Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Military United States Games

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

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This discussion has been archived.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 @05:58PM (#33319472)

    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.

  • Re:Profit (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dr. Hellno ( 1159307 ) on Friday August 20, 2010 @05:58PM (#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?

  • Re:Ha! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nedlohs ( 1335013 ) on Friday August 20, 2010 @05:59PM (#33319496)

    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...

  • by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Friday August 20, 2010 @06:07PM (#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:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JDAustin ( 468180 ) on Friday August 20, 2010 @06:11PM (#33319646)

    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 @06:40PM (#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:Ha! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ToasterMonkey ( 467067 ) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:00PM (#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.

  • Re:Profit (Score:2, Interesting)

    by orphiuchus ( 1146483 ) on Saturday August 21, 2010 @12:04AM (#33321616)
    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.
  • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ncgnu08 ( 1307339 ) on Saturday August 21, 2010 @09:07AM (#33323406)

    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.

  • Re:Ha! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ToasterMonkey ( 467067 ) on Saturday August 21, 2010 @08:55PM (#33328782) Homepage

    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.

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.