COMPGROUPS.NET | Search | Post Question | Groups | Stream | About | Register

### Medal of Honor - Afghanistan! This fall

• Email
• Follow

By EA and DICE!

Good things a comin'

http://www.medalofhonor.com/

XP not supported

 0
Reply pgratzi39 (6) 3/17/2010 11:50:14 PM

See related articles to this posting


"Phillip" <pgratzi39@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jq2q59bp3q1rjb5qlqkf33f7jsd4b90rn@4ax.com...
>
> By EA and DICE!
>
> Good things a comin'
>
> http://www.medalofhonor.com/
>

Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK
and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now?

I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this
shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan civilians
are being killed every day here.  Especially, perhaps, when the enemy use
civilians as both shields and diversions.

> XP not supported


 0

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:02:40 -0000, "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Phillip" <pgratzi39@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4jq2q59bp3q1rjb5qlqkf33f7jsd4b90rn@4ax.com...
>>
>> By EA and DICE!
>>
>> Good things a comin'
>>
>> http://www.medalofhonor.com/
>>
>
>Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK
>and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now?

It's a game, it's not meant to change anything.

>I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this
>shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan civilians
>are being killed every day here.  Especially, perhaps, when the enemy use
>civilians as both shields and diversions.

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, just don't buy it.  But be sure
not to watch any movies or television shows about the war, or listen
to songs whose lyrics touch on it, that would be hypocritical.

 0

Phillip wrote:

> Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, just don't buy it.  But be sure
> not to watch any movies or television shows about the war, or listen
> to songs whose lyrics touch on it, that would be hypocritical.

Yea, it's ok to make movies about current issues but not games. That's
just hypocrisy.

 0

Schrodinger wrote:

> I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this
> shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan
> civilians are being killed every day here.

What do you mean by "here" Are you there?

 0


"Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:D4eon.341997$_W6.324276@newsfe30.ams2... > > Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK > and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now? > I'd say not. We're 'supposedly' engaged in a war against terrorism around the globe, but every other game involves fighting terrorists... what's the difference. > I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this > shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan > civilians are being killed every day here. Especially, perhaps, when the > enemy use civilians as both shields and diversions. > I certainly can see the worth in being sensible about it; that is reflecting the reality rather some gung-ho, propagandising crap - but there is no reason to avoid this theatre. Personally, I'd welcome a game where the enemy *did* use civilians as cover and diversions. Imagine a raid on an Afghan village where you couldn't just shoot the crap out of everything - it would make an excellent game. Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and wedding parties with impunity.   0 Reply CJM 3/18/2010 10:24:44 AM >>I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this >>shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan >>civilians >>are being killed every day here. Especially, perhaps, when the enemy use >>civilians as both shields and diversions. totally agree - every other day here in the UK there's a news story about some soldier getting killed and footage of the grieving family and now here's a game to stick a virtual gun in your hand and say 'go kill some afghan rebels who don't like the West' > Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, just don't buy it. But be sure > not to watch any movies or television shows about the war, or listen > to songs whose lyrics touch on it, that would be hypocritical. Well films like the Hurt Locker tend to portray war with a degree of reality and honesty you don't find in most video games but I guess the difference is too subtle for you.   0 Reply Benedict 3/18/2010 12:31:13 PM On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:31:13 -0000, "Benedict" <nospamwanted@here.com> wrote: >>>I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this >>>shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan >>>civilians >>>are being killed every day here. Especially, perhaps, when the enemy use >>>civilians as both shields and diversions. > >totally agree - every other day here in the UK there's a news story about >some soldier getting >killed and footage of the grieving family and now here's a game to stick a >virtual gun in your hand >and say 'go kill some afghan rebels who don't like the West' So you're saying this game could be used as a recruiting tool, to help make some of our youth enthusiastic about signing up for the armed services? That could be a good thing, since we need folks to defend us, and between the whole Iraq/Afghan thing over the last decade or so, the armed services are finding recruiting to be getting tougher and tougher. Why else do you think the US Army would spend millions producing free FPS modern warfare games like America's Army? You're making an even better case for more games like this to hit the shelves. Maybe the armed services can pitch in and help fund them as recruiting tools, giving you a safer world to live in.   0 Reply Phillip 3/18/2010 1:15:38 PM On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, CJM wrote: > We're 'supposedly' engaged in a war against terrorism around the globe, > but every other game involves fighting terrorists... BTW, anyone annoyed like myself that fighting terrorists is out in the USA right now and good old Cold War against Russia is in? I mean look at the stupid stories of Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company! Do you Americans really fear that the Russians have nothing better to do than to invade the USA? The UDSSR couldn't conquer Afghanistan either so what a ridiculous idea... -- Dr. Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for Wesp5 @ Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Vorlonships   0 Reply Werner 3/18/2010 2:39:12 PM  "Phillip" <pgratzi39@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gk94q5drq0dthhnmcallltsm9h4dgtv61d@4ax.com... > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:31:13 -0000, "Benedict" <nospamwanted@here.com> > wrote: > >>>>I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this >>>>shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan >>>>civilians >>>>are being killed every day here. Especially, perhaps, when the enemy >>>>use >>>>civilians as both shields and diversions. >> >>totally agree - every other day here in the UK there's a news story about >>some soldier getting >>killed and footage of the grieving family and now here's a game to stick a >>virtual gun in your hand >>and say 'go kill some afghan rebels who don't like the West' > > So you're saying this game could be used as a recruiting tool, to help > make some of our youth enthusiastic about signing up for the armed > services? > No. That's not what he said at all. > That could be a good thing, since we need folks to defend us, and > between the whole Iraq/Afghan thing over the last decade or so, the > armed services are finding recruiting to be getting tougher and > tougher. Why else do you think the US Army would spend millions > producing free FPS modern warfare games like America's Army? > They stated it was to help with recruitment. Do let us know when you have a valid point. > You're making an even better case for more games like this to hit the > shelves. Maybe the armed services can pitch in and help fund them as > recruiting tools, giving you a safer world to live in. > Recruitment isn't a problem for us here it's money to buy kit and to pay the soldiers a decent wage.   0 Reply Schrodinger 3/18/2010 6:00:58 PM  "Boris Badenov" <boris@plotsylvanian.invalid> wrote in message news:hnsgl3$rcc$3@news.eternal-september.org... > Schrodinger wrote: > >> I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this >> shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan >> civilians are being killed every day here. > > What do you mean by "here" Are you there? Well, that is a relative term. To me, I am here - which to you is "there", whereas to somebody close to me I am also here, although if describing my position to somebody else close by I would also be "there". It gets quite confusing so I just ignore trolls instead.   0 Reply Schrodinger 3/18/2010 6:02:19 PM  "CJM" <cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message news:80edbdF6q0U1@mid.individual.net... > > > "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote in message > news:D4eon.341997$_W6.324276@newsfe30.ams2...
>>
>> Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK
>> and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now?
>>
>
> I'd say not. We're 'supposedly' engaged in a war against terrorism around
> the globe, but every other game involves fighting terrorists... what's the
> difference.
>
>> I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this
>> shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan
>> civilians are being killed every day here.  Especially, perhaps, when the
>> enemy use civilians as both shields and diversions.
>>
>
> I certainly can see the worth in being sensible about it; that is
> reflecting the reality rather some gung-ho, propagandising crap - but
> there is no reason to avoid this theatre. Personally, I'd welcome a game
> where the enemy *did* use civilians as cover and diversions. Imagine a
> raid on an Afghan village where you couldn't just shoot the crap out of
> everything - it would make an excellent game.

