Forums of the Megaverse®

Now, I for one stay away from Superhero games and movies. I've never liked the idea of a "Super hero"; a guy that wears tights and wants to fight crime based on some illogical sense of moral rightness.

I sat through the Watchers last night on cable and found the alternate history to be interesting. I thought of a super hero game in which they are being used by the US government for direct military action for the interests of America. I'm wondering just who their moral superiority would last if you crossed over Hero's Unlimited into Recon? How would they deal with themselves when they've killed whole villages in the name of democracy, then went back to their cities to fight crime?

I think the movie dealt with that. Has anyone played a game like that?

Yeah, because everyone in the military is a bunch of mindless baby-killers who deal death indiscriminately for the sake of following orders. What's that motto...oh yeah...kill one, kill 'em all, leave no witnesses. I mean, that is what happens right, one goes to 6+ weeks of Basic Training and they are brainwashed to remove all moral upbringing instilled in them for 18+ years. Forget all the Laws of Land Warfare, the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Forget all the Nazi Tribunals which held soldiers legally responsible irregardless of the orders in which they where issued and established a international judicial precedent. When you put on a uniform can get away with...how did you put it...."killed whole villages in the name of democracy". Man, I should have joined the army.

Did you mean The Watchmen?

Desert Rat wrote:Yeah, because everyone in the military is a bunch of mindless baby-killers who deal death indiscriminately for the sake of following orders. What's that motto...oh yeah...kill one, kill 'em all, leave no witnesses. I mean, that is what happens right, one goes to 6+ weeks of Basic Training and they are brainwashed to remove all moral upbringing instilled in them for 18+ years. Forget all the Laws of Land Warfare, the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Forget all the Nazi Tribunals which held soldiers legally responsible irregardless of the orders in which they where issued and established a international judicial precedent. When you put on a uniform can get away with...how did you put it...."killed whole villages in the name of democracy". Man, I should have joined the army.

When foreigners do it, they're criminals. When Americans do it, they're patriots sacrificing innocents in the name of freedom!!!

Who was that one Commander in Iraq that said, "We are not conquerors, we are liberators". lol.

Peacebringer wrote:When foreigners do it, they're criminals. When Americans do it, they're patriots sacrificing innocents in the name of freedom!!!

Who was that one Commander in Iraq that said, "We are not conquerors, we are liberators". lol.

Wow, do you ever speak (write) with any consideration to what is actual truth with some application of critical thought or do you just like to repeat catchy phrases? Because I would be curious if you could back up your statement with facts. Name one documented instance in which the US military killed "a whole village in the name of democracy" and those involved where not prosecuted following the adoption and enforcement of the Laws of Land Warfare from the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Don't start your facts with the My Lai Massacre because 14 officers were Court Martialed for that one. I wouldn't use the May 2009 Grani, Afghanistan argument because you will just get frustrated trying to figure out was truth and what was propaganda. I will say it was a baited trap designed specifically to induce the propaganda fallout which ensued. Yes, the Red Cross may have reported on it, but the Red Cross never went to the site and verified anything with their own eyes.

I will give you a heads up, I am a Patriot, a senior NCO in the US military with 4 combat tours. That's actual combat, not sitting behind a desk within a secure zone. There are several who post regularly on the Recon topic who are current or ex-military. I do take a slight offense at your reference that our US military freely slaughters "whole villages in the name of democracy" but as I defend the Bill of Rights, I will allow your freedom of speech as I will support my right to it also. I will not take it 'personal' and tell you what I really think and I challenge you to do the same thing. Care to post an argument supporting your statement?

Desert Rat wrote:Wow, do you ever speak (write) with any consideration to what is actual truth with some application of critical thought or do you just like to repeat catchy phrases? Because I would be curious if you could back up your statement with facts. Name one documented instance in which the US military killed "a whole village in the name of democracy" and those involved where not prosecuted following the adoption and enforcement of the Laws of Land Warfare from the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Don't start your facts with the My Lai Massacre because 14 officers were Court Martialed for that one. I wouldn't use the May 2009 Grani, Afghanistan argument because you will just get frustrated trying to figure out was truth and what was propaganda. I will say it was a baited trap designed specifically to induce the propaganda fallout which ensued. Yes, the Red Cross may have reported on it, but the Red Cross never went to the site and verified anything with their own eyes.

I will give you a heads up, I am a Patriot, a senior NCO in the US military with 4 combat tours. That's actual combat, not sitting behind a desk within a secure zone. There are several who post regularly on the Recon topic who are current or ex-military. I do take a slight offense at your reference that our US military freely slaughters "whole villages in the name of democracy" but as I defend the Bill of Rights, I will allow your freedom of speech as I will support my right to it also. I will not take it 'personal' and tell you what I really think and I challenge you to do the same thing. Care to post an argument supporting your statement?

First off, the Bombing of Hanoi comes to mind. Secondly, the Ben Tre bombings, in which US commanders disregarded civilian casualties. I'm sure there are more instances in which civilian casualties were disregarded in order to increase enemy killed.

You will allow my freedom of speech? Jesus Christ. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Peacebringer wrote:First off, the Bombing of Hanoi comes to mind. Secondly, the Ben Tre bombings, in which US commanders disregarded civilian casualties. I'm sure there are more instances in which civilian casualties were disregarded in order to increase enemy killed.

All the targets where approved military sites or industrial sites which support the military. During the limited time in which Hanoi was allowed to be attacked there was no documented targeted bombing of civilians. One could argue that the 1,600 or so civilian causalities from the industrial complexes supports your argument, but those civilians are as much culpable in the military might as a soldier is. You may argue that it is not but it is the same thing as a factory producing CBNR WMD and all the civilians knowingly working within the production capacity.

Second, the shelling of Ben Tre? That was the Vietnamese artillery and Arnett's quote is subject to debate that it was taken out of context for the sake of a sensationalized story. Even the level of reported destruction has been challenged, not by the DoD, but by other investigative journalists. Besides, one has to be careful of statistics from the Vietnam War based upon DoD's reporting formats. If you believe them wholeheartedly, then there where days in which the entire population of Vietnam was killed because enemy casualty rates were based upon 'ordinance fired' and not actual body counts.

There is also a difference between civilian casualties caused by attacking an enemy interspersed with a civilian population and civilian casualties caused by deliberately targeting civillians.

While most militaries in the world have racked up the former in spades, it would be difficult to find an organized example of the latter being conducted by any member of NATO in the last 50 years.

Desert Rat wrote:All the targets where approved military sites or industrial sites which support the military.

So what? Most civilian targets are approved militarily.

During the limited time in which Hanoi was allowed to be attacked there was no documented targeted bombing of civilians.

So I guess when the USAF bombed Hanoi suburbs, that wasn't targeted bombing of civilians.

One could argue that the 1,600 or so civilian causalities from the industrial complexes supports your argument, but those civilians are as much culpable in the military might as a soldier is. You may argue that it is not but it is the same thing as a factory producing CBNR WMD and all the civilians knowingly working within the production capacity.

By your logic, the victims of 9/11 were just as culpable as the Israeli army's atrocities for they helped to run the financial institutions that provided Israel with financial support and worked their with full knowledge of that.

Second, the shelling of Ben Tre? That was the Vietnamese artillery and

No. You misread my post. I said, "Bombing", as the US military's decision to bomb the town in order to rid it of the Viet Cong and save it for democracy. Try to be more careful next time.

Arnett's quote is subject to debate that it was taken out of context for the sake of a sensationalized story. Even the level of reported destruction has been challenged, not by the DoD, but by other investigative journalists.

Did he not say that?

Besides, one has to be careful of statistics from the Vietnam War based upon DoD's reporting formats. If you believe them wholeheartedly, then there where days in which the entire population of Vietnam was killed because enemy casualty rates were based upon 'ordinance fired' and not actual body counts.

The the DoD and the US military, as they are a part of it, are not a trusted source?

Peacebringer wrote:Now, I for one stay away from Superhero games and movies. I've never liked the idea of a "Super hero"; a guy that wears tights and wants to fight crime based on some illogical sense of moral rightness.

I sat through the Watchers last night on cable and found the alternate history to be interesting. I thought of a super hero game in which they are being used by the US government for direct military action for the interests of America. I'm wondering just who their moral superiority would last if you crossed over Hero's Unlimited into Recon? How would they deal with themselves when they've killed whole villages in the name of democracy, then went back to their cities to fight crime?

I think the movie dealt with that. Has anyone played a game like that?

I understand the idea you are getting at here. Since, in Watchmen, there are several characters who are already morally corrupt before they ever go into the war zone your argument fails to follow. DO you think that Owlman would have gone to the same measures had he been in the conflict? As that character is the moral center of that movie, I would have to say that he would not.

Soldiers are not the government, nor are they the military leadership. Soldiers are trained to perform the duties that you, as a civilian, should NEVER have to perform. They defend your country and your interests on the world-wide stage. That is to say that should a foreign aggressor overtly invade this country, the soldier would be called on to stand between you and that aggressor. Should that aggressor invade covertly, it is the soldier's job to find them and keep them from bringing harm to you (this is not always easy, nor is this always successful). Should an aggressor attack the resources (or threaten to make them hard or impossible to get) that you use daily in this lifestyle that being an American has given you, it is the soldier's job to stand between the aggressor and your resources.

