Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Black Ops

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Daemascus:
Lots of creepy metaphors today. As for the next world war, North and South Koreas little spats might be a trigger, with the USA backing the South and China backing the North...
I really hope not but you never know...

what you mean - like the Korean War - been there, done that, got the balaclava

So am I the only one disturbed that there are people who actually wish for another world war? I mean, yeah American government has made some boneheaded decisions in the past but so have other nations right? I always find the focused hatred towards the world superpower somewhat odd. Why people get up and arms over this shit is beyond me.

masterkeyes2:
So am I the only one disturbed that there are people who actually wish for another world war? I mean, yeah American government has made some boneheaded decisions in the past but so have other nations right? I always find the focused hatred towards the world superpower somewhat odd. Why people get up and arms over this shit is beyond me.

The problem is that when other nations go to war, it's usually not for the same reasons America uses to get involved in a war.

aah god, that world war 3 thing made me laugh a lot. Very well thought and perhaps we should just do it. Everybody get out the guns :p.

bloodrayne626:

masterkeyes2:
So am I the only one disturbed that there are people who actually wish for another world war? I mean, yeah American government has made some boneheaded decisions in the past but so have other nations right? I always find the focused hatred towards the world superpower somewhat odd. Why people get up and arms over this shit is beyond me.

The problem is that when other nations go to war, it's usually not for the same reasons America uses to get involved in a war.

Again, not the citizens fault.

bloodrayne626:

masterkeyes2:
So am I the only one disturbed that there are people who actually wish for another world war? I mean, yeah American government has made some boneheaded decisions in the past but so have other nations right? I always find the focused hatred towards the world superpower somewhat odd. Why people get up and arms over this shit is beyond me.

The problem is that when other nations go to war, it's usually not for the same reasons America uses to get involved in a war.

Bullshit. War never changes. People get involved for the exact same stupid ass reasons they have for millennia.

The names may change but the reasons stay the same.

Conflict has existed since time immemorial and while we have come up with increasingly creative ways to kill each other , our reasons for doing so have largely been left completely untouched.

Have to agree with the post above, war has usually been waged by nations to gain or protect resources, land, and citizenship. It is a diplomatic method, albeit the weakest one. It's an awful thing but it isn't like the US alone is the only one who does it.

HankMan:
We Americans DO need another World War
My flamethrower has just been gathering dust since random street barbeques lost their appeal

Wait where do you live? Surely not in America!
OT:This was a good one, congratulations Yahtzee

Ugh. This is why I don't play shooters. And for all you complainers, Yahtzee will stop making fun of America in war in shooters when developers stop making retarded shooters that feature America.

And why do so many Americans on this forum seem to want war? As an American, I want to stay as far as possible away from one. Right now we have too many problems to deal with. We really don't need world war three. And I really don't want to have our country invaded... it seems like a lot of people are out of touch with reality when it comes to war and what it is really like. I blame video games ;)

Good review as always.

How did he not mention the terrible AI?

Cat Cloud:
Ugh. This is why I don't play shooters. And for all you complainers, Yahtzee will stop making fun of America in war in shooters when developers stop making retarded shooters that feature America.

And why do so many Americans on this forum seem to want war? As an American, I want to stay as far as possible away from one. Right now we have too many problems to deal with. We really don't need world war three. And I really don't want to have our country invaded... it seems like a lot of people are out of touch with reality when it comes to war and what it is really like. I blame video games ;)

Good review as always.

No his hatred, or rather it strikes me that "contempt" is the more precise, for America seems to be very deep-seated and has come across in his reviews many times.

This is just what one would call the straw that broke the camel's back. Even he, the misanthropic troll he is should know he was way out of line with such a comment.

I mean he basically hated on Uncharted and Uncharted 2 JUST because the main character came across as "Too American" to him, he even admitted in a very grudging aside in the Uncharted 2 review that he couldn't find anything wrong with the game, but still he hated on it.

So yeah I'm calling him a bigot who, as I believe I said before, needs to remove his head from his self-righteous ass.

All countries have made war at one time or another. For most of the unpopular ones Britain added the US many times and yet no one bitches about them. I'm not going into the details of it but if those wars were so horribly wrong then ANYONE fighting in them should be as demonized as the US is and yet no one else is. I am calling bullshit on this.

I am calling bullshit on all of this fucking anti-US bigotry. I'm not sure if it's jealous causing it or what, but a good portion of the world needs to remove their heads from their asses and open their eyes.

Anyone who does this large scale hatred of people you probably haven't even met should be ashamed of yourselves.

Yahtzee should probably be even more ashamed of himself as he has been here before if I am not completely mistaken. If you hate as all so fucking much then maybe you should stay the hell out. Otherwise I think I'd have to say someone punching him in the mouth for his bullshit is some what justified.

It's like talking down to Jews all the time then walking around Israel.

Now I don't know him personally, obviously, and I'm going to go on a limb and be generous and assume he isn't a total irredeemable asshole. He just needs to quit with all of this shit.

He should reflect on what an ignorant mindset it is. However even barring that, is it too much to ask that he conduct himself even remotely like a professional in his reviews?

Yes I'm aware they are funny rants. However, I have heard a saying one time I think fits here.

"You don't ever discuss religion or politics in polite company"

Something that seems to assure that nothing good will get done if you decide to do so, just a lot of arguing and cussing.

