BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

[The Medic]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

Is this the political debate forum? I must've clicked the wrong link...
The news report is embarresing if you're american, and prolly funny if you're not, so move on and hit up a CNN forum if you're so into this. I'm sure there's plenty of people looking for an argument there...now go play some damn BF2, just don't use you're battlerecorder on any MEC players!! :p

[jarm8181]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

How can a news story, that shows the House Intelligence Commitee, and a Pentagon report, NOT result in political discussion? If you don't like it, just don't post.

[imported_Iridium]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

The neo-cons don't want democracy, i assure you. Iraq is a military base. Its what happens when you have a standing military complex. Their only JOB is to think of ways to win, and in a post-soviet world, that means taking over the world.

Democritizing the middle east should have been as easy a sell as WMD's, if that was really what they wanted to do. And it needn't have been military, except for that nasty little detail of oil, which basically makes Iraq immune to political and economic pressure. I'm sorry, but rolling into a country, obliterating its leadership and infastructure, and then sponsoring elections, is NOT a good way to encourage democracy. We've made democracy the government of the conquerers (who, by the way, aren't all that popular after tens of thousands of civilian "collateral damage" casualties) in Iraq, and thats why you see insurgencies, and thats why Iraq is NOW, not BEFORE, a terrorist training ground.

People often forget that Saddam was absolutely opposed to islamic extremists. Not only is it just generally bad to have extremists hanging out in your country if you're not similarly extreme, it was dangerous to him, personally, because he was a secular dictator. If religious leaders of any sort (and especially armed ones) ever gained power under his regime, it put him at serious risk. So including Iraq under the heading of "the war on terror" is one of the most aggrivatingly disingenuous things our government has ever done, and i seriously fault the media for going along with it.

I also disagree about american presidents not giving us the benefit of the doubt. Recently its been true because of the nature of the modern world, where big corporations call the shots and every word the president and congress say is recorded and broadcast to every corner of the world. But back, in the simpler times for which our system was designed, dishonesty wasn't so tolerated in the capital.

Of course, its also nothing new to tell lies to fund war. Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell? Pearl Harbor? Reichstag fire? the USS Maine?

All of these events really happened, but it was the distortion of particulars that made it useful as an excuse for war. And those wars were always about something far more realistic than revenge or honor.

[[GCA]Tim270]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

man BRING ON THE BUNNY HOPPER TERRORIST'S !

[Supertech]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

The neo-cons don't want democracy, i assure you. Iraq is a military base. Its what happens when you have a standing military complex. Their only JOB is to think of ways to win, and in a post-soviet world, that means taking over the world.

Democritizing the middle east should have been as easy a sell as WMD's, if that was really what they wanted to do. And it needn't have been military, except for that nasty little detail of oil, which basically makes Iraq immune to political and economic pressure. I'm sorry, but rolling into a country, obliterating its leadership and infastructure, and then sponsoring elections, is NOT a good way to encourage democracy. We've made democracy the government of the conquerers (who, by the way, aren't all that popular after tens of thousands of civilian "collateral damage" casualties) in Iraq, and thats why you see insurgencies, and thats why Iraq is NOW, not BEFORE, a terrorist training ground.

People often forget that Saddam was absolutely opposed to islamic extremists. Not only is it just generally bad to have extremists hanging out in your country if you're not similarly extreme, it was dangerous to him, personally, because he was a secular dictator. If religious leaders of any sort (and especially armed ones) ever gained power under his regime, it put him at serious risk. So including Iraq under the heading of "the war on terror" is one of the most aggrivatingly disingenuous things our government has ever done, and i seriously fault the media for going along with it.

I also disagree about american presidents not giving us the benefit of the doubt. Recently its been true because of the nature of the modern world, where big corporations call the shots and every word the president and congress say is recorded and broadcast to every corner of the world. But back, in the simpler times for which our system was designed, dishonesty wasn't so tolerated in the capital.

Of course, its also nothing new to tell lies to fund war. Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell? Pearl Harbor? Reichstag fire? the USS Maine?

All of these events really happened, but it was the distortion of particulars that made it useful as an excuse for war. And those wars were always about something far more realistic than revenge or honor.

hmmmm.....someone who actually knows what theyre talking about....

[imoody]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

Ohlem -

Just gonna point out a few factual inaccuracies in what you're saying, don't want to start a big debate and get this even more off-topic.

The Reichstag fire wasn't used as an excuse to start any war - it was eventually determined by the Nazis that the fire was most likely accidental, as far as I can remember.

As far as Iraqi WMD's. Your whole series of bits of "proof" is total bull. I don't care how much Anthrax, VX, Sarin or mustard gas they have, they don't constitute WMDs. Only crazy contagious weapons or nuclear devices constitute true WMDs, imho, because of their capability to inflict profligate human death and suffering.

