|
Post by Mega Raptor on Aug 29, 2004 17:27:08 GMT -5
|
|
Zorak is not logged
Guest
|
Post by Zorak is not logged on Aug 29, 2004 17:48:27 GMT -5
Last time I checked we weren't firing rockets at individual Terrorists in the middle of busy streets, heh.
Bush: Looksies, there is a single terrorist in the middle of that busy street! FIRE A MISSILE! BLOW HIS FACE UP.
Gah people, use common sense.
Person: But this is how BUsh really is lolzerzzzz
Last time I checked, Kerry supported (then didn't, then did, and I'm not sure now what he is) us going into Iraq himself, yada yada yada.
Its more like a Demonstration of "Unrealities in political belief". Check please.
Oh, and since I think this will more than likely spark a "Zomg Political Debateness", consider it...
MOVEINATED.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 29, 2004 17:52:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure if you're catching the point of that Zorak. The argument that the games designers are putting forth is this: For ever innocent person we kill, we just gain more enemies. That's it. Its simple. Its a study in cause and effect. "I shot a rocket and accidentally killed civilians, so now those people I killed's family and friends are angry."
|
|
|
Post by Mega Raptor on Aug 29, 2004 17:56:49 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with you, NM. Of course it's not how we're 'really' fighting the war, that'd just be stupid. But it is making a point.
Every action we take has an equal reaction. If someone hurts you, you get angry about it. If someone kills someone important to you, you get angry about it, etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Aug 29, 2004 17:56:49 GMT -5
And of course, all the people in Iraq are dancing around the Terrorists, 'cuz they just love 'em to death anyways. They are total buds with them, and really wish them good will and tons of pancakes.
Mutual enemies, compadre. Colateral damage is a part of every war, man. You don't think that in say World War II, liberating France, we didn't accidentally kill French while attacking the Germans? But we did, rest assured. Prolly many times any ammount we've killed in the Middle East period.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Aug 29, 2004 17:58:26 GMT -5
Edit: Add the Collaterally part to the second paragraph about kills in the middle east. For some reason when I hit "Edit post", it sends me to editing MR's post.
|
|
|
Post by Mega Raptor on Aug 29, 2004 18:00:13 GMT -5
Of course, there's also a big difference between how that damage will be percieved in those situations.
In France, we actually were liberating the people from an invading nation and had the support of the people. In the Middle East, we're invading other nations to deal with small groups of targets, thereby actually making those groups bigger by playing right into the hands of the propaganda they spread around about us.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Aug 29, 2004 18:03:08 GMT -5
Sure, the whole freaking Iraqi government was a small, small thing. Thats why they managed to control the whole country. Same with the Taliban in Afghanistan! We should have just let them be and went along our way back home in America, skipping amung the daisies la la la la la la la
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 29, 2004 18:04:18 GMT -5
Zorak, of course there was collateral damage! But do you think that some people weren't bitter afterwords? Sure, the game is exaggerating a lot, but the message remains the same.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Aug 29, 2004 18:09:51 GMT -5
Dude, but think about it.
Our so called "Collateral Damage" doesn't even COMPARE to the ammount of deaths caused to the "Collateralized" peoples we've killed."
Think about it like this. Say America got taken over by say an American Nazi Party and they killed a ton of people and basically starting ruling over us and all that jazz. In the revolution against them, say some normal Americans are killed by say, Canadians who came to the rescue in order to free the nation.
Would the Americans suddenly go "Zomg, we got to go kill Canada"? Prolly not, I would think.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 29, 2004 18:17:22 GMT -5
Nobody is saying that every single person would act that way. But, maybe a few would. You can never know. Try thinking of it this way: Take a gun. Walk over to some random, innocent person and shoot him/her in the head. Now, just imagine what kind of feelings the family and friends of that person might have for you.
Who cares if the collateral in this war doesn't match the collateral in other wars? Collateral damage is a bad thing, and can lead to many different consequences. That's what the "simulation" is all about.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Aug 29, 2004 23:02:43 GMT -5
This may not apply exactly to the US war on terror, but this is exactly how the israeli's operate and the "Terrorist spin machine" links it to us.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Sept 3, 2004 13:29:19 GMT -5
Considering how the US military also dropped supplies to the people of both countries we were at war with, and told them that their leaders were our enemy, which is reminiscent of 16th Century Japanese Warlord Uesugi Kenshin, I don't think that the people of those countries are against us, just those who want to gain more power by creating their own tyrannies.
Btw, Zorak, Canada can just as easily be taken as just claiming it.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 3, 2004 23:03:20 GMT -5
The historical model between Canada and the United States is quite different. The fact is, is that Islam and Christianity were at constant war with eachother almost the entire time they've existed together practically. Foriegn policy has to approached from not just a moralistic point of view but also a realist point of view. Do not forget it was less than a century ago when most of the Middle East was controlled by occupying Christian powers. There have been two major movements in the Middle East politically, Baathism which is Arab nationalism actually, and Islamic Fundementalism. Both preach the us vs. them mentality on the streets. Since the end of WWII demogogues have been governing society and they've done a damn good job at painting the picture of Christendom and Zionist Israel causing every single problem in the Middle East. You can't change peoples minds with leaflets and food, if bombs are dropping on the 'safehouse' next door.
No one is argueing to withdraw completely. But realize, they don't like us there, were infidel crusaders. If say Jordanian troops crossed the border and brought down the Saddam Regime, there wouldn't be as much of a problem. Look the Arab world is really prejudice, its the way people hold onto power, in a perfect world demagoguery would have the exact opposite effect it does. The fact remains however that in order to maintain power, being a demagogue is the most effective way. Eventually democracy can flourish on a culture but it doesn't work immediatly, it requires centuries of foundation to get there. The United States did not just magically become one either, we had an extensive history when we were still English to get there, Magna Carta, Reformation, and English Revolution. Most European nations failed in their first tries at democracy, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and now lets be honest Russia. You can't expect countries who have never had nearly as much liberalization to work instantly, especially countries where their are clear cut tribal lines.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Sept 4, 2004 0:04:38 GMT -5
The fact is, is that Islam and Christianity were at constant war with eachother almost the entire time they've existed together practically. Errrr! Wrong! Do be kind to recall the fall of Rome. After the fall of Rome, Christianity lost control over most of the world, and nations of Islam appeared in Spain, Italy, and various other southern European countries once and now associated as being "Christian". And during this time (around the 1000), Turkey was the most advanced place in the world, and in many naitons in the area Muslims and Christians live peacefully together, and it was a very scientific/ literature orientated area. This extremitism came actually after all this, a regression if you will. Pick up Louis L'amour's "The Walking Drum". Good book, and makes a point.
|
|