Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Black Ops

[thepyrethatburns]

Without going into things point by point, our big disagreement is on how to solve problems. I do not consider "right and wrong" to be a matter of how many people die in a conflict.

Which is easy to say when it's not on your home soil. Someone detonates a thermonuclear bomb in the midwest and your tune'll change.

.

... and see, here is where the validity of pretty much everything your saying becomes entirely out of context. The wars are to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

No, they aren't. And, if you claim they are, you need to back that up with proof. Start with Panama. Work your way to Iraq. Present concrete proof.

What's more claims that nations like Iran was on the verge of some kind of cultural renaissance are BS. Simply put anyone in a situation like this is going to claim "OMG, we were on the verge of a renaissance". Decades have gone by, with things getting worst throughout the entire region. It's not about one nation, but the culture, if it's not Iran it's Libya, if it's not Libya it's Iraq, if it's not Iraq it's Pakistan or Syria.

This is why you need to need to either get outside the U.S. or, at least, start reading news media that is not Fox or CNN. This way, you might not take the attitude that they're all barbarians that need to be exterminated. You might start seeing them as people. I didn't say Iran was on the verge of a cultural renaissance. I said that Iran was headed towards a crossroads where the younger generation was growing weary of living under a theocracy and wanted to move towards a more democratic society. This movement was very well documented even by U.S. news networks. Would that have led to a renaissance? Unknown and I guess we won't know now.

Nobody *wants* to have bombs dropped on them, and your right, the US wouldn't like it. On the other hand it's not going to change the face of war. If you drop bombs on the US it means that if you fail to kill us, we're going to come back and do the same thing to you ten times worse.

Then why the hell do you think it's somehow different in any other region? Why would you think that killing millions and committing genocide will somehow not provoke retaliation?

Incidently this is why half measures don't work, if your going to war, you need to finish it and make sure there isn't an enemy left to come back after you later. You need to shatter the culture. Read some things on engagement principles like "total war".

We're not talking about what the U.S. should do once it engages in a war. We're talking about preemptively starting wars because the President gets an itch to make things go boom.

As far as your comments on joining the military, due to being disabled the military wouldn't take me. What's more, due to the engagement policies the military is following I would not join even if they would take me.

And there's the problem. Most of the cynical militants in the U.S. are the armchair generals. It's a lot easier to be a cynical militant when you're advocating for someone else to go catch bullets than it is when you're the one getting shot at.

Simply put I am practical in that the military has to spend human lives in order to win wars and complete objectives. I however do not believe it does this responsibly under the current engagement doctrines. Simply put I feel the attempts to fight an antiseptic and/or moral war, make the risks to our soldiers unacceptable.

Riskier than not sending them into an unneccessary "Presidental Legacy" war in the first place?

We developed all of these bombs, cruise missles, and artillery weapons specifically so we could decimate population centers in times of war and minimize the use of the infantry.

You are really into this idea of slaughtering the civilian population, aren't you? Yes, we have all these weapons. Yes, that is their intended use although, by the very laws that we tried the Nazis under, those population centers should have some demonstratable military value. Even Hiroshima had demonstratable military value, having 3 large military bases, numerous large military supply depots, and was a major shipping port.

I mean, hell, since you're so into the idea of slaughtering the population to bring them to heel, why not just glass the place? By your own admission, we should be using the maximum amount of force to inflict the maximum number of casualties so let's just drop a nuke or two.

What's more, when you say have an enemy leader speaking in a square shouting "kill America" to a crowd of adoring Muslim supporters, we won't bomb the guy, because of all those "innocent civilians" that would be "collateral damage".

We developed things like Daisy Cutter Bombs and cruise missles with extremely large blast radiuses specifically for situations like that, and yet now when the time comes we won't pull the trigger.

That's a great idea. We should institute this in America too. Speaking out against the American government will earn you an inch of lead between the eyes. For Freedom!!!

I really like this. You're talking about indiscriminately slaughtering civilians by dropping Daisy Cutters on any town square where some cleric is giving a speech calling for the death of America and then you wonder why anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise.