Good point, I suppose if it was done well it would.

> Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and wedding
> parties with impunity.

To be fair, most friendly fire is caused by the USA because they have so
many more troops on the ground and the vast majority of air assets.  I did
see some statistics that evidences their rate is the same as the UK's in
terms of percentages.

Having said that, my granddad used to say that when they were in France in
the 2nd World War, "If German planes went over, the English ducked, if
English planes went over, the Germans ducked and if American planes went
over - everyone ducked!"


 0

Schrodinger wrote:

> Well, that is a relative term. To me, I am here - which to you is
> "there", whereas to somebody close to me I am also here, although if
> describing my position to somebody else close by I would also be
> "there".  It gets quite confusing so I just ignore trolls instead.

It appears you are the troll this time. You said "here" which to me
implies you are in Afghanistan. Or perhaps you meant that you are in the
UK filling your face with chips and beans while pontificating on the
internet?

 0

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:00:58 -0000, "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote:

>> You're making an even better case for more games like this to hit the
>> shelves.  Maybe the armed services can pitch in and help fund them as
>> recruiting tools, giving you a safer world to live in.
>>
>
>Recruitment isn't a problem for us here it's money to buy kit and to pay the
>soldiers a decent wage.

Why so poverty stricken?  Electing leaders who don't know what they
are doing?  We had that problem here in the US from 2000-2008 as well.

 0


"Boris Badenov" <boris@plotsylvanian.invalid> wrote in message
news:hnu17v$o5t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Schrodinger wrote:
>
>> Well, that is a relative term. To me, I am here - which to you is
>> "there", whereas to somebody close to me I am also here, although if
>> describing my position to somebody else close by I would also be "there".
>> It gets quite confusing so I just ignore trolls instead.
>
> It appears you are the troll this time. You said "here" which to me
> implies you are in Afghanistan. Or perhaps you meant that you are in the
> UK filling your face with chips and beans while pontificating on the
> internet?

My cat's breath smells of cat food.


 0

Schrodinger wrote:

> My cat's breath smells of cat food.

Just as I thought, a windbag pontificating while munching on ticks of
toast in your cozy row house while stroking your cat, that has stinky
breath.

 0

"Schrodinger" <no@way.com> writes:

> "Phillip" <pgratzi39@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4jq2q59bp3q1rjb5qlqkf33f7jsd4b90rn@4ax.com...
>>
>> By EA and DICE!
>>
>> Good things a comin'
>>

>>
http://www.medalofhonor.com/
>>
>
> Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK
> and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now?

Why?

>
> I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this
> shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan civilians
> are being killed every day here.  Especially, perhaps, when the enemy use
> civilians as both shields and diversions.

Why?

Do your meal mouthed sympathies for the lads at the frontline only apply
to you own nationality or race or are you equally disgusted by games
which reflect massacre, hurt or pain in other parts of the world which
occur at the same time?

 0

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i9gb77-iia.ln1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> writes:
>
>> "Phillip" <pgratzi39@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4jq2q59bp3q1rjb5qlqkf33f7jsd4b90rn@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> By EA and DICE!
>>>
>>> Good things a comin'
>>>
>
>>>
> http://www.medalofhonor.com/
>>>
>>
>> Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK
>> and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now?
>
> Why?
>
>>
>> I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this
>> shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan
>> civilians
>> are being killed every day here.  Especially, perhaps, when the enemy use
>> civilians as both shields and diversions.
>
> Why?
>
> Do your meal mouthed sympathies for the lads at the frontline only apply
> to you own nationality or race or are you equally disgusted by games
> which reflect massacre, hurt or pain in other parts of the world which
> occur at the same time?

Oh dear, Walter. Not your best effort. Perhaps too obvious.  Try again.


 0

"Boris Badenov" <boris@plotsylvanian.invalid> wrote in message
news:hnukfh$39u$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Schrodinger wrote:
>
>> My cat's breath smells of cat food.
>
> Just as I thought, a windbag pontificating while munching on ticks of
> toast in your cozy row house while stroking your cat, that has stinky
> breath.

It isn't stinky, it just smells of cat food.  It's not that bad at all.


