Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Military Personnel Weigh In On Being Taliban In Medal of Honor

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the identity-conflict dept.

The Military 171

SSDNINJA writes "This is a feature from gamrFeed that interviews nine US service members about playing as the Taliban in the upcoming Medal of Honor. One soldier states that games like MoH and Call of Duty are 'profiteering from war.' Another says, 'Honestly, I don't really see what the whole fuss is about. It's a game, and just like in Call of Duty, you don't really care about what side you're taking, just as long as you win. I don't think anyone cares if you're part of the Rangers or Spetznaz, as long as you win.' An excellent and interesting read."

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sheik Mahmoud sez (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319160)

something like "When our youth is playing "Swordsofthe Faithful"; it really tweaks my turban when they play the infidel 10th Army Division soldier... I mean, cmon, it really takes the bang out of suicide vest boys who are giving their lives for our cause....."

Fucker! (-1, Troll)

fishexe (168879) | about 4 years ago | (#33319196)

You stole my chance at First Post!

Re:Fucker! (1)

scosco62 (864264) | about 4 years ago | (#33319516)

Was it amusing?

Re:Fucker! (1)

fishexe (168879) | about 4 years ago | (#33319718)

Was it amusing?

You'll just never know, will you?

It's just a game (2, Insightful)

Nick (109) | about 4 years ago | (#33319188)

Get over it.

Re:It's just a game (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 4 years ago | (#33319692)

Fucking A. So sick of this politicising of gaming.

Re:It's just a game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33320198)

It's EA's viral marketing campaign. Enjoy.

Re:It's just a game (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 years ago | (#33320288)

Sadly, that line of reasoning doesn't work, it's never worked for movies. Movies have been around longer, and still we have people who think that movies should only be allowed to contain sanitized bible stories.

For that matter, saying "It's just a walmart greeting, get over it" didn't work when the fox news crowd found out that walmart was saying (gasp) "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

To be fair though, that -was- actually a nefarious plot by us evil "secular progressives" to destroy american and send them all to hell. But they didn't know that.

No! It's called Columbine MASSACRE echohohoh! (0)

NRAdude (166969) | about 4 years ago | (#33320346)

Hey, when Columbine occured, within 2 weeks I was pulled into the School Office because I fit the profile. I didn't even like playing Duke Nukem 3d, and they kept showing pictures of that game on the news and calling it Doom. They're just giving a reason to interject into everyone's life to build cultural acceptance of their unwarranted seizures on land. They behave as they do becaus they know their country has been morally and scholastically bankrupted by them constantly threshing every generation of it's best and brightest into pro-Government tards that beat-down anything productively un-registered to them.

I can't tell you how many times I've been flagged, that even COPS on the street always enjoy their 15-minute default detainment period because they want to "get to know" who they've never seen in the area before and be assholes about wasting your time. Our favortite virgin godesses Freedom and Liberty stand aside: make way for Psychiatrists and Psychologists for great whore of Justice!

Profit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319206)

profiteering from war is bad?

Except for all those nice upstanding defense contractors and other related service companys we give billions to....

Damm... now i'm confused.

Re:Profit (3, Interesting)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | about 4 years ago | (#33319480)

The soldier in question makes the same point:

More importantly, the creation of games like these is war profiteering; the same profiteering that Blackwater, civilian contractors, and companies that produce ACU backpacks for school children participate in.

He even seems to suggest that movies like "The Hurt Locker" are war profiteering. Maybe he's right?

Re:Profit (1, Insightful)

Manfre (631065) | about 4 years ago | (#33319544)

Unless the soldier is declining his paycheck, then he's profiteering too.

Re:Profit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319672)

No, he's not. Making a profit from and profiteering are not the same thing. The soldier is not taking advantage of the war to make extra profit, he's simply doing the job he was hired for and being paid his standard wages.

Re:Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319786)

That's exactly what the people hired by Blackwater, civilian contractors, and companies that produce ACU backpacks for school children are doing. They're providing a service to their employer (the USDOD) for jobs that aren't normally performed by DOD personnel.

Profiteering is making a profit off the war, without being related to the actual war. Like (most) video games, movies, and songs.

Re:Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319950)

Last time I checked most video games, movies and songs had nothing to do with any actual ongoing or past war. (Some do but they are in minority.)

Re:Profit (1)

brusk (135896) | about 4 years ago | (#33319804)

Technically, military personnel in combat zones get additional pay (imminent danger pay [dfas.mil] ). But I agree with the larger point.