There have been wars in which the US has engaged that even the soldiers in them might not have agreed with; but that is why the soldier is so different from you - That even while most of the citizens here believe that the country is simply here to serve them the soldier knows that it is the citizens that serve the country.

Peacebringer wrote:

Desert Rat wrote:Yeah, because everyone in the military is a bunch of mindless baby-killers who deal death indiscriminately for the sake of following orders. What's that motto...oh yeah...kill one, kill 'em all, leave no witnesses. I mean, that is what happens right, one goes to 6+ weeks of Basic Training and they are brainwashed to remove all moral upbringing instilled in them for 18+ years. Forget all the Laws of Land Warfare, the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Forget all the Nazi Tribunals which held soldiers legally responsible irregardless of the orders in which they where issued and established a international judicial precedent. When you put on a uniform can get away with...how did you put it...."killed whole villages in the name of democracy". Man, I should have joined the army.

When foreigners do it, they're criminals. When Americans do it, they're patriots sacrificing innocents in the name of freedom!!!

Who was that one Commander in Iraq that said, "We are not conquerors, we are liberators". lol.

And here's a trick: History is written by the winners and so is Law.

US soldiers are held to the Geneva and Hague Conventions. This means that when they are caught committing a war crime, they are arrested, sentenced, tried, and punished. There will always be events that will be overlooked by the winning side at the ends of a war (like the Japanese internment camps and the illegal restriction of their Constitutional Rights during that time), but the soldiers have historically always been held to their crimes.

Skipping to the end:

The fact of the matter is that when a military target is surrounded by civilian sites, there is no way to avoid civilian casualties. The technology for "smart bombs" was still in its infancy during the Vietnam Conflict. We no longer need to "carpet bomb" to hit a single building today, but during Vietnam we didn't have that capability.

You, "Peacebringer" are looking at the soldiers as the enemy when you should be looking at the government leaders you elect. The Vietnam War and the Invasion of Iraq have both been handled badly on a political level not on a military level.

Soldiers only lose moral footing when they are put in impossible situations by their leadership. Soldiers are held to a code of conduct that civilians are not. And although I will be the first to admit that there are bad soldiers out there, those people are the exception, not the rule.

The "heroes" in Watchmen are NOT soldiers they are mercenaries at best,
but they are civilians just like you are. The reason civilians don't play soldier-based RPGs so well is that, even though they might have the same moral background as a soldier, they didn't get the Code of Conduct training, or any of the branch of service-specific code of honor training. If you have taken any martial arts you might have a basic idea of what this does.

Yes, there are approved targets which are not "military" targets. That approval is not something handled lightly in which any officer can just arbitrarily say its approved. These targets are usually involved in the material support and/or production of the military war effort. They are the factories which produce bullets, build tanks and convert petroleum into fuel. With that, there is also a restricted targets, churches, hospitals, graveyards, etc... During the Vietnam War, those targets were approved at the Congressional level.

The USAF did not target civilian suburbs, they targeted industrial complexes providing material support to the war effort. With that I will admit with the lack of today's technology, there probably was collateral damage. Civilian populace centers located around those factories may have been struck. Although, as you pointed out, you can't trust those parties actively involved. Just because Hanoi says we where bombing a hospital doesn't mean that's what we were bombing. The information war and its effect upon international opinion is just as important as the battles taking place on the battlefield. The US has historically lost the information war as it is too skiddish to say anything which may be false, waiting first to conduct an investigation so that they have all the facts before publishing their findings. At which point it is no longer a story in the international press.

There is no way in which one can justify what happened in NY on 9/11, not by trying to use the Laws of Land Warfare or the Koran. First, financial institutions are not an approved category for targeting and I would have to check, but I do believe they are on the restricted target list. Next, al Qaeda is not a belligerent party as defined under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Regardless, it was definitely an act of aggression to the level to support a declaration of war.

Outside of Arnett's article, which claimed 80% of Ben Tre was destroyed, the average battle damage assessment conducted by numerous parties agree that the damage was right around 25% of the village. The quote "to bomb the town in order to rid it of the Viet Cong and save it for Democracy" is a chopped quote of the original source and taken out of context. I know Arnett says he will not disclose the source, which happens to be very convenient to protect his job when the veracity of his article was challenged by his peers, but the military identified the who and when of the quote. Don't tell me to be careful when it is highly evident you have completed no research on the topic.

I am about to say something that only those who have ever been there will truly understand. I do not consider it to be immoral to take a human life during active ground combat so long as you remain true to the principles of the ROE and yourself. It is akin to a hunter shooting game. The only difference is this game has two legs instead of four and is capable of utilizing modern weapons. When I am home, the same will go for the defense of my friends and family. After four combat tours to date, I don't see any moral degradation and my wife says I am the same man she married many years ago.