 0


"Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:mYton.522312$5n1.407528@newsfe01.ams2... > >>> >> >> I certainly can see the worth in being sensible about it; that is >> reflecting the reality rather some gung-ho, propagandising crap - but >> there is no reason to avoid this theatre. Personally, I'd welcome a game >> where the enemy *did* use civilians as cover and diversions. Imagine a >> raid on an Afghan village where you couldn't just shoot the crap out of >> everything - it would make an excellent game. > > Good point, I suppose if it was done well it would. I could see the devs doing a good job, but I reckon they won't because of the perceived problem of have legions of spotty smacktards deliverately massacring civilian NPCs. They could build suitable penalties into the game to compensate, but as ever, they'll simply avoid the issue by having the usual unpopulated landscapes.   0 Reply CJM 3/19/2010 10:55:49 AM  "Werner Spahl" <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.64.1003181530530.2191@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de... > BTW, anyone annoyed like myself that fighting terrorists is out in the USA > right now and good old Cold War against Russia is in? I mean look at the > stupid stories of Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company! Do you Americans really > fear that the Russians have nothing better to do than to invade the USA? > I know what you mean... Rogue elements of a major foreign power doing something with a 'superweapon' is a complete cliche, but the reason they do it is because real terrorists groups don't have much of a capability for direct combat (nor do they have the equipment) and they don't want to continually use China as the enemy (lest it becomes real in a hurry!).   0 Reply CJM 3/19/2010 10:59:52 AM "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> writes: > "Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:i9gb77-iia.ln1@news.eternal-september.org... >> "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> writes: >> >>> "Phillip" <pgratzi39@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4jq2q59bp3q1rjb5qlqkf33f7jsd4b90rn@4ax.com... >>>> >>>> By EA and DICE! >>>> >>>> Good things a comin' >>>> >> >>>> >> http://www.medalofhonor.com/ >>>> >>> >>> Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK >>> and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now? >> >> Why? >> >>> >>> I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this >>> shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan >>> civilians >>> are being killed every day here. Especially, perhaps, when the enemy use >>> civilians as both shields and diversions. >> >> Why? >> >> Do your meal mouthed sympathies for the lads at the frontline only apply >> to you own nationality or race or are you equally disgusted by games >> which reflect massacre, hurt or pain in other parts of the world which >> occur at the same time? > > Oh dear, Walter. Not your best effort. Perhaps too obvious. Try again. > Seriously. Despite the obvious "troll" its only so because it is asking you to justify yours. Why do you think this game is inappropriate?   0 Reply Walter 3/19/2010 11:02:32 AM Walter Mitty wrote: > Seriously. Despite the obvious "troll" its only so because it is asking > you to justify yours. Why do you think this game is inappropriate? If you don't know, then no one can explain it to you.   0 Reply Morgan 3/19/2010 1:55:47 PM Morgan <nospam@nospam.co.uk> writes: > Walter Mitty wrote: > >> Seriously. Despite the obvious "troll" its only so because it is asking >> you to justify yours. Why do you think this game is inappropriate? > > If you don't know, then no one can explain it to you. > You snipped. Why? I realise your nym is almost an acronym for Moron, but there is no need to nail the point home. I asked a perfectly valid question. You have ignored and snipped the justifications for asking that question which I provided. It ill befits you to support your attack on me be snipping and misrepresenting my views. So for the benefit of others, so they can see how you try to misrepresent my question, I will restore the caveats I provided:- ,---- | Do your meal mouthed sympathies for the lads at the frontline only apply | to you own nationality or race or are you equally disgusted by games | which reflect massacre, hurt or pain in other parts of the world which | occur at the same time? ---- That's better.   0 Reply Walter 3/19/2010 2:08:11 PM Phillip wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:02:40 -0000, "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote: > >> >> "Phillip" <pgratzi39@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4jq2q59bp3q1rjb5qlqkf33f7jsd4b90rn@4ax.com... >>> By EA and DICE! >>> >>> Good things a comin' >>> >>> http://www.medalofhonor.com/ >>> >> Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK >> and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now? > > It's a game, it's not meant to change anything. I think it's pretty obvious that he meant that the fact that the war/skirmish/conflict/whatever is on going. Not that the game should somehow change things. And I have to say that I agree 100% with him. >> I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this >> shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan civilians >> are being killed every day here. Especially, perhaps, when the enemy use >> civilians as both shields and diversions. > > Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, just don't buy it. But be sure > not to watch any movies or television shows about the war, or listen > to songs whose lyrics touch on it, that would be hypocritical. Do you honestly think that there is any legitimate comparison between how a modern film would approach the subject matter and how a COD game would approach it.   0 Reply Morgan 3/19/2010 2:13:47 PM Walter Mitty wrote: > Morgan <nospam@nospam.co.uk> writes: > >> Walter Mitty wrote: >> >>> Seriously. Despite the obvious "troll" its only so because it is asking >>> you to justify yours. Why do you think this game is inappropriate? >> If you don't know, then no one can explain it to you. >> > > You snipped. Yes Walt. I snipped, yet strangely enough me snipping text from a reply doesn't remove it from the preceding post. As this post is in the context of a single game (not games in general) and Schrodinger mentioned people on both sides of the conflict I'd say that your question is neither valid nor pertinent. As I said, if you can't work it out for yourself then no one can explain it to you. Also it was a lame troll on your part.   0 Reply Morgan 3/19/2010 2:31:31 PM On 3/18/2010 2:06 PM, Schrodinger wrote: > > > "CJM" <cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message > news:80edbdF6q0U1@mid.individual.net... >> >> Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and >> wedding parties with impunity. > > To be fair, most friendly fire is caused by the USA because they have so > many more troops on the ground and the vast majority of air assets. I > did see some statistics that evidences their rate is the same as the > UK's in terms of percentages. > > Having said that, my granddad used to say that when they were in France > in the 2nd World War, "If German planes went over, the English ducked, > if English planes went over, the Germans ducked and if American planes > went over - everyone ducked!" > Are there any valid statistics? It seems to me that far more innocent men, women and children are killed in Afghanistan by locals - and deliberately too - than are killed by Americans accidentally. That's not an excuse, merely an observation. At least American forces are *trying* not to harm civilians. -- "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny." - Edmund Burke   0 Reply Briarroot 3/19/2010 3:41:20 PM On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:20 -0400, Briarroot <briarroot@gmail.com> wrote: >On 3/18/2010 2:06 PM, Schrodinger wrote: >> >> >> "CJM" <cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message >> news:80edbdF6q0U1@mid.individual.net... >>> > >>> Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and >>> wedding parties with impunity. >> >> To be fair, most friendly fire is caused by the USA because they have so >> many more troops on the ground and the vast majority of air assets. I >> did see some statistics that evidences their rate is the same as the >> UK's in terms of percentages. >> >> Having said that, my granddad used to say that when they were in France >> in the 2nd World War, "If German planes went over, the English ducked, >> if English planes went over, the Germans ducked and if American planes >> went over - everyone ducked!" >> > >Are there any valid statistics? It seems to me that far more innocent >men, women and children are killed in Afghanistan by locals - and >deliberately too - than are killed by Americans accidentally. That's >not an excuse, merely an observation. At least American forces are >*trying* not to harm civilians. I'm sure that when it comes out the game will reinforce that opinion too, while presenting an accurate picture of the ultimately evil terrorist enemy that the forces of freedom and liberty are confronting. There can't be too many movies and games showing the self-sacrifice of the west, asking nothing in return as it spends its precious blood and treasure liberating the ungrateful natives of yet another backward land!   0 Reply gnomon 3/19/2010 6:08:41 PM gnomon@al.ia wrote: > I'm sure that when it comes out the game will reinforce that opinion > too, while presenting an accurate picture of the ultimately evil > terrorist enemy that the forces of freedom and liberty are > confronting. There can't be too many movies and games showing the > self-sacrifice of the west, asking nothing in return as it spends its > precious blood and treasure liberating the ungrateful natives of yet > another backward land! Does anyone else have an image of that bloke on the bomb at the end of Dr. Strangelove?   0 Reply Morgan 3/19/2010 8:44:09 PM On 3/19/2010 2:08 PM, gnomon@al.ia wrote: > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:20 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 3/18/2010 2:06 PM, Schrodinger wrote: >>> >>> >>> "CJM"<cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message >>> news:80edbdF6q0U1@mid.individual.net... >>>> >> >>>> Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and >>>> wedding parties with impunity. >>> >>> To be fair, most friendly fire is caused by the USA because they have so >>> many more troops on the ground and the vast majority of air assets. I >>> did see some statistics that evidences their rate is the same as the >>> UK's in terms of percentages. >>> >>> Having said that, my granddad used to say that when they were in France >>> in the 2nd World War, "If German planes went over, the English ducked, >>> if English planes went over, the Germans ducked and if American planes >>> went over - everyone ducked!" >>> >> >> Are there any valid statistics? It seems to me that far more innocent >> men, women and children are killed in Afghanistan by locals - and >> deliberately too - than are killed by Americans accidentally. That's >> not an excuse, merely an observation. At least American forces are >> *trying* not to harm civilians. > > I'm sure that when it comes out the game will reinforce that opinion > too, while presenting an accurate picture of the ultimately evil > terrorist enemy that the forces of freedom and liberty are > confronting. There can't be too many movies and games showing the > self-sacrifice of the west, asking nothing in return as it spends its > precious blood and treasure liberating the ungrateful natives of yet > another backward land! > <laughter> Give it a rest, will ya? I *was* asking a legitimate question! It's not as if Afghanistan was a peaceful garden of Eden before the US/NATO forces invaded - and they wouldn't be there at all except that Afghanistan provided a sanctuary for the 9/11 plotters. Murderous tribal strife seems to be the norm in that part of the world. Setting off bombs in crowded city streets is a common occurrence. Their governments are just one bloody dictator after another. Why the focus on US *accidents* when, by local standards, the death of innocent civilians is routine. -- "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill   0 Reply Briarroot 3/20/2010 5:14:51 PM On 3/19/2010 4:44 PM, Morgan wrote: > gnomon@al.ia wrote: > >> I'm sure that when it comes out the game will reinforce that opinion >> too, while presenting an accurate picture of the ultimately evil >> terrorist enemy that the forces of freedom and liberty are >> confronting. There can't be too many movies and games showing the >> self-sacrifice of the west, asking nothing in return as it spends its >> precious blood and treasure liberating the ungrateful natives of yet >> another backward land! > > Does anyone else have an image of that bloke on the bomb at the end of > Dr. Strangelove? Heh. Slim Pickens (as Major "King" Kong): "Yee-haw! C'mon you Rooskies!" ;-) -- "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill   0 Reply Briarroot 3/20/2010 5:17:36 PM On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:15:38 -0400, Phillip <pgratzi39@gmail.com> wrote: >You're making an even better case for more games like this to hit the >shelves. Maybe the armed services can pitch in and help fund them as >recruiting tools, giving you a safer world to live in. They did, the the US. Isn't there a free to play shooter that was funded by the US Military ?   0 Reply Mark 3/20/2010 6:37:26 PM On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:24:44 -0000, "CJM" <cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com> wrote: > > >"Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote in message >news:D4eon.341997$_W6.324276@newsfe30.ams2...
>>
>> Does it change things that the war is still very much ongoing and both UK
>> and USA are losing troops daily in this conflict now?
>>
>
>I'd say not. We're 'supposedly' engaged in a war against terrorism around
>the globe, but every other game involves fighting terrorists... what's the
>difference.
>
>> I don't know what to make of this, but my initial feelings are that this
>> shouldn't be made into a game whilst coalition soldiers and Afghan
>> civilians are being killed every day here.  Especially, perhaps, when the
>> enemy use civilians as both shields and diversions.
>>
>
>I certainly can see the worth in being sensible about it; that is reflecting
>the reality rather some gung-ho, propagandising crap - but there is no
>reason to avoid this theatre. Personally, I'd welcome a game where the enemy
>*did* use civilians as cover and diversions. Imagine a raid on an Afghan
>village where you couldn't just shoot the crap out of everything - it would
>make an excellent game. Unless you are American, in which case you get to
>shoot allies and wedding parties with impunity.