Cat Cloud:
Ugh. This is why I don't play shooters. And for all you complainers, Yahtzee will stop making fun of America in war in shooters when developers stop making retarded shooters that feature America.

And why do so many Americans on this forum seem to want war? As an American, I want to stay as far as possible away from one. Right now we have too many problems to deal with. We really don't need world war three. And I really don't want to have our country invaded... it seems like a lot of people are out of touch with reality when it comes to war and what it is really like. I blame video games ;)

Good review as always.

I don't think nearly as many want it as much as many people like shooting people and watching crap blow up in video games.

Video games=/=reality people.

Just because you do something in a game doesn't mean you want to do the thing in real life. It's kind of the point.

Hell I don't understand why soldiers play FPS. Well at least if they have seen combat. I think it would make them remember getting ACTUALLY shot at and make them highly uncomfortable.

I think soldier play them because sometimes it's fun to blow off some steam in a fictional world. Sort of a catharsis thing.

Therumancer:

That said, yes we have gone after other countries, and generally speaking they have been militarily crushed even if we have failed to complete our objectives. We had reasons to go after Saddam for decades before we invaded, we agreed with the rest of the world community to let him go for a while after "Desert Storm" and see if he got hist act together. He did not. People were asking why we didn't finish that clown off for a long time before "The War On Terror" only to whine when we actually did it. People simply have short memories. Yugoslavia was nessicary to prevent a Genocide. We generally have good reasons for going where we do, even if things don't pay off. The US generally does not engage in wars of conquest unlike some other dominant world powers out there, yes there are some incidents argued by those with anti-American sentiments but no rule is absolute.

The U.S. probably should have but that doesn't justify going back and finishing the job through another war.

Take a look at Amnesty International's report on Yugoslavia. The U.S. (to say nothing of NATO) killed more people than Milosevic was ACCUSED of doing. Accusations which were never brought to trial because, after a few years, Milosevic conveniently died in custody. Given that the ICJ later found that the genocide charges were overblown. In fact, most of the violence committed by Serbia against Albanians came as a result of the bombings.

And, as Wikileaks has shown us, that's only the stuff that the U.S. and NATO haven't been able to cover up.

U.S. reasons as of late are not the noble ones reported by CNN, FOX, or the other major networks. Increasingly, they have been the result of Presidents who wished to divert civilian attention away from domestic issues or wish to "make their mark on the world".

Therumancer:

As I've pointed out before, in numerous posts, I believe that in a real war the only way to win is to target the civilians along with the military. We won World War II by turning the Nazis into a tiny fringe when they were once a huge international movement. We did this by killing massive numbers of civilians, bombing factores, farms, hospitals, and everything else.

Osama Bin Laden agrees with you. Thusly 9/11.

Therumancer:

As far as the US dropping bombs goes, it's pretty much how you do business. Nobody has bombed the US because nobody has ever been in a position to.

And there is the problem. The U.S. engages in these wars because, up until 9/11, noone had been able to strike back. Perhaps the next one won't be just a 747 but it'll be atomic in nature.

And don't say it couldn't happen. ABC news "smuggled" in uranium (not weapons grade but still radioactive) as part of a story to show how easy it would be to smuggle it in. Both times, the crate was inspected by customs and passed through.

The longer the U.S. takes the attitude of "it's pretty much how you do business" (what a PMC way to put that), the more people who have lost families and would do ANYTHING to strike back are created plus other countries/organizations will increasingly take the same attitude.

Therumancer:

Truthfully I don't think having bombs dropped on us would do anything to change the face of war, or affect how we would fight from that point onwards.

I think you'd be surprised at how people's attitudes change when they've been on the receiving end. If the U.S. starts having a major terrorist incident on their home soil every time a President decides to declare a war, popular opinion about conducting war in a "business as usual" manner would change drasticly.

And, if the U.S. were the victims of the same type of air assault that they inflict on other countries, it wouldn't be surprising to see such things taken entirely out of entertainment media. Remember how the World Trade Center was removed from video games/movies/TV following 9/11?

Thedek:

Just because you do something in a game doesn't mean you want to do the thing in real life. It's kind of the point.

Hell I don't understand why soldiers play FPS. Well at least if they have seen combat. I think it would make them remember getting ACTUALLY shot at and make them highly uncomfortable.

There was a gaming website called Gone Gold run by a former cop who was shot and crippled in the line of duty. He wrote a piece at one point about how gamers like to talk about realism in games and how, having been through a shooting, he knew that no video game will ever be able to duplicate the realism of being in that situation.

For people who have been soldiers, the stuff in videogames has as much realism as the average Rambo movie. For the most part, it doesn't really affect them BECAUSE they know what it's really like to be in a war situation. While there are some who are disturbed by it due to PTSD and some who do get offended by it (usually when it is glamorized), most just see it as the non-realistic entertainment media it is.

thepyrethatburns:

Therumancer:

That said, yes we have gone after other countries, and generally speaking they have been militarily crushed even if we have failed to complete our objectives. We had reasons to go after Saddam for decades before we invaded, we agreed with the rest of the world community to let him go for a while after "Desert Storm" and see if he got hist act together. He did not. People were asking why we didn't finish that clown off for a long time before "The War On Terror" only to whine when we actually did it. People simply have short memories. Yugoslavia was nessicary to prevent a Genocide. We generally have good reasons for going where we do, even if things don't pay off. The US generally does not engage in wars of conquest unlike some other dominant world powers out there, yes there are some incidents argued by those with anti-American sentiments but no rule is absolute.

The U.S. probably should have but that doesn't justify going back and finishing the job through another war.

Take a look at Amnesty International's report on Yugoslavia. The U.S. (to say nothing of NATO) killed more people than Milosevic was ACCUSED of doing. Accusations which were never brought to trial because, after a few years, Milosevic conveniently died in custody. Given that the ICJ later found that the genocide charges were overblown. In fact, most of the violence committed by Serbia against Albanians came as a result of the bombings.

And, as Wikileaks has shown us, that's only the stuff that the U.S. and NATO haven't been able to cover up.

U.S. reasons as of late are not the noble ones reported by CNN, FOX, or the other major networks. Increasingly, they have been the result of Presidents who wished to divert civilian attention away from domestic issues or wish to "make their mark on the world".

Therumancer:

As I've pointed out before, in numerous posts, I believe that in a real war the only way to win is to target the civilians along with the military. We won World War II by turning the Nazis into a tiny fringe when they were once a huge international movement. We did this by killing massive numbers of civilians, bombing factores, farms, hospitals, and everything else.

Osama Bin Laden agrees with you. Thusly 9/11.

Therumancer:

As far as the US dropping bombs goes, it's pretty much how you do business. Nobody has bombed the US because nobody has ever been in a position to.

And there is the problem. The U.S. engages in these wars because, up until 9/11, noone had been able to strike back. Perhaps the next one won't be just a 747 but it'll be atomic in nature.

And don't say it couldn't happen. ABC news "smuggled" in uranium (not weapons grade but still radioactive) as part of a story to show how easy it would be to smuggle it in. Both times, the crate was inspected by customs and passed through.

The longer the U.S. takes the attitude of "it's pretty much how you do business" (what a PMC way to put that), the more people who have lost families and would do ANYTHING to strike back are created plus other countries/organizations will increasingly take the same attitude.

Therumancer:

Truthfully I don't think having bombs dropped on us would do anything to change the face of war, or affect how we would fight from that point onwards.

I think you'd be surprised at how people's attitudes change when they've been on the receiving end. If the U.S. starts having a major terrorist incident on their home soil every time a President decides to declare a war, popular opinion about conducting war in a "business as usual" manner would change drasticly.

And, if the U.S. were the victims of the same type of air assault that they inflict on other countries, it wouldn't be surprising to see such things taken entirely out of entertainment media. Remember how the World Trade Center was removed from video games/movies/TV following 9/11?

Actually your wrong about a few things. For example the World Trade Center being removed was a temporary thing out of national mourning and also concern over that it would be mistreated if the general media started to dramatize it too soon. If you've been paying attention, nowadays, years after the fact, this is no longer the case. "Fringe" addressed the subject directly, by showing an alternate earth where the World Trade Center was never destroyed due to differant desicians, at first they lead you to believe they were better desicians as the world is slightly more advanced, but then you find out that other targets were hit instead (it's a minor spoiler, but I won't give it, besides it's off topic). The point here being that the taboo was temporary.

Without going into things point by point, our big disagreement is on how to solve problems. I do not consider "right and wrong" to be a matter of how many people die in a conflict. Especially seeing as your looking at the long term. If Yugoslavia had not seen US intervention how many people would have died in the long run? We'll never know, but the people who intervened believe that the greater good was served in the long term.

As far as breaking cultures and such goes, you are quite correct that Bin Ladin would agree with me from the other side. As far as the principles of war goes, he's not wrong, that's what a real war is about. Wars are to be avoided, but when they get going, you keep going until one side or the other breaks, half measures don't resolve anything.

Your points about other possible retaliation, including the possibility of atomic retaliation due to mising uranium, waste (to make R-bombs), and of course Iran's refinement facilities are one of the reasons why I am so gung-ho to go in their and pretty much break the entire culture through the region rather than focusing on specific nations and regimes.

See from my perspective, we've tried diplomacy and covert/underhanded measures for years, and the problem has just gotten worse. The issue isn't so much Islam, or any paticular nation, but the Muslim culture built up around Islam which exists in variations throughout the various nations. This is intentionally brief, rather than getting into specific examples.

A Muslim, and guys like Bin Ladin ultimatly see things differantly. To them we're the "great western Satan" and need to be destroyed at all costs. To propogate global islam, in vengeance for wrongs committed against Islamics going back to the Crusades, and all kinds of reasons fit into this.

In the end both sides have their own perspective, both believe they are in the right, and in the end only one of them is going to prevail. There is no cosmic good vs. evil battle, or mustache twirling snively whiplash villain, like most wars it comes down to Us vs. Them, and the biggest group of bastards win and then get to write the history books about how great and moral they were.

The differane is that I'm a cynic and a realist, your more of an idealist. I believe that big problems take big solutions, and in reality big solutions always come at a terrible price. In the end the situation with The Middle East comes down to millions of deaths,
either they do it to us, or we do it to them. After decades there is a point where you have to acknowlege diplomacy is not going to work due to both groups being almost entirely out of context to each other.

As a result neither of us are going to convince the other of their point of view, and like most internet discussions we're going to have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day I'm a cynical militant, and you aren't. Right now, enough people agree with you more than they do me, as you can see by our current policies and overall strategy in dealing with problems.

Therumancer:

Without going into things point by point, our big disagreement is on how to solve problems. I do not consider "right and wrong" to be a matter of how many people die in a conflict.

Which is easy to say when it's not on your home soil. Someone detonates a thermonuclear bomb in the midwest and your tune'll change.

Therumancer:

Especially seeing as your looking at the long term. If Yugoslavia had not seen US intervention how many people would have died in the long run? We'll never know, but the people who intervened believe that the greater good was served in the long term.

Fewer most likely. Despite the "wag the dog" reports of ethnic cleansing, there was very little of it before NATO started dropping bombs.

Therumancer:

Your points about other possible retaliation, including the possibility of atomic retaliation due to mising uranium, waste (to make R-bombs), and of course Iran's refinement facilities are one of the reasons why I am so gung-ho to go in their and pretty much break the entire culture through the region rather than focusing on specific nations and regimes.

And that's why Iran and North Korea are so gung-ho to make a nuclear weapon. They see the U.S. being eager to knock off every country they can so they want to have the same deterrant that Russia and China have. Action-reaction here. The more you push them against the wall, the more desperate their measures are going to be.

Therumancer:


See from my perspective, we've tried diplomacy and covert/underhanded measures for years, and the problem has just gotten worse. The issue isn't so much Islam, or any paticular nation, but the Muslim culture built up around Islam which exists in variations throughout the various nations. This is intentionally brief, rather than getting into specific examples.

And here's where we turn into Yahtzee when it comes to judging large swaths of people as a sort of hivemind.

Before the second Iraq war, Iran was heading towards a crossroads. The younger generation, many of whom had studied here and saw that we weren't "the Great White Satan", were getting tired of living in a theocracy. The older guard was losing their grip on their power as more and more people were demanding changes to their country which would bring them closer to a more democratic society.

Then Shock and Awe hit Iraq and the clock in Iran got turned back 20 years.

Therumancer:

A Muslim, and guys like Bin Ladin ultimatly see things differantly. To them we're the "great western Satan" and need to be destroyed at all costs. To propogate global islam, in vengeance for wrongs committed against Islamics going back to the Crusades, and all kinds of reasons fit into this.

And where do you think they're getting their recruits? Why do you think anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise? Most of the people in those regions don't care about Global Islam so much as they care that a U.S. bomb didn't leave enough of their loved ones to bury. Right now, the biggest recruitment image in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not an islamic one. It's the image of a U.S. soldier.

Therumancer:

The differane is that I'm a cynic and a realist, your more of an idealist.

Cynic vs. idealist may be correct but realist? Not even close. You're taking the failed view that genocide is the best way to accomplish diplomatic goals.

Therumancer:

I believe that big problems take big solutions, and in reality big solutions always come at a terrible price. In the end the situation with The Middle East comes down to millions of deaths, either they do it to us, or we do it to them.

Because this has worked so well for Palestine/Israel.

Therumancer:

After decades there is a point where you have to acknowlege diplomacy is not going to work due to both groups being almost entirely out of context to each other.

Fine. You can be one of those people who, as Yahtzee said, can gather in the desert with your shiny toys and beat the stuffing out of each other.

Therumancer:

As a result neither of us are going to convince the other of their point of view, and like most internet discussions we're going to have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day I'm a cynical militant, and you aren't.

Fair enough but I will say this. If you are this much of a cynical militant, I would hope that you have joined the military or, if underage, are planning to join the military when you are of age. If you truly believe in your solutions, then you should be willing to shoulder the risk and burden of implementing such solutions.

thepyrethatburns, you're done arguing with me? I'm... hurt...

whats the point of arguing? its just a book example of usa logic. its ok to laugh at germans with their hitler. its ok to laugh at russians. its ok to laugh at muslims. but you laugh at usa-you are a f**** terrorist!!!

neonit:
whats the point of arguing? its just a book example of usa logic. its ok to laugh at germans with their hitler. its ok to laugh at russians. its ok to laugh at muslims. but you laugh at usa-you are a f**** terrorist!!!

Either that or some guy who thinks everyone in America is a dickhead (or so it seems like)

Yahtzee was right it needed more stealth based action thats what the tittle sugests Black Ops it sounds like a stealth game. But what stealth was there in that entire game?

Thedek:
-snip-

You are aware that he keeps constantly referring to America as AMERICA, yes?

Infact, this goes out to all of you who put yourselves behind the "all Americans aren't the same" shield every time some criticism falls your way; Disliking America as a country does not mean hating their people, I don't understand why people keep assuming this.

For instance - Yahtzee seems to generally disapprove of America (as a nation) because of a small number of reasons:
1) Their persistent involvement in wars as a self-entitled "world police" means they've always fought their wars off their own soil. Yeah, it's immature to bitch about it, but it still makes a lot of sense.
2) Their persistent involvement in wars IS infact, persistent. You know, unless when we're talking about countries that sending supporting troops too wouldn't turn even the slightest profit the other way. (See: Almost every African nation ever.)
3) Hollywood keeps making films and games that compensate for plot holes with EXPLOSIONS. And BIG, MANLY, SCRUFFY main characters that eat LEAD for BREAKFAST.

Atleast that's what I think his main issues with the US is.

masterkeyes2:
Syeah American government has made some boneheaded decisions in the past but so have other nations right? I always find the focused hatred towards the world superpower somewhat odd.

You jsut called yourself a world superpower. That is a big reason why we don't like you (not the fact you are A superpower and not the biggest but that you guys think you're the whole world and that the rest of us couldn't function without you when it's the other way around).

AKA me personally don't like the arrogance (everything done in PST not GMT, somehow australians are british?, americans saved brits in WW2, many seem to exert but anyway, was a good review and it's nice to see he gets bored of the americanisation of EVERYTHING on Earth because apparently their audiences are too dumb to grasp foreign ideas (not saying you guys can't but your media seems to think that way).

rapidoud:
AKA me personally don't like the arrogance (everything done in PST not GMT, somehow australians are british?

-- Pretty sure that's ignorance, not arrogance.

thepyrethatburns:

Therumancer:

Without going into things point by point, our big disagreement is on how to solve problems. I do not consider "right and wrong" to be a matter of how many people die in a conflict.

Which is easy to say when it's not on your home soil. Someone detonates a thermonuclear bomb in the midwest and your tune'll change.

.

... and see, here is where the validity of pretty much everything your saying becomes entirely out of context. The wars are to prevent this kind of thing from happening. What's more claims that nations like Iran was on the verge of some kind of cultural renaissance are BS. Simply put anyone in a situation like this is going to claim "OMG, we were on the verge of a renaissance". Decades have gone by, with things getting worst throughout the entire region. It's not about one nation, but the culture, if it's not Iran it's Libya, if it's not Libya it's Iraq, if it's not Iraq it's Pakistan or Syria.

Nobody *wants* to have bombs dropped on them, and your right, the US wouldn't like it. On the other hand it's not going to change the face of war. If you drop bombs on the US it means that if you fail to kill us, we're going to come back and do the same thing to you ten times worse. Incidently this is why half measures don't work, if your going to war, you need to finish it and make sure there isn't an enemy left to come back after you later. You need to shatter the culture. Read some things on engagement principles like "total war".

Even should a world unity be achieved, wars will never end.

You are correct in that people get upset when they say have bombs dropped on their houses. This is why civilians, despite all modern morality, are part of the target of a war. The idea of a real war being to get past the military to decimate the people that are at the heart of the culture and pretty much wipe them out into a tiny fringe. People tend to forget that during conflicts like World War II in the last days of the conflict the US military engaged groups like "The Volkssturm" or "Folk Storm" who were pretty much civilians rallying to attempt to defend their homes, they were decimated with extreme prejudice during building to building fighting. Non combatants were also executed simply for the sake of security since they could be members of, or supporting such groups. "The Hitler Youth" was made up of children, including some as young as 5 or 6 in Jr. versions, they were like a hybrid of Boy Scouts and RoTC, some of them fought, but in general they were wiped out with extreme predjudice as well to kill the ideas and propaganda involved. Most people don't like to think of a "heroic American" putting a gun to the head of a kneeling, tear-soaked 5 year old and blowing their head off as part of destroying an idealogy, but it happened. These groups didn't just vanish due to conveience. What's more guys who were involved with the Nazis AFTER the war officially ended were hunted down and killed with extreme predjudice throughout the entire world. The point I'm making here is that there is no such thing as a moral, or "antiseptic" war, there is only a winner and a loser when it comes to an all out conflict. Because the US won, we talk about Nazi atrocities, and how many people they killed, and all the horrible things they did while we were soooo heroic.

At any rate, the realities of war are what make a lot of your points moot. The Germans didn't like us bombing their farms and factories and such either, that's one of the reasons why things had to go so far to bring the war to an end.

As far as your comments on joining the military, due to being disabled the military wouldn't take me. What's more, due to the engagement policies the military is following I would not join even if they would take me. Simply put I am practical in that the military has to spend human lives in order to win wars and complete objectives. I however do not believe it does this responsibly under the current engagement doctrines. Simply put I feel the attempts to fight an antiseptic and/or moral war, make the risks to our soldiers unacceptable. We developed all of these bombs, cruise missles, and artillery weapons specifically so we could decimate population centers in times of war and minimize the use of the infantry. One of the reasons we downsized our military and had to call in reserves was the view that while "boots on the ground" are ultimatly nessicary, they were mostly to act as clean up of survivors,
and to act as forward observers and such.

As our military operates now, you can have snipers attack jeeps and hummers and then fade into crowds of "civilians" who move to cover them from retalation due to the fact that our military is prevented by policy from returning fire.

What's more, when you say have an enemy leader speaking in a square shouting "kill America" to a crowd of adoring Muslim supporters, we won't bomb the guy, because of all those "innocent civilians" that would be "collateral damage". We developed things like Daisy Cutter Bombs and cruise missles with extremely large blast radiuses specifically for situations like that, and yet now when the time comes we won't pull the trigger.

When you have billions upon billions of dollars in technology invested in weapons to totally wreck civilizations, and then you decide to go in and fight rifle to rifle, the people running the show are complete idiots. I'd be willing to risk my life for my country, but I'm not going to get my head blown off so some bleeding heart can feel good about himself.

That is incidently why I talk so much about military engagement policy, and will be one of the first people to tell you what huge bastards we really were in the wars we won. I do not relish carnage despite how it might sound, but I feel that when your going to war, you
should do it right. Otherwise you have an endless cycle of conflict where the people who you partially bombed simply hate you more later and come back after you for revenge when everything is done. With the Nazis we beat them by pretty much making sure that when we were done there pretty much weren't any Nazis anymore. It was idealogical "genocide", it's just that most people don't like to think of it that way. The fact that we wrote the history books later meant we got to blow our own horn.

Hence why I am a cynical militant.

I'm not responding this way to dance around the points your trying to make, I'm simply pointing out that we are totally out of context to each other. Your points and the morality they are based in, is entirely differant from mine. I have am one of those people that are so far in the minority that has a very clear divide between peacetime and wartime morality, which can be summarized as "there is no morality in war".

... and also, I see a reason for going to war as being to destroy groups that present a threat to you. The possibility of someone being cheezed at us, developing a nuke, and then setting it off in the Midwest or whatever, is exactly why you do the job the way I'm talking about as "evil" as it may be. We not only killed the Nazis, but hunted down or otherwise "recruited" (in the case of scientists) the survivors for decades afterwards in part to prevent any kind of a resurgence that could lead to some dude going "OMG, the Americans bombed my house and killed my family! All I wanted to do is be left alone with my idealogy!" and perfectly right in his own mind, and from his own perspective, developing and setting off WMD in a major city somehow.

As far as argueing that nations like Iran were 2" away from a renaissance before our half-arsed police action with their neigbors, it's sort of like people who claim that the Nazis were misunderstood, were not killing Jews but relocating them, and similar things, or how that there were movements in the party which were close to removing Hitler before the US and it's allies actually entered Axis soil. I neither believe it, or care, given the point which was reached when we entered the war. The US's primary motive of course being Pearl Harbour, which was the 9/11 of it's day, it's just that the US no longer has the same spirit.

At any rate, enough rambling. Like most discussions, in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree. The majority of your points are based around argueing from a perspective that is entirely differant from mine. When it comes to war, I've already dismissed morality. A lot of your arguements about what we might think about think of things if we had been bombed, overlook the fact that we act this way to prevent that from becoming a possibility. Albiet our response is half arsed, and is liable to bite us in the keister. Truthfully I think the result of the inevitable backlash of our current policies is going to be a lot of American deaths. If we survive that, you will probably see a lot more people with my pragmatic attitude on things, and we'll probably get the job done again when nessicary (for a while). Of course that will mean a lot more people on our side will have died than was nessicary given our potential control of military conflicts were are currently involved in.

Ok. Black ops. Yes..I can't help but add something here..

The term Black ops doesn't necessarily denote stealth. The difference between a white and black op is that one is openly recorded, funding understood, documented, etc etc. A Black Op isn't "Black" because it's done at night or it involves sneaky sneaking. It's "Black" because, like in the cut scenes, information is "blacked out", governments deny responsibility, agents are briefed secretly and so forth.

It's one of those phrases where you don't have to think completely literally about the words (just like a "Long Day" doesn't mean that it was actually any longer AND a "Cliff Hanger" at the end of a TV show doesn't mean that someone is actually hanging off a cliff).

Come on guys - think a little bit.

neonit:
whats the point of arguing? its just a book example of usa logic. its ok to laugh at germans with their hitler. its ok to laugh at russians. its ok to laugh at muslims. but you laugh at usa-you are a f**** terrorist!!!

Wait, USA logic? Are you implying that only Americans are capable of logical fallacies? We weren't arguing about the intellect of the American people, but now, I think that's changed.

Therumancer:

thepyrethatburns:

Therumancer:

Without going into things point by point, our big disagreement is on how to solve problems. I do not consider "right and wrong" to be a matter of how many people die in a conflict.

Which is easy to say when it's not on your home soil. Someone detonates a thermonuclear bomb in the midwest and your tune'll change.

.

... and see, here is where the validity of pretty much everything your saying becomes entirely out of context. The wars are to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

No, they aren't. And, if you claim they are, you need to back that up with proof. Start with Panama. Work your way to Iraq. Present concrete proof.

Therumancer:

What's more claims that nations like Iran was on the verge of some kind of cultural renaissance are BS. Simply put anyone in a situation like this is going to claim "OMG, we were on the verge of a renaissance". Decades have gone by, with things getting worst throughout the entire region. It's not about one nation, but the culture, if it's not Iran it's Libya, if it's not Libya it's Iraq, if it's not Iraq it's Pakistan or Syria.

This is why you need to need to either get outside the U.S. or, at least, start reading news media that is not Fox or CNN. This way, you might not take the attitude that they're all barbarians that need to be exterminated. You might start seeing them as people. I didn't say Iran was on the verge of a cultural renaissance. I said that Iran was headed towards a crossroads where the younger generation was growing weary of living under a theocracy and wanted to move towards a more democratic society. This movement was very well documented even by U.S. news networks. Would that have led to a renaissance? Unknown and I guess we won't know now.

Therumancer:

Nobody *wants* to have bombs dropped on them, and your right, the US wouldn't like it. On the other hand it's not going to change the face of war. If you drop bombs on the US it means that if you fail to kill us, we're going to come back and do the same thing to you ten times worse.

Then why the hell do you think it's somehow different in any other region? Why would you think that killing millions and committing genocide will somehow not provoke retaliation?

Therumancer:

Incidently this is why half measures don't work, if your going to war, you need to finish it and make sure there isn't an enemy left to come back after you later. You need to shatter the culture. Read some things on engagement principles like "total war".

We're not talking about what the U.S. should do once it engages in a war. We're talking about preemptively starting wars because the President gets an itch to make things go boom.

Therumancer:

As far as your comments on joining the military, due to being disabled the military wouldn't take me. What's more, due to the engagement policies the military is following I would not join even if they would take me.

And there's the problem. Most of the cynical militants in the U.S. are the armchair generals. It's a lot easier to be a cynical militant when you're advocating for someone else to go catch bullets than it is when you're the one getting shot at.

Therumancer:

Simply put I am practical in that the military has to spend human lives in order to win wars and complete objectives. I however do not believe it does this responsibly under the current engagement doctrines. Simply put I feel the attempts to fight an antiseptic and/or moral war, make the risks to our soldiers unacceptable.

Riskier than not sending them into an unneccessary "Presidental Legacy" war in the first place?

Therumancer:

We developed all of these bombs, cruise missles, and artillery weapons specifically so we could decimate population centers in times of war and minimize the use of the infantry.

You are really into this idea of slaughtering the civilian population, aren't you? Yes, we have all these weapons. Yes, that is their intended use although, by the very laws that we tried the Nazis under, those population centers should have some demonstratable military value. Even Hiroshima had demonstratable military value, having 3 large military bases, numerous large military supply depots, and was a major shipping port.

I mean, hell, since you're so into the idea of slaughtering the population to bring them to heel, why not just glass the place? By your own admission, we should be using the maximum amount of force to inflict the maximum number of casualties so let's just drop a nuke or two.

Therumancer:

What's more, when you say have an enemy leader speaking in a square shouting "kill America" to a crowd of adoring Muslim supporters, we won't bomb the guy, because of all those "innocent civilians" that would be "collateral damage".

We developed things like Daisy Cutter Bombs and cruise missles with extremely large blast radiuses specifically for situations like that, and yet now when the time comes we won't pull the trigger.

That's a great idea. We should institute this in America too. Speaking out against the American government will earn you an inch of lead between the eyes. For Freedom!!!

I really like this. You're talking about indiscriminately slaughtering civilians by dropping Daisy Cutters on any town square where some cleric is giving a speech calling for the death of America and then you wonder why anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise.

I've also noticed that, as you talk more and more about inflicting civilian casualties, it's always "Muslims". You almost never refer to them by country or organization or anything else. It's always just "Muslims".

Therumancer:

When you have billions upon billions of dollars in technology invested in weapons to totally wreck civilizations, and then you decide to go in and fight rifle to rifle, the people running the show are complete idiots. I'd be willing to risk my life for my country, but I'm not going to get my head blown off so some bleeding heart can feel good about himself.

By your own definition, you aren't. You're willing to commit genocide by pressing buttons to drop massive amounts of ordinance upon the civilian population of these countries as if this is some form of video game but you aren't willing to put your own life on the line.

Therumancer:

... and also, I see a reason for going to war as being to destroy groups that present a threat to you. The possibility of someone being cheezed at us, developing a nuke, and then setting it off in the Midwest or whatever, is exactly why you do the job the way I'm talking about as "evil" as it may be. We not only killed the Nazis, but hunted down or otherwise "recruited" (in the case of scientists) the survivors for decades afterwards in part to prevent any kind of a resurgence that could lead to some dude going "OMG, the Americans bombed my house and killed my family! All I wanted to do is be left alone with my idealogy!" and perfectly right in his own mind, and from his own perspective, developing and setting off WMD in a major city somehow.

There is a LARGE difference between what happens after a war which does include killing those who may pose a future threat and going to war with any non-nuclear nation (another reason Iran and North Korea want nukes) just because a president convinces the people of the U.S. that, at some point in the future, they may pose some form of threat to us.

Therumancer:

As far as argueing that nations like Iran were 2" away from a renaissance before our half-arsed police action with their neigbors, it's sort of like people who claim that the Nazis were misunderstood, were not killing Jews but relocating them, and similar things, or how that there were movements in the party which were close to removing Hitler before the US and it's allies actually entered Axis soil.

No. No, it isn't. Not even close. Stop watching FOX news.

Therumancer:

I neither believe it, or care,

People who advocate genocide rarely do.

Therumancer:

The US's primary motive of course being Pearl Harbour, which was the 9/11 of it's day,

Which was a justification for Afghanistan.

Using the same WW2 comparisons that you're using, using 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq would be comparable to us using Pearl Harbor to attack Korea because they're both Asian countries.

Therumancer:

it's just that the US no longer has the same spirit.

That and the fact that, if we did conduct the war as you're suggesting, we would probably be facing the same world coalition against us that Saddam had facing him in the first Iraq war.

You can only commit so many atrocities before even your staunchest ally turns on you

Therumancer:

At any rate, enough rambling. Like most discussions, in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree. The majority of your points are based around argueing from a perspective that is entirely differant from mine. When it comes to war, I've already dismissed morality. A lot of your arguements about what we might think about think of things if we had been bombed, overlook the fact that we act this way to prevent that from becoming a possibility.

So, if I were to meet you in the street, I should shoot you because there's a possibility that, one day, you might decide to shoot me?

You're right about our perspectives being different.

Therumancer:

Albiet our response is half arsed, and is liable to bite us in the keister. Truthfully I think the result of the inevitable backlash of our current policies is going to be a lot of American deaths.

