>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


Stop being so reasonable!

It is propaganda, just like a lot of Hollywood war films. And the government loves it - censors out what they don't approve of in exchange for renting out military vehicles to Hollywood for next to nothing.

The funny thing is, I hated that the army made a video game recruitment tool. But, to be honest at least it was difficult as $&&% directly in contrast to these big budget titles that make it "immersive" (immersive as in loud noises and yelling) and easy.


>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ghark:
Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.
Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.
Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.

Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.

Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.

How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.

I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.

A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

Congratulations! Your video, Photographer captures huge roadside bomb explosion in Kirkuk, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 17 Badge!

>> ^StukaFox:

Why were they shooting after the bomb went off?


Because if you shoot before the bomb goes off, people will start running away.

>> ^Ralgha:

"we they" = we they?>> ^MarineGunrock:
God, I'm so fucking glad we're pulling out of that shit hole. We had no business there to begin with, and it's obvious we they aren't ready to act like a civilized people.


we/they

"we they" = we they?>> ^MarineGunrock:

God, I'm so fucking glad we're pulling out of that shit hole. We had no business there to begin with, and it's obvious we they aren't ready to act like a civilized people.

Those trucks weren't up armored. They're just standard Ford Rangers. markd was right about the timing though. Good tactics do say to wait until point man/vehicle has passed before you detonate a mine/bomb/whatever. This separates the forces and increases your odds. I

God, I'm so fucking glad we're pulling out of that shit hole. We had no business there to begin with, and it's obvious they aren't ready to act like a civilized people. >> ^therealmarkd:

>> ^StukaFox:
Why were they shooting after the bomb went off?

The blue truck was the first up-armored vehicle in a convoy. The bomb went off in an effort to destroy the white up-armored truck caught in the blast.
The shooting was the follow-on ambush of the convoy by whoever set the car bomb and/or the crew of the convoy shooting at someone they thought was responsible for the bomb... Pretty standard tactics.

>> ^StukaFox:

Why were they shooting after the bomb went off?



The blue truck was the first up-armored vehicle in a convoy. The bomb went off in an effort to destroy the white up-armored truck caught in the blast.

The shooting was the follow-on ambush of the convoy by whoever set the car bomb and/or the crew of the convoy shooting at someone they thought was responsible for the bomb... Pretty standard tactics.

Your video, Photographer captures huge roadside bomb explosion in Kirkuk, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Pointless rant really.

Neither of Obama or Hilary will ever use nuclear weapons against anyone. They're simply pre-positioning themselves against the inevitable Republican rival (now almost certainly McCain) attempting to win the election yet again on the basis of that they are harsher on terrorism and more stringent in terms of security.

As for getting out of Iraq immediately, no the US should leave tactfully. Where possible it should continue to foster political progress and work towards ameliorating Kurd/Shiite/Sunni relationships among their multiple fractured sects, with a focus on the sharing of Kirkuk oil reserves and agglomerating a functional parliament, as improbable as these aims may yet seem. A draw down of troop levels may yet invigorate negotiations, and as long as a buffer force is maintained and there no signal sent to suggest the US is abandoning Iraq, it may yet quell any violent power grabs.