America's army: recruiting tool or game

[MarcoPollo]

If the army is that laggy id rather join another server lol

 

[Razor]

Stern, i think the best thing for you to do is to download the game and play it for a while to understand what it actually is. You can't argue about it unless you have no idea about it, can you.

 

[GhostFox]

If the army is that laggy id rather join another server lol

Strangely enough, they shoot you if you do that! They call it 'desertion'. Werid huh?

 

[Razor]

Strangely enough, they shoot you if you do that! They call it 'desertion'. Werid huh?

Desertion is no longer punishable by death, but we digress.

 

[MarcoPollo]

Desertion is no longer punishable by death.

damn i was going to kill my cat if he left the house!

 

[Darkknighttt]

really though. the only people who play the game are kids who have nothing else to do. seriously, noone would go and join the army after playing it.....

 

[Pesmerga]

yes but army life isnt fun ..well combat isnt.

Have you ever been in the army? I know for a *fact* that you're better spending 4 years in the army than 60 years grasping for enough money to buy some pot. Which is what alot of people turn to. Sure, war has never been 'fun', but no one would play nor actually join the army if America's Army was a -real- realistic representation of moden warfare.

 

[CptStern]

Have you ever been in the army? I know for a *fact* that you're better spending 4 years in the army than 60 years grasping for enough money to buy some pot. Which is what alot of people turn to.

you know for a "fact" that people will smoke pot if they dont join the army? do you have a source on that? Is this some new study? wow, so that means everyone around me is a pothead?

Sure, war has never been 'fun', but no one would play nor actually join the army if America's Army was a -real- realistic representation of moden warfare.

huh? so the real thing is more fun than a video game? ...I've seen Platoon, that didnt look like fun

 

[GhostFox]

I've seen Platoon, that didnt look like fun

I've seen Stripes, that looked like fun.

 

[bliink]

I've seen Stripes, that looked like fun.

Recruiting Officer: Are either of you homosexual?
Harrold Ramis: No, but we are willing to learn!

 

[Blakeb155]

Recruiting Officer: Are either of you homosexual?
Harrold Ramis: No, but we are willing to learn!

Hahahaha, funny movie.
:cheese:

 

[Kebean PFC]

You are taking this to mean more than it is. What about High School ROTC programs? Is that overboard becuase it appeals to teens? Where is your source that people join the Army becuase of that game and are now wishing they hadn't? About halfway through basic, everyone wishes they hadn't joined the Army.

My advice to you is to learn to see the other side of the issue you are debating, becuase right now you have some very black and white oppinions.

I personally want to join the Army becuase i have marksman ship skills in real life, and want to serve my country. I playe AA and thought wow, this is cool. But it did not give me any confidence in joining, that damn Sargent kept yelling at me. But agian, i think you are taking it to mean more than it does...


My $0.02

 

[Hazar]

I heard that most of the recrute's don't stay long because they miss their computers too much (go figure )

(I hope no one posted that yet, don't want to read it all now)

 

[The Mullinator]

If anything that game will just get people either interested so they can start doing their own research about whether to join or it pushes others who have already done all the research to finally decide to sign up.

Anyone who joins the army mostly because of this game will probably never make it past basic training anyway.

 

[Razor]

you know for a "fact" that people will smoke pot if they dont join the army? do you have a source on that? Is this some new study? wow, so that means everyone around me is a pothead?



huh? so the real thing is more fun than a video game? ...I've seen Platoon, that didnt look like fun

He means the armed forces will teach you how to live your life and look after yourself and make something of yourself. If someone applies for the job after coming out of the armed forces, they will be snapped up because of their discipline and that they know that that person would be someone responsible. Being in the armed forces isn't just about learning how to kill Stern, it's about learning how to live your life to the fullest, learning responsibility, and learning new trades. If you join the armed forces for the aim of getting the absolute most out of it, you'll go a huge way, both in the armed forces and when you finally retire from it.

With your arguments Stern "the game leads people to believe Army life is fun and easy", you could say the same thing about the Phil Silver's show "Sgt Bilko leads people to believe Army life is fun and easy". Every single person who joins the armed forces knows that it isn't going to be easy, and the recruiters make sure of that, but joining the armed forces isn't about taking life easy, it is about pushing yourself to the limits and beyond, both mentally and physically.

You have no understanding of the game, apart from people's comments, as you have never played it. You have no understanding about life in the armed forces, apart from what you read in a magazine or in a movie. You have no understanding of the recruiting phase of the armed forces and what people have to go through to get in, apart from movies. So go away Stern, play the game, look at life in the armed forces and talk to people in the armed forces and talk to recruiters. I could understand your problem if everyone who downloaded America's Army got a visit from the armed forces recruiting agency to tell them that they have agreed to be in the army and are there to take them away, but it is just a game that shows some of the training and exercises that army recruits would go through. It publicises the US army and educates young people in a way that they will udnerstand i.e. through the life of a virtual character that you make in a computer game.

 

[Lemonking]

I think no one knows how it is to be in combat,and Stern u didnt even play the game...I will be joining the Army in a year or two due to lack of discipline
thats my dad wants me to do...Im gonna do it,anyway war is horror
even thoe sometimes its necessary my Grandpa was in Kursk and I talked to him once and he cried,which suprised me I think no one of us can imagine what war is like a game cant simulate what war is like
so I agree with stern but I played it you should play it to stern

 

[Razor]

Looks like i can tick off the first box in my life goals signature, thought it would take a lot longer then 1 day.

