General discussion


"This may be just a game to them now, but a war will not be a game for them

By Oz_Media ·
"This may be just a game to them now, but a war will not be a game for them later. In war, they will only face miserable defeat and gruesome deaths" These are the words of the Korean Press as written in Stars and Stripes, America's military news, pep-rally paper.

Full story:

"According to Stars and Stripes Pacific's translation of a North Korean government newspaper article, UbiSoft's forthcoming Ghost Recon 2 videogame, which envisions a near-future North Korea/China conflict with US involvement, has already attracted the reclusive country's attention. In a curt review, a North Korean government-run newspaper called the game proof of U.S. warmongering. 'Through propaganda, entertainment and movies,' read a recent online commentary in the Tongil Newspaper. Americans 'have shown everyone their hatred for us. This may be just a game to them now, but a war will not be a game for them later. In war, they will only face miserable defeat and gruesome deaths.' Given the steep learning curve of previous incarnations of Ghost Recon, it's conceivable many may face miserable defeat and gruesome deaths anyhow."

So the US in turn felt it neccessary to add this little comment to Stars and Stripes, MANY GR players are military as well as several bases will use Ghost Recon to simulate war for strategic planning and troop movement practice. I platy it with a licent over his network LAN almost daily if I am at home and it is truly entertaining as well as beautifully modded and rescripted by fans.

Now in a long term view, is this perhaps America's way of inviting dislike toward North Korea from the US troops (published in Stars and Stripes?). Are they now possibly feulling conflict with NK by showing this as hatred toward America?

Well if you leave Iraq say by next winter (positive thinking), that COULD be year 2 for GWB's second term (heaven help us all), perhaps that would then give him 2 years to fuel the NK issue and create another war before his term is completed.

Judging this purely on the Iraq actuins, it really isn't a far fetched assumption at all, in fact it would be damnwell mirroring Iraq. Fuel the fear and act upon it.

This guys is just plain scary, at least Hitler was clear that he wanted to take over the world and we all knew where he stood, or where he now rests.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

45 total posts (Page 2 of 5)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Thanks for seeing this Oz.

by admin In reply to It has been said many tim ...

"ON the other hand, I sincerely doubt the last post had anything to do with killing people on cyberspace and not defending one's country,..."

Actually, I had intended to point out that North Korea was being silly in equating a video game to somehow being a pre-cursor to a war with them. Just because everyone loved playing Grand Theft Auto didn't mean that they were out stealing cars and running over people for points. It's a healthy way for us to get our primal urges out and be social IMO. It's just non-sense IMO, and I thought it needed pointed out.

Collapse -

I agree com[letely

by Oz_Media In reply to Thanks for seeing this Oz ...

In fact GR is probably one of my favs. GTA was fun but got boring and easy.

Nope, haven't shot any eritrean soldiers nor hijacked any casr and run over hookers, but I had fun all the same.

Sometimes comments are taken so literally and out of context that it takes and hour to even figure out what the response was based on.

Collapse -

Unfortunately, yours was not.

by admin In reply to Now there's an intelligen ...

You pre-supposed my logic, friend. I hate the bi-partisan liberal vs. conservative way that people try and choose sides by innapropriately fleshing out arguments that abounds. I am not saying here at all that you are stupid, you seem quite good at thinking. Just don't take thinking to the point where you build your pre-fab box all around someone you don't know and expect them to sit there so that you can keep an innacurate view.

I am all for killing in real life when it is necessary. I do not balk at this and support our military. I would kill people in many situations, but I do not enjoy it. Personally, I am glad that the military trys to psychologically screen people that only want to kill, harm and maim for the sake of doing this. These people should hunt each other by mutual consent IMO and it should be on TV. I would not advise endangering the other normal people who join the military by surrounding them with bloodthirsty people who get off on killing, torturing and bringing pain to people just to do it. It's dangerous to the rest of the soldiers around them and gets too many people injured and killed.

On the other hand, getting injured and killed is often part of a tactical objective. It is important to be clear about this then:

1: Intent.
2: Objective.

Personally, I will defend my family and country to the death. This is no problem.