Re:Profit (0, Troll)

morari (1080535) | about 4 years ago | (#33320012)

He's making a profit from war... from killing others. Soldiers do the actual killing and are in many ways even more responsible than the white collars building and selling the weapons. Without soldiers no one could even run a war, no one at all could profit. I'm tired of all of this "support the troops" crap, as if they're just innocent bystanders that were pulled in. They volunteer, knowing full well what is going to happen. They're either bloodthirsty murders or naive idiots... neither are something I'm particularly willing to support and cry about.

Re:Profit (2, Insightful)

spiralpath (1114695) | about 4 years ago | (#33320276)

You don't think there are any intelligent, committed people willing to sacrifice themselves for an ideal? I don't deny that both bloodthirsty murderers and naive idiots join the military, but do you really think that's all there is?

Re:Profit (0, Troll)

morari (1080535) | about 4 years ago | (#33320760)

People willing to die for "the ideal" fall under naive idiots. No one fights for freedom, they only fight to make the rich richer. Cavemen fought and killed each other over food and resources. The Founding Fathers fought the British because their privates fortunes were being taxed away. Ideals are just a tool aimed at the naive.

Most people I see joining the military do so because they have little in the way of alternatives. They're poor, their families have always been poor, and they're hoping to get a ticket to college to better their lives. I think those people, though joining for altogether self-serving reasons, are still naive as too the truth of their involvement. Many only find out once it's too late.

Re:Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319706)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319896)

Considering the rate of pay, working conditions, workplace environment and especially job risk, I'd hardly think it as being very profitable.

Re:Profit (2, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 4 years ago | (#33319936)

No they are not.

"A war profiteer is any person or organization that improperly profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war."

Re:Profit (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 years ago | (#33320944)

Have you ever seen the pay scale for enlisted soldiers and sailors? Profiteering?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy2010paycharts/a/basicpayenl.htm [about.com]

Alright - I'll be honest - the pay is a little higher than I thought it was. But, bear in mind that you are looking at before taxes. When Uncle takes his bite, those figures will drop some. Still - profiteering?

If Ricky Recruit only eats on base, never parties, and doesn't go on any dates, he can save up enough money to pay for a new car at the end of his enlistment. If that is profiteering, well - I'm all for profiteers. Now, we need a new name for those people and corporations that make millions, billions, and trillions off of bloodshed.

Re:Profit (1)

cOldhandle (1555485) | about 4 years ago | (#33320790)

That would be like saying the motion picture "Pretty Woman" is prostitution profiteering, and equally ridiculous. I fail to see any comparison between such abstract entertainment, and actual profiteering like those contractors.

Re:Profit (1)

morari (1080535) | about 4 years ago | (#33319988)

My thoughts exactly. It's pretty fucking amusing to hear the military complain about people profiting from war. Give me a break.

They are PROFESSIONAL soldiers, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33320092)

I wonder why an American soldier would complain about "profiteering". Didn't he join the armed forces as a professional? Doesn't he get a salary from war?

spoken like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33320698)

Another says, 'Honestly, I don't really see what the whole fuss is about. It's a game, and just like in Call of Duty, you don't really care about what side you're taking, just as long as you win. I don't think anyone cares if you're part of the Rangers or Spetznaz, as long as you win.

Spoken like a true Merc. which is all the military really are nowadays if they're honest with themselves..

Ha! (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#33319208)

One soldier states that games like MoH and Call of Duty are 'profiteering from war

Oh boy, if that soldier only knew who was REALLY profiteering from war.

It isn't me. (4, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33319288)

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

Re:Ha! (1)

dunezone (899268) | about 4 years ago | (#33319326)

With that logic you could say all books, films, and games based on any war is profiteering.

Heck you could say Senator McCain is profiteering when he talks about his military experience when campaigning which ultimately lands him a job which he makes an income from.

This is a typical fuss over nothing.

Re:Ha! (2, Insightful)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33319618)

Well, yes. Profiteering in wartime is usually taken as things like smuggling operations, black markets, people trafficking. War stories, war comics, war movies - when they edge into propaganda and black propaganda - are questionable, but people expect heroes and villains in stories. However, in no context are they remotely profiteering. My guess is that the soldier in question has played many a FPS and probably many a wargame of other sorts. I doubt he had any problems with those.