Anyway, now to prove that Dark Elf is actually called Herbert. :naughty:

 

[CptStern]

He means the armed forces will teach you how to live your life and look after yourself and make something of yourself.

yes but that can be achieved without the army

Being in the armed forces isn't just about learning how to kill Stern, it's about learning how to live your life to the fullest, learning responsibility, and learning new trades.

who said I said it was about learning to kill? it's about beating the individuality out of a person and making them into part of a cohesive whole. I'd make a terrible soldier because I'm not willing to throw my individuality out the door. I'm not a conformist

With your arguments Stern "the game leads people to believe Army life is fun and easy",

no, you're putting words in my mouth. The army is what it is, you're trained to become a tool for the government, a pawn if you will ...and everyone knows how dispensible a pawn is.

you could say the same thing about the Phil Silver's show "Sgt Bilko leads people to believe Army life is fun and easy".

no, Bilko's show is a comedy, Bilko is lazy and is constantly put upon by Silver to be more "soldier-like"

Every single person who joins the armed forces knows that it isn't going to be easy, and the recruiters make sure of that,

I dont agree. Watch Off to War

the 4 soldiers profiled were under the impression that they'd be serving 2 weeks a year ..not being sent to iraq to fight a war they didnt understand ...almost every last soldier when asked what the motivations were behind the war said the exact same thing: "Saddam was responsible for 9/11" ...you'd think the army or the recruiting officer would have set them straight. Every last one of them also said they didnt want to be in iraq ...they definately got more than what they bargained for

but joining the armed forces isn't about taking life easy, it is about pushing yourself to the limits and beyond, both mentally and physically.

that's your POV, I dont agree

You have no understanding of the game, apart from people's comments, as you have never played it.

no, I've played it many times, not recently admittedly but I have played it and at no instance was I shown what the consequences of war is

You have no understanding about life in the armed forces, apart from what you read in a magazine or in a movie.

again you're wrong. I'm also a citizen of spain, my father, uncles, cousins all served in the military (mandatory in spain) but since I have dual citizenship I didnt have to attend. It's funny how so many of you level this statement at me ..but the surprising reality is that I know far more about the the history and politics behind the war than people who actually served in iraq

You have no understanding of the recruiting phase of the armed forces and what people have to go through to get in, apart from movies.

bullshit, just because I havent actually gone through it doesnt mean I have no understanding of it. I'll reiterate that although I didnt serve in iraq I know more than people who actually did ...why's that? is it because the army doesnt want soldiers that'll question command? they want soldiers that'll obey orders without questioning them. There is no room for "me" in the military

So go away Stern, play the game, look at life in the armed forces and talk to people in the armed forces and talk to recruiters.

spare me your condecending tone ...I dont have to know how to cook to enjoy food.

I could understand your problem if everyone who downloaded America's Army got a visit from the armed forces recruiting agency to tell them that they have agreed to be in the army and are there to take them away, but it is just a game that shows some of the training and exercises that army recruits would go through.

I dont agree in the least. The army has said that it is the best marketing tool they've ever devised. It MUST be working for them if they say that dont you think?

It publicises the US army and educates young people in a way that they will udnerstand i.e. through the life of a virtual character that you make in a computer game.

without any of the consequences without any of the history without any of the background in politics necessary to fully comprehend the global arena that soldiers are thrust into. It's glorifying the profession ..."join the army fight terrorism" when the truth is nowhere near close to the official line

Looks like i can tick off the first box in my life goals signature, thought it would take a lot longer then 1 day.

you're prematurely jumping the gun here

 

[K e r b e r o s]

yes but it gives you a false sense of security that every engagement is winnable ..which is not the case ..especially when it comes to the war on terror

Better to be Optimistic then Pessimistic -- further, how does this even deal with the war on terror? (The game)

.Humvee's with huge machine guns

Those M2's are about the length of your leg, maybe more. The Germans have a larger equivelant in their army. (Simply due to Barrel Length -- the MG3 outfire's anything in the United States Infantry Programe)

soldiers armed to the teeth

British Soldiers are. German Soldiers are. Russian Soldiers are. Insurgents are.

US Soldiers are. We have a primary weapon (whatever your specialization), we have a secondary weapon (pistol), we have grenades (smoke, HE, Flash etc.), we have Demolitions and finally, AT capabilities. Not all soldier's are armed to the teeth, but they are armed with at least a Rifle/Submachine Gun/SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon), then a Pistol (45, 9mm), then Grenades.

airstrikes, artillery

Ever since World War II, the Bane of Operations for the United States military has been in the area's of Artillery and Air Bombardment. We have a wide range of guns, coming from a 20mm stance, to a 403mm stance. We have 100lbs bombs, 200lbs bombs, 500lbs bombs, 1,000lbs bombs etc. Since World War II, we've realized high-technology fighters and bombers equiped with heavy and precisely guided payloads where the way to go.

So, its not unrealistic to see fighters, or artillery (mortars in the case of America's Army) in the supporting role of Infantry. It always has been the starting Doctrine of any infantry engagement (see, The Rommel Papers). Consider this -- the round restarts; a second chance to do things differently. The Artillery and Airstrikes is still an available asset, because when you restart the scenario, you restart all of its support quirks.

is ineffectual when it comes to a roadside bomb

Disagree. Roadside bombs have yet to completely destroy an Abrams Tank (63 Tons) or a Challenger II (65 Tonnes), or blow an F-16 out of the air (30,000 feet up high). Roadside bombs are like mines -- yet with todays technology we can bypass them or kill their remote users. We dont have to drive over them, but in Ambush situations we have the unfortunate luck of; and it might kill six soldiers and wound eleven, but it did'nt destroy the Tank in the Convoy, it did'nt disable the Stealth Wing in the air above it, and it did'nt down an Apache.

Quite obviously, Roadside bombs are only effective for one option of warfare. Ground Warfare.

Sure it illustrates what life in army could be like but it's like comparing reading the back of a dvd case and saying you know what the movie's about

Not entirely. It focuses more on training and training scenario -- so, it wont mimic real-life bloody gorey combat when its just a training exercise.

I felt bad for some of these kids because they had such unrealistic expectations before they left.

Expectations that they created. They should've looked at dead bodies before leaving for basic. My father took my step-brother to the Arlington Cemetry here, and showed him Rotten.com and Ogrish before he left off for the Navy.

They're doing new programs now that should show recruits the amount of violence they're going to face. I agree, we have to show them before they go.

yes but training can at least provide a foundation ...through training you're preparing your body for combat ..it's not just mental preparation but physical

Then should'nt that help out with the realities of war? Running, ducking, firing ...?

 

[CptStern]

Better to be Optimistic then Pessimistic -- further, how does this even deal with the war on terror? (The game)

who is the enemy?

Disagree. Roadside bombs have yet to completely destroy an Abrams Tank (63 Tons) or a Challenger II (65 Tonnes), or blow an F-16 out of the air (30,000 feet up high).

so the 1500 dead american soldiers were mostly killed with conventional weapons? name one US military engagement since vietnam where the US lost as many soldiers ..tanks planes etc do nothing to stop the attacks

Roadside bombs are like mines -- yet with todays technology we can bypass them or kill their remote users.

makes no difference to the soldiers who were killed by low-key technology

We dont have to drive over them, but in Ambush situations we have the unfortunate luck of; and it might kill six soldiers and wound eleven, but it did'nt destroy the Tank in the Convoy, it did'nt disable the Stealth Wing in the air above it, and it did'nt down an Apache.

a tank, plane doesnt have morale ...one ambush attack by an unseen foe is far worse than a bloody engagement with a tangible enemy. ..I believe roadside bombs have far more psychologically damaging effects than any conventional military engagement

Quite obviously, Roadside bombs are only effective for one option of warfare. Ground Warfare.

ah but when you're outclassed arms wise, that makes all the difference in the world. Name one US military engagement since vietnam where the US lost as many soldiers. The roadside bomb psychologically is far more effective than a thousand warplanes

 

[KoreBolteR]

why shouldn'e americans want to join the Army, its the same as people who want to join Al-Qaeda.

look at it like that.

 

[Razor]

CptStern: yes but that can be achieved without the army.

Not with everyone. When you get into a situation that you can't get out of because you lack the education or will power and character, a good stint in the armed forces can help. The armed forces is all about breaking down what you were and turning you into someone who can think for themselves, fight for what they believe in, etc. That might not be the way you look at it, but it is the way i look at it. I would love a mandatory couple of years service in the British armed forces as it does make you grow up very quickly and take responsibility for your own actions better then any college ever could.

CptStern: who said I said it was about learning to kill? it's about beating the individuality out of a person and making them into part of a cohesive whole. I'd make a terrible soldier because I'm not willing to throw my individuality out the door. I'm not a conformist.

For some military outfits, yes, but not for all. The US Marine Corp and the Royal Marines go through the toughest training in the world so they can handle the toughest situations in the world, if you can survive that sort of training, then you are a real man. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, i presume the Us Navy and Us Airforce are the same, don't want a bunch of suicidal dolls that would march off a cliff if told to do so. They want individuals that are capable of working as part of a team, that can bring different things to the team. You're educated before you join and you're educated after you join. And when joining the armed forces, you will be told about the training and how tough it is going to be, you are told about what lies ahead of you and you are interviewed to make sure you understand that and are ready for that, before ever signing a contract.

CptStern: no, you're putting words in my mouth. The army is what it is, you're trained to become a tool for the government, a pawn if you will ...and everyone knows how dispensible a pawn is.

You're stating through your arguments that you believe that the game makes people joining up to the Us Army in believing the army is fun and exciting and nothing about killing, etc. I was merely restating what you're arguments were. I didn't feel like a pawn and i never will feel like a pawn because i intend to get everything i possibly can out of my years in the service, just like my dad did. I want to travel the world and meet new people and i want to fly, i want a job that will give me as much as i give it. Are you stating because i want to be in the armed forces that i'm a pawn that is sacrificed for the greater good? Hmmm...perhaps i am, but i intend to make it to the other side on the board and i intend to turn my little pawn into a knight, or a rook, or a bishop or possibly even a queen.



CptStern: no, Bilko's show is a comedy, Bilko is lazy and is constantly put upon by Silver to be more "soldier-like".

I watched Sgt Bilko and also saw a comedy where life in the army was easy, about gambling, etc, about outwitting the cunny base commander to get your own way.

CptStern: I dont agree. Watch Off to War the 4 soldiers profiled were under the impression that they'd be serving 2 weeks a year ..not being sent to iraq to fight a war they didnt understand ...almost every last soldier when asked what the motivations were behind the war said the exact same thing: "Saddam was responsible for 9/11" ...you'd think the army or the recruiting officer would have set them straight. Every last one of them also said they didnt want to be in iraq ...they definately got more than what they bargained for

I completely agree with your point of view on that, in England, the part time army is called the Territorial army and is made up of people who play soldier at the weekends and on their holidays. I would never put them into combat situations unless i absolutely really, really had to, why their serving in Iraq, i do not know.


CptStern: that's your POV, I dont agree.

What would your point of view be on the matter? I see the armed forces and the Air Force as a way for me to better myself and prove myself and challenge myself. I will retire, whenever i choose to retire and hopefully after getting in successfully, feeling that i have done something that many, many people never get to do. Yes, fight in wars, but i will also be over in the trouble spots of the world helping refugees, helping bring aid and medical supplies to areas that are hit by natural disasters, etc. Helping keep our troops on the ground alive so they can go home to their families. That is my point of view, what is yours? Why do you think people join the armed forces voluntarily?


CptStern: no, I've played it many times, not recently admittedly but I have played it and at no instance was I shown what the consequences of war is

Sorry, i thought it was you who hadn't played it but it was No Limit. But when i played the game, i played through the training parts of it and i "played" through the first aid courses and i read what the game said. I still stand by my opinion that this game is better then an advertisement because it shows you an overview of the training. Yes, losing a round in the game is nothing like losing your life, but the game is about losing the round and about thinking about why you lost the round. Did you run the wrong way? did you choose the wrong weapon? Did you just charge at the enemy without thinking of the consequences? Hopefully, next round you can learn from those mistakes and not lose, something you never get the opportunity to do in a real war. The Us Army is also using that other game, the game that came out for the Xbox which i can't remember the name of. This game doesn't promote the army life but helps train it's soldiers because you get second chances to do things and you get to learn from your mistakes.

CptStern: again you're wrong. I'm also a citizen of spain, my father, uncles, cousins all served in the military (mandatory in spain) but since I have dual citizenship I didnt have to attend. It's funny how so many of you level this statement at me ..but the surprising reality is that I know far more about the the history and politics behind the war than people who actually served in iraq

Forced to join the Armed forces because it is mandatory is completely different to deciding to join on your own free will. It doesn't make them any less of a soldier, but it does change their motivation and their point of view from why they chose to join. I also probably know more about the war then the soldiers do, but the soldiers are on the ground and they can see what goes on on the ground, they get an uncensored version of what is going on and don't get their information from media that only shows the bad things. There have been documentary people go out there and they have interviewed the soldiers, one of the biggest problems the soldiers see is that the war isn't reported fairly by the Us media, and by world media as a whole. They don't show the good sides of what they're doing, just the bad sides.

CptStern: bullshit, just because I havent actually gone through it doesnt mean I have no understanding of it. I'll reiterate that although I didnt serve in iraq I know more than people who actually did ...why's that? is it because the army doesnt want soldiers that'll question command? they want soldiers that'll obey orders without questioning them. There is no room for "me" in the military

I don't know about the Us armed forces but i know the British armed forces want people to have an understanding of what is going on in the world and to have opinion's on it, if they don't know what is going on in the world or don't care. It is seen as very unfavourable. You are also getting your information from the news, newspapers, magazines, and everyone else. Yes, those soldiers might not know the true reasons behind why they're fighting but they are there and they can see what is going on first hand, both the good and the bad sides of it.


CptStern: spare me your condecending tone ...I dont have to know how to cook to enjoy food.

I wasn't trying to be condescending, all i was wanting you to do is go away and talk to people who have decided on their own to join the army, why they have decided to join the army, and to talk with recruiters about what they look for in a person. If you talk to them and you still don't agree, then that is fine. But to make an argument that says that soldiers are joining the army and getting killed because they were tricked into believing everything is rosey from some computer game is very silly. And that is the point i am getting at, the computer game might be the first stepping stone to their life in the armed forces, but it isn't the last. They will go through interviews and they will watch tapes and they will undoubtable watch the news and understand that war isn't a nice place to be and that training isn't going to be a walk in the park, this is before signing on the dotted line.


CptStern: I dont agree in the least. The army has said that it is the best marketing tool they've ever devised. It MUST be working for them if they say that dont you think?

The game might be one of the stepping stones on the way for a person to decide to want to join the Us Army, but it won't be the only one.

CptStern: without any of the consequences without any of the history without any of the background in politics necessary to fully comprehend the global arena that soldiers are thrust into. It's glorifying the profession ..."join the army fight terrorism" when the truth is nowhere near close to the official line.

To get into the British Armed forces, i have to prove to the interviewer on April 14th that i know what the British armed forces and the airforce are doing around the world, why they are doing it and if i have an opinion on it, not just war and fighting, but peace keeping and humanitarian efforts that the British armed forces are responsible for as well. It is true that a lot of people joined the military just after 9/11 to help fight and kill Osama Bin Laden, they joined far too quickly and for the wrong reasons. But it is there right to join. I played Day Of Defeat with an American clan and knew all of them very well, a few days after 9/11, one of my friends in the clan says that he was helping sift through the rubbish at the Trade Centre because his friend was missing and had decided to join the National Guard. I did think his decision was very hasty and that he joined because he was angry and didn't understand the full situation, but it was his decision to make. So you are right, there are people out there who do make those sorts of decisions and don't know what is going on, but i am hoping to join the military and i do know what is going on in the world and i do have opinions on it, which you of all people should know.


CptStern: You're prematurely jumping the gun here

The argument was about America's Army: the game getting people to join the Us army when they're not ready and have no idea what they are getting themselves in for. Too prove this fact, you have posted a video about some National Guardsman who were in a part time army and were thrust into the most dangerous situations in the world without the army properly preparing them through training and through what to expect. Did these people join the army because they played America's Army? If they did, prove it. Is America's Army the only stepping stone on the way from civilian life to military life? No. Does America's Army give a brief overview of the training and the classes and the knowledge you can expect to learn and go through when joining the Us army? yes, in my opinion it does. Does America's Army brainwash a person with no interest to sign up to the Us army? no, it doesn't Does America's Army encourage young people to think that a career in the Us army might be good for them and encourage them to find out more? Yes, it does.

 

[Razor]

who is the enemy?








so the 1500 dead american soldiers were mostly killed with conventional weapons? name one US military engagement since vietnam where the US lost as many soldiers ..tanks planes etc do nothing to stop the attacks





makes no difference to the soldiers who were killed by low-key technology



a tank, plane doesnt have morale ...one ambush attack by an unseen foe is far worse than a bloody engagement with a tangible enemy. ..I believe roadside bombs have far more psychologically damaging effects than any conventional military engagement




ah but when you're outclassed arms wise, that makes all the difference in the world. Name one US military engagement since vietnam where the US lost as many soldiers. The roadside bomb psychologically is far more effective than a thousand warplanes

But why does the fight on terrorism and what American troops are up to in Iraq or how well they're educated on terrorism have to do with America's Army, a computer game.

If soldiers in Iraq aren't educated about the war in Iraq, that is no fault of the game, something of which most of the soldiers in Iraq have probably never played, and if they did, probably had absolutely no effect at all in them joining the armed forces or not.

That is why i think i have beaten you in this argument CptStern, bring me a video of a US soldier in Iraq who is there because they got the wrong impression of the US army by the America's Army computer game?

I do apologise about the little life goal thing though, probably a bit low. But you're the king of the politics channel, you're the guy that no one can beat in an argument as you bring such great information and proof to the table, proof to back up your story. Something you haven't done in this situation. If you would like me to remove it, i will do. But i always wanted to be known as the guy that could beat Stern in an argument

 

[GhostFox]

I'm also a citizen of spain, my father, uncles, cousins all served in the military (mandatory in spain) but since I have dual citizenship I didnt have to attend.

Wow....talk about an endorsement for manditory millitary service.

Just kidding Sterny

 

[CptStern]

Not with everyone. When you get into a situation that you can't get out of because you lack the education or will power and character, a good stint in the armed forces can help.

I agree but the solution to a social problem (lack of opportunity, lack of education) is NOT sending them to the army. If we spent a quarter on education that we spend on the military we wouldnt have so many people who thought saddam was behind 9/11

The armed forces is all about breaking down what you were and turning you into someone who can think for themselves, fight for what they believe in, etc. That might not be the way you look at it, but it is the way i look at it.

I dont agree, I think all individuality is wiped clean. They teach you to become a part of a whole: they instill in you a sense of belonging, a sense of the army as a family .."dont worry about the politics just keep your friends alive"

I would love a mandatory couple of years service in the British armed forces as it does make you grow up very quickly and take responsibility for your own actions better then any college ever could.

I've never had military service, I'm married and I have a young child ...I've been taking responsibility for my actions all my adult life...I didnt need the army to teach me this. Seriously we need less people that will conform and more people who will think and question the official line. If that was the reality the US wouldnt be in iraq right now

For some military outfits, yes, but not for all. The US Marine Corp and the Royal Marines go through the toughest training in the world so they can handle the toughest situations in the world, if you can survive that sort of training, then you are a real man. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, i presume the Us Navy and Us Airforce are the same, don't want a bunch of suicidal dolls that would march off a cliff if told to do so. They want individuals that are capable of working as part of a team, that can bring different things to the team. You're educated before you join and you're educated after you join. And when joining the armed forces, you will be told about the training and how tough it is going to be, you are told about what lies ahead of you and you are interviewed to make sure you understand that and are ready for that, before ever signing a contract.

yes but ultimately you are part of a unit, anyone who thinks outside of the box would probably do poorly in the military. Like I said they dont want people who will question motivations

You're stating through your arguments that you believe that the game makes people joining up to the Us Army in believing the army is fun and exciting and nothing about killing, etc. I was merely restating what you're arguments were.

on the surface perhaps but the game "romanticises" and glorifies military life

I didn't feel like a pawn and i never will feel like a pawn

so then you truely believed the UK was justified in invading Iraq? your leader blantatly lied his way into joining the invasion force...brits died because blair lied

because i intend to get everything i possibly can out of my years in the service, just like my dad did. I want to travel the world and meet new people and i want to fly, i want a job that will give me as much as i give it.

well that's noble indeed ...albeit I see it a little differently

Are you stating because i want to be in the armed forces that i'm a pawn that is sacrificed for the greater good?

it's rarely for the "greater good" ..as is the case in iraq

Hmmm...perhaps i am, but i intend to make it to the other side on the board and i intend to turn my little pawn into a knight, or a rook, or a bishop or possibly even a queen.

by going up the ranks? then you'll be sending pawns to do your bidding ...which is worse on the karma scale

What would your point of view be on the matter? I see the armed forces and the Air Force as a way for me to better myself and prove myself and challenge myself. I will retire, whenever i choose to retire and hopefully after getting in successfully, feeling that i have done something that many, many people never get to do. Yes, fight in wars, but i will also be over in the trouble spots of the world helping refugees, helping bring aid and medical supplies to areas that are hit by natural disasters, etc. Helping keep our troops on the ground alive so they can go home to their families. That is my point of view, what is yours? Why do you think people join the armed forces voluntarily?

I agree to an extent. When the military acts as a humanitarian force I have no issue ..but that's rarely the case (moreso in the US than the UK)




I'll have to continue this later ..I'm out of time

 

[GhostFox]

or possibly even a queen

Wow....dude....I never knew you were like that. Where do you get dresses that fit? Do you do Liza or Barbera?

 

[Razor]

CptStern: I agree but the solution to a social problem (lack of opportunity, lack of education) is NOT sending them to the army. If we spent a quarter on education that we spend on the military we wouldnt have so many people who thought saddam was behind 9/11

I definately agree, a whole lot more should be spent on education. But there are some situations where even education wouldn't work. If the parent unit, sorry for using that term, fails to give proper nourishment and motivation to a child and fails to teach them right and wrong, they end up being chavs and townies. I think the armed forces would be able to sort these out to some extent, break them down so they aren't failures and rebuild them to be someone who comes up with goals and goes for them. Nothing of the original character is lot, but it might give them a chance to sort their lives out and teach them some respect. Something that not every parent teachers their child, unfortunately. But i do agree that mandatory service isn't the solution to the problem, but it might be a possible option.


CptStern: I dont agree, I think all individuality is wiped clean. They teach you to become a part of a whole: they instill in you a sense of belonging, a sense of the army as a family .."dont worry about the politics just keep your friends alive".

I agree and disagree, they are taught to work and coexist is an integral part of a team and to think of their team mates as their family, but i don't think the individuality is lost. However, lots of armed forces have different training methods, the raf and Royal Navy, my statement would be correct. With the Royal Marines and Us Marine corp, your statement might be a lot more correct. But i don't think you could just turn a person into a pawn when they have family and loved ones in the outside world.


CptStern: I've never had military service, I'm married and I have a young child ...I've been taking responsibility for my actions all my adult life...I didnt need the army to teach me this. Seriously we need less people that will conform and more people who will think and question the official line. If that was the reality the US wouldnt be in iraq right now

A lot of people don't need it like you, but i think a stint in the armed forces could do me the world of good, help me prove myself and gain confidence in myself.

CptStern: yes but ultimately you are part of a unit, anyone who thinks outside of the box would probably do poorly in the military. Like I said they dont want people who will question motivations

Like i said, that might be correct for the very tough, very hard trained soldiers that go into the toughest situations in the world, but it isn't true for all of them. But i am someone who thinks outside of the box and thinks up of new ways to come up with solutions and not frightened of thinking up new things.


CptStern: on the surface perhaps but the game "romanticises" and glorifies military life

I disagree, sat in a 30 minute first aid exam when you could be just out shooting terrorists or communists like in Operation Flashpoint doesn't, in my opinion, glorify combat or military life.


CptStern: so then you truely believed the UK was justified in invading Iraq? your leader blantatly lied his way into joining the invasion force...brits died because blair lied

Tony Blair never lied, and there have been independant investigations that have said that, he just promoted inaccurate information and intelligence that he thought was accurate.

Whether i think it was right for the Uk to invade Iraq? I have mixed feelings, was it right to invade Iraq to seek out Weapons of Mass Destruction? no it wasn't in my opinion as there was no 100% proof, was it right to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam? More leaning towards yes, he is a very bad man and was a huge danger to the local area if left unchecked, should Britain and America of acted without UN consent? No. If i was an raf pilot or crewman and had to go into Iraq to help, would i go without trying to get out of it? yes, would i still go if i believed Saddam was a wonderful man who was just misunderstood and treated his people wonderfully and posed no danger to Britain? if i thought that i was going to be sent into a situation like that, i wouldn't ever consider joining the armed forces.




CptStern: well that's noble indeed ...albeit I see it a little differently

Thankyou and i do understand that not everyone needs the armed forces to get the most out of life. But my life is the same boring thing over and over and over again working a meaningless job in a supermarket, and i always had a dream to be a pilot, so that is what i am doing, following my dream. Something i should of done years ago.


CptStern: it's rarely for the "greater good" ..as is the case in iraq

That is a matter of opinion, the only people who i would ever pay close attention to with such an opinion on the Iraq war would be the soldiers over their fighting and dying, their families and the Iraqi people themselves. If the Iraqi people, after the country has hopefully stablised, believe that their life is better in the future then when they were ruled in the past by Saddam, then yes, i do feel it would of been for the greater good, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found. But i still believe Britain and America should not of acted without Un support.


CptStern: by going up the ranks? then you'll be sending pawns to do your bidding ...which is worse on the karma scale

I see more along the lines of helping the lower ranks to prepare themselves and handle themselves better in a combat situation and ensuring that they are lead by an experienced officer that knows how to get the job done but still keeping them all alive i.e. myself. I don't want an office job, well....not just yet anyway.

CptStern: I agree to an extent. When the military acts as a humanitarian force I have no issue ..but that's rarely the case (moreso in the US than the UK)

The armed forces are something that can be used to save people as well as kill people.


But i have just seen an advert for the Royal Marines on television, it was definately different then the adverts for the Royal Navy, the Royal Airforce and the Army. Whereas the latter just show you the good sides of the forces i.e. the pay, the pension plan, the travelling the world, etc, the Royal Marine advert showed an 18 year getting his face planted in a muddy puddle and forced through a 20foot long tube filled with muddy water and then showed the same guy on a boat speeding into a warzone. There are definately differences in advertising tactics between the normal forces and the elite forces that push someone to breaking point and can be more accused of wearing down a person's individuality and making them think as a team. But the people that go for those elite forces and really tough fighting forces, like the Marines, know exactly what they are getting themselves in for and would definately be told that it isn't going to be easy.

 

[Razor]

Wow....dude....I never knew you were like that. Where do you get dresses that fit? Do you do Liza or Barbera?

And when i ment the queen, i was meaning more a long the lines of the most powerful piece on the chess board, rather then a drag queen .

 

[K e r b e r o s]

so the 1500 dead american soldiers were mostly killed with conventional weapons? name one US military engagement since vietnam where the US lost as many soldiers ..tanks planes etc do nothing to stop the attacks

Tell that to the Germans during Operation Goodwood, who flanked and destroyed up to 400+ Tanks and Vehicles using only 8.8cm FlaK Emplacements, Tiger Tanks, Panther Tanks, and little Bedroom sized Hetzer Tanks.

Planes not as effective? Tell that to the Germans who defended the Rhine River during, "Black Thursday", were the largest aircraft engagement for the European theatre took place and cost the British between 400-800 Aircraft in a single day, under 15 minutes of engagement.

Tanks do nothing? Tell that to the Russians at Kursk, where they managed to turn back Germanys counter-advancements during 1943 to march and capitulate Moscow and the Communist Government; stopped only of course, because of 4,000 Operational Soviet designs.

Tell that to the Americans aswell -- where the Support chassis M4A3 managed to stem back a Japanese advance against the center passes of Iwo Jima.

Every bit of warfare we have, a new advancement comes out that resoundingly changes the way we do warfare. Satellites -- Tanks -- Chemicals -- Planes -- all of these options to warfare, make it easier to kill and quicker to engage and disengage targets with minimal or no losses, as opposed to doing without.

If you want me to answer for those American's killed, your going to have to ask and reobserve your charished Roadside bomb. Its effective, but it's not that effective. It kills more civilians then it does US Military -- and further, the Insurgents, if they can use a roadside bomb to peg one US Soldier in a crowd of 50 Shiites, they'd do it.

Once a Tank stands obliterated with its Turret blazing off in the distance with a hurling orange fireglow trailing behind it -- once an F-16 Fighter mystically blows up in firey grey and white sound-barrier breaking ball of death -- and once a Satellite falls from the sky; all due to your charished Roadside bomb, then you can call me on to name responsibility. But none of thats happened -- so unless Pigs can fly, then I'll be damned to answer for something so ridiculous.

Here's the problem with your roadside bomb: It cannot engage fighters (1-2 crew). It cannot destroy tanks (4-5 crew). It cannot destroy Stealth Wings (1-4 crew). It can't destroy Satellites (0 crew). It cant sink an Aircraft Carrier (2,000-4,000+ crew).

Why is this propenent of warfare ineffective against such things? Because it was made to suite only one proponent -- Ground. Warfare. The Tank, and the heavy APC have been the only things to survive it on the ground.

Its effective against Cars, Trucks, and Infantry -- but it has'nt killed or disabled that much; considering our attacking force is estimatedly heavily outnumbered.