I will not hunt humans for sport. Even though hunting humans for sport is in some ways the ultimate game, I would prefer to do this in a situation where you can re-spawn and play again. It's sort of a painless human "Catch and Release" and I am glad we have this today. I would be tempted to cut people in half if I drew my sword and they were handy without this outlet. I would also miss not tracking them down before I killed them or was ultimately killed myself. I am glad I didn't live in a time where real life was the only way to access these primal urges.

No where did I say or imply: "but to defend my home, wife and children - they can have them... I wouldn't fight to protect my family or neighbors...".

This is your premise, not mine, my friend.

I would do all of these gladly, and I would do them for you and your family as a fellow citizen.
On the other hand, any time you want to go at it with paint balls let me know. I would gladly hunt you for fun. :)

Collapse -

Retired - 35 years active -

by SkipperUSN In reply to Quick question for the Sk ...

Lets see - Enlisted in 1970 - commissioned in 1975, (at that time by the posts you have put out - your dad was still wacking off and you were but a dream in his eye) - now retired after 30 years of service - :-)

Lets see - son and daughter are now commissioned officers - 1 USMC - 1 USN ... and serving in different parts of the world - Yes they both have children - and yes I worry about them - but they are willing to risk their lifes to keep freedom alive - :-)

Now Oz - your turn - And from your post I know this will never be answered by you. (Kind of how you can tell a red) How about you - have you or any of your family servered in the Royal Canadian armed services? Let me take a stab at it - NOPE - You let others fight and die for the freedoms you and your family enjoy - :-(

I know you are don't like guns or war - you think everything can be settled with talking and deplomacy - Wrong. Get into the real world mate - before someone comes around and takes what freedom you have away. Talking appeased Hilter - and it kept Saddam in check right...

So now - you're going to call me a war monger - a baby killer - or someother B.S. that you don't have a clue about - So keep posting your redic and everyone will come to know you for what and who you are... a fool.

Confuses say - let a fool speak and he proves himself the fool.

Collapse -

Not so simple.

by JamesRL In reply to Retired - 35 years active ...

BTW Skipper, there are no "Royal" Canadian forces since the forces unification in the 60s. The Mounties are still Royal, but not military.

I'm not from a purely military family, but members of my family died in WWI, and others fought in WWII. My wife's lost her grandfather in Korea. My uncle served in the RCAF(pre unification) and the Canadian armed forces, spending most of his time in Germany during the cold war. My father in law had a distinguished career. He commanded an Armoured Recon Battalion, worked at NATO headquarters(where he worked with Al Haig, and once briefed Donald Rumsfeld) and went onto to work with Vickers Marine(torpedo systems for 688s and other NATO boats) and a German armoured vehicle manufacturer.

My father in law, and many of his military historian friends, retired general friends, from Germany, Britain and other NATO countries all opposed the war for a number of reasons. They believed that there were no weapons of mass destruction. They believed it was a dangerous precident. Most of them supported the Afghanistan invasion, because the linkage was clear.

Your own general Zinni didn't support the invasion.

Its not so black and white as you would like to paint it.

I'm not defending some of the anti-American rhetoric or the baiting thats gone on here. But to equate support of the war for support of basic freedoms is a bti of a stretch.


Collapse -

Oz Asked me a simple question - I filled him in

by SkipperUSN In reply to Not so simple.

Oz tried pulling a Mike Moore trick - when and how long were you in - and any of your family in..

I answered his childish question in the respectfull way he posed his...

I was not trying to insult anyone in Canada that has not served - except for him. If I did offend you - you have my appologies and appologies to your family for some excellent service during those wars and conflicts... All are hero's..

Collapse -

No worries

by JamesRL In reply to Oz Asked me a simple ques ...

I wasn't insulted. I simply meant to point out that not all military support the war automatically. But those who serve don't denigrate service in others.

Personally I always wanted to be a fighter pilot. Sadly, I was born without all of my fingers on my left hand. My eyesight isn't perfect either. I did try to sign up for the militia - no one seemed to notice my hand, I wrote the tests, the unit commander was very impressed, until the physician did the physical. He said I might be able to join a non-combat unit in Toronto like communications, but in my town, the unit was an artillery unit, and there was no way to take me. I was dissapointed to say the least.