I've also noticed that, as you talk more and more about inflicting civilian casualties, it's always "Muslims". You almost never refer to them by country or organization or anything else. It's always just "Muslims".

When you have billions upon billions of dollars in technology invested in weapons to totally wreck civilizations, and then you decide to go in and fight rifle to rifle, the people running the show are complete idiots. I'd be willing to risk my life for my country, but I'm not going to get my head blown off so some bleeding heart can feel good about himself.

By your own definition, you aren't. You're willing to commit genocide by pressing buttons to drop massive amounts of ordinance upon the civilian population of these countries as if this is some form of video game but you aren't willing to put your own life on the line.

... and also, I see a reason for going to war as being to destroy groups that present a threat to you. The possibility of someone being cheezed at us, developing a nuke, and then setting it off in the Midwest or whatever, is exactly why you do the job the way I'm talking about as "evil" as it may be. We not only killed the Nazis, but hunted down or otherwise "recruited" (in the case of scientists) the survivors for decades afterwards in part to prevent any kind of a resurgence that could lead to some dude going "OMG, the Americans bombed my house and killed my family! All I wanted to do is be left alone with my idealogy!" and perfectly right in his own mind, and from his own perspective, developing and setting off WMD in a major city somehow.

There is a LARGE difference between what happens after a war which does include killing those who may pose a future threat and going to war with any non-nuclear nation (another reason Iran and North Korea want nukes) just because a president convinces the people of the U.S. that, at some point in the future, they may pose some form of threat to us.

As far as argueing that nations like Iran were 2" away from a renaissance before our half-arsed police action with their neigbors, it's sort of like people who claim that the Nazis were misunderstood, were not killing Jews but relocating them, and similar things, or how that there were movements in the party which were close to removing Hitler before the US and it's allies actually entered Axis soil.

No. No, it isn't. Not even close. Stop watching FOX news.

I neither believe it, or care,

People who advocate genocide rarely do.

The US's primary motive of course being Pearl Harbour, which was the 9/11 of it's day,

Which was a justification for Afghanistan.

Using the same WW2 comparisons that you're using, using 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq would be comparable to us using Pearl Harbor to attack Korea because they're both Asian countries.

it's just that the US no longer has the same spirit.

That and the fact that, if we did conduct the war as you're suggesting, we would probably be facing the same world coalition against us that Saddam had facing him in the first Iraq war.

You can only commit so many atrocities before even your staunchest ally turns on you

At any rate, enough rambling. Like most discussions, in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree. The majority of your points are based around argueing from a perspective that is entirely differant from mine. When it comes to war, I've already dismissed morality. A lot of your arguements about what we might think about think of things if we had been bombed, overlook the fact that we act this way to prevent that from becoming a possibility.

So, if I were to meet you in the street, I should shoot you because there's a possibility that, one day, you might decide to shoot me?

You're right about our perspectives being different.

Albiet our response is half arsed, and is liable to bite us in the keister. Truthfully I think the result of the inevitable backlash of our current policies is going to be a lot of American deaths.

Any backlash that comes as a result of our policies won't come because we did it half-assed.

If we survive that, you will probably see a lot more people with my pragmatic attitude on things,

Pragmatism =/= irrational and genocidal

Of course that will mean a lot more people on our side will have died than was nessicary given our potential control of military conflicts were are currently involved in.

You are still working off a false premise. Anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise BECAUSE the U.S. decides to go into other countries and kill off large portions of the civilian populace. It's one thing to let the world know that, if you attack the U.S., you will be stomped flat. It's quite another to let the world know that the U.S. may knock off your country on a whim. The first premise deters attacks. The second premise tells people (particularly Muslims evidently) that they have nothing to lose and might as well resort to preemptive strikes as well.

 

[Sempaliscious]

Oh and, America, you aren't in charge of the world. Not everyone is out to get you (but keep working on it, I'm sure you can get everyone to hate you if you work hard enough). We don't all idolise you. We don't want to be like you.