" I have visual on a tank.  Anyone recognise the flag ?  No ?  Cool,
missile away"

 0

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:37:26 +0000, Mark Morrison <blank@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:15:38 -0400, Phillip <pgratzi39@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You're making an even better case for more games like this to hit the
>>shelves.  Maybe the armed services can pitch in and help fund them as
>>recruiting tools, giving you a safer world to live in.
>
>They did, the the US.  Isn't there a free to play shooter that was
>funded by the US Military ?

Yes, Americas Army (I mentioned it in my earlier post).

 0

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:14:51 -0400, Briarroot <briarroot@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/19/2010 2:08 PM, gnomon@al.ia wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:20 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/18/2010 2:06 PM, Schrodinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "CJM"<cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com>  wrote in message
>>>> news:80edbdF6q0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and
>>>>> wedding parties with impunity.
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, most friendly fire is caused by the USA because they have so
>>>> many more troops on the ground and the vast majority of air assets. I
>>>> did see some statistics that evidences their rate is the same as the
>>>> UK's in terms of percentages.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, my granddad used to say that when they were in France
>>>> in the 2nd World War, "If German planes went over, the English ducked,
>>>> if English planes went over, the Germans ducked and if American planes
>>>> went over - everyone ducked!"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are there any valid statistics?  It seems to me that far more innocent
>>> men, women and children are killed in Afghanistan by locals - and
>>> deliberately too - than are killed by Americans accidentally.  That's
>>> not an excuse, merely an observation.  At least American forces are
>>> *trying* not to harm civilians.
>>
>> I'm sure that when it comes out the game will reinforce that opinion
>> too, while presenting an accurate picture of the ultimately evil
>> terrorist enemy that the forces of freedom and liberty are
>> confronting.  There can't be too many movies and games showing the
>> self-sacrifice of the west, asking nothing in return as it spends its
>> precious blood and treasure liberating the ungrateful natives of yet
>> another backward land!
>>
>
><laughter>  Give it a rest, will ya?  I *was* asking a legitimate question!
>
>It's not as if Afghanistan was a peaceful garden of Eden before the
>US/NATO forces invaded - and they wouldn't be there at all except that
>Afghanistan provided a sanctuary for the 9/11 plotters.
>
>Murderous tribal strife seems to be the norm in that part of the world.
>  Setting off bombs in crowded city streets is a common occurrence.
>Their governments are just one bloody dictator after another.  Why the
>focus on US *accidents* when, by local standards, the death of innocent
>civilians is routine.

You realize, of course, that 9/11 was 9 years ago, that 15 of the box
cutter wielding attackers were from Saudi Arabia, that none were from
that there's no longer an al queda presence in Afghanistan?

"9/11" is getting pretty damn slim as excuse for the continuation of
and escalation of this war of occupation.

dead) began his career in organizing and training fighters vs the
attempted Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when he was aided by the
US?  That the Afghan people have been fighting off foreign invaders
for a long time before the US decided to extend its empire there?  You
realize that after 9 years of occupation the corrupt system there owes
entirely to US backing, and that just as it was in Vietnam when the
war/drug connection was owing to the CIA, the war/drug connection in
Afghanistan owes to the CIA?  How else do you think the US backed
warlords that replace the Taliban are paid off?  (look it up, it
wasn't the Taliban who assisted the poppy trade - quite the opposite).

A focus on US *accidents* is because the US is an occupying power
fighting a war to exterminate local insurgents.  Your talking points
reek of contempt, they don't express reason.

 0

On 3/21/2010 6:39 AM, gnomon@al.ia wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:14:51 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2010 2:08 PM, gnomon@al.ia wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:20 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2010 2:06 PM, Schrodinger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "CJM"<cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com>   wrote in message
>>>>> news:80edbdF6q0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and
>>>>>> wedding parties with impunity.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, most friendly fire is caused by the USA because they have so
>>>>> many more troops on the ground and the vast majority of air assets. I
>>>>> did see some statistics that evidences their rate is the same as the
>>>>> UK's in terms of percentages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, my granddad used to say that when they were in France
>>>>> in the 2nd World War, "If German planes went over, the English ducked,
>>>>> if English planes went over, the Germans ducked and if American planes
>>>>> went over - everyone ducked!"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are there any valid statistics?  It seems to me that far more innocent
>>>> men, women and children are killed in Afghanistan by locals - and
>>>> deliberately too - than are killed by Americans accidentally.  That's
>>>> not an excuse, merely an observation.  At least American forces are
>>>> *trying* not to harm civilians.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that when it comes out the game will reinforce that opinion
>>> too, while presenting an accurate picture of the ultimately evil
>>> terrorist enemy that the forces of freedom and liberty are
>>> confronting.  There can't be too many movies and games showing the
>>> self-sacrifice of the west, asking nothing in return as it spends its
>>> precious blood and treasure liberating the ungrateful natives of yet
>>> another backward land!
>>>
>>
>> <laughter>   Give it a rest, will ya?  I *was* asking a legitimate question!
>>
>> It's not as if Afghanistan was a peaceful garden of Eden before the
>> US/NATO forces invaded - and they wouldn't be there at all except that
>> Afghanistan provided a sanctuary for the 9/11 plotters.
>>
>> Murderous tribal strife seems to be the norm in that part of the world.
>>   Setting off bombs in crowded city streets is a common occurrence.
>> Their governments are just one bloody dictator after another.  Why the
>> focus on US *accidents* when, by local standards, the death of innocent
>> civilians is routine.
>
> You realize, of course, that 9/11 was 9 years ago, that 15 of the box
> cutter wielding attackers were from Saudi Arabia, that none were from
> Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq,
>

The point is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan both gave
sanctuary to Al-Qaeda and allowed them to train and launch terrorist
strikes against the USA.  The Saudi government, in stark contrast to the
Taliban, has taken very harsh measures against Al-Qaeda as well as
having been their victim.  In short, the Saudi government is an ally of
the US government in the fight against Islamic terrorism while the
Taliban aid and abet Islamic terrorism.  You must be blind to overlook
the obvious!

