Boycott Black Ops 2

[So the Heroes Fall]

I might still get it, but if I do buy it it'll be used. There's no way I'm giving Activision any money for it after THIS. This is truly disgusting:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/05/02/oliver-north-is-selling-call-of-duty-black-ops-2
http://kotaku.com/5907854/black-ops-2-chooses-someone-who-failed-the-call-of-duty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CGK_QkadM

Yeah it's kind of old but I just found out about it reading about the Modern Warfare 2 map being temporarily pulled. Basically every gamer forum and blog reporting on it I found has people furious and screaming about how they'll never get it (most also acting like the series has gotten repetitive and they probably weren't/on the fence anyway, but beside the point.) But you can't hire a war criminal and traitor without consequences.

[Bacon King]

Haha, oh wow. Yeah, I probably wasn't going to get it anyway because the last few games have been so similar, but this has really helped me make up my mind.

[後援会]

Oh, I'm buying this game now. I disagree with many of his political/cultural/foreign policy views, but I've always found it ridiculous how much hate he got for essentially serving his country and its interests.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Oh, I'm buying this game now. I disagree with many of his political/cultural/foreign policy views, but I've always found it ridiculous how much hate he got for essentially serving his country and its interests.

Selling weapons to Iran is definitely in this country's interest.

[Bacon King]

Oh, I'm buying this game now. I disagree with many of his political/cultural/foreign policy views, but I've always found it ridiculous how much hate he got for essentially serving his country and its interests.

He was the point-man for an illegal executive branch plot which overstepped Congressional authority and grossly violated the separation of powers in our government. He managed the sale of a thousand anti-tank missile launchers to a hostile regime that sponsored (sponsors?) terrorism directed against the United States and its allies. He used the profits from this venture to fund rebel groups who sought to forcibly overthrow the (by that point) democratically elected Nicaraguan government; these groups notoriously killed tons of innocent Nicaraguan civilians (to the extent that the American-provided manuals even offered justifications for doing so). In addition, North used Panamanian dictator Noriega as a go-between when contacting the rebel groups; Noreiga was a brutal dictator in his own right and was also at the time was personally involved in smuggling mountains of cocaine illegally into the US.

To top it all off, he lied to Congress and the American public about all of the above, destroyed evidence that indicated otherwise, and only came clean when it was obvious the scale of his actions had been realized.

I really don't see how any of that can possibly be construed as "serving his country and its interests" in the slightest.

[後援会]

Oh, I'm buying this game now. I disagree with many of his political/cultural/foreign policy views, but I've always found it ridiculous how much hate he got for essentially serving his country and its interests.

He was the point-man for an illegal executive branch plot which overstepped Congressional authority and grossly violated the separation of powers in our government. He managed the sale of a thousand anti-tank missile launchers to a hostile regime that sponsored (sponsors?) terrorism directed against the United States and its allies. He used the profits from this venture to fund rebel groups who sought to forcibly overthrow the (by that point) democratically elected Nicaraguan government; these groups notoriously killed tons of innocent Nicaraguan civilians (to the extent that the American-provided manuals even offered justifications for doing so). In addition, North used Panamanian dictator Noriega as a go-between when contacting the rebel groups; Noreiga was a brutal dictator in his own right and was also at the time was personally involved in smuggling mountains of cocaine illegally into the US.

To top it all off, he lied to Congress and the American public about all of the above, destroyed evidence that indicated otherwise, and only came clean when it was obvious the scale of his actions had been realized.

I really don't see how any of that can possibly be construed as "serving his country and its interests" in the slightest.

All that entire post argued was that what North did was illegal (which is pretty obvious). Not that it didn't serve the interests of the United States of America. The only travesty of the Iran-Contra issue was the scandal itself (and the ensuing fallout). Though I don't really blame the media - the possibility of such horribly undesirable, disastrous leaks is the price we pay for being an open society.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I'm not understanding what the articles mean when they say he's "selling" Black Ops 2.

[Bacon King]

All that entire post argued was that what North did was illegal (which is pretty obvious). Not that it didn't serve the interests of the United States of America. The only travesty of the Iran-Contra issue was the scandal itself (and the ensuing fallout). Though I don't really blame the media - the possibility of such horribly undesirable, disastrous leaks is the price we pay for being an open society.

I suppose I left a bit to be inferred, but to be explicit:

• It's not in American interests to show terrorists that their tactics work.
• It's not in American interests to sell weapons to an openly hostile nation.
• It's not in American interests to trust erratic autocrats with anything
• It's not in American interests to support what are essentially death squads in other nations that openly target civilians
• It's not in American interests to have members of the executive branch openly hide their actions from Congressional oversight
• It's certainly not in American interests to take actions that are deemed to directly violate international humanitarian law by the ICJ

[後援会]

I suppose I left a bit to be inferred, but to be explicit:

• It's not in American interests to show terrorists that their tactics work.
• It's not in American interests to sell weapons to an openly hostile nation.
• It's not in American interests to trust erratic autocrats with anything
• It's not in American interests to support what are essentially death squads in other nations that openly target civilians
• It's not in American interests to have members of the executive branch openly hide their actions from Congressional oversight
• It's certainly not in American interests to take actions that are deemed to directly violate international humanitarian law by the ICJ

Besides factual inaccuracies, such as the indefensible simplification of the very diverse groups collectively referred to by many as the Contras, and disagreements, such as the second-to-last point, I do not believe the superimposition of deontological ethics onto foreign policy is an accurate gauge of what does and does not promote American interests.

Also, at least some of those concerns would not have been triggered if we had simply not been caught.

[dead0man]

CoD games have always sucked at the most important aspect of FPSs, multiplayer.

[For Oklahoma]

Wasn't gonna get the game anyway, cuz CoD sucks now.

[Insula Dei]

Oh, I'm buying this game now. I disagree with many of his political/cultural/foreign policy views, but I've always found it ridiculous how much hate he got for essentially serving his country and its interests.

He was the point-man for an illegal executive branch plot which overstepped Congressional authority and grossly violated the separation of powers in our government. He managed the sale of a thousand anti-tank missile launchers to a hostile regime that sponsored (sponsors?) terrorism directed against the United States and its allies. He used the profits from this venture to fund rebel groups who sought to forcibly overthrow the (by that point) democratically elected Nicaraguan government; these groups notoriously killed tons of innocent Nicaraguan civilians (to the extent that the American-provided manuals even offered justifications for doing so). In addition, North used Panamanian dictator Noriega as a go-between when contacting the rebel groups; Noreiga was a brutal dictator in his own right and was also at the time was personally involved in smuggling mountains of cocaine illegally into the US.

To top it all off, he lied to Congress and the American public about all of the above, destroyed evidence that indicated otherwise, and only came clean when it was obvious the scale of his actions had been realized.

I really don't see how any of that can possibly be construed as "serving his country and its interests" in the slightest.

The US is an Empire of the Night, you see.

[bgwah]

All that entire post argued was that what North did was illegal (which is pretty obvious). Not that it didn't serve the interests of the United States of America. The only travesty of the Iran-Contra issue was the scandal itself (and the ensuing fallout). Though I don't really blame the media - the possibility of such horribly undesirable, disastrous leaks is the price we pay for being an open society.

I suppose I left a bit to be inferred, but to be explicit:

• It's not in American interests to show terrorists that their tactics work.
• It's not in American interests to sell weapons to an openly hostile nation.
• It's not in American interests to trust erratic autocrats with anything
• It's not in American interests to support what are essentially death squads in other nations that openly target civilians
• It's not in American interests to have members of the executive branch openly hide their actions from Congressional oversight
• It's certainly not in American interests to take actions that are deemed to directly violate international humanitarian law by the ICJ

Surely you've been posting on this forum long enough to know you're being trolled? And by a presidential-year troll no less. Or do you enjoy this?

[Bacon King]

Surely you've been posting on this forum long enough to know you're being trolled? And by a presidential-year troll no less. Or do you enjoy this?

Not quite enjoyment, per se this mod-board post of mine from a while back pretty much sums up my attitude here:

When I'm frustrated about something in my life that I can't change, I like to vent by spend an excessive amount of time owning someone on the Internet; tonight it was a broken microwave that led to an hour of research debunking Bushie. Once, when my car broke down and I was stranded for a day at my parents house, I spent several hours poring over Jobs Reports and demographics data to wage war against CARLHAYDEN on the Econ board. It's a very effective form of stress relief.

Although I wouldn't really call this owning, because

[asexual trans victimologist]

Besides factual inaccuracies, such as the indefensible simplification of the very diverse groups collectively referred to by many as the Contras, and disagreements, such as the second-to-last point, I do not believe the superimposition of deontological ethics onto foreign policy is an accurate gauge of what does and does not promote American interests.

I put it to you that the superimposition of deontological ethics onto anything and everything is, however, the entire point of deontological ethics.

[後援会]

Besides factual inaccuracies, such as the indefensible simplification of the very diverse groups collectively referred to by many as the Contras, and disagreements, such as the second-to-last point, I do not believe the superimposition of deontological ethics onto foreign policy is an accurate gauge of what does and does not promote American interests.

I put it to you that the superimposition of deontological ethics onto anything and everything is, however, the entire point of deontological ethics.

True, but you justify so by calling things moral and immoral. Not hijacking the arguments of other value-based arguments. Making a deontological argument, for example, on the issue of "does this materially help me the most", is highly misleading.

Since of course, there are those that naturally dismiss any viewpoint incongruent with their own intellectually incestuous viewpoints as "trolling", let me outlay the basic jist of my argument.

The idea that Iran is a hostile enemy that we have to oppose on everything is ridiculous. Contrary to popular opinion, although many goals of the IRI clash with US interests, the primary goal of the Iranian government is not the destruction of the United States. To ignore areas where Iranian and American interests coincide is, I believe, a mistake. And unfortunately, extremely anti-Iran public sentiment at the time made it difficult for us to openly deal with the nation.

Obviously, the US didn't want to see either Iran or Iraq decisively winning the Iran-Iraq War. During the time when the arms sales happened, Iraq was definitely winning that war. It's not entirely a "bait and bleed" strategy, but a decisive Iraq victory would have possibly pushed Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence (Iran being at the time, hostile to both major powers). There's no real downsides towards selling weapons to someone fighting a war you don't want them to lose - even if you don't like them.

At the same time, the US really didn't want a pro-Soviet outpost in Central America for a myriad of reasons we can spend a long time going after. Now, Contra is just a term given to a huge variety of anti-Sandinista groups. They were extremely diverse. Anything from far-right paramilitaries to militant Amerindian rights groups nonplussed with the Sandinista government. Obviously, some of them would engage in human rights violations, but that's pretty standard fare in almost every civil war - just look at how the Libyan rebels we supported butchered Gaddafi.

Now, the Iran-Contra "scandal" irritates me because it's a perfect example of how the BS political football we play with foreign policy isn't good for anyone. Quite frankly, there are little to no foreign policy differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. But the public expects both of them to campaign on foreign policy - as demonstrated by the useless, stupid, damaging foreign policy debate they'll have soon. The ideas that Obama killed Bin Laden (or that killing Bin Laden was useful), or that Obama killed our ambassador in Libya, are both stupid as hell.

Quite frankly, the only reason Iran-Contra was illegal was because of stupid Congressional meddling in our foreign policy. And stupid congressional meddling in our foreign policy can really trip us up - I think for example, we can both agree on foreign policy regarding Israel being an example.

[asexual trans victimologist]

One could simply argue that acting immorally in a context involving US interests by definition does not serve those interests. It can be claimed that one would be arguing from an oddly mystical conception of nationhood in that case, but one could.

[5280/East California]

I used to like CoD, now the series has been milked to death. Not sure about Black Ops 2, I may buy it so I have something new.  I didn't get MW3, cause that game sucked.

[後援会]

One could simply argue that acting immorally in a context involving US interests by definition does not serve those interests. It can be claimed that one would be arguing from an oddly mystical conception of nationhood in that case, but one could.

Well, I suppose one could do that if they made the argument that nations pursue their interests towards the closest possible adherence to their "guiding" ideology. Which is not a particularly popular theory of international relations anymore.

[For Oklahoma]

I used to like CoD, now the series has been milked to death. Not sure about Black Ops 2, I may buy it so I have something new.  I didn't get MW3, cause that game sucked.

This I believe to be truer than true.

MW2 was the last good CoD game.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I actually loved the first Black Ops, largely because it had a great story and setting (even if the big twist had been played in movies a million times already.) and lots of levels and weapons were so much fun (like the Dragon's Breath thing). But MW3 really didn't add anything new to the series at all. The last level ruled hard though.

[Torie]

It is a pity that North never served any time in jail. Beyond everything else, I consider him a grandstanding fraud. But that aside, abuse of power is one thing that deserves the max - always. With power comes responsibility, and the duty to use it in a restrained and legal way. There is no excuse not to.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Didn't he go to jail for about a year? But it's quite amusing that he got his conviction overturned with assistance from the ACLU, that's a factoid I'd love to point out to a Teabagger type who is a fan of his.

[後援会]

Didn't he go to jail for about a year? But it's quite amusing that he got his conviction overturned with assistance from the ACLU, that's a factoid I'd love to point out to a Teabagger type who is a fan of his.

For the record, I respect the ACLU.