We like your clothing, movies, games and music because, unlike you, we are busy doing important things while Americans are busy trying to become famous and rich. Keep making that stuff - it suits us fine for you to spend heaps of money to entertain and clothe us.

Let's be honest here. You guys are owned by China thanks to your brilliant "Freedom" mission in Iraq.

I think Yahtzee's points are valid. America does spend way too much time complimenting it's own greatness. You guys think that you are number one in the world but the only thing you seem to be number one at is spending money on war. You run around poking the world with a big stick saying "we're awesome, be like us, you guys love us so much" and then complain when people don't like you. "You're just jealous" or "You can't handle how super awesome we are".

It's really infantile.

Perception is reality. I'm sure there are lovely, hard working (definitely hard working - you guys still don't know what a fair minimum wage is), down to earth people in America (and I know there are these types of people because I've got American friends) but lets be honest here. Your media spends all it's time blowing the "WE ARE THE BEST" trumpet when the rest of the world simply shrugs it's shoulders and says "who cares?"

Australia has more innovation in technology per capita than the rest of the world. Shrug.

Newsweek put out a "Top 10" best countries article a few months ago. No. 1? Finland. No. 4? Australia. America? Not on the list.

Yes, America, you look fat in those pants. Yes, you have bad breath. Yes, what you are doing is annoying. People only say these things because they want you to be better. It's ok, baby, we still love you. Just work on those things a bit harder.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

thepyrethatburns, you're done arguing with me? I'm... hurt...

I'm sorry. It's just that you're not advocating exterminating millions of Muslims on the basis that they may possibly be a threat at an indeterminate time in the future so I don't have as much motivation to argue with you.

 

[Neonit]

whats the point of arguing? its just a book example of usa logic. its ok to laugh at germans with their hitler. its ok to laugh at russians. its ok to laugh at muslims. but you laugh at usa-you are a f**** terrorist!!!

Wait, USA logic? Are you implying that only Americans are capable of logical fallacies? We weren't arguing about the intellect of the American people, but now, I think that's changed.

oh no, i wasnt implying this, and i have no idea how in Satan's glorious name you came upon this conclusion! i also know that for example, Italians tend to have exactly the same problem (see-Mafia II) which doesnt change the fact that (at least from my perspective) my point remains valid. I dont see germans complaining about 1XX game about nazi's. And if they do complain, then i think it is stupid. what i do see however are people acting like saying something bad about usa army is blasphemy, and should be punished by Guantanamo rules.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Hopefully we'll all love Homefront!
And yes, zombies do seem to be a necessary requirement now.

It does look amazing. The story sounds like just the thing Yahtzee wants. And the multiplayer looks really fun. Hopefully it will be packed with sweet weapons too.

Then why is your avatar completely unrelated to homefront in every way?
THQ have got to be my favourite publisher, they have a reputation for taking risks and going for more interesting games - see Metro 2033, Saints row 2, STALKER shadow of chernobyl, Finding Nemo the game -, and Kaos studios is an offshoot of THQ. The one thing I am wary of, is that this will become Metro 2027: USA. Don't get me wrong, It will make it great 2033 had some excellent visuals, but was very linear, so all the visuals shot by a bit too fast. I'll still get it anyway, but something I am worrying about

THQ is pretty sweet. Playing through Metro several times, honestly, I knew it was linear but didn't really care. It was still a great game. I use this remark: Half Life 2 is linear, and we all know how good that game is. Reading some previews from GameInformer and online, I don't think it will be as strictly linear as Metro was. Remember, Metro was following a book, so it didn't have a lot of wiggle room. Kaos' Frontlines really wasn't that linear, so I would imagine Homefront takes more from that than from 4As Metro. Also, Homefront is going to have multiplayer, which doesn't make up for, but would offset some linearity in the campaign.

 

[NonyaZ]

Back on the discussion of Black Ops instead of talking about American/International issues/policies, I finally got a chance to sit down and play it on the 26th, and beat it in one sitting. Now I myself usually only play RPGs, but I was very impressed by black ops. It didn't move to fast for me, maybe Yahtzee is just getting old.