> that there's no longer an al queda presence in Afghanistan?
>

Because the US/NATO forces either eliminated them or drove them over the
border into Pakistan.  The point you're ignoring is that if the US/NATO
forces leave, the Taliban will very likely revive their dictatorship and
Al-Qaeda will again have safe haven to operate as they please.  Thus the
goal of the US led forces is to establish a strong popular government
that *won't* permit Al-Qaeda to return.  That's a difficult proposition
in a part of the world where tribalism and religious extremism are so
strongly established, and the governments are generally as brutal and
murderous as the people they govern.

> "9/11" is getting pretty damn slim as excuse for the continuation of
> and escalation of this war of occupation.
>

<laughter>  "war of occupation" is a loaded expression and is evidence
of a detachment from reality.  We have nothing to *gain* in Afghanistan
except our own safety.

>

Cite?

> began his career in organizing and training fighters vs the
> attempted Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when he was aided by the
> US?
>

Of course, but so what?  During WW2 the USA gave the Soviet Union
*billions* of dollars worth of military equipment and supplies to fight
the Nazis, then spent the next 50 years staring them down over the
threat of nuclear annihilation.  Historically, nations have often gone
to war with their former allies and allied themselves with their former
enemies.  I'm sure that many Americans now regret aiding the Afghans in
their war against the Soviets.  Few people have the ability to
accurately predict the future, but hindsight is *always* 20/20!

>  That the Afghan people have been fighting off foreign invaders
> for a long time before the US decided to extend its empire there?
>

<laughter>  Empire?  Get real!

>  You
> realize that after 9 years of occupation the corrupt system there owes
> entirely to US backing, and that just as it was in Vietnam when the
> war/drug connection was owing to the CIA, the war/drug connection in
> Afghanistan owes to the CIA?  How else do you think the US backed
> warlords that replace the Taliban are paid off?  (look it up, it
> wasn't the Taliban who assisted the poppy trade - quite the opposite).
>

Whew!  Take off your tin-foil cap, it's screwing with your brain waves!

As I have already pointed out, political corruption is a way of life
over there and that isn't *our* fault.  If the only allies we can find
are drug lords, so what?  As long as they are strong enough to establish
a government that can clamp down on Islamic terrorism, then they fill
the bill.

Personally, I think drugs are a non-issue.  I think the Western world's
prohibition on recreational drugs is stupid and counter-productive - and
in the USA, unconstitutional.

> A focus on US *accidents* is because the US is an occupying power
> fighting a war to exterminate local insurgents.
>

Entirely missing the point, which is that large numbers of civilians are
routinely and *deliberately* killed by *other* civilians for religious
and tribal reasons.  And this is true even in those areas where the
US/NATO forces are *not* present!

> reek of contempt, they don't express reason.
>

My... er, "talking points" are rational and based on fact.  Your obvious
prejudice is both irrational and fantastic.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." - British publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954)

 0

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:20:02 -0400, Briarroot <briarroot@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/21/2010 6:39 AM, gnomon@al.ia wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:14:51 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2010 2:08 PM, gnomon@al.ia wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:20 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/18/2010 2:06 PM, Schrodinger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "CJM"<cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com>   wrote in message
>>>>>> news:80edbdF6q0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and
>>>>>>> wedding parties with impunity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be fair, most friendly fire is caused by the USA because they have so
>>>>>> many more troops on the ground and the vast majority of air assets. I
>>>>>> did see some statistics that evidences their rate is the same as the
>>>>>> UK's in terms of percentages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having said that, my granddad used to say that when they were in France
>>>>>> in the 2nd World War, "If German planes went over, the English ducked,
>>>>>> if English planes went over, the Germans ducked and if American planes
>>>>>> went over - everyone ducked!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any valid statistics?  It seems to me that far more innocent
>>>>> men, women and children are killed in Afghanistan by locals - and
>>>>> deliberately too - than are killed by Americans accidentally.  That's
>>>>> not an excuse, merely an observation.  At least American forces are
>>>>> *trying* not to harm civilians.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that when it comes out the game will reinforce that opinion
>>>> too, while presenting an accurate picture of the ultimately evil
>>>> terrorist enemy that the forces of freedom and liberty are
>>>> confronting.  There can't be too many movies and games showing the
>>>> self-sacrifice of the west, asking nothing in return as it spends its
>>>> precious blood and treasure liberating the ungrateful natives of yet
>>>> another backward land!
>>>>
>>>
>>> <laughter>   Give it a rest, will ya?  I *was* asking a legitimate question!
>>>
>>> It's not as if Afghanistan was a peaceful garden of Eden before the
>>> US/NATO forces invaded - and they wouldn't be there at all except that
>>> Afghanistan provided a sanctuary for the 9/11 plotters.
>>>
>>> Murderous tribal strife seems to be the norm in that part of the world.
>>>   Setting off bombs in crowded city streets is a common occurrence.
>>> Their governments are just one bloody dictator after another.  Why the
>>> focus on US *accidents* when, by local standards, the death of innocent
>>> civilians is routine.
>>
>> You realize, of course, that 9/11 was 9 years ago, that 15 of the box
>> cutter wielding attackers were from Saudi Arabia, that none were from
>> Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq,
>>
>
>The point is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan both gave
>sanctuary to Al-Qaeda and allowed them to train and launch terrorist
>strikes against the USA.  The Saudi government, in stark contrast to the
>Taliban, has taken very harsh measures against Al-Qaeda as well as
>having been their victim.  In short, the Saudi government is an ally of
>the US government in the fight against Islamic terrorism while the
>Taliban aid and abet Islamic terrorism.  You must be blind to overlook
>the obvious!
>

You realize, of course, that 9/11 was 9 years ago, that 15 of the box
cutter wielding attackers were from Saudi Arabia, that none were from
Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq.

>
>> that there's no longer an al queda presence in Afghanistan?
>>
>
>Because the US/NATO forces either eliminated them or drove them over the
>border into Pakistan.  The point you're ignoring is that if the US/NATO
>forces leave, the Taliban will very likely revive their dictatorship and
>Al-Qaeda will again have safe haven to operate as they please.

