Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bannon DC

Army Calls For Increased Body Armor For Troops In Syria

Recommended Posts

"Casey also claimed that with all that's been going on politically and economically over the past five years, the time to tell Americans about the deadly, escalating conflict currently engaging one third of the nation's standing army "just never seemed quite right."

Despite the call for more body armor, officials sought to reassure the public that the Syrian War was being conducted with the benefit of lessons learned from previous conflicts.

"I want to say loud and clear that this war is being fought the right way for the right reasons," said outgoing defense secretary Robert Gates, conceding that it still would have been nice if even one person involved in national security had mentioned it. "This is not another Iraq. This is not another Afghanistan, and it is certainly not another Yemen."

"Whoops," Gates added."

LOL. The Onion has always been frickin brilliant. It makes you wonder if the writer is a CMSF fan?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes you wonder if the writer is a CMSF fan?!

Seriously; "Casey said that American soldiers... are now engaged in urban warfare with guerillas after defeating the Syrian national army and conquering the capital of Damascus in 2008..."

I bet the author spearheaded that very attack sitting at home on his PC :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality,I bet we were all being used by this so called "game developer" all this time in a massive Pentagon War gaming excercise to test theories on how best to fight this War with Syria.We have all been duped into believing this is just an awesome game and not a Government project.Just how much do we know about the developers after all?Who do they really work for?After all,The U.S. Army has developed a game so we know they have the ability to do such a thing.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@finalcut,

Although I don't know what the poster was trying to say, I do remember also feeling awkward after one of you posts:

I have a hard time killing Americans.Those may be some of the awesome men I have had the honor of serving with during my time in the Military.Those are more then pixeltroops,those are someones son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big difference between my post and a clearly Racist remark,if that is what is intended by the poster.Maybe I jumped the gun,but his post had Racist overtones and I don't see how it could be meant as something other then that.Maybe the poster could come on here and explain his meaning?Maybe I am a bit biased becuase my wife is Jewish and my Children are half Jewish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... I don't know what to make of HintJ's post either. Came out of the blue and not in context of this thread or the Onion article as far as I can see. Still, "TMJ", abbreviated or written out in full, is not an acceptable expression. I don't expect to see anything like that which I even have to half wonder about.

And just to be a little technical here... Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group. A religion is a choice that can be embraced or rejected by anybody at any point in their lives. A race is a characterization of genes and genetic traits that aren't voluntarily. Therefore, no matter what HintJ meant it can't be considered "racism". Not that it really changes anything because hateful speech takes many forms, not just racist ones. Just getting on my terminology high horse is all :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well finalcut,

May peace be with you :), someone's religion is at least never something upon which I judge someone. I found your post slightly distasteful because you implicated that Syrians are not someone's son, in your eyes (in other words, inferior human beings). Not sure if that's what you actually meant.

Anyway, the TMJ reference is strange indeed, I just thought it was strange that especially you had to react in this way :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really what I meant,I actually pity most of the foreign troops we (Americans and our Allies)are fighting because most of them are conscripts who would really rather not be at War with us.Other then some Republican Guard types and Fanatics,most people generally do not want to be fighting in a War.All I really meant by my original post was I do not like to play as Syrians because I kind of look out for the American soldiers as if they were more then just pixels in a game.

This is due to my time in the U.S. Army.I actually care when my Stryker or AAV7 gets hit and guys named Smith,or Jones get killed and scream in agony.I have a hard time being the Red force and doing that to the little American Pixeltroops.As Blue force,I don't feel the same way because I never served with guys named Ahmed,or Mawasi,or Fallasa.I don't think it would be as intense an experience playing the Syrians because I never develop a real love for my men and I tend to just throw them out there and not care what happens to them.

They are foreign troops with foreign names and a way of life I do not understand and I just wouldn't care much about what happens to them.This would take away much of my enjoyment of the game.I really look out for the Americans as I can relate much more to them and thier way of life.The things they enjoy and the things that matter to them make me treat them as a real Commander would treat his men in a combat environment.I love my Pixeltroops and do all I can to see them thru each battle.:D

Hard to be a good Commander when you don't care about the men under your command and you just send them out to the slaughter.I find it hard to not care when they are wearing an American uniform.Am I the only one that feels that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm... I don't know what to make of HintJ's post either. Came out of the blue and not in context of this thread or the Onion article as far as I can see. Still, "TMJ", abbreviated or written out in full, is not an acceptable expression. I don't expect to see anything like that which I even have to half wonder about.

And just to be a little technical here... Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group. A religion is a choice that can be embraced or rejected by anybody at any point in their lives. A race is a characterization of genes and genetic traits that aren't voluntarily. Therefore, no matter what HintJ meant it can't be considered "racism". Not that it really changes anything because hateful speech takes many forms, not just racist ones. Just getting on my terminology high horse is all :D

Steve

For the record,you are right.My wife and I have had this discussion and She considers the word "Jew" to refer to her culture and heritage,not her race.She considers her race to be caucassion.Judaism is a religion that just happens to be practiced by mainly people of the Jewish heritage.There have been many people who practised the religion of Judaism that were not of Jewish heritage.Sammy Davis junior and Conny Chung are just a couple examples.

She is actually a Christian,as am I, but she is from Isreal and her ancestry is of a Jewish family.She was born in Tel Aviv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really what I meant,I actually pity most of the foreign troops we (Americans and our Allies)are fighting because most of them are conscripts who would really rather not be at War with us.Other then some Republican Guard types and Fanatics,most people generally do not want to be fighting in a War.All I really meant by my original post was I do not like to play as Syrians because I kind of look out for the American soldiers as if they were more then just pixels in a game.

This is due to my time in the U.S. Army.I actually care when my Stryker or AAV7 gets hit and guys named Smith,or Jones get killed and scream in agony.I have a hard time being the Red force and doing that to the little American Pixeltroops.As Blue force,I don't feel the same way because I never served with guys named Ahmed,or Mawasi,or Fallasa.I don't think it would be as intense an experience playing the Syrians because I never develop a real love for my men and I tend to just throw them out there and not care what happens to them.

They are foreign troops with foreign names and a way of life I do not understand and I just wouldn't care much about what happens to them.This would take away much of my enjoyment of the game.I really look out for the Americans as I can relate much more to them and thier way of life.The things they enjoy and the things that matter to them make me treat them as a real Commander would treat his men in a combat environment.I love my Pixeltroops and do all I can to see them thru each battle.:D

Hard to be a good Commander when you don't care about the men under your command and you just send them out to the slaughter.I find it hard to not care when they are wearing an American uniform.Am I the only one that feels that way?

I agree with you on this.

The game is a game, but we all play games for different reasons. I personally much prefer to play US forces (or NATO in general) for exactly the reasons you have specified (although I'm not an American or nor have I served in the Army). Each casualty I take, I ensure that they are treated with buddy aid, or their body taken care of. I will even take risks with vehicles to ensure the protection of my wounded. For me, this adds to the realism and thus immersion factor of the game. I value the lives of my pixel troops above all, even if that means hitting the time limit of a mission. I will never brazenly risk them in a reckless assault just to finish on time.

I find nothing strange in what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finalcut,

I think I know how you feel. When I played CMx1, I always felt a little queasy (or sometimes more than a little) playing the German side. It's not because I have any thought that by and large as individuals the Germans were any worse human beings than their enemies—in some instances they may have been better. It's because I believe they served in a cause, which if it had prevailed, would have made the world a much worse place than it already is. So, although I admire most of their fighting qualities, I cannot forget that they were associated, however tenuously, with the same men were ruthlessly starving entire populations and putting others into gas chambers. If I can feel no glory in their victory, I cannot hope to lead them to that victory with my whole heart.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very interesting to see the change in wargamers' demographics over the last decades. As an old-time boardgamer b4 computers could do all this cool stuff, I swear it used to be hard to get anyone to play the Allies. EVERYONE wanted to play the Axis as they were the FUN side(!).

95%+ of the wargamers would drool over the cool white on black SS counters and typical conversation by wargamers was of the nature of "Just wait till I unleash my 10-4 SS Leibstandarte Division on your units hehe..."

It still amazes me that now people actually want to play the WAllies in WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well everyone to it's own I guess.

Personally I like playing as the Dutch since they are new to the game and IIRC the first time I'm able to play with my country members. However before that I favored playing as the Syrians and taking out arrogant NATO forces with sneaky RPG's in the back of multi million dollar tanks :D The tactically challenged side (the underdog) always has my interest.

As it is a game (which is to be played with winning as the main objective) I judge casualties on their worth in the game, instead of my worldly convictions regarding individuals from certain nations. I truly don't care whether Private Smith, officier Jansen or Colonel Aziz are lost under my command.

I hate losing heavy weapons and or armored vehicles, don't like to lose infantry squads and only happy without any casualties. Obviously the worst is losing an AAV full of marines because of the amount of potential lost to one st00pid AT round.

And regarding our fellow humans across the world: As a person with friends from across the world and having done quite some travelling in which I mostly visit the local populace and not only luxury hotels:

People are basically the same, wherever they are from. It's just the situations that changes them. In the order of a couple of hundred years those adaptations become tradition and as groups we like to compare our group to other groups. Powerhungry leaders across the world then use media/propaganda in order to portray those strange groups across the world as (evil-) heathens/uncivilized/terrorists/comminusts/capitalists/'fill in your enemy here' people.

Perhaps that is why I can relate just as easy to Syrian troops as to US troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...