215 replies to this topic

[michael_gry]

Perhaps differ is the incorrect usage.  You cannot understand my reasons for serving and I cannot (and will not try) to persuade you otherwise.

As far as the second part of your post:  I have heard that one before, too.  Are you an enemy combatant?  Are you serving in an armed force that is actively trying to harm americans?  If not, then you have little to worry about.  The rules of engagement are clearly stated before a conflict.  Our rules are clear:  Do not harm civilians and allow surrender of enemy forces should they desire it.  A dead enemy can give you no intelligence benefits.  As I have stated before, there will be bad apples in any barrel.  When thrust into a situation in which the enemy is not clearly identifiable then decisions have to be made.  Hard and difficult decisions made at a split second can make the difference between life and death.  Soldiers go to prison for making the wrong decisions.  Many are on trial right now.

If Croatia declared war on America and invaded and I decided that I wanted to fight the invaders, then you as a soldier would have the responsibility to do what was expected of you and kill the enemy (me).  It would not mean that you had any feelings about me one way or another.  If you are not ready to make such a commitment then do not join the military (if such a choice is given to you as it is to us).  I did not join the army to fight a pre-emptive war, indeed I did not believe that we would ever come to that.  I joined because of misguided patriotism. I stayed because I swiftly came to realize that the only thing standing between the world I used to know and the chaos and ugliness that inhabits much of the world was the fact that a few rough men and women stand ready to do violence on behalf of those that do not wish to see it.  Our civilization is a thin coat of paint, one only has to look at the newscasts to see what will happen if the destructive side of human nature is allowed to run its course.  IMHO there is not Good or Evil, just as nature itself is neither good nor evil and can be both kind and cruel without regard.

God, I'm preaching again.  Sorry.

[michael_gry]

Look,  I am going to finish up my side of this right now.  We differ.  I can see that you have strong feelings and this is a Forum and not a private chat room.  I do not wish to go around and around about this as it will lead nowhere fast, and perhaps lead also to bad vibes all around.  I will not reply to any more posts on this thread, regardless of my personal feelings about them.  Gaming is one of my hobbies, not debate.  I find myself meandering about without forming decent cohesive statements, perhaps because I too have strong feelings (both for and against) what goes on around me.  If you have watched full metal jacket (code word:  duality) maybe you would understand.  I am going to look around on other forums and perhaps have a decent comment or two about some of my favorite GAMES.

very respectfully,
Michael

[Sinke]

No,no- preaching is fine. I longed for a opponent like you in this discussion.

Quote

Perhaps differ is the incorrect usage. You cannot understand my reasons for serving and I cannot (and will not try) to persuade you otherwise.

I do not ask you to persuade me, but explain me your reasons. When I asked you about whether you would kill me or not, I was infact targeting on a specific contradicition I find in your beliefs.

If you would have an order to kill me because of my opinion- that would contradict the values of your society. If your commander would say I am threat to your society ( and not giving you proofs )- would you still do so?

As you probably know, Iraq case is probably the best example of this. Your orders were to invade a foregin country, however the invasion was illegal and in direct collision with International Warfare Regulations. In order to justify your job, your leaders had to provide a whole ton of documents and systematisations which would make you justiful mean of defense of your nation. They did not do so.

The reason why they didn't do this is because declaring war status with other country would make USA aggressor and it would immediately fall under sanctions of UN.

If they didn't follow these regulations- aren't you more loyal to your commander than to your country?

The consequence is that your troops in Iraq have commited an organised act of war crime- an occupation which is illegal and against the law.  The Army of US now stands as occupator force, police, military and system of law and order in Iraq. This status needed to have a political argumentation in diplomatic means with size of a whale.  

While I do understand that many american soldiers are "fine apples in the barrel", each one of them participates in this act and therefore breaks the rules of International Warfare. Pre-emptive strike against Iraq was justified with tons of satellite photos showing weapons of mass destruction. Nobody mentions these photos today, since no weapon was found. What are the machines on the photographs if not rocket launchers? If not a single was found, what happened?

That is where I can't follow you. If your commanders are breaking the laws, isn't there a body of American legal system which would stop them? If they would order you to vote for Bush again ( if that would be possible ) would you comply? They broke the rules which were there to protect you, what would stop them to do that? I know it won't happen, but I just can't understand how chain of command can function if there are no real rules and obligations to them by your officers.






