Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I assume of course he is doing it tongue-in-cheek. I mean, he has been to America, for prolonged periods of time. Of course he doesn't blanket "general populace" at the same time as "all Americans". It's a stereotype, a stereotype that (once) held high and true, and if you're genuinely offended by him using it then I guess he's done his job well.Thorinair said:
But yes. When he addresses "America," he is addressing those big-wig types. Consider yourself well and truly out of the picture.
Part of the thrust of this comment is that, if the U.S. had a war on their own soil, MAYBE the idea of bombing other countries, both in media and in real life, might lose a little luster.thepyrethatburns said:
[/quote]
Ahh, one of my favorite songs. However it's a satire, not a parody. There is a differace.
That said, yes we have gone after other countries, and generally speaking they have been militarily crushed even if we have failed to complete our objectives. We had reasons to go after Saddam for decades before we invaded, we agreed with the rest of the world community to let him go for a while after "Desert Storm" and see if he got hist act together. He did not. People were asking why we didn't finish that clown off for a long time before "The War On Terror" only to whine when we actually did it. People simply have short memories. Yugoslavia was nessicary to prevent a Genocide. We generally have good reasons for going where we do, even if things don't pay off. The US generally does not engage in wars of conquest unlike some other dominant world powers out there, yes there are some incidents argued by those with anti-American sentiments but no rule is absolute.
In reality the "smart bomb" which can spare civilians while killing only the bad guys has yet to be invented. One of the USA's biggest obstacles in wartime nowadays has been that we listen to all the crying about civilian casualties and collateral damage. We've even gone so far as to load our missles and bombs with concrete as opposed to explosives as a result.
As I've pointed out before, in numerous posts, I believe that in a real war the only way to win is to target the civilians along with the military. We won World War II by turning the Nazis into a tiny fringe when they were once a huge international movement. We did this by killing massive numbers of civilians, bombing factores, farms, hospitals, and everything else. We then spent decades hunting down the survivors internationally not only to prevent some kind of resurgence, but to kill as much of the idea as possible. Isreal was especially vicious and dedicated to it. One of the reasons why things like "Operation Paperclip" and recruiting guys like Von Braun to our rocket programs were so contreversial is that we were making exceptions for scientists and "big heads" where we pretty much agreed to kill (or turn over) any of these guys we found, and then we started making under the table exceptions.
Oh sure, a lot of people don't like that, but war blows chips for a reason. We have yet to engage on such a level again (despite what anyone thinks), so we haven't succeeded since even if our military hasn't ever actually been overcome.
Perspectives of course vary, and in real life nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guys. One side's terrorists are the other side's commando units (so to speak). War and conflict are not absolute, and an atrocity from one perspective is doing what is nessicary to win a war from the other side. In general in any successful large scale war the winners write the history books, and the guys who lost wind up being the ones screaming about a atrocities (even after their culture has been changed).
Even in cases of outright conquest, the aggressors typically had reasons for doing what they were doing. Sometimes born of ignorance, sometimes legitimate.
In the overall scheme of things if anything the US is too moral in that we listen to too many differant people, let it affect policy, and then wind up not doing what we need to for our own benefit Both in terms of wars, and in general policy.
As far as the US dropping bombs goes, it's pretty much how you do business. Nobody has bombed the US because nobody has ever been in a position to. Truthfully I don't think having bombs dropped on us would do anything to change the face of war, or affect how we would fight from that point onwards. Especially if we ever really mean business again. After all World War II was largely won by bombing. Until better methods of safely killing the enemy and destroying cultures comes along, bombs are going to be a major facet of war. As certain air force pilots will say "Fighter Pilots make movies, Bomber Pilots make history".
Why does Yahtzee even review these games? The bread and butter is the online multiplayer and he says he hates online multiplayer... It's like reviewing an MMO after reading the short story clip-it provided in the instruction manual...
But apt.Pirate Kitty said:
One of the funniest reviews done in a while. All true. I really wanted black ops to be "deniable stealth missions" but it did always end up with Americans blowing the fuck out of anyone to the left of GW Bush.
And the ending to the single player campaign actually made me stop touching my keyboard and mouse, recoil, cross my arms and say, in a monotone, acerbic voice:
"What?"
I mean seriously. The last fifteen seconds of the game are such a MASSIVE Yankee dick-suck it's unbelievable.
And considering these are "low-key" missions, how the fuck does a naval armada and a metric fucktonne of air support go unnoticed?
ARGH.
In other news, Zork was pretty fun.
And the Nova 6 gas-mask section was interesting, new for the series, but already done by Metro 2033
Note to Yahtzee ? there are plenty of games about the United States getting invaded. Turning Point: Fall of Liberty sucked, while no one played the great real-time strategy game World in Conflict. Don?t worry. John ?Red Dawn? Milius is helping make Homefront ? pardon me while I dry heave.
Rather Cheeky of you, Yahtzee, portraying America as the awkward obsessive who mates with Great Britain and starts swinging with Russia/China. Well, at least that's what I got out of that, and Oh man, was that funny...
I can't wait for the Wesker/Captain America/Doctor Doom ending where the heroes realize their awesome utopian empire genetically made of Red, White, and Blue! (*Ahem* seriously, can't wait for some Tron/Zero action.)Kurt Horsting said:
So am I the only one disturbed that there are people who actually wish for another world war? I mean, yeah American government has made some boneheaded decisions in the past but so have other nations right? I always find the focused hatred towards the world superpower somewhat odd. Why people get up and arms over this shit is beyond me.
The problem is that when other nations go to war, it's usually not for the same reasons America uses to get involved in a war.masterkeyes2 said:
Have to agree with the post above, war has usually been waged by nations to gain or protect resources, land, and citizenship. It is a diplomatic method, albeit the weakest one. It's an awful thing but it isn't like the US alone is the only one who does it.