble and protest the activities going on in that location is silly. The USA seceded, in part after people boarded private ships to throw privately owned tea into the harbour as part of a tax protest against the government. Considering the issue at hand is pro-war brainwashing materials being passed off as games by the government I think a mere protest in a mall is a pretty reasonable thing.

                  Perhaps the mall should rent to less controversial customers if it doesn't want the fallout.

            • Re:This is America (Score:4, Informative)

              by digitig (1056110) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:55AM (#27830015)

              They have the right to peacefully protest. They did, in fact, peacefully protest. But, the moment they stepped on private property, they were trespassing.

              No they were not, because they asked for, and were given, permission to continue their protest on the private property. The moment they failed to leave the private property when told to do so they were traspassing.

          • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Big Nothing (229456) <big.nothing@bigger.com> on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:47AM (#27829873)

            I'm all for using games as a means of sparking young men and women's interest in joining the armed forces. It's a great way to show them what to expect without actually sending them overseas. The only condition I ask is that a representative number of gamers get shot in the gut with an AK-47.

      • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @08:48AM (#27829105)

        A lot of protesters really want to get arrested or teargassed or whatever. Because they are not fully protesting any particular issue but feel the government is corrupt and if they get hurt somehow it makes the government look bad, and them look good.

        I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.

        I don't have a problem with people protesting, and it should be legal. However a lot of protesters are really Stupid and do it the wrong way.

        Here are some Stupid Protests I have seen.

        A Silent protest on something... (I don't know what it was about because they wouldn't tell me)

        A huge Anti-War (I think) protest in the state capital. I saw a lot of people protesting, however I was busy setting up new computers for the Government Higher Ups (who can actually make some fuss) on the 19th and 20th floor. While most of the people up there were focusing on their work. No one could be heard, and if you did look down and see all the people even their biggest signs looked like smudges.

        Protesters in groups less then 15. Small groups are not really effective and can easily be seen as just a fringe group who just hates everything.

        Playing folk music. I am a fan of folk music myself, however for protests it is way to corny.

        Personal attacks, Are you willing to open a fair dialog with someone caring a poster of you looking like the devil or Hitler?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by digitig (1056110)

          I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.

          Or she planned a restrained protest but was worried that there might be hotheads other than her on the protest who might cross that line. Or she was worried that there might be hotheads policing the protest for whom the very act of the protest is enough provocation to shoot the protestors. Or that some hothead in the general public might be so offended by the protest that they'd open fire. Or the protest just happened to be in the sort of neighbourhood one wears a bulletproof vest to. Or ... and so on.

      • Re:This is America (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jav1231 (539129) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @08:57AM (#27829207)
        Something tells me these protesters will be reported more favorably than the Tea Party protesters, who were of course bigots and fanatics.
      • Re:This is America (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dachannien (617929) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @12:20PM (#27832443)

        What the hell do you think gives you the right to peacefully assemble and protest?

        As with most malls, the Franklin Mills Mall, where the U.S. Army Experience Center is located, is private property. This means that if the owner wants you gone and you stay anyway, you're trespassing, which means you're subject to arrest.

        Actually, from actually reading the twitter log, it seems like the police were very reasonable, allowing the protesters to march all the way down to and into the mall, where they protested for some time. Eventually, a police captain told them they'd have to leave. When they didn't, a few people got arrested. I suspect the order to leave was at the behest of the mall management, since there are numerous other stores there which depend on having an orderly environment in order to conduct business.

        You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't peaceably assemble on private property when the owner doesn't want you there. Simple as that.

  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by will_die (586523) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:16AM (#27828193) Homepage
    Are the games any fun?
    If so, can you play if you are older than recruiting age?
  • by nysus (162232) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:21AM (#27828219)

    After watching the video, that "Army Experience" store, set up in a mall, strikes me as a little twisted. It seems pretty clear this place was set up to resemble a video game center to "lure" high school kids to it so recruiters would have an opportunity to talk to them about joining the Army. I'm not very comfortable having my government treating its kids this way.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I go here sometimes...I go in play baseball or madden..they dont bother you about that shit unless you ask..

      • by hey! (33014) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:27AM (#27829587) Homepage Journal

        Oh, but if you ask...

        I have a nephew who was a Ham radio operator with his Amateur Extra Class, as well as an avid hiker and outdoorsman. He had no plans to go to college right away. He made the mistake of talking to a Marine Recruiter, and they slotted him right away into a particular class of recruit they were looking for. It was like being stalked by Big Brother. They showed up places he hung out at, talked to people he knew, they even started calling him on his cell phone which he never gives out to anyone.

        It was stupid, because they actually had a chance of getting him to sign up if they hadn't pulled the Big Brother baloney on him. That freaked him out.

    • by American Terrorist (1494195) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:34AM (#27828275)
      Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

      I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.
      • by tacarat (696339) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:23AM (#27828487) Journal
        Which video game is it that teaches suicide bombers or their handlers such anti-social activities?

        As far as your cousin is concerned, sorry. Maybe he'll smarten up eventually, but it'll probably have to wait until he finds out there's more to life than beer, bullets and bitches. I'd take more issue with the military academy high school than the US military, though. If he doesn't know about LOAC and the Geneva Convention, he may be in for a bit of surprise.

        Hopefully he's not so far gone that he doesn't think that, unlike movie bad guys, his opponents can actually think or aim...
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          Oh, and I forgot to add, Geneva Conventions only matter if you get caught. [abc.net.au]

          A US veteran recalls his commander telling him to machine-gun a group of about 50 refugees. "I said, 'we can't kill all these people,' and he pulled out his handgun, a .45, and pointed it at my head, he said, 'Kill 'em, you're directly disobeying a direct order in combat'."

      • by khallow (566160) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:41AM (#27828573)

        Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

        I assure you the violence makes a lot of sense. You just aren't trying to understand. Making a civil society in Iraq is not the US Army's goal. The US Army's goal is to discourage violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation. That often requires the civility of a headshot.

        I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.

        By all means let him join assuming they'll have him. The disease is the cure when it comes to militarism. My bet is that the Marines or Army don't like militarism any more than you do. It gets people killed unnecessarily.

        • "My bet is that the Marines or Army don't like militarism any more than you do. It gets people killed unnecessarily."

          Not sure about the Army, but based on my time in the Marine Corps, militarism was encouraged. "One shot, one kill", the fact that ever Marine (in theory) can shoot a rifle and shoot it well whether they're a cook or a grunt, the good old "Napalm sticks to kids" running cadence... although that starts to cross the line into good old-fashioned violence.

          If you've watched the first half of Full Metal Jacket, that's pretty close to the USMC Boot Camp experience that I remember. They want killers who don't get remorseful.

          • by Firethorn (177587) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @08:43AM (#27829029) Homepage Journal

            It looks like you have a different definition of militarism than khallow was using, or at least are looking at a different meaning.

            I'd describe your definition as 'military skills' - If you're going to have a military, best to have it be as effective as possible.

            On the other hand, Khallow's 'militarism' is a philosophy of using the military in the most offensive way possible, of looking at the military as first and last solution to any international problem.

            They're substantially different things. Even the Marine Core wants their Marines to be violent only when the situation calls for it.

            As for Cadences, didn't you figure out that they're supposed to be dirty/politically incorrect?

            • by pnuema (523776)
              Yes, but any situation that requires marines requires violence. You don't send the marines on peacekeeping missions. You send them places any sane person would run away from. We want the marines crazy. It's what they are for.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by khallow (566160)
            Firethorn is correct. I don't believe that it is militarism merely wanting to be a competent soldier, even including the bit about remorseless killing in the line of duty. The original poster mentioned a cousin who sounded like he had a real chip on his shoulder and really idolized/fantasized about the military and getting into elite units of the military. I doubt that attitude would survive boot camp. It's possible that he'd be a lousy, unhappy soldier after that, I don't know the odds.
        • The US Army's goal is to discourage violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation. That often requires the civility of a headshot.

          The US Army's goal is to discourage violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation. That often requires the civility of... violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation?

          I think the doublespeak just wrapped around.

        • The US Army's goal is to discourage violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation. That often requires the civility of a headshot.

          I'm not going to argue that you are incorrect on the army's goal. But the means to get there (headshot) probably works a lot better in our culture (western) than in one where blood feudes [wikipedia.org] are a cultural norm.

          See, A kills B. Now B's family has to go a kill either A or someone from A's family. So now someone from A's family has to go kill someone from B's family. Re

        • The US Army's goal is to discourage violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation. That often requires the civility of a headshot.

          What a great way to lead by example!

          Instead of the US peacefully cohabiting the earth and negotiating with Iraq, they invade the country and shoot all the violent people.

          You owe me a new irony detector.

      • by qbzzt (11136)

        Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization.

        True. Militaries are all about sensible violence. That's part of the reason they emphasize discipline so much.

        If they truly taught senseless violence as a value, you'd see a much higher rate of veterans become criminals.

      • Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted.

        You could certainly call it "wrong;" I don't see how you can call it "twisted", however, as far from being deviant, the glorification of deadly combat has been a historical norm.

        Even today, King Arthur and the Knights of Round Table, or The Three Musketeers, are still instilled as childhood heroes. And gaining glory and honor through deadly combat is pretty much their entire theme.

        Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization.

        I think the violence in "Smash Bros." is rather more senseless than the violence in "America's Army."

      • Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

        The army does not use "senseless violence". They are very clear on the importance of shooting only the bad guys, and Iraq demonstrates that they have a good success rate at doing so, at least compared to the whole rest of the history of war.

        Your argument is a straw man, and not even a clever one.

        Incidentally, one of the basic principles of civilization is "Keep a lot of violence ready for when the barbarians attack." Any civilization that fails to do so will end soon after. Don't let the current Pax Americana, the product of the West's skill with violence, lead you to believe that barbarians aren't still knocking at the gate.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      Sorry to be a little harsh here, but any kid stupid enough to sign up for the military based solely on some videogames he played in a recruiting center and the bullshit spiel of a recruiting officer is probably no big loss anyway. There are plenty of people who actually do join the military for good reasons (there are some serious advantages to military service), but morons who stumble into a recruitment center and sign up after being enthralled by some videogames are most definitely not among them.
  • Weird... (Score:2, Informative)

    by srlapo (1210476)

    The twitter feed was boring as usual, but it has an interesting observation...

    # A few in crowd have donned plain white masks... Not sure but they seemed to come from inside the aec

    And later...

    # Wow, about a half-dozen of the protesters in the white masks just got arrested. Hooked up with plastic cuffs and led away by police.

    # I think they planned to get arrested for symbolic reasons... Leader just announced that 7 were arrested. All in plain white msks

    So it was a publicity stunt? And why the people arrested

  • by tazanator (681948) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:38AM (#27828295)
    I have played AA for 6 years it's a great game, on the flip side I served as Infantry for 12 years. The AA game simulates the battle side of the army but nothing about the other phases (book training, guard duty, and cleaning the base) AA tends to glorify the battle side. I entered in 1989 and served till 2001 (medical discharge) I volunteer to go anywhere I could, but was never deployed outside the US. while the war training was fun it wasn't a common ordeal during my service time. on a final note http://www.pvtmurphy.com/Prints/Any%20Luck.htm [pvtmurphy.com]
  • In Norway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:44AM (#27828323)

    In Norway we have semi-obligatory military service for males (basically a 1 year training program to be prepared in the event of an invasion. After that it's possible to join the army full time. Semi-obligatory because it's not that hard to get out of. So the following could be considered a recruitment event). All males of around 18 years old (and I think they've made attending this obligatory for females too now, just not obligatory for them to serve) are called in for a "Sesjon" (Session?) to determine physical and mental abilities, as well as a minor health checkup.

    One of the first things they did was show us a movie, to spark our interest, I suppose. But all it was were kids driving around in tanks, climbing stuff and being out in nature. Not a single image of what war actually is. Not even a drop of blood.

    Truth in advertising should be much more prevalent and mandatory when we're dealing with the worst of all things, war.

    • Re:In Norway (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Vintermann (400722) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:26AM (#27828503) Homepage

      Well, to defend our glorious military (which I opted out of the non-easy way, by becoming a CO), there probably isn't much blood involved in conscripted Norwegian military service. No conscript is shipped abroad, even on the most sleepy peacekeeping mission, without applying for it himself.

      Support for conscription would plummet if it did.

    • Re:In Norway (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Krneki (1192201) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:34AM (#27828541)
      It was the same in our country (Slovenia), until too many people realized how stupid war is. Eventually too many treated the army as a joke forcing the state to employ soldiers as professional. Now we have very few soldiers, but they are all motivated professionals. Luring teenagers into the army is a dirty trick that eventually will backfire. P.S: We do not have a military court, all soldiers mistakes are judged by the civil court.
      • Re:In Norway (Score:5, Interesting)

        by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:25AM (#27829563) Homepage Journal

        Luring teenagers into the army is a dirty trick that eventually will backfire.

        It will lower standards a little, but not nearly as much as instituting a draft. The problem the US military faces right now is that the ongoing deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan require a lot of bodies. Not because many of them die, but because it's unpleasant duty and people tend not to want to do it for very long. Since it's an all-volunteer military force, recruiters to do whatever they can to motivate people to volunteer.

        The real solution here isn't to shut down the recruiters, it's to reduce the demands on the military, i.e. get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

        Actually, I think we should return to the Constitutional form of national defense. Get rid of the "standing army" almost entirely. Limit the armed forces to the high-tech forces that can't be staffed on a volunteer basis plus a training cadre capable of quickly training and equipping large numbers of volunteers for the bulk of the ground forces. Shift most of those forces to the state national guards (organized militia). All we really need at the federal level during peacetime is the Navy and maybe a core staff to coordinate the training and equipping of national guard forces to maintain consistency and standards. Finally, repeal the NFA and encourage citizens to own and practice with military-style weapons in standard caliber to maintain/rebuild the "rifle behind every blade of grass" defense (unorganized militia). But I realize that following the Constitution is a radical idea.

    • by gerddie (173963)

      Truth in advertising ...

      Sounds like an interesting concept, care to elaborate ...?

    • One of the first things they did was show us a movie, to spark our interest, I suppose. But all it was were kids driving around in tanks, climbing stuff and being out in nature. Not a single image of what war actually is. Not even a drop of blood.

      In Norway we have semi-obligatory military service for males (basically a 1 year training program to be prepared in the event of an invasion

      So how often is Norway invaded that that video is not a fully accurate depiction of what they should expect?

    • when we're dealing with the worst of all things, war.

      War's bad, but some things are worse.

  • !Anti-war protesters (Score:2, Informative)

    by lm317t (971782)

    "Seven anti-war protesters were arrested in Philadelphia on Saturday during a protest rally and march which targeted the Army Experience Center, a high-tech recruitment center which uses PC and Xbox games and simulations to attract potential recruits...

    It looks like they meant anti-war ralliers or war protesters, not anti-war protesters. The media in general constantly seems to repeat this phrase incorrectly.

    • It looks like they meant anti-war ralliers or war protesters, not anti-war protesters. The media in general constantly seems to repeat this phrase incorrectly.

      Got to love the double negation :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      Once again, someone fails to understand the associativity rules in English. The hyphen means that 'anti-war' is a compound adjective being applied to 'protesters,' i.e they are protesters with the 'anti-war' attribute; people who are protesting and are against war. If they were anti war-protesters, they would be people who were against war protesters.

      The media in general constantly seems to repeat this phrase incorrectly.

      No, they use it correctly.

  • by markbark (174009) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:59AM (#27828671) Homepage

    It's just like XBox -- only you die.

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @08:04AM (#27828709)
    Anyone who played an online multiplayer shooter will attest that the experience is very close to real life war. The fresh young recruit steps onto the battlefield, expecting a grand battle the likes of the opening of Saving Private Ryan, only to end up in the scope of a spawn point camping sniper who is only farming headshots on the newbies...
  • by Anonymous Coward

    On one hand, I have great respect for the military and the sacrifices soldiers are willing to make to protect their fellow citizens, whether fighting somewhere else in the world to preserve democracy (yes, I really believe that's what they are doing, historically and now) or serving at home during disaster relief, helping their fellow citizens directly.

    On the other hand war is something to be abhorred and avoided. It's always a last resort. Soldiers are a precious resource that we (as the people ultimatel

  • by Slider451 (514881) <slider451@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @08:35AM (#27828963)

    Typical uninformed protestors.

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/03/army_recruiting_numbers_031109w/ [armytimes.com]

    The military is enjoying a recruiting boom thanks to the poor economy. Enlistment bonuses are getting cut and the military is getting much more selective in whom they accept. This year in particular is a recruiter's wet dream.

    All this "experience" does is reach out to Generation Y in a new way.

  • by Chas (5144) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @08:41AM (#27829003) Homepage Journal

    Okay. Films like FMJ, that (rightfully or not) demonize military culture, are okay. But a video game depicting a limited facet of the military experience is horrible evil propaganda?

    • Okay. Films like FMJ, that (rightfully or not) demonize military culture, are okay. But a video game depicting a limited facet of the military experience is horrible evil propaganda?

      FMJ does not "demonize" - it is simply realistic. It doesn't glorify either, though...
      "A" video game may or may not be propaganda but "THE" game (America's Army) sure is. But is it "evil" and "demonizing"? Well...

      I guess it is exactly the case as with you and FMJ.
      Depending on which side of the fence you are - both are either "depicting a limited facet of the military experience" or "being evil propaganda tools".

      Personally, I find that game to be simply boring.
      Its work vs fun ratio is really bad, plus you on

  • Inside one of those centers, a youngster playing for ages, along comes a recruiter.

    Recruiter: Hi there, I see you're pretty good.
    Young person: Yeah. Bob, can ya snipe that asshole shooting at me?
    Recruiter: Well, I'm pretty sure you'd be a great soldier yourself.
    YP: Maybe. I see him, in the bushes there! Don't aim, rattle down a belt, dammit!
    Recruiter: Maybe you should consider joining the army.
    YP: Whatever. Fuck! We're under fire, get over to the bushes and call in some arti!
    Recruiter: You can enlist right

  • by aquatone282 (905179)

    Military recruiting has never been about truth in advertising. When I recruited for the USAF ('93-'97, 368 RCS OL-FD Reno, NV), I hung the front page of the European Stars and Stripes printed on the first day of the first Gulf War on the front wall of my office, the first thing a visitor saw when they came through the front door. It was a night-vision picture of an F-15E Strike Eagle, fully loaded with death and destruction, refueling from a KC-135 aerial tanker with WAR in a 3-inch bold font above the ph

Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.

Working...