 

[JayJayinMay]

was the ending bit a clever reference to the online play?about getting it out of their system?

 

[Chris 'Chaos' Voce]

I've only played modern warfare 1 and your right it IS more stealthy then Black (African American) Ops there's like only one mission were there is stealth and there's barley any guys to kill

 

[OneHappyGuy]

And this is why I love living in Ireland. People can make fun of us all we want, but I'm happy. Why should I care what anyone else thinks?
Unless we're gonna get invaded for being the stereotypical drunken idiots, I think we'll be just fine.

While I agree it's the same thing over and over again, it's just as much our faults. The US keeps making more and more games where they're the almighty ones that will take down anyone that casts them a shifty look.

Look at it from their point of view. They're making the same stuff and slapping a different name on it. We all know it, and nearly all of us keep buying said games, regardless of what country we live in. They make millions coming up with the same generic ideas. Why bother with anything else?

Nowadays, it's quantity over quality. The only way for this to change is in their financial benefit. So until then..

NOT TO MENTION.. why doesn't anyone else make a war game? If this "change of scenery" is really so favourable, surely someone will be able to pick up on it and make it somewhat of a success, then improve on that. Otherwise, we'll be sticking with the same old games until (and if) they ever get their arses in gear.

But really, they're making repetitive games and everyone's buying them. They're making a success off of people's idiocy. I don't blame them. I surely don't want to invade them, and I don't see why you'd want to.

Besides, I don't even think we're capable of starting a war with anyone. I love it.

 

[BoldBaldBastard]

No his hatred, or rather it strikes me that "contempt" is the more precise, for America seems to be very deep-seated and has come across in his reviews many times.

This is just what one would call the straw that broke the camel's back. Even he, the misanthropic troll he is should know he was way out of line with such a comment.

I mean he basically hated on Uncharted and Uncharted 2 JUST because the main character came across as "Too American" to him, he even admitted in a very grudging aside in the Uncharted 2 review that he couldn't find anything wrong with the game, but still he hated on it.

So yeah I'm calling him a bigot who, as I believe I said before, needs to remove his head from his self-righteous ass.

All countries have made war at one time or another. For most of the unpopular ones Britain added the US many times and yet no one bitches about them. I'm not going into the details of it but if those wars were so horribly wrong then ANYONE fighting in them should be as demonized as the US is and yet no one else is. I am calling bullshit on this.

I am calling bullshit on all of this fucking anti-US bigotry. I'm not sure if it's jealous causing it or what, but a good portion of the world needs to remove their heads from their asses and open their eyes.

Anyone who does this large scale hatred of people you probably haven't even met should be ashamed of yourselves.

Yahtzee should probably be even more ashamed of himself as he has been here before if I am not completely mistaken. If you hate as all so fucking much then maybe you should stay the hell out. Otherwise I think I'd have to say someone punching him in the mouth for his bullshit is some what justified.
...

The Anti-Americaism isn't purely based on their war mongering.
Have you forgotten things as; the Jerry Springer show, Sitcoms with a laughter slider in it, giving mortages to people that can't afford them on a grand scale and starting a world crisis with it. (for starters, when you think about it, there is a lot more)

Americans kind of have the image globally of being very dumb, often obese and lazy and having insane debts.

This is as much a generalisation ofcourse as me living in a windmill, filled with tulips, eating cheese all day while wearing clogs.

 

[Therumancer]

You are still working off a false premise. Anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise BECAUSE the U.S. decides to go into other countries and kill off large portions of the civilian populace. It's one thing to let the world know that, if you attack the U.S., you will be stomped flat. It's quite another to let the world know that the U.S. may knock off your country on a whim. The first premise deters attacks. The second premise tells people (particularly Muslims evidently) that they have nothing to lose and might as well resort to preemptive strikes as well.

Actually that's the thing, we don't act anywhere near like what your implying. Sure, we've engaged in a number of wars, but in general we fight antiseptic ones. We haven't outright wiped out a culture since World War II.