Tc.... I really hoped for a conversation.

Well, it doesn't matter really. As far  Full Metal Jacket- since I am studying film art I know a lot about it.

That is what started this topic. Game AA doesn't show you that part of the war.
Or.... maybe it is part of it?

[Juni Ori]

Quote

Nobody mentions these photos today,

Why do I keep hearing this phrase?

Anyways, you don't seem to be able to take the other perspective, Sinke. He, with other US soldiers, didn't possibly receive enough information and they still do have sworn their oaths. And what would had happened, if US forces on Iraq soil would had refused to obey orders, after they found out there were no WMDs? Total chaos. And don't forget, US didn't go alone, so I don't believe UN could had done anything at all, even if they had officially declared war. And what is declaration of war? How often has the initial aggressor first declared war and after that invaded?

Anyways, if I ever had to meet enemy on the field, I hope it was someone like Michael.

[A. J. Raffles]

Sinke, on Jul 3 2006, 10:19 PM, said:

By the way, I certainly hope your actual sarcasms in last few posts are not a shallow attempt to make me angry, with expectations I would reply in similar manner- because of what Tai would close this topic.

I can close topics too, you know. If I wanted to close it I could have done it at several points, but I obviously didn't, so I don't see why you're flinging wild accusations at me all of a sudden. I never even participated in this discussion.

[Moogle]

This whole discussion is rather idiotic anyways in my opinion.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Yeah it is.

[Tom Henrik]

And it's not about AA anymore, either.

Please get back on track, or I will close it. This is going nowhere.

[Sebatianos]

Tom Henrik, on Jun 23 2006, 09:48 AM, said:

There is a lot to every country's military, it doesn't just involve war. And the military doesn't choose who they go to war against, politicians do.

Very funny!

Especially because it's usually the big lobbies who influence daily politics and the manufacturers of arms are among the strongest lobbies there are (and they are on extremely friendly bases with high brass - the part of the army that sits in an office looking at the statistics of a fight).

This game was made to promote the army, then again US TV is full of comertial for people joining the armed forces (and army, navy, air force, national guard and who knows who else compete against each other to get more people in).

And the fact it's a good game is nothing strange, that just goes to prove they spent enough resources on it, to really make the message go accross. There are also many movies promoting the armed forces. It's just that it's usually America. I mean, you don't get too see too many movies about let's say Chineese armed forces (as promotion) and that's mostly because you don't get that many Chinese movies either.

So if you want to stop playing this game - simply stop playing all military games, or accept the fact that every little thing is just a cog in some machinery - and it is (I'm not saying that's good or bad, that's just the fact things work in a society that is so interdependent).

[Sinke]

Juni,

I understand michael gry's position quite well. He is a soldier which believes in  the system. He doesn't like the present polices of it, he even confessed he doubted his trust in justification of war in Iraq.  He believes soldier needs discipline. But I don't understand why he doesn't expect this discipline from his supreme commander. No- "expect" is not a word- " demand" is what one needs here.

All I say is that this war showed how fragile and inpractical the system is. Micael Gry's has followed orders which were against regulations of his work, he was fighting people in Iraq without justification. Bush in his power today can attack any country in the world  the same way he attacked Iraq. All he has to do is make accusations the specific country has terrorist activity, and his soldiers will need to obey his commands. Not much of the sense there.

I think it is insulting to Michael when somebody claims that soldiers should ignore the fact no weapons were found in Iraq. He risked his life because of that. War in Iraq is lost, it was never meant to be won. Thousands of killed civillians, hundreds of killed American soldiers, anarchy and mockery of the world are price for oil. Were those satellite photos real? If they were not- are they fake? If they are fake- what does it say about your leaders, and of system you believe in. If things are like that, than George Bush took advantage of his courageous soldiers and used their patriotism to achieve his own selfish goals. You all admire your soldiers- but I assure you that they will rebel if this doesn't come to an end. In order to bring that country to it's feet again, you will need more troops stationed there and they will have to stay at least a decade. I doubt you are ready for that, and your soldiers even less

American soldiers are not a tool, they are people of flesh, blood, bone and soul and as that they have every right for justice

A.J.

