Win Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2!

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Malevolence]

War is not moral. No action in war, therefore, needs terribly be judged on a moral basis. It's shades of gray in what is really a black and white situation.

When people stop fighting war like a game of chess and start fighting war like a game of total annihilation it stops having any pretense of civility, not that it had much to start with.

All is fair in love and war, folks, especially war despite what you may hold dear to your own hearts. Civilians have always acted as a stand-in for military targets, just the feasability of using them as such a thing was not always evident until the most recent century or so. The geneva convention is all nice and fuzzy but fighting is still about hurting and killing other people, whether they agreed to hurt and kill other people back or not. You play a game about fighting, expect it to encompass hurting and/or killing other people. Whether you're burning to death or shot to death or suffocated to death, whether you're trained to defend yourself or not, you're still dying. Whether you're doing the torching or shooting or choking, or whether you're trained to attack others or not, you're still killing, no matter who it is.

[Killer344]

Civilian is for me someone who is not able to defend, and I will always despise people who kill harmless.

What draken said. Anyone who is unarmed and poses no threath can easily be defined as a civilian. Just because he designs weapons doesn't make him an immediate threath to the lives of those around him. I mean - if you've captured an enemy scientist like that, why wouldn't you just take him into your country where he can work for you? If this scientist is killed, you can not measure the ammount of good he could of done after the war to offset the evil he brought by designing guns.

Captivity or death.. what's worse.. let me think a second...ah....

[Mysthalin]

There IS a difference between active warfare, and pure slaughter. Imagine if the US declared war on the Russians(or vice versa) and both sides sent men to fight and die on the frontline. It wouldn't be pretty, but it'd still hold a sense of honour. The men would die for serving their country.
Now imagine if Germany became Nazi again, then invaded Slovakia which would refuse to fight back on the basis of wanting to save their citizens and simply surrender(completely imagined situation). Then these supposed NeoNazies would begin shooting every single civilian on the street for no reason, and slaughtering entire cities. Just for fun.

Quite a difference between the two, wouldn't you think?

Captivity or death.. what's worse.. let me think a second...ah....

Depends entirely on who you've been captured by, on what grounds, and how you are treated. If you've been captured for raping someone/pedophillia, and put into a jail, you'd likely wish for death.

If you're captured by a civilised state that doesn't pride itself in torturing it's captives because you're an enemy soldier.. I'd chose being in a POW camp rather than being shot pointlessly, wouldn't you?

[brn4meplz]

Civilian is for me someone who is not able to defend, and I will always despise people who kill harmless.

Gerald Bull was a Weapons designer, specializing mostly in Artillery and Millile components, His life long dream was a economical way to fire satelites into orbit using a large artillery cannon. He designed several cost effective and very capable Artillery pieces.(Some even ended up in many African internal conflicts and the only reason they were not adopted by the US and other nations is that those countries had just undergone a retrofit at great expense using other pieces) He was contracted by the Iraqi government to build them a cannon large enough to fire satelites into orbit, which he happily set out on. Parts of the weapon were seized in the UK and he was assassinated on 20 march 1990. most likely by the Mossad. The cannon he was building would also have been able to launch conventional, nuclear,chemical or biological ordanace into Israel. Something that no one at the time wanted(Israel most of all) Throughout his career he made many friends and enemies but eventually someone killed him for it.

He died unarmed, but had he finihed his work how many others might have died because of it? Did the ends justify the means? I'd say so.

[Draken]

You do realise that mind can be a weapon?

[AmPM]

Your actually an undercover agent in that mission in MW2 so it's still killing for the good guys. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Besides for comparisons sake MW2 will be a stroll through the park compared with Grand Theft Auto which has pretty much immortilized the criminal action genre. MW2 plays as a gritty fight to the death shooter and is definitely the darkest release in the series. Whereas GTA games leave you feeling like an invincible rockstar when you play them.

Maybe I'm old enough and my background/ethical beliefs have biased me(they sure have!)

The end never justifies the means when you take innocent lives. That is the core problem with US Warfare strategy

Actually, that is the problem with the US Warfare strategy, we worry too much over the worlds opinion and are try to do as little damage as possible in pursuit of our missions.

We need to wage war like a war, not a peacekeeping mission. Civilians die in war, its a terrible necessity. I'm sure the younger crowd in here will disagree, as well as those from countries who comfortably let the US do all the actual work, but war must be waged as a war of annihilation towards the enemy, and if that enemy does not want to fight according to the rules of warfare, then those rules need to be tossed out on both sides. The civilians always have an option, they can help or get out of the way.

[brn4meplz]

He fits your definition of a Civilian. The mind is of no more use against bullets then the Horse is against the helicopter.

The mind as a weapon when talking about thoe whole is the most deadly weapon we posess but in terms of 'does he have a weapon?' no, he doesn't

[AmPM]

This reminds me, its Veterans Day in the US, thank you too all who have given service.

[Killer344]

Lol AmPm, that's just so ironic.

[AmPM]

Why? I disagree with our politicians determining how we fight, I have no issues with our servicemen and women.

[brn4meplz]

Well at least you're smart enough to know who to point the finger at. I'm tired of War protesters trying to picket Parades or Bases. I couldn;t imagine what it must have been like in the US for some of those Soldiers funerals with that crazy retarded ass family protesting at them. (you know the same Family/Church that said it was gods will that a 20ish Canadian guy got randomly attacked on a bus and decapitated-yeah fucked up people)

[AmPM]

Brn, I leave for basic in January, I know exactly who to blame for the way we do things.

[Malgoroth]

Your actually an undercover agent in that mission in MW2 so it's still killing for the good guys. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Besides for comparisons sake MW2 will be a stroll through the park compared with Grand Theft Auto which has pretty much immortilized the criminal action genre. MW2 plays as a gritty fight to the death shooter and is definitely the darkest release in the series. Whereas GTA games leave you feeling like an invincible rockstar when you play them.

Maybe I'm old enough and my background/ethical beliefs have biased me(they sure have!)

The end never justifies the means when you take innocent lives. That is the core problem with US Warfare strategy

Actually, that is the problem with the US Warfare strategy, we worry too much over the worlds opinion and are try to do as little damage as possible in pursuit of our missions.

We need to wage war like a war, not a peacekeeping mission. Civilians die in war, its a terrible necessity. I'm sure the younger crowd in here will disagree, as well as those from countries who comfortably let the US do all the actual work, but war must be waged as a war of annihilation towards the enemy, and if that enemy does not want to fight according to the rules of warfare, then those rules need to be tossed out on both sides. The civilians always have an option, they can help or get out of the way.

Yes, it's so easy for the poorest of people (who in this day and age are the ones who are always caught in the middle) to just get up and move. Nevermind that refugees create numerous problems. The displaced population being unwelcomed by the locals and the new conflicts which arise from that being one.

As the leader of the free world, the U.S. has an extremely important image to protect. If we recklessly charge about annihilating anyone we percieve as a threat we send an absolutely terrible fucking message to the rest of the world and, deny it if you will, we need the rest of the world to like us. When the shrapnel imbeded in a parents or childs bedroom wall reads "Lockheed Martin" on the side, the survivors know precisely who to blame. By annihilating all who stand against us, we only create more enemies.

When talking about war and the death involved in it, you MUST consider the long term. The allies didn't consider the logn term when they slapped Germany like a bitch after World War I and look what happend with that. The U.S. didn't consider the long term when they armed the mujahadeen against the Soviets and look what happened with that. We also didn't consider the long term when we settled our asses down in the mid-east for the long haul and openly supported Isreal. Now look what-the-fuck happend there.  

[AmPM]

Actually, it had nothing to do with arming them, it had everything to do with not rebuilding the country afterwards. If we had done that like we were supposed to it wouldn't be an issue.

Deaths happen, its the nature of warfare, you have to accept that if you want to wage war successfully. As for the long term, rebuilding the nation afterward and educating the population would solve a lot of it.

The issue with Afghanistan has little to do with arming them to fight the USSR, not to mention many of your countries, and other Middle Eastern countries provided the weapons in return for money from the US. We poured in tons of money to pay your countries to arm them with Soviet weapons, but we didn't give any money to create a country afterward and left it a group of warring clans.

As far as WW1, that was mostly the French complaining over the costs of rebuilding that lead to that. Good for Europe for laying the groundwork for getting owned by Germany again....

[Tymathee]

I got my copy! Needs 16 GB to install whoooaaa. I hate that they're using steam...

[CrazyWR]

I've heard mixed reviews so far.

[Akranadas]

Riot Shield is my favourite; it's just too bad team mates are so gun hoe, that they don't take advantage of you acting as mobile cover.

We should totally play sometime Akr!  I love using the shield, my favorite setup so far is taking blast shield, Walk Lightly, Marathon Runner, Commando (melee distance increase), and Throwing Knives and flashbangs.  People shoot at you, give up cause they can't get thru the shield, you throw the stun so you blind them and they can't move very fast, then throw the knife at them to instantly kill them, pick up knife and move to next target, heh.

By the way, is the Spec Ops mode only 2 players?  I thought it'd be 4-players with friends. 

I bought it for 360, not PC so I can play with my brothers and other friends.

[brn4meplz]

I'VE GOT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON AFGHANISTAN, Afghanistan as a country is developing quite well. The progress made in the last 8 years is phenominal by any standard. The vast(and i mean vast) majority of Taliban fighters/Insurgents/druglords/general asshats are foreign fighters, Either motivated religiously or by monetary gain. Infact the summer months in Afghanistan are referred to as the fighting season because forces can cross the passes from the Pakistani border with ease. These seasonal fighters are only motivated by money and return home to provide for their families before the onset of winter. The Taliban(catch all phrase in Afghanistan as far as Western media is concerned) have made numerous enemies in local militia and warlords all over afghanistana nd the country is increasingly becoming Pro Afghan government. Also, Recent attacks have been directed as foreign aid workers, which is a classic sign of desperation. In attempting to focus world media on civilian and aid worker deaths they are only building more enemies abroad.

Afghanistan is "winnable" and is on the road to recovery, as always though the price for freedom(mine, yours, theirs) is blood.

I'm not going to comment on Iraq, as my nation is not involved and therefore I don't have a vested interest in it.

[Tymathee]

I've heard mixed reviews so far.

the online play takes some getting used to, its not as fast paced in some areas and really fasted paced in others, you have to learn to take your time. There's a crap ton of achievements and perks in this one, they really expanded, I dont think i could ever get everything, theres just too much stuff which is nice.

the single player for the time being is nice, i'm on level 4 but I think they need a lil more story telling cuz its just kinda jumping and youre like, what, whats going on here? I think cod4  kept you in the loop better and made you f eel part of it, rather than just some scrub.