Anti-US sentiment is based on the US being the dominant world power, pure and simple. There is nothing more to it than that. This combined with a genuine lack of fear of the US due to the belief that we will not use our military power efficiently is why people are willing to strike against it with such imputiny.

You are correct that nobody likes having their family killed by bombs, but the simple fact that this kind of thing happens in isolated incidents, they can fuel anti-war sentiment in the US by complaining about it, and even get our military to gimp itself through such complaints makes us into a joke. The fact that we pretty much let that angry dude swear vengeance and let him go long enough to do something is our problem.

I mean I get it, all your comments come down to the fact that you don't like the US. I also see no real need to debate things like Panama and stuff with you because there is no point to it, I've already acknowleged there are other sides to every story. The same for your "OMG, visit other countries" bit (and again, you make some big assumptions here, your attitude being that someone who has experienced other nations or cultures could not possibly disagree with you. That is false). As I've pointed out wars are always "us vs. them" not a matter of any kind of inherant righteousness against inherant evil, that's simply how historians choose to record things. In even the most immoral wars the bottom line is that one side of the conflict wanted something that would benefit them, and the other side didn't want to give it up or make the changes. In many cases it simply comes down to me supporting what is good for me and mine, as well as working towards the way I see a world unity/global endgame occuring (under the *principles* of the USA, even if the USA itself dissolves s part of that process, though that's another discussion entirely).

When it comes to "The Middle East" in general, I've made my thoughts clear. Truthfully even if I was against it to begin with, I think the strategy was proven to have failed when the new constitutions for nations like Afghanistan and Iraq included defining those nations as "Muslim Nations" as opposed to instituting a seperation of church and state. As a snowball effect of things like that early promises of things like these nations civilizing and supporting principles like women's sufferage also failed. This means that once we no longer have a gun to their head actively they are liable to get right back to the same old garbage. The approach failed, because your not going to see massive cultural reforms brought about at gunpoint by an outside force. If you need to stop a culture or idealogy the only way your going to do it is to handle it like we did The Nazis. Whether it's been 50 years or 5,000 years the bottom line to succeed is the same.

What this means is that all of the things your complaining about are pretty much the policies of a group of pantywaists compared to what I think. Hence why we are totally out of context to each other, and are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Neonit]

this whole thing reminds me of discussion "my god is better than yours".
why do some people think "mine way of sorting things out is better, thats why i have to convince others to do it like me". its like Jehovah, and i think i dont have to remind you that not many people like them...... if you have a great way of living, keep it to yourself, if its really so good, other people will embrace it by themselves, you dont have to put "gun to their head".....

in short-dont help, if you are not asked to help...... and hell, dont do it if they are struggling against your "help"......

 

[The_Puppy_Prince]

This is only an interactive movie...

Seen that so many times xD
Thought it was funny
Maybe AAA developers think Consoles gamers are the top dogs -Sales at least-
And pc gamers are morons?
I can go through a list a games on consoles that have been dumbed down on pc for some issue
-Or they cant port for their lives-

 

[Thorinair]

thepyrethatburns, you're done arguing with me? I'm... hurt...

I'm sorry. It's just that you're not advocating exterminating millions of Muslims on the basis that they may possibly be a threat at an indeterminate time in the future so I don't have as much motivation to argue with you.

I think we've pretty much reached a conclusion in our argument. The US citizens are not responsible for the wars we enter, but we don't do as much as we can to let the government know we want them to stop. Does that sound about right?

 

[zeroy]

Sadly this is just a potty mouth review with no real review content anymore...I would suggest the author to go signup for a pron mag and review there. Video Games = sex ? Nah....FAIL

 

[zeroy]

This is only an interactive movie...

Like in COD4 the first mission is there to GUIDE the player. Another FAIL.

