Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Games

Military Personnel Weigh In On Being Taliban In Medal of Honor 171

Posted by Soulskill
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Military Personnel Weigh In On Being Taliban In Medal of Honor

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:29PM (#33319160)
    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....."
  • It's just a game (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nick (109)
    Get over it.
    • Fucking A. So sick of this politicising of gaming.

    • Sadly, that line of reasoning doesn't work, it's never worked for movies. Movies have been around longer, and still we have people who think that movies should only be allowed to contain sanitized bible stories.

      For that matter, saying "It's just a walmart greeting, get over it" didn't work when the fox news crowd found out that walmart was saying (gasp) "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

      To be fair though, that -was- actually a nefarious plot by us evil "secular progressives" to destroy american

    • exactly, real war profiteering is the likes of Blackwater or Halburton.... the ones in charge of PALLETS of cash and "lost" it. The ones that RUN A BUSINESS killing people for hire, not for their country. It's a considerably larger market than the video game companies. Complaining about video games would be like complaining about WW2 John Wayne movies.

      Any good officer would have no problem playing the other side... that's how you learn to win. Military plays "war games" like that all the time in training,

  • Profit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:34PM (#33319206)

    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Dr. Hellno (1159307) on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:58PM (#33319480)
      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?

    • by morari (1080535)

      My thoughts exactly. It's pretty fucking amusing to hear the military complain about people profiting from war. Give me a break.

    • by Abcd1234 (188840)


      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.

      What's confusing? Did that person criticize these games while professing a love for military contractors? No.

      TBH, I think the most confusing thing is that your idiotic post was modded up.

    • by bhiestand (157373)

      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.

      But without profit they wouldn't have any incentive to do it, and that'd just be terrible!

  • Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:34PM (#33319208) Journal

    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.

    • It isn't me. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AnonymousClown (1788472) on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:41PM (#33319288)

      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,

    • by dunezone (899268)
      With that logic you could say all books, films, and games based on any war is profiteering.

      Heck you could say Senator McCain is profiteering when he talks about his military experience when campaigning which ultimately lands him a job which he makes an income from.

      This is a typical fuss over nothing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jd (1658)

        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

        • by genner (694963)

          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.

          So he's fine with Left for Dead?

      • Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)

        by eln (21727) on Friday August 20, 2010 @05:16PM (#33319680) Homepage
        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).
        • by Kjella (173770)

          You forgot probably the most important large scale way of war profiteering, which applies to all whose business is war and more war means more profits. That is to intentionally not make the best effort to end the war, but rather to extend the conflict and make their services more needed. I guess the most clear cut example is being an arms dealer selling to both sides of the war, but there are many subtler ways to rack up excessive war profits. I don't see how that applies to any game developers though since

        • by dedeman (726830)
          Thank you for posting what I wuold have said.

          I've actually been called a war profiteer by someone with no idea what they were talking about. Things play out pretty simlply to the person with no experience or stake in the military, or armed conflict.

          To the simple mind, anyone working for the military in any capacity, is a "war profiteer", from the 18 yr old infantryman, to the lunch lady serving food on a base back in the US.

          A video game manufacturer, or a movie studio, or X cultural enterprise depi
    • Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)

      by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:50PM (#33319396)

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nedlohs (1335013)

        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

      • by geekoid (135745)

        The winner always profits from war. Getting something is what War is about.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dkleinsc (563838)

          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 effectivel

          • by geekoid (135745)

            Profits aren't always the immediate material land.

            " but neutral parties who trade with both sides can often profit more. "

            so? that has notnhig to do with my point... plus you're only measuring the immediate monetary wealth. The can be a lot more then that. Freedom for example.

            I

          • Re:Ha! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by ToasterMonkey (467067) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:00PM (#33320780) Homepage

            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.

        • by Dahamma (304068)

          Not at all. Ever heard of a Pyrrhic victory?

          The US has spent about a trillion dollars and effectively "won" the Iraq war. Now the economy is in shambles, and the national debt is mindboggling. What was the net gain?

    • by hedwards (940851)
      It's hardly surprising, it's hardly unheard of for a soldier to take the fascist account of the war and get upset that people don't recognize a pointless and distracting war as legitimately protecting the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, dieing in a uniform is not sufficient to consider it a act of protection for the nation at large.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:36PM (#33319244)

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

  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:42PM (#33319304) Homepage

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:45PM (#33319332) Homepage Journal

    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by rasper99 (247555) on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:52PM (#33319422)

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

      • by geekoid (135745)

        I remember.

    • Don't forget the soldiers. They also profit from the was (as long as they survive). I somehow doubt that the person complaining about people profiteering will give his entire combat pay to charity.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        I did mention that in my post. If a soldier does die, then his family profits.

        For the record, even when it's a war we shouldn't be in I Fully support are soldiers. They should get what they need.