What kind of ship did you serve on? I've played many thousands of hours of Harpoon....I've visted quite a few ships - all the Canadian ships I could - the WWII Tribal destroyer that was in Toronto's harbour, the liberty ship and sub docked by Fisherman's warf in San Fran, the OHP and Canadian City Class which visited Toronto. I'm no naval expert, but an enthusiast none the less.


Collapse -

Two PBR's and a few Missile / Destroy classes

by SkipperUSN In reply to No worries

Enlisted days were a couple of PBR's - then during the climb - mostly small stuff missile / distroyer / tendor classes - some shore duty - didn't want the big ones - get lost in the crew. And never went to Sub-school (great duty but I would go nuts not seeing the sun for 3 to 6 months at a time..)..

Collapse -

Ho w wrong can you be

by Oz_Media In reply to Oz Asked me a simple ques ...

My post had nothign to do with baiting you like Michael Moore, for some reason you feel that I am defending him, which I am not, nor will I. I am not a staunch Bush supporter therefore I am automatically labelled as 'the other side' or Democratic or MM fan or Anti-America. I am not pro-democrat nor am I ppro-Michael Moore, I just believe in listening to alternate views behind something and arriving at my own conslusions based on what is presented.

That aside, my question was sincere. I know you are pro-war as you have been trained to be pro-war, if you weren't you wouldn't be much of a naval skipper would you?! This is an honest and upfront approach by the US forces that they admittedly have lightened up on the drill sergeant form of screaming men into submisison and taken to understading each man individually, the main goal is still to make the man fight without question.

THerefore one can surmise that if you have served in the military for any length of time (including basic) you have been trained to favour war and fight without question.

Therefore your comments are typical of a former naval member. NO offense intended, I am not trying to INSULT you as you admittedly have done in your post but am just making a simple and unquestioned point, you are trained to favour war andfight without question, your opiinion is extremely biased in that respect. This is further mittored in your proud alias that claims you are a former naval member and people ought to know who they are talking to, YOUR are USN material. This is neither good nor bad, just a fact.

Collapse -

My war history

by Oz_Media In reply to Retired - 35 years active ...

as I was born in 69 (I ghave a much older brother and sister by 8 and 10 years respectively) long before you were comissioned.

Military history of MY family? My grandfather fought in WWII, My father was an engineer and aircraft mechanic in Singapore, my uncle flew fro RAF, my briother flew for RAF and I was in ATC before coming to Canada.

Since living in Canada, no I gaven't served on any peace keeping or humanitarian missions with Canadian forces, but I am not Canadian so that's out of the question anyway. The British won't train me in Canada either so poor old unhappy me doesn't get to kill people for a living. :-(

That plus I am now too phuqued up phsyically since a couple of near fatal accidents. IF I was 'needed' to go fight for England OR Canada, I would though, if the cause is justified properly and not just a whim provided by a questionable source with war and regime change as a motivator.

This wasn't SAVING your country from anyone, you were NOT threatened by Iraq or Saddam. There was NOT sufficient evidence that you were at risk of attack from WMD, however Great Britain was in a much more 'RISKY' position than yourselves, they were under FAR greater threat of attack than the US as Saddam neither had the technology or arms to launch an attack on the USA.
There is no need to have your sons and daughters placed in harms way for the reasons provided, which were, weak, doubted and uncomfirmed to begin with.

At least Tony Blair admitted to receiving false in formation and he had also said from teh ONSET that the British were needed to Liberate Iraq, he had received a petition from 3500 exiled Iraqi's living in England that Englands help was needed to help stop the repression in Iraq, this is what the British people were sold, this was why they supported the UK's war efforts.

This was clear and concise reasoning, not the fear tactics that GWB used to get Americans to support the war three weaks prematurely and wiothout the allies who wished to let the UN finish what was proven to be successfully inpecting for WMD.

Back to Community Forum
45 total posts (Page 2 of 5)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums