Please - let's stay away from stuff like this in the future. Thanks.

In war, you do as you are ordered. That’s how being in a military works.

Except if the order is clearly unlawful. In which case, you actually have an obligation to refuse.

We are not better than them. We are not above them.

That’s horseshit. I’m absolutely better than anyone that’s used white phosphorous on civilians by nature of having not done so.

I don’t know you and don’t intend for this to be taken as a comment on your character, but have you ever been in a position where you could have done so? Again, it is very easy to pass judgment on servicemen who were there in the moment when you have not actually had any of their experiences. It is much more productive to crucify our politicians for starting the war than it is to go after the servicemen who were simply doing their jobs.

It’s the idea that human beings are capable of doing those things that really upsets, because it is frightening to realize that any of us can be pushed to that extreme given the right incentive.

That incentive being “I was ordered to,” I guess.

That you would trivialize war crimes while simultaneously telling me the people that committed them were heroes is just another level of completely batshit. I just can’t even.

In war, you do as you are ordered. That’s how being in a military works. It has to work that way or the military cannot function as a unit. But now we come to the white phosphorous issue. Tell me how many servicemen used white phosphorous against civilians? How widespread was that tactic during the battle? Do you really want to vilify the entire population of soldiers who were there that day for the actions of a few of their brethren, and do those actions negate the heroism of the servicemen who didn’t use white phosphorous? Maybe we should be asking who told them to use it and not vilifying the grunts on the ground anyway. But I’m sure you would have refused if only you were there…

I’m not trivializing it, but the notion that war conforms to rules is simply wrong, and provably wrong if you examine how literally any major war in history has been fought. We nuked two cities filled with civilians at the end of WWII. We did it because a million of our own soldiers were projected to die in a traditional ground invasion. Did those civilians deserve to die? Of course not. But did our soldiers deserve to die? We made a choice. It’s the cold, hard calculus of war. We weighed our lives against theirs and made a decision, because war is ugly and we wanted it to end faster, and also because we would be killing fewer of their people than they would have killed of ours in a ground invasion. That decision has invited no shortage of criticism in the 60+ years that have followed, but just imagine what would be said about us today if we had lost that war. It’s almost like the victors decide retroactively what constitutes a “war crime”.

We want the safety and protection that our military provides us, but we don’t want to face what that actually entails. We have become accustomed to our freedoms and our way of life and we forget the costs they sometimes demand of us.

We are not better than them. We are not above them.

That’s horseshit. I’m absolutely better than anyone that’s used white phosphorous on civilians by nature of having not done so.

It’s the idea that human beings are capable of doing those things that really upsets, because it is frightening to realize that any of us can be pushed to that extreme given the right incentive.

That incentive being “I was ordered to,” I guess.

That you would trivialize war crimes while simultaneously telling me the people that committed them were heroes is just another level of completely batshit. I just can’t even.

I respect you and your opinion and do not want to engage further because it seems like this is getting too personal now.

Yeah.

This was just to point out that a game many ex-Bungie folks are working on has been delayed a year. Wasn't really hoping to start stuff.

I haven't read it but I'm aware this one exists, at least.

Thanks man.

The real question is, what happens to all of this meaningless posturing and idealism when, inevitably, UN member states do formally declare war on each other? What happens to the enforceability of “war crimes”? I would think it will go right out the window… wouldn’t you? Every major war ever fought has involved “war crimes”, so what exactly do we expect will happen next time? There will be a next time, hopefully not for a long time, but it is an inevitability.

I say this not to upset you or anybody else here, and not because I think war is fine and dandy, or even desirable - because it very much is not. I just think we’ve kind of forgotten, as a global community, what war is really like, because we haven’t really had to deal with war on a global scale since the 1940’s. Simply put, war is hell. War is not fair at all. It is the manifestation of the ugly side of humanity that we like to pretend doesn’t exist - and yet it does. Some might even call it mass hysteria of the absolute worst variety for the extremes that it reaches. Really bad shit goes down in times of war, including inhuman things that can scarcely be imagined by those of us who have been lucky enough not to live through a real war. It is very easy to look back at a war and declare it criminal, or some aspect of it anyway, but I always wonder what the people on the ground at the time were thinking. We are not better than them. We are not above them. We have just convinced ourselves that we are, and that, I think, is actually dangerous and kind of terrifying. The assertion that “war crimes” are a legal fiction is not that upsetting. It’s the idea that human beings are capable of doing those things that really upsets, because it is frightening to realize that any of us can be pushed to that extreme given the right incentive.

To be fair, I haven’t seen much about the game, although I am vaguely aware of its protracted development history, so I could be missing something here.

You haven't and you are.

Since you down thread claim war crimes aren't a thing, I'd like to politely not engage with you further. I just wanted to voice my disagreement with what you've been saying.