The indiginous Pashtun etc. tribes would have nothing to gain.  No
doubt they would opt for an Islamic gov't, or one very heavily
weighted toward Islamic law, since it's their religion and the only
binding social force they have under constant foreign invasions.

Of course the al queda camps in afghanistan had to be eliminated once
and for all.  All NATO allies and the whole world in fact agreed on
that.  But as a member of a NATO country I don't remember us signing
on to stay in Afghanistan forever just in case some other wacko group
might materialize.

>Thus the
>goal of the US led forces is to establish a strong popular government
>that *won't* permit Al-Qaeda to return.  That's a difficult proposition
>in a part of the world where tribalism and religious extremism are so
>strongly established, and the governments are generally as brutal and
>murderous as the people they govern.
>

gah.

>
>> "9/11" is getting pretty damn slim as excuse for the continuation of
>> and escalation of this war of occupation.
>>
>
><laughter>  "war of occupation" is a loaded expression and is evidence
>of a detachment from reality.  We have nothing to *gain* in Afghanistan
>except our own safety.
>

What do you think the US is doing over there, 9 years on, except

>
>>
>
>Cite?
>

http://www.trekkieguy.com/startrekkin.shtml
>
>> began his career in organizing and training fighters vs the
>> attempted Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when he was aided by the
>> US?
>>
>
>Of course, but so what?

So bin laden and co *aren't the same* as the local insurgents the US
is fighting now, they were a motley crew of fighters gathered from all
over to be armed and somewhat trained to fight there, when the
invaders were someone else.  They didn't have *roots* there, and their
continuing presence there was a *legacy* of earlier times.  The US
isn't fighting al queda now, it's fighting afghanistanian pashtun
peoples with deep tribal connections, people who've lived there for
generations - and whose loose confederations of tribal councils
control over 80% of the country.  There's a reason why Karzai is
called "the mayor of Kabul".

> During WW2 the USA gave the Soviet Union
>*billions* of dollars worth of military equipment and supplies to fight
>the Nazis, then spent the next 50 years staring them down over the
>threat of nuclear annihilation.  Historically, nations have often gone
>to war with their former allies and allied themselves with their former
>enemies.  I'm sure that many Americans now regret aiding the Afghans in
>their war against the Soviets.  Few people have the ability to
>accurately predict the future, but hindsight is *always* 20/20!
>

I don't think the US was wrong to aid the Afghans in their war against
Soviet invaders.  Y'know, that was was called "the interminable war"
because it lasted forever (9 years), and because it lasted so long was
called the "Soviet Vietnam".

>
>>  That the Afghan people have been fighting off foreign invaders
>> for a long time before the US decided to extend its empire there?
>>
>
><laughter>  Empire?  Get real!
>

Are you the one person in the world who doesn't realize that the US
isn't running an empire?  The US has over 700 military bases, and
spends more on armaments than the rest of the world combined.
Afghanistan isn't some "existential threat", that's for sure.  It's
situation in a strategic geopolitical location.

>
>>  You
>> realize that after 9 years of occupation the corrupt system there owes
>> entirely to US backing, and that just as it was in Vietnam when the
>> war/drug connection was owing to the CIA, the war/drug connection in
>> Afghanistan owes to the CIA?  How else do you think the US backed
>> warlords that replace the Taliban are paid off?  (look it up, it
>> wasn't the Taliban who assisted the poppy trade - quite the opposite).
>>
>
>Whew!  Take off your tin-foil cap, it's screwing with your brain waves!
>
>As I have already pointed out, political corruption is a way of life
>over there and that isn't *our* fault.  If the only allies we can find
>are drug lords, so what?  As long as they are strong enough to establish
>a government that can clamp down on Islamic terrorism, then they fill
>the bill.
>
>Personally, I think drugs are a non-issue.  I think the Western world's
>prohibition on recreational drugs is stupid and counter-productive - and
>in the USA, unconstitutional.
>

>
>> A focus on US *accidents* is because the US is an occupying power
>> fighting a war to exterminate local insurgents.
>>
>
>Entirely missing the point, which is that large numbers of civilians are
>routinely and *deliberately* killed by *other* civilians for religious
>and tribal reasons.  And this is true even in those areas where the
>US/NATO forces are *not* present!
>

You just make this shit up.

>
>> reek of contempt, they don't express reason.
>>
>
>My... er, "talking points" are rational and based on fact.  Your obvious
>prejudice is both irrational and fantastic.

Americans have a proud history which began with a revolution, and
since then there's been a saying, that the US can never be
successfully occupied by a foreign power because, even if a first
strike took out all gov't, infrastructure, etc., the invading forces
would still have to fight americans one by one, shooting from behind
every tree.


 0

On 2010-03-20, Briarroot <briarroot@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/2010 4:44 PM, Morgan wrote:
>> Does anyone else have an image of that bloke on the bomb at the end of
>> Dr. Strangelove?

> Heh.  Slim Pickens (as Major "King" Kong): "Yee-haw!  C'mon you
> Rooskies!"  ;-)

Now that would make a great gaming moment! "Press 'e' to sit on the H
bomb"


 0

On 3/21/2010 2:49 PM, gnomon@al.ia wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:20:02 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/21/2010 6:39 AM, gnomon@al.ia wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:14:51 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2010 2:08 PM, gnomon@al.ia wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:20 -0400, Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2010 2:06 PM, Schrodinger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "CJM"<cjmuk2008@gmail.removethis.com>    wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:80edbdF6q0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless you are American, in which case you get to shoot allies and
>>>>>>>> wedding parties with impunity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be fair, most friendly fire is caused by the USA because they have so
>>>>>>> many more troops on the ground and the vast majority of air assets. I
>>>>>>> did see some statistics that evidences their rate is the same as the
>>>>>>> UK's in terms of percentages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having said that, my granddad used to say that when they were in France
>>>>>>> in the 2nd World War, "If German planes went over, the English ducked,
>>>>>>> if English planes went over, the Germans ducked and if American planes
>>>>>>> went over - everyone ducked!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any valid statistics?  It seems to me that far more innocent
>>>>>> men, women and children are killed in Afghanistan by locals - and
>>>>>> deliberately too - than are killed by Americans accidentally.  That's
>>>>>> not an excuse, merely an observation.  At least American forces are
>>>>>> *trying* not to harm civilians.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that when it comes out the game will reinforce that opinion
>>>>> too, while presenting an accurate picture of the ultimately evil
>>>>> terrorist enemy that the forces of freedom and liberty are
>>>>> confronting.  There can't be too many movies and games showing the
>>>>> self-sacrifice of the west, asking nothing in return as it spends its
>>>>> precious blood and treasure liberating the ungrateful natives of yet
>>>>> another backward land!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <laughter>    Give it a rest, will ya?  I *was* asking a legitimate question!
>>>>
>>>> It's not as if Afghanistan was a peaceful garden of Eden before the
>>>> US/NATO forces invaded - and they wouldn't be there at all except that
>>>> Afghanistan provided a sanctuary for the 9/11 plotters.
>>>>
>>>> Murderous tribal strife seems to be the norm in that part of the world.
>>>>    Setting off bombs in crowded city streets is a common occurrence.
>>>> Their governments are just one bloody dictator after another.  Why the
>>>> focus on US *accidents* when, by local standards, the death of innocent
>>>> civilians is routine.
>>>
>>> You realize, of course, that 9/11 was 9 years ago, that 15 of the box
>>> cutter wielding attackers were from Saudi Arabia, that none were from
>>> Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq,
>>>
>>
>> The point is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan both gave
>> sanctuary to Al-Qaeda and allowed them to train and launch terrorist
>> strikes against the USA.  The Saudi government, in stark contrast to the
>> Taliban, has taken very harsh measures against Al-Qaeda as well as
>> having been their victim.  In short, the Saudi government is an ally of
>> the US government in the fight against Islamic terrorism while the
>> Taliban aid and abet Islamic terrorism.  You must be blind to overlook
>> the obvious!
>>
>
> You realize, of course, that 9/11 was 9 years ago, that 15 of the box
> cutter wielding attackers were from Saudi Arabia, that none were from
> Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq.
>

Non sequitur.  Did you fail to grasp the point... again?

