GP Interviews "Dead in Iraq" Game Protester

[gamepolitics]

Comments

Ouch.

[thevelociraptor]

With escalating violence in Iraq, this guy won't stop.

[slayemin]

The casualties of the Iraqi War aren't just Americans. You've also got the multi-national forces who've suffered losses, and people on the opposing side who've lost lives. Then, most tragically, you've got the Iraqi civilians who inevitably get caught in the cross-fire. All this focus on the loss of AMERICAN life reeks of ethnocentrism.

[gamepolitics]

perhaps Joseph will stop by and address your point. He has visited GP before.

The focus, I believe, is on US losses because:

a.) Joseph believes our government was not correct in going to war with Iraq

b.) he is contrasting the use of the America's Army game as a recruiting tool

[dagrak]

At least your government didn't join in so they could suck up to the country equivalent of the big tall kid at school...bleedin Tony Blair

[firepuff]

Couldn't doing this have the opposite effect though?

"Oh, these people died for my country. Wow, that was brave of them. I think I'll fight for a worthy cause, too. Sign me up!"

At least, that's the impression I got when I started reading this article.

[i_am_stillwater]

better to be forced to have a conscience than not at all.

I hope he doesn't have to keep doing that though.... I hope the war ends.

[wedgetalon]

As I've said about this guy before, right message, wrong place. If he came into my game (or heck, even my IRC channel), I'd kickban him - not because I don't agree with him but because I'm there to play (or chat), and if he can't do that then he's out.

[jythie]

*nods* while well meaning, functionally, he is still essentially being a troll.. And for that, he SHOULD be kicked. The message is irrlevent when the behavior is not really acceptable.

It reminds me a bit of 'help get little jenny a kidney!' chain mail. Sure, the intent is good, but it is still spam. Or better yet, those peeps who will, say, go onto a gay-bi-lesbian bbs and start posting 'repent sinners! you can be cured!' on the message boards.

[father_time89]

What if he gets a parnter, one person actually plays the game with the mouse and arrow keys and whatnot while the other keeps posting names.

[jythie]

I am not sure that really changes anything.

The protester would still be protesting in the public channel, and the random player is still playing. The fact they are sharing a PC changes niether of thier actual actions.

Still a jerkass

[grimm24]

Oh so now he's not only against our soldiers in Iraq he's also against the America's Army game?!?

This guy may say that he supports the soldiers, but like anyone who is against the war, they truely arent. If someone really supports the troops they support what they are doing.

I know a lot of people are going to bash me for this but hey its the truth, if you really want to support the troops support the war

Re: Still a jerkass

[i_love_catgirls]

No, you're wrong, still.

Re: Still a jerkass

[goodrobotus]

Well, I could equally argue that if you sign up as a soldier, then expect to be sent places where you might be killed. That's the job, after all, and support or not, that will continue to happen.

I suppose the difficult question to raise is, do we consider them Soldiers first, or Humans first?

I support any Soldier who goes to fight to the level of wishing him to come home alive. So what is more important, success or survival? Or are they the same thing?

Tricky Questions, I know, but remember, a scaffolding only supports a building by being there when it needs it, the public are the same, pro-war or anti-war, as long as you are there for your troops when they come home and we don't see a repeat of the appalling treatment of soldiers after Vietnam, support can take a variety of forms.

Re: Still a jerkass

[goodrobotus]

Oh, and for the sake of correctness, please read 'him' in the previous post to 'him or her'. Apologies to female soldiers.