Black Ops 2 An Unintentional Pakistani Perspective on The War on Terror

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

erttheking:
...seriously, please take this to religion and politics. Enough flaming goes on on a regular basis in this thread, we don't need to add onto it with bringing up politics.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this now.
Every one of my posts on this thread was linked to Black Ops 2, but other people want to drag politics into this(without relating it to Black Ops 2 or other games and metaphors they can be used as).

FelixG:

Arif_Sohaib:
snip

There was also a rather entertaining slight at president Obama as the Obama carrier is used to fuck everything in the world up.

mavkiel:
Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

I agree with this sentiment

Also, was I the only one who noticed that the only drones to go rogue were the some of the aerial drones? The satellite kinetic weapons still worked, the quads still worked, the CLAWS still worked...

I thoroughly enjoyed the game though, and I am tempted to go back through to see what the outcomes of various other choices are. Also...I feel bad for Chloe xD poor girl.

So you are a war-mongering Republican? I think you would enjoy that Doorfighter game much more than Black Ops 2.

Also, the game was praising Obama and David Petraeus(who is probably the Secretary of State in the game).
And you can save Chole by


But I do support the way the drones were used during the Bush era when Pakistani approval was sought before use, there was much less chance for collateral damage and they weren't a propaganda tool for the terrorists, Guantanamo Bay and Dr. Asia was the biggest tool they had back then, and they weren't very useful on most of the population.
Now, weather or not they cause civilian deaths, the ARE a propaganda tool for the Taliban(I live in Pakistan, I have more perspective on this, you are commenting from the sidelines).

Arif_Sohaib:
snip

War-mongerer, sure. I am not republican though, I vote for whatever aligns with my personal interests be it democrat or republican.

Mostly I just lack empathy, If you (editorial yous from this point forward) know person is part of an organization that gets blown up regularly by drones and you continue to be around said person, instead of say putting a bullet in their head, then I have little reason to be all sad when you get tagged by said drone when it is after the person.

I never saw where it praised obama in there, as I said I saw it more as a underhanded slight instead.

On the Chloe matter, See this is a good direction for CoD to take, encourages multiple play through. I will probably start on my second next week, hopefully I can access all my unlocked guns from the start this time.

razer17:

I really don't know what could be done to stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Drone bombings aren't the right way, though. We're not at war with these countries per se, just certain elements within them. It seems the west kills more civilians than terrorists. Whilst civilian casualties are tragic but understandable in actual country v country warfare, it's not right to endanger the lives of civilians for the purposes of the war on terror.

All that being said, something needs to be done about the Taliban etc. I just don't know what. you certainly can't defeat such a deeply entrenched mindset over night. You can't reason with terrorists.

I got as far as this is the thread before I felt an overwhelming need to speak, so I guess good job for that.
The reason so many civilians die is because these terrorist organisations are using them as human shields, not because they are being targeted by NATO or the US forces. There is no way we can possibly engage them while they're firing at us from behind what's essentially a wall of noncombatants. Not only are they hiding behind these seemingly unarmed people, but they're spread among them. The problem with guerilla warfare is that we don't know who's an enemy and who's neutral. We can't possibly know this without seeing a weapon, and by then it's usually too late for some of our soldiers. Add on the fact that terrorist organisations tend to use bombs and IEDs, which kill mass quantities of civilians and maybe some soldiers, and there is no way we can successfully keep civilian deaths from happening. Even now, our Rules of Engagement regarding how to respond to hostile action in the Middle East are so restrictive that they can essentially fire on our forces without fear of any retaliation.

FelixG:

I never saw where it praised obama in there, as I said I saw it more as a underhanded slight instead.

I didnt even see it as a slight. I saw it as "We name most of our carriers after presidents[1]." Although, now that you mention it, I could see that though.

On the Chloe matter, See this is a good direction for CoD to take, encourages multiple play through. I will probably start on my second next week, hopefully I can access all my unlocked guns from the start this time.

Yes, very much so. I havent really liked Call of Duty since the original Modern Warfare (Black Ops 1 was good though), but Black Ops 2 was AWSOME.

OT: I didnt really see this as a "this is what its like for Pakistan" as the game. No, it was something else...something I have already been preaching and am very adament about. It is sumed up in a quote by Woods in the announcement trailer. "We built computers, robots...whole unmanned armies and no one ever asked: What happens when the enemy steals the keys?" I saw this game as being critical of warfare becoming more reliant on drones than on human fighters, and this is something I already believe is a problem.

[1] USS George HW Bush, USS Harry Truman, USS Ronald Reagan, USS Dwight Eisenhower, USS Theodore Roosevelt, etc. The oddballs out are the USS Carl Vinson (a senator from Georgia who helped the Navy alot) and the USS Chester Nimitz (head admiral in WW2)

...if you needed CoD to convince you being mowed down by drones and not being able to do anything about it is a bad thing, regardless of who is being shot, well...that's just a little sad.

On the war...I think the US should pull out for its own sake. The intervention so far has hardly been effective, in some cases tribal warlords could even be using the forces to their advantage in wiping out rival tribes, and US influence is basically why we have organised terror groups and why the US is a terrorist target.

Interesting perspective Arif, I wish the issue of non-combat zone strikes of these sorts came up as a topic of conversation more during the election.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked