| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| CrazyMike 526th Post
 
New Red Carpet Member
    
    
|  "Re(5):MGS3 play as Big Boss!!!!!"
, posted Thu 5 Jun 19:28
quote:
....erm, wasn't the Taliban Afghanistan's government? Thus making war against the Taliban at least as much war with Afghanistan as the war against Saddam was called a war with Iraq? Or am I mistaken?
Not quite, like Iraq, the Taliban did not control the Northern areas of the country. Saddam Hussein did not controlled the Kurdish lands either or the Shi'ite areas after the implementation of the no-fly zone.
Plus, this is a new era of warfare we are living in. I know this will rub some people the wrong way who may dispute it, but our objectives were not to target innocent people, and the campaigns in Iraq or Afghanistan, whether you agreed with them or not (I did not think we should of gone into Iraq but Afghanistan was just in my mind) we were not shelling civilian buildings on purpose unlike say World War 2.
...And even though I was against the Iraq war (mostly for the reason it was a waste of time, money, resources, and lives to accomplish so little), the "No Blood for Oil!" chant only showed the people who spouted it were as brainwashed into cluelessly supporting a particular cause just as much as nationalistic Americans wanting to go to war because the president said so.
|
| DarkZero
84th Post
Occasional Customer
| "Re(3):MGS3 play as Big Boss!!!!!" , posted Thu 5 Jun 20:50
quote:
Hopefully its just Gamespots crappy translation errors, but Afghanistan was never an enemy, it was only the Taliban, we did not declare war on the entire country.
It's a "translation error" now to say that when you bomb a country, annihilate its current government, intern its soldiers, and control its land, you are at war with that country? Sorry, but not all of us buy into the Bush Administration's idea of standard english. When you attack the government of a nation, the soldiers of that nation, and the infrastructure of that nation, it is a war against that nation. That has been standard English for a good long while now and I'm not going to change to the more politically correct "war against -name of country's government-" for the sake of making wars easier to sell by making them sound softer, gentler, and more politically correct.
quote:
Plus, this is a new era of warfare we are living in. I know this will rub some people the wrong way who may dispute it, but our objectives were not to target innocent people, and the campaigns in Iraq or Afghanistan, whether you agreed with them or not (I did not think we should of gone into Iraq but Afghanistan was just in my mind) we were not shelling civilian buildings on purpose unlike say World War 2.
Our objective was not to target innocent people in the first war against Iraq either, but that was still called "war with Iraq" at the time. And it wasn't a poor label, either. The only difference between "war with -country-" and "war with -name of country's government-" is political correctness, like saying "post-traumatic stress syndrome" instead of "shell shocked".
Anyway, as for MGS3... I'm not really sure about it. I don't like prequels, but I also didn't like how the story was going after MGS2. The gameplay sounds nice, though.
|
| CrazyMike 528th Post
New Red Carpet Member
| "Re(4):MGS3 play as Big Boss!!!!!" , posted Fri 6 Jun 01:57:
quote:
It's a "translation error" now to say that when you bomb a country, annihilate its current government, intern its soldiers, and control its land, you are at war with that country? Sorry, but not all of us buy into the Bush Administration's idea of standard english. When you attack the government of a nation, the soldiers of that nation, and the infrastructure of that nation, it is a war against that nation.
So in effect, the next time the UN sends a mission similiar to Somalia where troops are committed to guard food convoys and take down warlords through the use of force, the UN is at war with that country? Likewise, if a small regime only controls the capital of a nation but not the outlying lands, is it war with the whole country if the regime you are attacking does not govern the whole country?
If this thread is getting out of hand or off topic, I apologize and I will stop, and I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, just trying to hold a discussion.
[this message was edited by CrazyMike on Fri 6 Jun 01:59] |
| DarkZero
90th Post
Occasional Customer
| "Re(5):MGS3 play as Big Boss!!!!!" , posted Fri 6 Jun 02:32:
quote:
So in effect, the next time the UN sends a mission similiar to Somalia where troops are committed to guard food convoys and take down warlords through the use of force, the UN is at war with that country? Likewise, if a small regime only controls the capital of a nation but not the outlying lands, is it war with the whole country if the regime you are attacking does not govern the whole country?
The problem with those examples is that they are the exact opposite of what you are talking about. The majority of the UN's missions that require force are usually against a small uprising of rebels or warlords that are attacking a central government. The war in Afghanistan and the recent war in Iraq were both against a central government that dominated the majority of the country, but had problems with a small uprising of rebels or warlords, i.e. the Northern Alliance and the Kurds.
Small bands of rebels and warlords also do not often have standing militaries, parliaments (albeit manipulated ones), ministries, UN ambassadors, basic utility services, heavy artillery, and just about every other facet of a central government, all of which Iraq had and most of which the Taliban had, despite their immense poverty. That makes both wars a war between two central governments, which in standard English usually follows the shorthand of "war with -name of country-". That can obviously be taken literally, as if we were going to design a special nuclear weapon that only annihilated the space within the country's borders, but most people can understand that it just means an armed conflict between two governments, which is what is happening. Bush's idea of English, on the other hand, refers to it as the somewhat more accurate "conflict with -name of government-", but calls it that with the general understanding that we're going to war against an new, unwanted occupying power that has absolutely no public support, as if Nazi Germany took the place over yesterday and the country must be liberated. That is far less accurate.
quote:
If this thread is getting out of hand or off topic, I apologize and I will stop, and I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, just trying to hold a discussion.
And I, as well.
EDIT: Spaced properly this time... I hope.
[this message was edited by DarkZero on Fri 6 Jun 02:33] |
| DarkZero
93th Post
Occasional Customer
| "Re(5):MGS3 play as Big Boss!!!!!" , posted Fri 6 Jun 19:56
quote:
Good analogy, however I find it humorous that there was not much of a wink of a mass protest against the bombing of Belgrade and Kosovo to "punish" Slobodan Milosevec for the treatment of ethnic Albanians, especially since the reasons behind it were just as dubious as the current president for saying why we needed to go to war with Iraq.
I've always loved how this very old and tired argument assumes that anyone that doesn't believe that George Bush is the smartest, most wonderful man in the world automatically thinks that Clinton's military actions weren't amazing feats of gross international jackassery. Not everyone that disagrees with you is part of a global left-wing Communist/Socialist/Puppy-kicker conspiracy, y'know.
There's also, sadly, generally less opposition to swift military actions that only leave one or two lies in their wake ("That Iranian pharmaceutical factory is a chemical weapons lab, we swear it!") than there are to large scale military actions that are drawn out for months and leave a fistful of justifications and a sea of bullshit in their wake, such as forged documents, "intelligence reports" that are actually plagiarized articles from old Jane's magazines from 1991, and long lists of supposed likely weapons labs handed over to UN inspectors that turn out to be perfectly legitimate operations. It's sad that Clinton's actions didn't come under more scrutiny, but then again, the "But teacher, HE did it TOO" argument isn't exactly a stellar defense for a military campaign.
|
| Gen 1656th Post
Tailored Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Member
 
    
   
| "Re(6):MGS3 play as Big Boss!!!!!" , posted Sat 7 Jun 02:27:
quote:
I've always loved how this very old and tired argument assumes that anyone that doesn't believe that George Bush is the smartest, most wonderful man in the world automatically thinks that Clinton's military actions weren't amazing feats of gross international jackassery.
I've never actually heard that argument but I know what you're refering to.
quote:
Not everyone that disagrees with you is part of a global left-wing Communist/Socialist/Puppy-kicker conspiracy, y'know.
There's a lot of people apparently who see the world in terms of conspiracy. Noone on this board is refered to.
quote:
There's also, sadly, generally less opposition to swift military actions that only leave one or two lies in their wake ("That Iranian pharmaceutical factory is a chemical weapons lab, we swear it!") than there are to large scale military actions that are drawn out for months and leave a fistful of justifications and a sea of bullshit in their wake, such as forged documents, "intelligence reports" that are actually plagiarized articles from old Jane's magazines from 1991,
I heard j lo had a clothing company and most of the clothes were stolen from old magazine pictures.
quote:
and long lists of supposed likely weapons labs handed over to UN inspectors that turn out to be perfectly legitimate operations. It's sad that Clinton's actions didn't come under more scrutiny, but then again, the "But teacher, HE did it TOO" argument isn't exactly a stellar defense for a military campaign.
Bush himself hasn't ever said that his actions were justified by Clintons did he? (Actually some of his actions are no doubt legally justified by Clinton's actions, as well as by previous presidents, just as the following president's will be.)
[this message was edited by Gen on Sat 7 Jun 02:29] |
| DKW
226th Post
Frequent Customer
| "Okay, first off..." , posted Sun 8 Jun 12:00
...if this really does take place in the sixties, Solid Snake can't be in it. You know, because he was a young member of Fox Hound in the original game. Which took place in the 80's. Like, do the math. (I'm having a hard enough time with never aging; please don't tell me to account for never having to grow up, mmkay?)
That said, I've always been against the idea of putting a political theme, especially a divisive or controversial one, in a shoot-'em-up (all right, a high-tech, complex, new-generation etc. shoot-'em-up, but a shoot-'em-up all the same). I felt exactly the same about Wolfenstein 3D. I mean, you go from room to room, kill a lot of guys who are trying to kill you, and nab valuables...how is this different from a thousand other games that don't involve one of the most universally reviled organizations in history?
And if you're going to go political, at least pick a theme that most of the people who are actually going to play the game are going to recognize. Afghanistan is a terrible choice for the same reason that Guatemala, Tibet, or Cambodia would be, i.e. your typical PS2 jockey doesn't know a damn thing about those places.
P.S.: Does anyone see the irony of a game containing activities the CIA once did on a regular basis being plugged as antiwar? 
homepage - http://home.hawaii.rr.com/dkwff
|
|
|
-snif-
. And there appeared a color version of my ol' ugliest Solid Snake ever. If I had known.... 
you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.