        This is why ti was appalling when the Republican would always tie fund the soldiers would need for equipment to discussions about whether they should continue the war.

        SO if you wanted to vote on ending the war, or limiting the scope you would also have to vote to cut what the soldiers need to for their job.

        Say what

      • We get paid the same, war, or no war. We even get the GI Bill, without a war. Somewhere there is a lower class family who's son or daughter volunteered to defend this country, and hopes to someday get an education in return, and maybe a better life than their folks had. But, whatever, they are probably just greedy bloodthirsty goons bent on making a profit.

        This thread was originally about profiteering, and now you're trying to claim that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines make a profit from war?

        Read

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by JDAustin (468180)

      Don't forget all the professional peace advocates profiting from war.....after all without war there would be no peace and they would be out of a job.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @05:40PM (#33319874)
      "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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday August 20, 2010 @06:26PM (#33320176)

        "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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by hairyfish (1653411)
        "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.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ncgnu08 (1307339)

        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

      • Slashdot.org knows who you are.  Use TOR.

        Just sayin' for your future reference.
  • Space Ship Pilots Weigh In On Playing As Space Rocks In Asteroids Deluxe II RPG: The Revenge of the Asteroids! It's just as relevant, no, MORE relevant!

  • ...but if we changed the locations to fake ones and the names of groups like the Taliban to imaginary groups it's no longer profiteering? Everyones trying to make a buck, not sure why this is so surprising.
    • ...changed the locations to fake ones and the names of groups like the Taliban to imaginary groups

      That might not be so bad if they are more creative than the knobs that came up with "Count Dooku", "Darth Sidious", and "General Grievous".

    • by Manfre (631065)

      Maybe in the expansion they'll let you play as the Talibon.

  • by rwa2 (4391) * on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:51PM (#33319406) Homepage Journal

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

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

    • by Supurcell (834022)
      In the America's Army game you always played as the American team and the enemy always looked like insurgents/terrorists. It was a pretty neat idea, but games that aren't trying to brainwash you into joining the army usually allow you to play who ever you want to.
  • All war games, from chess (probably the game where the author wanted to have the biggest profit ever, according to the myth) to latest Medal of Honor profits from war What makes right a game about WWII? Or selling toy tanks for childs. Should Sun Tzu book be banned? Not defending that the games should profit from war, but the notion that just that game is wrong doing what everyone else is doing, probably including most of army.
    • by Arimus (198136)

      Think the point is not that it is a game portraying two sides in a war, but that it is two sides in an on-going and current conflict....

      Personally don't give two hoots, whether the side I'm playing is taliban, communist, alien, whatever its my side and I'll play to win, at the end of the day in a game I forget the backstory and focus on the battle in hand.

      Don't recall calls for world in conflict to be banned because it showed a US commander dropping a nuke on an American town nuking his own battalion... nor

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Posting anon because of above: I don't have any problem playing make believe. We do it all the time, look up what aggressors do in exercises. They use taliban tactics and pretend to be taliban to prepare our soldiers for war. On the flip side, playing as taliban is also make believe in video games that may or may not be beneficial. It may cause soldiers to realize that the taliban are people too. It may also get them comfortable fighting next to people who look, dress, and sound like that.

  • Seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stms (1132653)
    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.
  • We'd better ban any books or movies that tell any story from a non-American point of view. Oh wait, that's right... video games must be treated differently than all other media. I forgot about the, "freedom of speech, except for video games" clause in the Constitution.
  • by Zocalo (252965) on Friday August 20, 2010 @05:07PM (#33319608) Homepage
    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by scaryjohn (120394)

      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.

  • Counter-Strike? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @05:19PM (#33319712)

    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.

  • The beta was terrible.
  • by Anomalyx (1731404) on Friday August 20, 2010 @05:29PM (#33319790)
    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).
  • Candy Land! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dahamma (304068) on Friday August 20, 2010 @06:26PM (#33320178)

    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.

  • Was that you spent the last 1/3rd of the game running around killing American soldiers. I found it to be a very jarring sort of set of circumstances, I suppose thats what it was designed to be, but then again I thought the story in MW2 was heavily convoluted with crap and was a terrible sequel (at least story wise) to the original MW anyhow. That being said, I can't imagine being the Taliban is going to be any fun. Do I get to stone chicks to death and cut off their noses too? Perhaps I'll get to play as so
  • Backgrounds? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by c_jonescc (528041) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:09PM (#33320828)
    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.
  • by mykos (1627575) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:33PM (#33320972)
    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.
  • Always whining.

    I'd love to see some sort of strategy/action hybrid where you lead a terrorist cell and try to being about the collapse of a country into chaos. You'd have to choose who to send on suicide missions, scout out bomb builders, etc.

  • by koan (80826)

    With the comment "Don't really care which side just want to win" and that's how it is for me in MW2, don't care if I'm special forces or insurgents in a favela, I just want to win.

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...