The Marines fight for us.

They most certainly weren’t fighting for me, and I’m honestly pissed you’d suggest they were.

I couldn’t do what they do and you probably couldn’t either.

Because I wasn’t recruited straight of high school and then brainwashed into killing brown people under threat of imprisonment.

It is possible to both celebrate the heroism of the armed forces and denounce the war they were ordered to fight.

Not without a real lack of critical thinking. People perpetrating unjust wars are de facto not heroes.

I’m going to be real with you, and this is not going to be a popular opinion here at all, but there is no such thing as a war crime.

I just want to say that, as mildly civil as all the above back and forth has been so far, I'd like to remind that there is a reason that Wu has a "No Politics" Rule around here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hot takes like the so on so on above, but... honestly, it just looks like we're just feeding a fire. Deeper and deeper away from the topic. I just, I get the idea that all that is going to happen is that everyone is angry and no one is any smarter by the exercise.

Aaaaand THAT MY TWO, I'm gonna make like ice cream and SPLIT, y'all have fun! lol.

I mean, that's one way to dodge the points I made, sure. I'd say that definitely says quite a bit about your own approach to a challenged perspective.

Your last paragraph demonstrated my point about the wider cultural belittlement of the Marines over a political point.

That's precisely the issue here. Nobody has said that we shouldn't use the current information that we have to shed light on a situation where nobody seemed to have solid answers or info. We should always be open to understand historical events, and the realities that get lost in the fog of war. Especially when war crimes are involved.

I’m going to be real with you, and this is not going to be a popular opinion here at all, but there is no such thing as a war crime. War crimes do not actually exist. They are a legal fiction we devised to “civilize” the barbarity of war. Throughout history, war has never been waged according to rules. It is brutal, ugly, unfair, and relentless by its very nature. We are fools for ever convincing ourselves otherwise. War is hell. The Marines fight for us. I couldn’t do what they do and you probably couldn’t either. It is possible to both celebrate the heroism of the armed forces and denounce the war they were ordered to fight.

This game does not set out to do any of that. It is presented as a de facto justification for the eponymous "six days in Fallujah". It is a shooter, so you will be expected to pull the trigger on the shadows around every corner, and it is telling you that that was okay. It is telling you that it was "Us vs. Them", and while some civilians may cause you to hesitate, that hesitation- that empathy, doubt, questioning, and moment of "weakness"? That will get you and your men killed.
So don't hesitate. Shooting is justified.
And it's a video game, so have fun doing it!

No, I disagree. Where is the war justified in this game? The Marines are lauded, but that’s not the same thing at all. You don’t even know what the thing is going to look like when it comes out and you’re already passing judgment on it.

Could there be reasonable approaches to tell the "True" stories of what happened in order to try to justify or make people agree that maybe all those war crimes weren't so bad after all?
I mean, you seem to think so...

And I gather that you do not.

But is a video game really the medium to tell that story?

There is a likely answer to this. The worst fate for this game would be for it to be 'no' in exactly the ways we anticipate. I am sincerely hoping the answer is "No, but…"

Yes seems almost inconceivable to me given what we already know. If it weren't an FPS, the chances would be so much better…

Nobody seems to be challenging or exploring Tamte's assertion that games are empathy machines.

I'm pretty sure there've been entire books written on the topic.

Any you'd recommend?

I’m going to just let that stand without a response because it reveals more about your own attitudes than anything that could be revealed by a discussion between us.

I mean, that's one way to dodge the points I made, sure. I'd say that definitely says quite a bit about your own approach to a challenged perspective.

Your use of the word zeitgeist is precisely the issue here. Nothing can be permitted to challenge the zeitgeist - ever - or it is deemed problematic and silenced. But who controls the zeitgeist?

That's precisely the issue here. Nobody has said that we shouldn't use the current information that we have to shed light on a situation where nobody seemed to have solid answers or info. We should always be open to understand historical events, and the realities that get lost in the fog of war. Especially when war crimes are involved.

This game does not set out to do any of that. It is presented as a de facto justification for the eponymous "six days in Fallujah". It is a shooter, so you will be expected to pull the trigger on the shadows around every corner, and it is telling you that that was okay. It is telling you that it was "Us vs. Them", and while some civilians may cause you to hesitate, that hesitation- that empathy, doubt, questioning, and moment of "weakness"? That will get you and your men killed.
So don't hesitate. Shooting is justified.
And it's a video game, so have fun doing it!

Could there be reasonable approaches to tell the "True" stories of what happened in order to try to justify or make people agree that maybe all those war crimes weren't so bad after all?
I mean, you seem to think so... But is a video game really the medium to tell that story?
That's why it's propaganda more than anything.