Also, for what it's worth, here's a wikipedia entry on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Oh, also, the Gulf of Tonkin incident WAS completely manufactured by the US government, and the USS Maine might well have been blown up by the US government, who knows?

And the Pearl Harbor incident, in the eyes of most Americans, was indeed simply a case of revenge. I'm curious as to what, exactly, you think the US Government went to war for after Pearl Harbor, if not as an excuse to help the British out and stick it to those damn nips (both of which, so far as I know, offered no tangible benefits other than ideological ones).

[F-1]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

Oh, wait that's right, you're liberal? You want A cnn version?


LOL!
I don't think 500+ is a "couple"










1991, April 18. Iraq delivers its first official report to the U.N. on its unconventional weapons. They acknowledge limited production of chemical weapons but do not mention nuclear or biological weapons. It is later learned the top Iraqi official have been ordered by Tariq Aziz to hide all evidence of these weapons, as well their stocks of VX (an advanced nerve agent), from inspectors.

1991, August 2. UNSCOM’s first biological inspections team arrives in Iraq. They are given a one-page statement that acknowledges that they performed biological research for defensive military purposes.

...
...
...

Your list is full of false and potentially inaccurate information.

A driver for Saddam wrote a book?! and he claimed what?!

I encourage everyone to go back and take a quick look at the huge list he copy/pasted in a previous post in this thread. It just tells you the quality of information that was presented.

I am sure you will become an "expert" for the Pentagon one day.

[AP_piano295]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

Your list is full of false and potentially inaccurate information.

A driver for Saddam wrote a book?! and he claimed what?!

I encourage everyone to go back and take a quick look at the huge list he copy/pasted in a previous post in this thread. It just tells you the quality of information that was presented.

I am sure you will become an "expert" for the Pentagon one day.

Roughly the same quality of info you get when watching fox. You want screaming heres my favorite fox poster boy BILL O REILLY.

oreilly personally attacking the people he interviews as well as all of europe, iraq and the poor who coulnt get out of new orleans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJo4erfBNTo&search=fox%20news%20bill

oreilly attacking a kid who lost his father in 911 who didnt support the war, and considers attacking another countrys terrorism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yjG3gSVf5g&search=fox%20news%20bill%20

oreilly lieing about how fox works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4e1FvZLBk&search=fox%20news%20bill%20

oreilly lieng, telling people to shut up and cutting mic's like he normally dus
(this one loads a bit slow but it's deffinitely a good one) (I like the part where he says are duty as americans is to shut up)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVnwYGU9Qo&search=fox%20news%20bill%20shut%20up

So no I dont like fox

[jarm8181]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

The neo-cons don't want democracy, i assure you. Iraq is a military base. Its what happens when you have a standing military complex. Their only JOB is to think of ways to win, and in a post-soviet world, that means taking over the world.

Sorry but I'm not one to put on a tin foil hat and start believing in wild conspiracy theories. Iraq war would've never happened if 9/11 didnt' happen. Bush wasn't ready to spread war all over the place before 9/11. BTW, what you just described, was part of the neo-con theory of hegemony.

Democritizing the middle east should have been as easy a sell as WMD's, if that was really what they wanted to do.

Sorry but I don't buy that. You honestly think Americans would go along with a war if it was argued it was to turn Iraq into a democracy? I doubt that. Americans don't want war for some kind of altruistic reasons, we always want to know what's in it for us.

And it needn't have been military, except for that nasty little detail of oil, which basically makes Iraq immune to political and economic pressure. I'm sorry, but rolling into a country, obliterating its leadership and infastructure, and then sponsoring elections, is NOT a good way to encourage democracy.

I agree.

People often forget that Saddam was absolutely opposed to islamic extremists. Not only is it just generally bad to have extremists hanging out in your country if you're not similarly extreme, it was dangerous to him, personally, because he was a secular dictator.

Again, I agree. Which is why I said, the neo-con theory was wrong.

I also disagree about american presidents not giving us the benefit of the doubt. Recently its been true because of the nature of the modern world, where big corporations call the shots and every word the president and congress say is recorded and broadcast to every corner of the world. But back, in the simpler times for which our system was designed, dishonesty wasn't so tolerated in the capital.

Of course, its also nothing new to tell lies to fund war. Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell? Pearl Harbor? Reichstag fire? the USS Maine?

Wait I'm confused, so which is it? First you say American Presidents do give us the benefit of the doubt, only recently this isn't true becaue of "corporatism" or some other conspiracy theory, but then you say historically Presidents have lied about going to war? Historically do American Presidents give us the benefit of the doubt by being honest or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too if you use that kind of contradictory analysis.