>>> that there's no longer an al queda presence in Afghanistan?
>>>
>>
>> Because the US/NATO forces either eliminated them or drove them over the
>> border into Pakistan.  The point you're ignoring is that if the US/NATO
>> forces leave, the Taliban will very likely revive their dictatorship and
>> Al-Qaeda will again have safe haven to operate as they please.
>
> The indiginous Pashtun etc. tribes would have nothing to gain.  No
> doubt they would opt for an Islamic gov't, or one very heavily
> weighted toward Islamic law, since it's their religion and the only
> binding social force they have under constant foreign invasions.
>

It doesn't matter *who* governs Afghanistan, what matters is whether or
not they aid to Islamic terrorism.  I don't care if the Taliban comes
back as long as they say to themselves: "fuck it, messing with the

> Of course the al queda camps in afghanistan had to be eliminated once
> and for all.  All NATO allies and the whole world in fact agreed on
> that.  But as a member of a NATO country I don't remember us signing
> on to stay in Afghanistan forever just in case some other wacko group
> might materialize.
>

Then you didn't understand the mission.  Personally, had I been The Man
In Charge after 9/11, things might have gone a lot rougher for the
Afghan population and the whole sorry nation might now be a radioactive
wasteland.  That would have given the shitheads of the world something
to wail about, but it would also have had the twin virtues of: 1) making
it abundantly clear that attacking the USA can be a fatal mistake; and
2) not require the US to lose any of its own troops in making point #1.

>> Thus the
>> goal of the US led forces is to establish a strong popular government
>> that *won't* permit Al-Qaeda to return.  That's a difficult proposition
>> in a part of the world where tribalism and religious extremism are so
>> strongly established, and the governments are generally as brutal and
>> murderous as the people they govern.
>>
>
> gah.
>

I'm glad we agree on at least *one* point.

>>> "9/11" is getting pretty damn slim as excuse for the continuation of
>>> and escalation of this war of occupation.
>>>
>>
>> <laughter>   "war of occupation" is a loaded expression and is evidence
>> of a detachment from reality.  We have nothing to *gain* in Afghanistan
>> except our own safety.
>>
>
> What do you think the US is doing over there, 9 years on, except
>

It's nothing more sinister than political vacillation.  Nobody over here
want to be the one who calls for withdrawal and leaves himself open to
(spurious) charges of "losing the war on terror."  Obama ran for
president on the notion that the war in Afghanistan was futile, but now
he's become BushII.  That's not the result of "an evil plot to rule the
world," it's simply politics as usual in America.

>>>
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>
> http://www.trekkieguy.com/startrekkin.shtml
>

I knew you weren't a serious contender as soon as you began spouting

>>> began his career in organizing and training fighters vs the
>>> attempted Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when he was aided by the
>>> US?
>>>
>>
>> Of course, but so what?
>
> So bin laden and co *aren't the same* as the local insurgents the US
> is fighting now, they were a motley crew of fighters gathered from all
> over to be armed and somewhat trained to fight there, when the
> invaders were someone else.  They didn't have *roots* there, and their
> continuing presence there was a *legacy* of earlier times.  The US
> isn't fighting al queda now, it's fighting afghanistanian pashtun
> peoples with deep tribal connections, people who've lived there for
> generations - and whose loose confederations of tribal councils
> control over 80% of the country.  There's a reason why Karzai is
> called "the mayor of Kabul".
>

See above.  The stated desire of the US/NATO forces is to establish a
government that will not permit the use of Afghanistan as a staging
ground for Islamic terrorism.  You can question the effectiveness of
their strategy if you like, (I do all the time) but you can't
legitimately question their goal.

>> During WW2 the USA gave the Soviet Union
>> *billions* of dollars worth of military equipment and supplies to fight
>> the Nazis, then spent the next 50 years staring them down over the
>> threat of nuclear annihilation.  Historically, nations have often gone
>> to war with their former allies and allied themselves with their former
>> enemies.  I'm sure that many Americans now regret aiding the Afghans in
>> their war against the Soviets.  Few people have the ability to
>> accurately predict the future, but hindsight is *always* 20/20!
>>
>
> I don't think the US was wrong to aid the Afghans in their war against
> Soviet invaders.  Y'know, that was was called "the interminable war"
> because it lasted forever (9 years), and because it lasted so long was
> called the "Soviet Vietnam".
>

So why *did* you mention it?

>>>   That the Afghan people have been fighting off foreign invaders
>>> for a long time before the US decided to extend its empire there?
>>>
>>
>> <laughter>   Empire?  Get real!
>>
>
> Are you the one person in the world who doesn't realize that the US
> isn't running an empire?  The US has over 700 military bases, and
> spends more on armaments than the rest of the world combined.
> Afghanistan isn't some "existential threat", that's for sure.  It's
> situation in a strategic geopolitical location.
>

I'm among many who have noted that, quite unlike other empires in
history, the USA imposes no local taxation to pay for those bases, has
used its own forces to keep the regional peace and threatens no other
nation as long as they remain peaceful.  If that's an empire, it's an
remarkably *benevolent* empire!

90 years ago, the US government withdrew its military forces from
Europe, content in its self-deception that the "War to End All Wars" had
been finally won.  In the two decades of isolation that followed,
despotic foreign dictators fomented the worst war the world had ever
known.  You should be grateful for what those US military bases have
managed to accomplish since then.

>>>   You
>>> realize that after 9 years of occupation the corrupt system there owes
>>> entirely to US backing, and that just as it was in Vietnam when the
>>> war/drug connection was owing to the CIA, the war/drug connection in
>>> Afghanistan owes to the CIA?  How else do you think the US backed
>>> warlords that replace the Taliban are paid off?  (look it up, it
>>> wasn't the Taliban who assisted the poppy trade - quite the opposite).
>>>
>>
>> Whew!  Take off your tin-foil cap, it's screwing with your brain waves!
>>
>> As I have already pointed out, political corruption is a way of life
>> over there and that isn't *our* fault.  If the only allies we can find
>> are drug lords, so what?  As long as they are strong enough to establish
>> a government that can clamp down on Islamic terrorism, then they fill
>> the bill.
>>
>> Personally, I think drugs are a non-issue.  I think the Western world's
>> prohibition on recreational drugs is stupid and counter-productive - and
>> in the USA, unconstitutional.
>>
>
>

At least it *is* an analysis, rather than the regurgitated clap-trap
appears as an all-powerful and ever present nefarious force, while to
most of the rest of us the CIA appears as it really is: a bloated and
bungling bureaucracy which can't manage to get out of it's own way and
where every decision is proceeded by dozens of policy meetings where
thousand-page memoranda are generated and digested.  In other words,
relax; the CIA boys ain't up to nothing so much as trying to keep their
retirement savings intact!