I would also guess that he - and probably many other soldiers - bought weapons for their family after 9/11. Gun merchants who rely on fear by their customers are far closer to profiteering from wartime. Games are not bought out of fear or panic, they don't rely on scare tactics (such as a Democrat getting elected), if their sales alter during a conflict it is because of increased interest and nothing more. But if you asked those same soldiers if gunshops should be penalized for profiteering, there's no way on this planet they would agree. If they even accepted that that is what it was (unlikely), they'd tell you that weapons are a fundamental right (which they're not, since there are many classes of people in the US who cannot own one) and that it doesn't matter if profiteering takes place in a free society (dubious, but of all the arguments it's the most convincing).

So why are games a problem? Ah, well, you see the game itself is NOT the problem. Neither, I suspect, is the fact that you can play a bad guy. (Certainly hasn't hurt game sales where you can only play the bad guy.) I suspect the problem is that the military is extremely good at dehumanizing and that makes it very difficult to connect with a game that starts from the assumption that neither side is less human than the other.

Re:Ha! (-1, Flamebait)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33319674)

Well these aren't the smartest people on the planet, they're soldiers. Don't know why anyone cares about their opinion. They just take orders and shoot their guns and dig trenches.

Re:Ha! (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33319792)

More likely digging foxholes. Trenches involve sharing and that's a socialist principle.

Re:Ha! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319952)

It's simple. Outspoken hysterical military moms [slashdot.org] and spouses can only be criticized by (ex-)soldiers. Soldiers can only be criticized by other (ex-)soldiers.

And while the U.S. military does cater to some of the stupidest people you have ever met, many of them are surprisingly intelligent. You don't get to do much besides walk and carry a rifle unless you can think for yourself.

Re:Ha! (1)

Ollabelle (980205) | about 4 years ago | (#33320386)

Sorry, man, but you're wrong. They may make choices you don't agree with, but that does not make them anything less than you. Do you feel the same about teachers, firemen, or policemen, anyone who's not all about the last dollar?

Re:Ha! (1)

genner (694963) | about 4 years ago | (#33320008)

Well, yes. Profiteering in wartime is usually taken as things like smuggling operations, black markets, people trafficking. War stories, war comics, war movies - when they edge into propaganda and black propaganda - are questionable, but people expect heroes and villains in stories. However, in no context are they remotely profiteering. My guess is that the soldier in question has played many a FPS and probably many a wargame of other sorts. I doubt he had any problems with those.

I would also guess that he - and probably many other soldiers - bought weapons for their family after 9/11. Gun merchants who rely on fear by their customers are far closer to profiteering from wartime. Games are not bought out of fear or panic, they don't rely on scare tactics (such as a Democrat getting elected), if their sales alter during a conflict it is because of increased interest and nothing more. But if you asked those same soldiers if gunshops should be penalized for profiteering, there's no way on this planet they would agree. If they even accepted that that is what it was (unlikely), they'd tell you that weapons are a fundamental right (which they're not, since there are many classes of people in the US who cannot own one) and that it doesn't matter if profiteering takes place in a free society (dubious, but of all the arguments it's the most convincing).

So why are games a problem? Ah, well, you see the game itself is NOT the problem. Neither, I suspect, is the fact that you can play a bad guy. (Certainly hasn't hurt game sales where you can only play the bad guy.) I suspect the problem is that the military is extremely good at dehumanizing and that makes it very difficult to connect with a game that starts from the assumption that

  • neither side is less human than the other.

So he's fine with Left for Dead?

Re:Ha! (5, Informative)

eln (21727) | about 4 years ago | (#33319680)

You, the soldier, and most of the other posters seem to be confused by the difference between profiting and profiteering. Profiteering is specifically the act of exacting exorbitant or excessive profits, usually on essential goods that are in short supply during a crisis. Companies like Halliburton or Blackwater could be considered profiteers because they charge the government huge amounts of money, and rake in enormous profits, for providing essential goods and services during a crisis (even though in this case it's a crisis of the government's own making). If we were under any kind of rationing for this war, someone who had access to rationed goods and sold them back to the public at exorbitant prices would be profiteering as well. The black market for essential goods in the war zones of Iraq (assuming there is such a thing) is profiteering if the amounts charged are excessive.

On the other hand, a game manufacturer who charges the same amount of money for a war game (a decidedly nonessential good) that they charge for any other game, and makes their standard profit from it, is not profiteering. They make a profit, but it's not profiteering because the good they're selling is not essential and the profits are not exorbitant. The only part of the definition of profiteering that applies to them is the fact that they're taking advantage of a crisis to increase sales by making the game based on the current war. Likewise, the soldier is not profiteering by accepting his meager paycheck for his services. Profiting (barely), but not profiteering.

Clearly there's room for hand waving when you start talking about what exactly constitutes an excessive profit or an essential good, but I can't see how the game developer or the soldier could be considered profiteers (or Senator McCain for that matter).

Re:Ha! (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33320514)

You forgot probably the most important large scale way of war profiteering, which applies to all whose business is war and more war means more profits. That is to intentionally not make the best effort to end the war, but rather to extend the conflict and make their services more needed. I guess the most clear cut example is being an arms dealer selling to both sides of the war, but there are many subtler ways to rack up excessive war profits. I don't see how that applies to any game developers though since I don't see how they'd have any impact, but you can question a few of the others...

Re:Ha! (5, Informative)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | about 4 years ago | (#33319396)

One soldier states that games like MoH and Call of Duty are 'profiteering from war

Oh boy, if that soldier only knew who was REALLY profiteering from war.

Maybe you two should have a conversation. From the article (the quote from the soldier in question):

More importantly, the creation of games like these is war profiteering; the same profiteering that Blackwater, civilian contractors, and companies that produce ACU backpacks for school children participate in. War profiteering of any form is unjust and constitutes a true insult to those who have served overseas.

It seems that he might have a better handle on this than you'd give credit for.

I don't agree with him - but that's a different conversation.

Re:Ha! (2, Interesting)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 4 years ago | (#33319496)

He's a soldier. He directly profits from war, since if there were fewer of them then there would be fewer soldiers and hence he would be unemployed or on lower pay.

And yes that's a stupid argument, but not that much more stupid than his claim.

If the video game wasn't the US vs the Taliban, it would instead be the US vs the Nazis, or the US vs the Russians, or the Terrans vs the Zerg, or the Persians vs the Greeks. I guess the nightly news is profiteering from the war too since they dare report on it and run ads.

Of course none of that is profiteering anyway...

Re:Ha! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33319638)

The winner always profits from war. Getting something is what War is about.

Re:Ha! (2, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 4 years ago | (#33319938)

The winner always profits from war.

Not necessarily. If I spend, say, $10 billion and win control over Sealand or another relatively worthless chunk of territory, I'm probably not going to win out in the end.

Winners can profit, but neutral parties who trade with both sides can often profit more. For instance, the Dutch made a significant profit as a major supplier of weapons for the Continental Army.in the American Revolution, without experiencing the violence and devastation that go with fighting a war. Most major corporations are effectively neutral traders in wars, which is part of why IBM could make a bunch of cash selling punch card systems to the Third Reich.

Or, you know, let Maj General Smedley Butler explain it back in the 1930's:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm [lexrex.com]

Re:Ha! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33320412)

Profits aren't always the immediate material land.

" but neutral parties who trade with both sides can often profit more. "

so? that has notnhig to do with my point... plus you're only measuring the immediate monetary wealth. The can be a lot more then that. Freedom for example.

I

Re:Ha! (3, Interesting)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | about 4 years ago | (#33320780)

I like this man's thinking. Does anyone think we are getting a real deal on UAVs, cruise missiles, MRAPs, etc? And now private security forces. Ugh.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation - it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted - to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Re:Ha! (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 4 years ago | (#33320466)

Not at all. Ever heard of a Pyrrhic victory?

The US has spent about a trillion dollars and effectively "won" the Iraq war. Now the economy is in shambles, and the national debt is mindboggling. What was the net gain?

Re:Ha! (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 4 years ago | (#33320518)

War, it's fantastic!

Re:Ha! (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33319548)

It's hardly surprising, it's hardly unheard of for a soldier to take the fascist account of the war and get upset that people don't recognize a pointless and distracting war as legitimately protecting the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, dieing in a uniform is not sufficient to consider it a act of protection for the nation at large.

Just like those kids playing cowboys and indians (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319244)

There was always something wrong with the kids who wanted to play indians. And how dare they fight back.

Nazi Barbie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319268)

Nazi barbie? I googled but I just found a bunch of links about klaus barbie, does anyone know what he was talking about?

Re:Nazi Barbie? (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | about 4 years ago | (#33319348)

My sister had a Nazi Barbie, and it was her favorite toy. She always said playing with that doll was a real gas.

Re:Nazi Barbie? (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | about 4 years ago | (#33319388)

I think it's a reference to the German origin of Barbie (Try googling Bild Lilly Doll) and that she's a blond haired blue eyed white girl; rather than a particular line of Barbie products.

Re:Nazi Barbie? (1)

morari (1080535) | about 4 years ago | (#33320040)

Ken always did look like metrosexual SS officer.

Re:Nazi Barbie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33320662)

Try googling Bild Lilly Doll

I did. [wikipedia.org] Bild Lilli appears to have been a postwar invention.

Officially licensed (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 4 years ago | (#33319304)

Those soldiers would a lot more angry if they knew about the license fees paid to the Taliban to use their logo, names and likeness.

But the gameplay would suffer if it weren't an officially licensed Taliban product.

if that ture some needs to deface the ea web site (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319352)

if that ture some needs to deface the ea web site.

Re:Officially licensed (1)

aradnik (1831756) | about 4 years ago | (#33319564)

i don't think they're paying the royalties... i bet some kind of TAA lwayers are already counting their cash (Terrorist Association of America or something)...

Interesting (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33319332)

I don't think anyone cares if you're part of the Rangers or Spetznaz, as long as you win.'

just like real life.

Haliburton profits from war. Churches profit from war. The Boy Scouts profit from war. Flag makers profit from war. That soldier profited from war.

  Games just wrap the same thing in different skins. If you put modern equipment skin on Halo, then it's profiting from war?

Re:Interesting (4, Informative)

rasper99 (247555) | about 4 years ago | (#33319422)

During the Vietnam war one of the protest slogans was "War is good business. Invest your son".

Re:Interesting (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33319648)

I remember.

Re:Interesting (0, Flamebait)

Bryansix (761547) | about 4 years ago | (#33320312)

Here is the thing I don't understand. Why did they even put boots on the ground? They should have just air dropped a million mines across the middle of the country and called it a day. Then invade Camboia and Laos to make sure the VC didn't do an end run around the minefield.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33320420)

I know this will fall on deaf ears because your comment betrays you for the irresponsible little shit that you are but: because you would have had neither a legal nor moral leg to stand on if you did and your actions would have sullied your name for generations.

Ask the Germans.

Re:Interesting (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about 4 years ago | (#33320478)

Yes, and how did the "Draft all the Ameican boys into the Army" route fair? I'll answer for you. It sucked ass! Volunteer Army is the way to go. That and pay people a fair wage for putting their life on the line and don't give them shitty weapons that jam all the fucking time like the M-16A1. The A3/A4 almost never jam but those didn't exist back then.

Re:Interesting (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33320432)

Everyone who has no idea what was going on always says that. We really didn't want to kill everything over there, only stop the 'red menace'.

You should study up. One tiny example:
There are cities under ground deep enough to not be harmed by bombings. The would hide in these and eat roots.

It's a dense jungle, the terrain is very difficult and so on. I mean, we could have just nuked it, but there might have been some pr Issues.
And you need to prevent the other side from doing the same. Remember Vietnam a sort of proxy for a war between super power. Each super power backing their side.

Re:Interesting (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about 4 years ago | (#33320456)

Learn the difference between mine and bomb. The minfield would have been a deterent. It would have stopped the VC advance because mines don't explode on impact but instead later if they decided to come out of their caves and make an advance.

Re:Interesting (2, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | about 4 years ago | (#33320436)

Here is the thing I don't understand. Why did they even put boots on the ground? They should have just air dropped a million mines across the middle of the country and called it a day. Then invade Camboia and Laos to make sure the VC didn't do an end run around the minefield.

They did. Didn't work. And now Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are still clearing them (and farmers losing limbs) today.

Re:Interesting (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about 4 years ago | (#33320446)

Because the failure was in planning. If you create a minefield of that scale then you have to fence it in and man it 24/7 from both sides. This is exactly what exists in Korea.

Re:Interesting (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 4 years ago | (#33320570)

Only because those countries are *not at war*, let alone a guerrilla war. If either country decides to attack the other fences and minefields are not going to do much.

Re:Interesting (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 4 years ago | (#33319492)

Don't forget the soldiers. They also profit from the was (as long as they survive). I somehow doubt that the person complaining about people profiteering will give his entire combat pay to charity.

Re:Interesting (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33319698)

I did mention that in my post. If a soldier does die, then his family profits.

For the record, even when it's a war we shouldn't be in I Fully support are soldiers. They should get what they need.

This is why ti was appalling when the Republican would always tie fund the soldiers would need for equipment to discussions about whether they should continue the war.

SO if you wanted to vote on ending the war, or limiting the scope you would also have to vote to cut what the soldiers need to for their job.

Say what you want about politicians on either side of the isle, but the people that did that should have been removed from office and shamed.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319830)

Say what you want about politicians on either side of the isle, but the people that did that should have been removed from office and dropped on the front lines.

FTFY.

Re:Interesting (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | about 4 years ago | (#33320912)

We get paid the same, war, or no war. We even get the GI Bill, without a war. Somewhere there is a lower class family who's son or daughter volunteered to defend this country, and hopes to someday get an education in return, and maybe a better life than their folks had. But, whatever, they are probably just greedy bloodthirsty goons bent on making a profit.

This thread was originally about profiteering, and now you're trying to claim that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines make a profit from war?

Read this, douche.
  http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm [lexrex.com]

I somehow doubt that the person complaining about people profiteering will give his entire combat pay to charity.

You need to be punched in the fucking head for that. I have a better idea, how about you and war profiteers go earn his pay? By earn, I mean do his work, and get his paycheck. I'll bet he would trade you for a few weeks.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319628)

Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors do not profit in War. They sacrifice so those of you of the lazy class can continue to be lazy, so others can stay what they are and be what they want to be. If you call getting PTSD and memories of death and blood and guts a profit than you are a sick individual. Maybe you should quit hiding behind a computer and serve your country, or maybe you are a liberal like all the other Obama lover's and that would explain it all.

Re:Interesting (1, Interesting)

JDAustin (468180) | about 4 years ago | (#33319646)

Don't forget all the professional peace advocates profiting from war.....after all without war there would be no peace and they would be out of a job.

Re:Interesting (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319874)

"That soldier profited from war."

To a certain extent, you are correct. Military people off fighting wars do indeed make good money. We get tax-free wages while in war zones. We get lots of freebies as well: Free food, lodging, movie rentals, MWR - all while still earning our full paycheck. We also get hostility pay, separation pay (if you're married) and many other interesting bonuses. A few friends of mine just got back from Afghanistan a while ago and were treated to full paid vacations to Disney for themselves and their family. It's a perk, to say the least. Profit? I guess.

And then I have other friends... They didn't come back in such great shape. One took shrapnel from a motar and sometimes has numbness in his leg. Another member was part of a mass-causality recovery and now can't stand the smell of fuel. Myself? I have constant headaches. I have to see a shrink every week and take anti-depressants. I've lashed out violently for no good reason at all. Dog pissed on the floor? I've picked him up by his collar and threw him into another room, just because of latent anger issues. This isn't who I am. I go through counseling now, but maybe in a few years I'll start feeling normal again. Maybe I profited a bit. In the end, it wasn't worth it. The profits are insignificant compared to the stress. So don't you fucking dare say soldiers profit from wars. We're always dealt the losing hand.

PS - I hope this shit is really anonymous.

Re:Interesting (4, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | about 4 years ago | (#33320176)

"That soldier profited from war."

To a certain extent, you are correct. Military people off fighting wars do indeed make good money. We get tax-free wages while in war zones. We get lots of freebies as well: Free food, lodging, movie rentals, MWR - all while still earning our full paycheck. We also get hostility pay, separation pay (if you're married) and many other interesting bonuses. A few friends of mine just got back from Afghanistan a while ago and were treated to full paid vacations to Disney for themselves and their family. It's a perk, to say the least. Profit? I guess.

That all sounds very nice. But the pay sucks. The free food is rarely that good. The lodging tends to suck (to what degree depends largely on your branch of service). The movie rental selection isn't that great. MWR... well, they do a really good job with what they have, but MWR facilities rarely measure up to civilian counter-parts. Hostility pay / danger pay is a pittance for the risk. Separation pay is a pittance. The perks help make rough situations easier. But I'd be really wary of listing them as selling points.

As an aside - I remember the yearly report coming out that quantified all the perks to civilian dollar amounts. They were a joke. I know, for example, my local MWR gym was nothing like any of the health clubs in the nearby (small) town yet the report counted it as a perk in my salary comparison. No wonder we had congresswomen complaining about military housing as over-priced little Peyton Places (she was probably shown the best examples of officer housing). And Shades of Green? Nice. But a cut below even the mid-level Disney resort.

This just in... (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | about 4 years ago | (#33319360)

Space Ship Pilots Weigh In On Playing As Space Rocks In Asteroids Deluxe II RPG: The Revenge of the Asteroids! It's just as relevant, no, MORE relevant!

Show me the money! (1)

Synon (847155) | about 4 years ago | (#33319366)

...but if we changed the locations to fake ones and the names of groups like the Taliban to imaginary groups it's no longer profiteering? Everyones trying to make a buck, not sure why this is so surprising.

Re:Show me the money! (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 4 years ago | (#33319514)

...changed the locations to fake ones and the names of groups like the Taliban to imaginary groups

That might not be so bad if they are more creative than the knobs that came up with "Count Dooku", "Darth Sidious", and "General Grievous".

Re:Show me the money! (1)

Manfre (631065) | about 4 years ago | (#33319594)

Maybe in the expansion they'll let you play as the Talibon.

They could always do what the military does... (3, Insightful)

rwa2 (4391) | about 4 years ago | (#33319406)

During military wargaming exercises, it's pretty much always Red vs. Blue.

But I guess Halo covered that already.
http://redvsblue.com/ [redvsblue.com]

Re:They could always do what the military does... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319502)

I was tried and convicted for war crimes committed during a war game. I thought my entire platoon had been infiltrated by the red team, so I beat and tortured them until they confessed. Damn my color blindness!!!

Re:They could always do what the military does... (1)

Supurcell (834022) | about 4 years ago | (#33319574)

In the America's Army game you always played as the American team and the enemy always looked like insurgents/terrorists. It was a pretty neat idea, but games that aren't trying to brainwash you into joining the army usually allow you to play who ever you want to.

Profitereen from war (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 4 years ago | (#33319460)

All war games, from chess (probably the game where the author wanted to have the biggest profit ever, according to the myth) to latest Medal of Honor profits from war What makes right a game about WWII? Or selling toy tanks for childs. Should Sun Tzu book be banned? Not defending that the games should profit from war, but the notion that just that game is wrong doing what everyone else is doing, probably including most of army.

Re:Profitereen from war (1)

Arimus (198136) | about 4 years ago | (#33319620)

Think the point is not that it is a game portraying two sides in a war, but that it is two sides in an on-going and current conflict....

Personally don't give two hoots, whether the side I'm playing is taliban, communist, alien, whatever its my side and I'll play to win, at the end of the day in a game I forget the backstory and focus on the battle in hand.

Don't recall calls for world in conflict to be banned because it showed a US commander dropping a nuke on an American town nuking his own battalion... nor for the apocalypse now sound track on one of the maps, strangely enough set in a rather 'nam like terrain...

As an anonymous Military Officer (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319472)

Posting anon because of above: I don't have any problem playing make believe. We do it all the time, look up what aggressors do in exercises. They use taliban tactics and pretend to be taliban to prepare our soldiers for war. On the flip side, playing as taliban is also make believe in video games that may or may not be beneficial. It may cause soldiers to realize that the taliban are people too. It may also get them comfortable fighting next to people who look, dress, and sound like that.

Seriously... (2, Insightful)

stms (1132653) | about 4 years ago | (#33319490)

Why do these people continue to try to make controversy around games. They're just going to make the game more popular. I remember the first time I heard about GTA was on the news about the controversy surrounding it and I remember thinking wow that game sounds really cool. If they don't like the game and don't want people to buy/play the game they should shut their mouth. Doing things in games that you can't do in reality is just part of what makes them fun.

While we're at it, (1)

b00m3rang (682108) | about 4 years ago | (#33319508)

We'd better ban any books or movies that tell any story from a non-American point of view. Oh wait, that's right... video games must be treated differently than all other media. I forgot about the, "freedom of speech, except for video games" clause in the Constitution.

It was always going to be just a matter of time (5, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | about 4 years ago | (#33319608)

There have been computer games that let you play as the "bad guys" almost as long as there have been computer games, in eras ranging from pre-historic times, through to the World Wars, Cold War, Vietnam and even fictional SciFi enemies such as the Sith. Sometimes being the bad guys and blowing of steam is also a heck of a lot of fun! The only thing that seems to have changed is that as modern society has had increasingly immediate access to current events, the period between the event and the entertainment based on it has reduced. Well, guess what? If you fight a war for a longer period than that grace period, then you are going to start seeing entertainment while the combat is still on-going.