All of these events really happened, but it was the distortion of particulars that made it useful as an excuse for war. And those wars were always about something far more realistic than revenge or honor.

Well when I said revenge, I meant that as self-defense. Self-defense is defined as a retaliation of force in response to an initiation of force. A war can only be just if it's in our defense. And Afghanistan War meets that definition.

[medic-asap]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

wow they went over the edge with that that was a little wack

[imported_Iridium]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

imoody: I won't touch the reichstag fire because youre right, its not a particularly good example. But no one ever goes to war for mere principle. Its too costly, in lives and in consequences. The U.S. leadership wanted to enter war for many reasons, but i really doubt any of them were "to help the brits" or "stick it to them damn nips." The United States had a vested interest in remaining the sole superpower in the pacific, not to mention the economic benefits of war, considering they were in the depths of a depression. In truth, the U.S. was far more concerned with Germany, which was, threatening to become a world superpower. They made use of Pearl Harbor as a legitimate way of declaring war on Germany when most of the U.S. was decidedly against entering what they saw as a European conflict.

Now, these reasons aren't all that far from the ones portrayed to the public, but Pearl Harbor was absolutley exploited for its shock value, and as a catalyzing event, just like the other events i have cited. Leaders are all to quick to manufacture something simple and easy to understand as the "cause" for war, when they should, in a free and democratic society, be able to debate the reasons (which is why we USED to have congress declare war) and go into things in a democratic, open manner. More importantly, leaders should ALWAYS consider war a last resort, which is clearly not the case with Iraq.

Sorry but I'm not one to put on a tin foil hat and start believing in wild conspiracy theories. Iraq war would've never happened if 9/11 didnt' happen. Bush wasn't ready to spread war all over the place before 9/11. BTW, what you just described, was part of the neo-con theory of hegemony

We'll never really know what would have happened, but i think it was a forgone conclusion. The facts were twisted to support war, and no one can claim that war was entered with the sort of reluctance such a grave decision should bring. The administration has repeatedly changed the justification for war, which means the justification wasn't the reason, at least to me.

Sorry but I don't buy that. You honestly think Americans would go along with a war if it was argued it was to turn Iraq into a democracy? I doubt that. Americans don't want war for some kind of altruistic reasons, we always want to know what's in it for us.

Youre absolutely right, which is why i say it could have been done without war. The fact that we now use this democritization theory as justification is what i meant to get at.

Wait I'm confused, so which is it? First you say American Presidents do give us the benefit of the doubt, only recently this isn't true becaue of "corporatism" or some other conspiracy theory, but then you say historically Presidents have lied about going to war? Historically do American Presidents give us the benefit of the doubt by being honest or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too if you use that kind of contradictory analysis.

I'm not being contradictory, im being realistic. There is a trend recently to dumb things down for the masses. What i'm saying, though, is that the idea of finding a "cause" for war is nothing new. Its just been getting more and more ridiculous. And i'm not advocating conspiracies. Huge corporations, thier influence on the government, and the realities of the modern mass media are indisputable facts. Nothing "tin-foil-hat" about that.

[Mobdawwg]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

wow.....thats sad, but pretty funny

[Supertech]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

"Bush wasn't ready to spread war all over the place before 9/11."

No...he needed that to happen, that was the catalyst.

I could say more on that but I wont.

[tripleXTAC]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

Okay I dont know what most of you guys are talking about really cause I dont wanna read your long posts. So heres my take on the VIDEO!!
First off, you cant control who is gonna mod the game. Second that is just gay. A bunch of adults who probably never played the game are arguing over it when the dont know the half of it. They'll probably decide the game shouldnt be made in the future, making this country on step closer to a commi country. Third you still can kill MEC forces and you have a choice of which side. Its not like the MEC overpowering the US forces. Each side has an equal ability to kill each other.

[jarm8181]

Re: BF2: A Game For Terrorist Training?

I'm not being contradictory, im being realistic. There is a trend recently to dumb things down for the masses. What i'm saying, though, is that the idea of finding a "cause" for war is nothing new. Its just been getting more and more ridiculous. And i'm not advocating conspiracies. Huge corporations, thier influence on the government, and the realities of the modern mass media are indisputable facts. Nothing "tin-foil-hat" about that.

I see, so you're saying American Presidents historically have never been honest, only that their lies for going to war has just gotten more ridiculous over time??? It sounds like you are only saying the lies have gotten more incredulous. I still stand by my original analysis then.

Historically, American Presidents have not given the American people the benefit of the doubt. They think they're acting in the best interest of the country by lying because they think we don't know any better.