 

[Semi-Human]

LOL great review

Seems some of you have gone and gotten your feelings hurt. XD. Seriously are you really surprised your getting dissed here? Now i don't hate any individual us citizen, most of them are very nice. But as a group you can really be a bunch of assholes. I mean where talking about some major dick moves bye the US, people died. And then you come along and rework history in to paint your self as the good guys instead of the douches you where. Of course your gonna take shit for it.
I mean Imagen if a Japanese company made a game about the "Heroic" attack on pearl Harbor.

Some of you use the word "scapegoat"....bullshit. I mean you invade countries for bullshit reasons, kill innocent people and act likes nothings wrong or even worse that your actually doing a good thing. Even if your own government admits it bullshit you do nothing. Now some of you will go "its not us its the government", true but its YOUR government, and your responsible for it. Besides there usually are enough people there who actually support what the government is doing.

Yeah there are allot of shit countries in the world, but most of them don't glorify there own fuck ups.

-snip

let me just say one thing. Saying these are "isolated" incidents is hardly accurate. Its pretty common.

-snip-

Really no one criticized them for it? No one criticized europe for its colonial oppression?
No one demonized Germany or japans after ww2?

So your response to some one criticizing you is hitting them. Good job proving your not the violent douche you where accused of being.

As for no discussing politics, your not in polite company and its probably that "stick your head in the sand" behavior that keeps getting you in these fuck ups.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Anti-US sentiment is based on the US being the dominant world power, pure and simple. There is nothing more to it than that. This combined with a genuine lack of fear of the US due to the belief that we will not use our military power efficiently is why people are willing to strike against it with such imputiny.

And this is why you need to get outside of the U.S.

I mean I get it, all your comments come down to the fact that you don't like the US.

Ah, the old intellectually bankrupt battlecry of "If you're not with us, you're against us"

I really hate giving out personal details over the internet but your ignorant little comment about "pantywaists" needs some perspective.

My father was Army. That's how he met my mother in Germany. He raised military kids. (Go Army) My youngest brother is still in the military as a medic. My immediate to say nothing of extended family (on the U.S. side) has stepped up to do what YOU said you would not even if you could.

What have you ever done for this country?

That's where my arguments come from. Not the idealistic hippie perspective that you attribute to me but from someone who has one foot on both sides of the Atlantic. The basis for my arguments comes from:
a) Not only having family outside this country but having been outside this country and finding out that "Hey. U.S. news media is completely inaccurate when it comes to portraying people outside the U.S.". Thorinair keeps saying that U.S. citizens aren't responsible for the decisions of our politicians to go to war. Do you think that's somehow different in other countries? Travel outside the country (and I KNOW you haven't. Travelling outside the country does not mean you'll take the Daniel Pearl attitude of "We are citizens of the world" but most people, except for the truly psychotic, do not take the "Kill 'em all" attitude that you have displayed once they actually meet people outside the country and see that they're not just targets in a video game but actual people albeit with different languages and customs.) and you'll see that those "Death to America" crowd scenes are cherry-picked by the U.S. media to convince the citizenry that it's "us vs. them". This is not to say that they aren't there. This is not to say that they haven't been growing in intensity due to our actions overseas. But, if you travel overseas, you'll see a world of people that you almost never see in U.S. news media.

And, no, they aren't all jealous of us. You'd be surprised at how many would live and let live if we didn't stick our nose in everything.

b) my concern for U.S. soldiers. Yes, you could say that I'm biased because I don't want my little brother to get a leg blown off by an IED just because Congress isn't willing to admit that Afghanistan is a Vietnam-type quagmire. That would be a fair enough argument because, obviously, that does worry me a little. But it goes beyond that. I mean, who do you think you are when you say "I wouldn't serve but I have no trouble advocating putting others in harm's way just to satisfy my irrational fear of Muslims"?

.........

I've honestly tried to talk to you as if you were a rational human being. I've honestly tried to ignore the xenophobia you have displayed against the Muslim world in your posts. I've honestly tried to reason with you as if you weren't one of the people that COD is aimed at and could actually recognize that unwarranted aggression simply turns the rest of the world against us.

I see that was a waste of time. You may think of me as a "pantywaist". Fine. I see you as one of the domestic enemies that they talk about in the military oath of enlistment where a soldier swears to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. People like you do nothing but advocate policies that are bankrupting our nation, sending thousands of our troops to die in a foreign hellhole, turning every nation on earth up to and including those who are our staunchest allies against us, and then you have the audacity to say "Well, I wouldn't serve even if I could."

If I had way, I would have the military gather, at gunpoint, every "cynical militant" whether they were young/old/male/female/black/white/handicapped/whatever. I would pile them into every C-130 that I could get my hands on. They would be given a gun, one change of clothing, and 5 MREs. Then they would be dropped into Afghanistan with the single directive "None of you are coming home until you can deliver Osama Bin Laden's head." This way, the "cynical militants" would get all the war that they desire....and then some.... and the rest of us would be allowed to pursue a policy of foreign engagement which is not influenced by people who mistake COD for real war.

I have no problem with stomping a nation flat if they attack us. While I understand the purpose behind reconstruction, I would have no problem stomping that same nation flat and letting them rebuild themselves as a warning to the world not to attack us. But I do not support these preemptive brushfire wars that are sold to a public that has been anesthetized by U.S. news media while hopped on Rambo movies and COD games. There is a MAJOR difference between the two.

Frankly, I'm done discussing this with you. Where my perspective is that of the "idealistic pantywaist", your perspective is typical of people who speak up but won't step up. Until you do, you don't have any moral basis to criticize anyone else on how they feel about this country.

thepyrethatburns, you're done arguing with me? I'm... hurt...

I'm sorry. It's just that you're not advocating exterminating millions of Muslims on the basis that they may possibly be a threat at an indeterminate time in the future so I don't have as much motivation to argue with you.

I think we've pretty much reached a conclusion in our argument. The US citizens are not responsible for the wars we enter, but we don't do as much as we can to let the government know we want them to stop. Does that sound about right?

Let me try to define myself in this a bit more.

As you can see, I'm a bit heavy into the whole personal responsibilty argument. I think it's a weird thing that many people in this country are willing to hold the citizens accountable for the actions of their government as you can see (as a very recent example) by the argument on bombing a civilian populace in order to topple a government but claim to have no personal responsibility for the actions of the U.S. government. I realize that, once in office, a politician can turn around and do the exact opposite of what was promised.

But I would still say, ultimately, the responsibility still lies with us. If the system is broken (and I'm not saying it is), then we need to work to change it. When it comes time to vote, we should study the issues and the candidate records before voting as opposed to voting on the basis of 30-second soundbites and what letter is in front of a candidate's name. If a politician is doing something unconsciable, then we should, at least, drop an E-mail (Use a meltmail or junkmail account for this. Once you write to a congressman, that seat holds it. I wrote to one of my House representatives when he was a Democrat and his Republican successor got my address as well. Fortunately, I used my junkmail account which is probably one of the oldest hotmail accounts in existence.) protesting such action. This doesn't mean that you have to take to the streets every time a representative votes a certain way on a bill but, at least, make your voice heard.

While we may not personally make the decision to vote, we do put these people in power to represent us. Much as a business may not be personally responsible for hiring someone who takes off their pants at a luncheon and then dry-humps the main course, they are still ultimately responsible for giving the person the job in the first place. In the same fashion, while we may not be the ones to personally make the decision, we are still ultimately responsible for putting them in power in the first place.

That is what I mean when I say that we are ultimately responsible for the actions that our government takes. Yours is a fine compromise argument but I think we're getting tangled up on our definitions of responsibility and how it relates to the relationship between our citizenry and the government.

 

[Vash108]

I know we are pretty war obsessed, I know when I walk outside the first thing I hope to see is russians or the chinese military so I can go grab my weapons and throw down.

Yahtzee always loses my interest when he goes off on political/anti- rants.

Oh and, America, you aren't in charge of the world. Not everyone is out to get you (but keep working on it, I'm sure you can get everyone to hate you if you work hard enough). We don't all idolise you. We don't want to be like you.

Because all of America is this way. Ignorance at it's finest.