Any backlash that comes as a result of our policies won't come because we did it half-assed.

Therumancer:

If we survive that, you will probably see a lot more people with my pragmatic attitude on things,
[quote]

Pragmatism =/= irrational and genocidal

[quote="Therumancer" post="6.246777.9086011"]
Of course that will mean a lot more people on our side will have died than was nessicary given our potential control of military conflicts were are currently involved in.

You are still working off a false premise. Anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise BECAUSE the U.S. decides to go into other countries and kill off large portions of the civilian populace. It's one thing to let the world know that, if you attack the U.S., you will be stomped flat. It's quite another to let the world know that the U.S. may knock off your country on a whim. The first premise deters attacks. The second premise tells people (particularly Muslims evidently) that they have nothing to lose and might as well resort to preemptive strikes as well.

Oh and, America, you aren't in charge of the world. Not everyone is out to get you (but keep working on it, I'm sure you can get everyone to hate you if you work hard enough). We don't all idolise you. We don't want to be like you.

We like your clothing, movies, games and music because, unlike you, we are busy doing important things while Americans are busy trying to become famous and rich. Keep making that stuff - it suits us fine for you to spend heaps of money to entertain and clothe us.

Let's be honest here. You guys are owned by China thanks to your brilliant "Freedom" mission in Iraq.

I think Yahtzee's points are valid. America does spend way too much time complimenting it's own greatness. You guys think that you are number one in the world but the only thing you seem to be number one at is spending money on war. You run around poking the world with a big stick saying "we're awesome, be like us, you guys love us so much" and then complain when people don't like you. "You're just jealous" or "You can't handle how super awesome we are".

It's really infantile.

Perception is reality. I'm sure there are lovely, hard working (definitely hard working - you guys still don't know what a fair minimum wage is), down to earth people in America (and I know there are these types of people because I've got American friends) but lets be honest here. Your media spends all it's time blowing the "WE ARE THE BEST" trumpet when the rest of the world simply shrugs it's shoulders and says "who cares?"

Australia has more innovation in technology per capita than the rest of the world. Shrug.

Newsweek put out a "Top 10" best countries article a few months ago. No. 1? Finland. No. 4? Australia. America? Not on the list.

Yes, America, you look fat in those pants. Yes, you have bad breath. Yes, what you are doing is annoying. People only say these things because they want you to be better. It's ok, baby, we still love you. Just work on those things a bit harder.

Thorinair:
thepyrethatburns, you're done arguing with me? I'm... hurt...

I'm sorry. It's just that you're not advocating exterminating millions of Muslims on the basis that they may possibly be a threat at an indeterminate time in the future so I don't have as much motivation to argue with you.

Thorinair:

neonit:
whats the point of arguing? its just a book example of usa logic. its ok to laugh at germans with their hitler. its ok to laugh at russians. its ok to laugh at muslims. but you laugh at usa-you are a f**** terrorist!!!

Wait, USA logic? Are you implying that only Americans are capable of logical fallacies? We weren't arguing about the intellect of the American people, but now, I think that's changed.

oh no, i wasnt implying this, and i have no idea how in Satan's glorious name you came upon this conclusion! i also know that for example, Italians tend to have exactly the same problem (see-Mafia II) which doesnt change the fact that (at least from my perspective) my point remains valid. I dont see germans complaining about 1XX game about nazi's. And if they do complain, then i think it is stupid. what i do see however are people acting like saying something bad about usa army is blasphemy, and should be punished by Guantanamo rules.

The Cheezy One:

RUINER ACTUAL:

The Cheezy One:
Hopefully we'll all love Homefront!
And yes, zombies do seem to be a necessary requirement now.

It does look amazing. The story sounds like just the thing Yahtzee wants. And the multiplayer looks really fun. Hopefully it will be packed with sweet weapons too.

Then why is your avatar completely unrelated to homefront in every way? :)
THQ have got to be my favourite publisher, they have a reputation for taking risks and going for more interesting games - see Metro 2033, Saints row 2, STALKER shadow of chernobyl, Finding Nemo the game -, and Kaos studios is an offshoot of THQ. The one thing I am wary of, is that this will become Metro 2027: USA. Don't get me wrong, It will make it great 2033 had some excellent visuals, but was very linear, so all the visuals shot by a bit too fast. I'll still get it anyway, but something I am worrying about

THQ is pretty sweet. Playing through Metro several times, honestly, I knew it was linear but didn't really care. It was still a great game. I use this remark: Half Life 2 is linear, and we all know how good that game is. Reading some previews from GameInformer and online, I don't think it will be as strictly linear as Metro was. Remember, Metro was following a book, so it didn't have a lot of wiggle room. Kaos' Frontlines really wasn't that linear, so I would imagine Homefront takes more from that than from 4As Metro. Also, Homefront is going to have multiplayer, which doesn't make up for, but would offset some linearity in the campaign.

Back on the discussion of Black Ops instead of talking about American/International issues/policies, I finally got a chance to sit down and play it on the 26th, and beat it in one sitting. Now I myself usually only play RPGs, but I was very impressed by black ops. It didn't move to fast for me, maybe Yahtzee is just getting old.

was the ending bit a clever reference to the online play?about getting it out of their system?

I've only played modern warfare 1 and your right it IS more stealthy then Black (African American) Ops there's like only one mission were there is stealth and there's barley any guys to kill

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here