Besides, one of the tenets of the military is "know your enemy"; I'm pretty sure Sun Szu's "Art of War" is still going to be required reading at West Point, and the like. If the simulation is good enough, then why not use it to train the troops in Red Team / Blue Team exercises. Surely, it's better that people get their asses kicked and then learn from their mistakes in a simulator than getting their asses kicked on a battlefield and not getting the chance.

Counter-Strike? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319712)

I've enjoyed (mostly) playing Counter-Strike for years, and one of the two teams is "Terrorists" whose purpose is to shoot police to death and plant explosives. I've played along side numerous soldiers and marines and they don't seem bothered.

I think the difference is the nebulous nonspecific "Terrorists" vs the specifically named Taliban, which strikes a much deeper tone.

Nobody will be playing MoH anyways (1)

Is0m0rph (819726) | about 4 years ago | (#33319772)

The beta was terrible.

Profiteering vs Profiting (3, Insightful)

Anomalyx (1731404) | about 4 years ago | (#33319790)

I think somebody mis-vocab'd

Profiteering is bad, but definitely didn't happen here.

There's nothing wrong with Profiting. The game profits from the war, the soldier profits from the war, the citizens profit from the war (hopefully).

Is anyone interviewing the Taliban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319798)

Isn't there a bunch of people on the other side of the war who are getting killed by the americans, and who'll be offended by the fact that you can play as an american on the game and kill them? Where are those interviews? I sick of hearing about these people pretending like they're the only ones who are suffering a war.

"profiteering from war" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33319864)

"One soldier states that games like MoH and Call of Duty are 'profiteering from war.' "

Yeah, game developers are the problem, not Haliburton and Blackwater, you moron.

Re:"profiteering from war" (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33320284)

Not only that, but in his world that volunteer soldier who is drawing a combat salary from the US government is "not" profiteering from war?

Better (1)

uncholowapo (1666661) | about 4 years ago | (#33320064)

At least the soldiers are not complaining like the moms...

Candy Land! (2, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | about 4 years ago | (#33320178)

If games about frolicking through Candy Land killing unicorns sold millions of copies every time an expansion came out, you'd see just as many of those types of games, guaranteed.

Classic game, I have such fond memories of it as a 6 year old. I look forward to a remake that involves both more frolicking and more unicorn killing.

One of my big complaints about MW2 as well... (1)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | about 4 years ago | (#33320644)

Was that you spent the last 1/3rd of the game running around killing American soldiers. I found it to be a very jarring sort of set of circumstances, I suppose thats what it was designed to be, but then again I thought the story in MW2 was heavily convoluted with crap and was a terrible sequel (at least story wise) to the original MW anyhow. That being said, I can't imagine being the Taliban is going to be any fun. Do I get to stone chicks to death and cut off their noses too? Perhaps I'll get to play as someone who lets off a car bomb next to a line of school children heading home? Geez, in addition to watered down crappy console ports, now I have to play as a bad guy doing shitty things all the time. I'm thinking CoD as a series has jumped the shark.

Backgrounds? (3, Insightful)

c_jonescc (528041) | about 4 years ago | (#33320828)

I'm not that curious how 9 random soldiers feel about playing as the Taliban. What I am curious about is how 9 soldiers that have been in combat against the Taliban feel.

Just as I'm more interested in an interview with a WWII soldier about WWII games than in anybody else's sense of the emotions. Everyone else is only anticipating offense or ambivalence.

As far as I can tell from a skim of TFA, there's no indication of these soldier's backgrounds, other than rank. Have they been in combat? Was it in this conflict? It's lazy reporting to ignore the detail, or to not make the effort to find people with an actual experience to found things on.

I worked on a grant from NASA. Are you going to expect special insight from me about the emotions surrounding the Columbia disaster? I'd hope not. I don't have any more connection to it than a shared high level boss.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33320856)

As a soldier that has been deployed I don't see how I've profited from war. If any thing I've lost more than I've gained over multiple deployments.

My view on this is if you don't like it don't buy it.

Hippocrates! (1)

Suka87 (1883360) | about 4 years ago | (#33320858)

What about War movies? war documentary's? Money was made with those. Same thing. Noobs
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>