Its defensless against Counter-Measure -- if its users are killed, it cant detonate without a remote response.

Its uses are key against soft targets, but not against hard -- lets restress its field of use where its best placed against: SOFT EXPOSED UNASSUMING LAND TARGETS.

makes no difference to the soldiers who were killed by low-key technology

Roadside bombs are detonated usually by Remote, and therefore negates any responsibility for those killed by it to have somehow made the weapon effective.

If you sat the weapon, without a user, without a remote controller in the middle of the desert, this thing could not engage targets. It can't move. It would sit there, haplessly.

Its dependent upon crew -- which makes the weapon only dangerous when its controlled by a remote user. Its not a low-key weapon; people have died setting them, which means the actual production of such means is highly dangerous.

a tank, plane doesnt have morale

Which makes them the most intimidating and effective weapons an army can field.

...one ambush attack by an unseen foe is far worse than a bloody engagement with a tangible enemy

Unseen. Pah! They see them all the time, its just nobody over there has a sense for ambush -- maybe if they yanked some Israeli Special Ops commanders over there for help, they might fare better.

But still -- against 500,000 of the Elite Republican Guard, and against the 200,000 of Iraqs basic fielded army; 120,000 soldiers to only loose 1,500 is still a DAMN GOOD in statistic. Roadside bombs have an impact, but then again, they dont produce eyebrow quirking statistics.

And an unseen foe is'int the most dangerous -- what makes him unseen, are those who dont look for him.

When the US has started looking -- guess what? We found them. And killed them. Fallujah, we saw 2,800 dead insurgents at the cost of our own 650.

That was a direct engagement, in under 10 to 100 meters of usual engagement range, and again, that had a minimal impact on both the elections and our losses.

I believe roadside bombs have far more psychologically damaging effects than any conventional military engagement

It used to be the Sniper ... but the thing about a Roadside bomb, is that you can kill its remote user, and use the bomb to your advantage. Further, you dont have to put yourself in the range of Roadside bombs -- you can drive around them, or detonate them from afar.

Its not as unique as you'd think, and its a lot easier to get around then it is to make.

Name one US military engagement since vietnam where the US lost as many soldiers. The roadside bomb psychologically is far more effective than a thousand warplanes

One Warplane made British, Polish, and French soldiers cower -- it was Stuka Dive Bomber. Planes and Tanks can have just as much as a psychological effect as your claiming to roadside bombs, and much more.

What scared the British more about the German's Wehrmacht on June 7th-14th, 1944? The German Tiger Tank. It scared the allies all the way up until Germanys final fall -- and that tank alone, claimed scores of kills not one Tank veteran today can match. 405 Tanks, Vehicles, and Support weapons, and Infantry, crewing into about 14,060 estimated dead, all by one Tank Ace: Michael Wittman.

On average, German Tigers could whip down between 12 vehicles to 50 on any average day -- what out did the German Tiger then was that its support industry had'nt been declared to anything further beyond 30% until near the wars end.

on the surface perhaps but the game "romanticises" and glorifies military life

We could argue that about many First Person Shooters.

your leader blantatly lied his way into joining the invasion force...brits died because blair lied

... and now Iraq is free. Thanks.

it's rarely for the "greater good" ..as is the case in iraq

Where would we start the peace process then?

by going up the ranks? then you'll be sending pawns to do your bidding ...which is worse on the karma scale

So strange -- military leaders from World War II continue to live long and happy lifes; only propenents to their death would be old age.

Worse on the Karma scale? -- Karma measures differently, then even I assume.

 

[Pesmerga]

you know for a "fact" that people will smoke pot if they dont join the army? do you have a source on that? Is this some new study? wow, so that means everyone around me is a pothead?
huh? so the real thing is more fun than a video game? ...I've seen Platoon, that didnt look like fun

You just don't understand the concept of implication, do you? I said, in fewer words than this, that military training is better than being a junkie, hobo, or crack whore.

And I didn't say the real thing is funner than AA (although, I'm sure actually joining the army would have been more productive than sitting on my ass playing a video game), I said that if AA was as realistic as real-life, then no one would play it. No players, no money, worthless recruitment tool. And imo, it was more of a recruitment tool than anything. AA was a shitty game, anyway, considering the community of likely future army volunteers.

 

[Razor]

I have to disagree with you Kerberos, when you're a soldier in a situation where any man, woman, or child, could whip out a gun or a grenade, it can be a lot more scary then engaging an enemy that wears a uniform and flies a plane or drives a tank. You can go to great lengths to defeat car bombers and suicide bombers, etc, but as you can see from Israel, even the most stringent of efforts isn't enough. They may catch most suicide bombers before they can do there filthy deed, but it just takes one to get through to kill hundreds of innocents.

And working in situations like the road blocks in Baghdad, where the next car that comes up to you could accelerate and try to ram you, you have to be very weary, that is why there are a lot of mistakes made as conventional troops aren't really trained against suicide bombers very well, unless your Israelly, then it is a fact of life and an almost everyday occurance.

 

[CptStern]

You just don't understand the concept of implication, do you?

well obviously you dont understand "implication" because that's exactly what you're doing: implying that unless you receive military training you'll resort to a life scrounging for money to feed your drug habit ...again I need a source on your "implication"

I said, in fewer words than this, that military training is better than being a junkie, hobo, or crack whore.

that's not a reasonable comparison in any stretch of the imgination ..working at wal-mart is better than being a crackhead ...does that mean I should work at wal-mart so that I'll avoid being a crackhead?

And I didn't say the real thing is funner than AA (although, I'm sure actually joining the army would have been more productive than sitting on my ass playing a video game)

well depends on how you define "productive". laying waste to a country is not "productive"

 

[Pesmerga]

No Stern, again, taking my words out of context subconciously, and automatically subverting them to a good 'retort'. I really don't feel like writing a two page essay explicitly detailing every point I make, I feel that the general audience is at a mature and intelligent enough level to understand what I'm saying. Joining the army does not make every recruit a soldier on the battlefield. And don't give me this indirect crap about supporting the people doing it. I honestly don't give a crap about the middle east or the people who live there. I'm an individual, not about to partake in some political fiasco that's sure to turn into a bloodbath. When the enemy comes a' knockin on my door, I am going to protect myself. I don't speak for anyone else but me, and no one else should get involved in anything they don't wanna get involved in.

AA is a recruitment tool. War is hell. Thus, AA is NOT war. It's a game, but effective at inspiring young boys to join the military. Life will move on, I assure you this, Stern, so don't go burstin veins and catching everyone off their guard, trying to push your point on threads that have nothing to do with your blatant agenda.

 

[Calanen]

I don't remember hearing anything other than Americas Army was both, in official statements by the US military. Its a good way of reaching the masses through a popular medium, the video game. I've seen official statements from the US Army about it.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I have to disagree with you Kerberos, when you're a soldier in a situation where any man, woman, or child, could whip out a gun or a grenade, it can be a lot more scary then engaging an enemy that wears a uniform and flies a plane or drives a tank.

You disagree with what? Tell me what you disagree with.

However, having something I disagree with already quoted, I'am going to state the fear-factor is just the same as when facing an enemy dressed up like a civilian.

 

[Razor]

You disagree with what? Tell me what you disagree with.

However, having something I disagree with already quoted, I'am going to state the fear-factor is just the same as when facing an enemy dressed up like a civilian.

No it isn't, as you know who you're facing and you know how to battle a person ina uniform driving a tank. If some 14 year old little girl comes up to your checkpoint with a school bag on her back, could it be full of books or could she be about to blow herself up? You don't know until you go over to search her bag, and then you have the apprehension that she could blow herself up as you approach. All soldiers wear camoflage clothing, it's just that some of them wear camoflage clothing that makes them blend in with other civilians in the area.

Anyway, this all has nothing to do with the American Army game and whether it is a right or wrong way to recruit soldiers.

 

[CptStern]

But why does the fight on terrorism and what American troops are up to in Iraq or how well they're educated on terrorism have to do with America's Army, a computer game.

it's the whole romantizing of the role of the soldier (the fight for freedom etc)

If soldiers in Iraq aren't educated about the war in Iraq, that is no fault of the game, something of which most of the soldiers in Iraq have probably never played, and if they did, probably had absolutely no effect at all in them joining the armed forces or not.

we dont know that because they wont release numbers ...but they did say it is the most successful recruiting tool they're ever had ...so it must be working

That is why i think i have beaten you in this argument CptStern, bring me a video of a US soldier in Iraq who is there because they got the wrong impression of the US army by the America's Army computer game?

that's a little unreasonable ..I do have a video of an american soldier killing a wounded iraqi soldier to the cheers of his squadmates (not sure if I should post it ..as it's somewhat graphic ..not really but someone dies in it ..and soldiers laugh that they'd like to kill again) ...so that pretty much proves the desentization of death ...which points to one of a few issues:

either the military is feeding them propaganda that the enemy deserves what it gets (saddam behind 9/11) or these soldiers are acting out on their own personal code of morality ...which is equally disturbing if you ask me

I do apologise about the little life goal thing though, probably a bit low. But you're the king of the politics channel, you're the guy that no one can beat in an argument as you bring such great information and proof to the table, proof to back up your story.

well I dont want to be that person ..I dont want to be the "one to beat" ...I dont do this because of popularity or a desire to out-do the other guy ..I do this out of a sense of what's right and because it's the truth.

Something you haven't done in this situation.

I dont agree ...the point is that the game doesnt accurately portray military life ...it's a game, it's self-evident ..virtual combat is not the same as real combat .. in this sense I have proved my point

If you would like me to remove it, i will do. But i always wanted to be known as the guy that could beat Stern in an argument

no I dont want you to remove, I just dont want to be the person to "beat" ...I guess it's like a successful gunfighter moving on in years ...every young buck wants a stab at being the one to bring down the "one to beat" ...the example is a little self-effacing but you get the picture ..to the less astute within our group: "I no be arrogant, so no flam pleese"



anyways more when I get a chance ...too much to do lately

 

[X|Rolando]

Part of me thinks this seems too much like one of those "ban violent games" discussions...

Though I also think the image "Join the army - It's just like on XBOX, only you die!" does fit this case.

Decisions, decisions...

 

[Razor]

CptStern, you see the dying in each round as an inaccuracy that means the recruits don't truely understand the consequences of combat, i see it more of a learning thing "i did this in a previous round and i died, perhaps i should try to do it differently this time", this means you get to try out new tactics with no penalty of death if it doesn't work. This definately helps in training, but it can also help in recruiting. You see the game as a fast paced action game, i see it more of an ultra realistc game that introduces possible new recruits to weapons, to the training, to the tactics and strategy behind beating the bad guys, and then there are others who see it as a fun way to while away the evening at home.

The point is, you're arguing that America's Army has a profound effect on players, an effect that would singlehandedly get a person to join the US army, is that correct?
Fine, playing America's Army might get teenagers to look at the possibilities and weigh up the pros and cons of joining the army after they finish school, but i don't think it is the only stepping stone a long the way, like i said, joining the armed forces is a lot more then just playing the game and signing up the next day, or for the British forces anyway. If the American Army is based just on the principal of someone showing up, signing and contract and they're immediately shipped off to boot camp after a quick medical, then that is a serious problem with the recruiting phase of the US armed forces, rather then the game. People who join the army are old enough, or should be old enough, to understand that when you join the army, you are facing the serious possibility of going to war, if you don't, you're ignorant and nieve. If most American soldiers in Iraq think Saddam was primarily responsible for 9/11, that is the fault of the soldiers not reading up on it. They get newspapers over there, they get news over there, they should be able to piece 2 and 2 together to come out with the correct answer, so i don't know why they still think along the lines that Saddam was responsible.

 

[GhostFox]

I just finished playing MVP Baseball 2005, but for some reason the Yankees still don't want me.

What gives?