>>> A focus on US *accidents* is because the US is an occupying power
>>> fighting a war to exterminate local insurgents.
>>>
>>
>> Entirely missing the point, which is that large numbers of civilians are
>> routinely and *deliberately* killed by *other* civilians for religious
>> and tribal reasons.  And this is true even in those areas where the
>> US/NATO forces are *not* present!
>>
>
> You just make this shit up.
>

No surprise that you don't follow the news; after all, anyone who tosses
out such tired and stereotypical phrases as "US empire" and actually
*believes* them, obviously hasn't been paying attention!

>>> reek of contempt, they don't express reason.
>>>
>>
>> My... er, "talking points" are rational and based on fact.  Your obvious
>> prejudice is both irrational and fantastic.
>
> Americans have a proud history which began with a revolution, and
> since then there's been a saying, that the US can never be
> successfully occupied by a foreign power because, even if a first
> strike took out all gov't, infrastructure, etc., the invading forces
> would still have to fight americans one by one, shooting from behind
> every tree.
>
>

I think that's bullshit.  You've been watching too many movies.

--
"A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more
useful than a life spent doing nothing." - George Bernard Shaw

 0

Briarroot <briarroot@gmail.com> writes:

> Then you didn't understand the mission.  Personally, had I been The Man
> In Charge after 9/11, things might have gone a lot rougher for the
> Afghan population and the whole sorry nation might now be a radioactive
> wasteland.  That would have given the shitheads of the world something
> to wail about, but it would also have had the twin virtues of: 1) making
> it abundantly clear that attacking the USA can be a fatal mistake; and
> 2) not require the US to lose any of its own troops in making point
> #1.

You're a bigger fucking idiot than I thought.

1) There is no link between Afghanistan and 9/11 that sticks. Bin Laden is not an Afghan.
2) using nukes invites them to be used back
3) Your kind of insane rantings is what causes you to be attacked in the
first place - your total disregard for other ways of life is
instrumental in the rest of the world despising American "red necks".

Admittedly there would have been less torture, rapings of under aged
civilians and murder too.

Like the Russians and the British before that, the yanks have discovered
that all the fancy pants equipment, big cigars and drug fueled tropps in
the world does not beat a determined opponent willing to die for his
cause.

I am not a supporter of the Taleban btw.

But your suggestion of using Nukes marks you out as an out and out cunt.


 0

On 3/22/2010 1:03 PM, Walter Mitty wrote:
> Briarroot<briarroot@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> Then you didn't understand the mission.  Personally, had I been The Man
>> In Charge after 9/11, things might have gone a lot rougher for the
>> Afghan population and the whole sorry nation might now be a radioactive
>> wasteland.  That would have given the shitheads of the world something
>> to wail about, but it would also have had the twin virtues of: 1) making
>> it abundantly clear that attacking the USA can be a fatal mistake; and
>> 2) not require the US to lose any of its own troops in making point
>> #1.
>
> You're a bigger fucking idiot than I thought.
>

{Briar dusts off his lapels with a happy smile}

> 1) There is no link between Afghanistan and 9/11 that sticks. Bin Laden is not an Afghan.
>

LOL  You haven't been paying attention!

> 2) using nukes invites them to be used back
>

When last I checked, the only nation with the capability of striking the
North American continent was Russia, and it would have been extremely
unlikely they'd do so under those circumstances and knowing full well
that any such attempt would also mean their own extermination.  However,
if we accept your reasoning, that attack invites attack in kind, then
you've provided justification for the USA to kill civilians in the
countries where the 9/11 attackers were born or lived or hatched their plot.

> 3) Your kind of insane rantings is what causes you to be attacked in the
> first place - your total disregard for other ways of life is
> instrumental in the rest of the world despising American "red necks".
>

1) In many ways, I'm closer to a "liberal Democrat" than I am a
reactionary red neck.

2) If we accept your reasoning, that "total disregard for other ways of
like," is a casus belli, then you're providing justification for the
civilized world to attack the entire Middle East.

3) I was just floating ideas; saying what I *might* have done.  I don't
know precisely what I would have done if I had been The Man in Charge.
Maybe I would have used nukes or maybe I wouldn't; I would have been
tempted, but I really can't say what I would have done without actually
being there - on the spot so to speak.  I'm fairly certain, however,
that I would not have adopted the Bush strategy and found myself bogged
down in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.  Nor do I think that
"nation building" is the proper course to pursue in those countries
either, I was merely explaining the current strategy to 'gnomon'.

> Admittedly there would have been less torture, rapings of under aged
> civilians and murder too.
>
> Like the Russians and the British before that, the yanks have discovered
> that all the fancy pants equipment, big cigars and drug fueled tropps in
> the world does not beat a determined opponent willing to die for his
> cause.
>

> I am not a supporter of the Taleban btw.
>
> But your suggestion of using Nukes marks you out as an out and out cunt.
>

<shrug>

--
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who
are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -
Albert Einstein
`
 0

40 Replies
143 Views

Similar Articles

12/10/2013 5:01:51 PM
[PageSpeed]

Similar Artilces:

"Turning Point: Fall of Liberty"
This particular FPS looks like it's trying to be a little different. "Turning Point: Fall of Liberty" is an Alternative History FPS being developed by Spark Unlimited and published by Codemasters. Players can only carry two guns at once and ammunition for those is limited, so no running and gunning in this game it seems. The preview suggests that the game could be very interesting. I'm not quite sure the screenshots have the same effect though. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=162234 -- Rob "Rob" <noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote in message news:s6ph23t6c8cb6rmitciscvtuoro9405i36@4ax.com... > > > This particular FPS looks like it's trying to be a little different. > > "Turning Point: Fall of Liberty" is an Alternative History FPS being > developed by Spark Unlimited and published by Codemasters. > > Players can only carry two guns at once and ammunition for those is > limited, so no running and gunning in this game it seems. > > The preview suggests that the game could be very interesting. I'm not > quite sure the screenshots have the same effect though

[ANN] Fall 2010 issue of Methods & Tools
Methods & Tools - the free e-magazine for software developers, testers and project managers - has just published its Fall 2010 issue with the following articles: * Distributed Agile - Managing Global Agile Projects * Decomposition of Projects: How to Design Small Incremental Steps * Source Code Analysis in Agile Projects * The Core Protocols, an Experience Report, Part 2 - Tools for High Performance Teams * Tool: tinyPM - Agile project management, Junit - Java unit testing, Bromine - Web testing, Agilefant - Agile project management, SoapUI - Web testing 70 pages of software development knowledge that you can download from http://www.methodsandtools.com/mt/download.php?fall10

Fall 2010 MATLAB Contest, November 10
Once again thanks to the contest team for a very entertaining contest and congratulations to all winners. Looking forward to May. Late Darkness sounds like a great idea. -- Andreas

New England SolidWorks Users Group Fall Meeting November 6, 2003