Shang Li wrote:Peacebringer, just remember when you condemn us, that it's the blood of people like desert rat and myself that was spent to buy you that right and has been continued to be spent to preserve that right for you. Condemn me as a killer if you feel you must, but do it loudly and with the pride, knowing that U.S. soldiers fight and die every day on what is your orders (through the people you elect)

Desert Rat, even you have to admit that there is a level of moral decay in prolonged tours of combat duty. Every life taken makes it that much easier to take the next (or your moral compass wins and the guilt from each one drives you that much closer to going crazy.) Fortunately most soldiers when returned to a non-combat environment return to a civilian ROE.

And about collateral damage - the military makes efforts to avoid collateral damage to the degree that you can get shot from the window of a mosque and all you are allowed to do without getting courts martialed is scramble for cover and watch him keep picking at you and your squad. I took a dishonorable discharge, with the remaining year on my tour spent in Leavenworth because I shot the bastard, admitted I knew he was in a mosque, I admitted I was ordered not to return fire, I admitted that I willingly violated that direct order, and most damning, I admitted that I felt no remorse and in the same situation would commit the same "crime" again. Sounds like the actions of a military system that tagrets civilians to me.......

Political correctness run rampant. Afraid I simply can't fathom the idea of telling someone that they can't defend themselves or others because of the building someone's in, especially when the person is using the building just for that purpose and desecrating its entire reason for existing. People today have way too sanitized and politically correct idea of war, they haven't lived through a time (most anyway) where troop death tallies would be in the thousands every DAY, not over a span of years. When you sent people in to die in droves to push back an enemy long enough to end its evil (D-Day).

Shang Li wrote:And about collateral damage - the military makes efforts to avoid collateral damage to the degree that you can get shot from the window of a mosque and all you are allowed to do without getting courts martialed is scramble for cover and watch him keep picking at you and your squad. I took a dishonorable discharge, with the remaining year on my tour spent in Leavenworth because I shot the bastard, admitted I knew he was in a mosque, I admitted I was ordered not to return fire, I admitted that I willingly violated that direct order, and most damning, I admitted that I felt no remorse and in the same situation would commit the same "crime" again. Sounds like the actions of a military system that tagrets civilians to me.......

Your commander must have a real POS to let that happen! I despise leaders who wont back their soldiers, even if it means that they take a hit too.

I am going to self edit now...and fume in silence over the inanity I have seen in this thread...

-STS

Desert Rat wrote:I am about to say something that only those who have ever been there will truly understand. I do not consider it to be immoral to take a human life during active ground combat so long as you remain true to the principles of the ROE and yourself. It is akin to a hunter shooting game.

Much like many people go to the casino every day thinking they will be the winner, I'm inclined to think your always imagining yourself being the hunter, rather than being shot like an animal yourself.

However, if you don't always fantasize yourself the hunter and see yourself as potentially so much dumb animal meat to the bullet (what else is an animal but dumb? Why call it an animal if it's smart/drew pictures for it's parents as a child, etc?), then your atleast internally consistant with these particular principles.

Really it's a bit like do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - the more the meaningless, pedestrian, sucker shot death your prepared to deliver, as long as you don't mind your own family and friends finding out you died in just the same, pointless way in some corner of some forgotten, garbage filled street, the more internally consistant the approach.

Desert Rat wrote:I mean, that is what happens right, one goes to 6+ weeks of Basic Training and they are brainwashed to remove all moral upbringing instilled in them for 18+ years. Forget all the Laws of Land Warfare, the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

It's worth having a look at deindividuation

Wow someone has a skewed perception of the US military.

Peacebringer wrote:Now, I for one stay away from Superhero games and movies. I've never liked the idea of a "Super hero"; a guy that wears tights and wants to fight crime based on some illogical sense of moral rightness.

I sat through the Watchers last night on cable and found the alternate history to be interesting. I thought of a super hero game in which they are being used by the US government for direct military action for the interests of America. I'm wondering just who their moral superiority would last if you crossed over Hero's Unlimited into Recon? How would they deal with themselves when they've killed whole villages in the name of democracy, then went back to their cities to fight crime?

I think the movie dealt with that. Has anyone played a game like that?

Nope.
But it could be interesting.
The Watchmen was a pretty dark and cynical take on America (and the world), but that'd be an interesting kind of setting to play on.
Of course, there aren't any HU characters with Doc Manhattan level powers, so victory might not be as assured.

For that matter, a lot of HU powers aren't really better than a rifle.
Supernatural PS would probably be good for a heavy machine-gunner.
Energy Expulsion Fire would be nice as a substitute for a flame-thrower... but you'd generally be better off with a gun.
Invisibility would be good for a sniper or spy/scout.

You could take out a village with APS Fire, though, if you go nova.
And it's a kinda small village.