Well, I'd rather have you in discussion than reading your "this topic is boring". If you took effort to write that, then I guess you don't find it as unimportant as you claim.


Rest,

Idiotic discussion? To me it is idiotic to write that. If you don't like this discussion- post somewhere else on this forum. Isn't that the brightest thing to do?


-----

I'm ready to change the game of a topic, really.
Do you think that designers of "Panzer general" had to put holocaust in the game? I mean, that game is a classic where you lead Germans through the WW2, but there are no historical referances to many things. I don't think designers are nazi, I just find it difficult to go with it.

Also, are there any other games from your experience which you think are politically manipulative?

[Blood-Pigggy]

Dude, I was one of the people that STARTED this discussion, it has become stupid and idiotic.
If a mod can close this topic, I have the right to call it idiotic, and Moogle has my permission, so he can do it anyway

[taikara]

@Sinke: People are getting annoyed at the repetative nature of this discussion, seemingly just about everyone but you. In fact, several people have vocally abstained from the topic, likely due to this issue.

I am going to temporarily close this topic, as it seems it's getting to a boiling point, what with people confronting each other about whether this topic is boring, annoying, idiotic, etc. It is not my desire to prevent discussion, it is my wish to prevent the discussion from stagnating and thereby agitating the community.

Therefore, if you would like to continue the discussion, PM me if you wish to respond to this part of Sinke's post:

Quote

I'm ready to change the game of a topic, really.
Do you think that designers of "Panzer general" had to put holocaust in the game? I mean, that game is a classic where you lead Germans through the WW2, but there are no historical referances to many things. I don't think designers are nazi, I just find it difficult to go with it.

Also, are there any other games from your experience which you think are politically manipulative?

...or with another subject related with the topic.

I will happily re-open the topic once someone demonstrates a willingness to put aside their frustration and move forward in discussion.

Edit: Re-opened due to request from Juni Ori.

Try to drop the old stuff and continue on with the new stuff, please.

[Juni Ori]

Thanks, milady.

@Sinke: Well, as well you could find it difficult to go with following games (explanation in parenthesis):
Allied General (USA and UK, clearly rasistic and UK was still imperialist and Russia, another dictatorship, clearly responsible for even more deaths than Nazi-Germany!)
Civilization IV (numerous dictatorships, some of the best civics for continuous war are unliberal)
Every FPS (at least that I know) put into WW2 on Allied side (mocking German fighting skills, making them all look evil and totally ignoring civilian casualties caused by Allied massive and almost blind carpet bombings, not to forget that all items in Allied General)

For starters. I could dig out more, but those came in an instant to my mind! Still I admit playing every of them and actually enjoying them, having no regrets at all. Except that I still wait to get to play solo on German side.

[Sinke]

I feel numb really, now. People say topic is foolish, then admins close the topic saying they will reopen it later when tentions low,  then people few hours later send admin PMs they want the thread re-open, then they re-open.....

But ok, let's put the ball on the ground.  

Yeah, PG was not a good example of political propaganda in games. However, I remember when "Mein Kampf" was published in Croatia few years ago, and it made many people angry. The problem wasn't book so much as the fact that there was no foreword, telling what that movement in history did and what it means to humanity. So I drew the line with PG.

What wondered to my head- are you satisfied how your country ( this is general, for all countries ) is presented in football games? The other night some people wanted to contact EA complaining that Croatia was presented too weak in last FIFA.

Altough I think nothing is too low for Croatia in this moment  :

[Docktor_Worm]

I think that AA is one of the tamer games out there, in that there are no motives involved. The game simply shows you war through a soldier's eyes, instead of personifying the enemy.
Though I'm sure someone will interpret this as the army telling you to discard ethics, and become a mindless killing machine, I appreciate that the game doesn't force you to adopt the army's views in this game.
    AA also does a good job of not portraying the US Army as a mindless, GI Joe fantasy, since you and the enemy are on an equal playing field. Compare it to WWII FPS where the enemy is always portrayed as an easily killed German, that is ALWAYS evil, to me that is worse than a generic, but still evil terrorist. Seems to me like this is making the face of evil look like Germans instead of say, a generic enemy, who is just an enemy therfore and innately evil(In our view at least) a terrorist is always evil, but when you put motives behind them, like a terrorist from Iraq who may have different reasons for fighting,  it isn't always as simple as good or evil.