Nope, that's my helmet...but from the early 1980's. We were still using the old Steel Pot, mostly unchanged from the WWII M1 model. A gear grog would note the swiveling bales on the helmet in the picture and peg it as a post WWII model. I think mine is from the 1960's, near as I can tell. Heavy old thing, but you could bathe and cook in it!
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of photo FAR, far more obscene that the images of a naked females that awake so much controversy sometimes.
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons. Of course, you can disagree, but I hope I have a right to express my opinions too.
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of photo FAR, far more obscene that the images of a naked females that awake so much controversy sometimes.
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons. Of course, you can disagree, but I hope I have a right to express my opinions too.
Miguel,
I, even at my age, would certainly fight for your right to freely express your disagreable opinions.
Nope, that's my helmet...but from the early 1980's. We were still using the old Steel Pot, mostly unchanged from the WWII M1 model. A gear grog would note the swiveling bales on the helmet in the picture and peg it as a post WWII model. I think mine is from the 1960's, near as I can tell. Heavy old thing, but you could bathe and cook in it!
Someone needs to send this guy another copy of Candy Land, or some other "non-violent" game. He has way too many "violent" games in his Owned list... LOL
(Oh wait, maybe he was just trying to be funny, making that oblique mention of Busen Memo like he did. In which case, egg on my face!)
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of photo FAR, far more obscene that the images of a naked females that awake so much controversy sometimes.
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons. Of course, you can disagree, but I hope I have a right to express my opinions too.
It is your opinion and thats ok, but if what you say is right, Never let child play the most ancien wargame, the one you can learn at school...Chess
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of photo FAR, far more obscene that the images of a naked females that awake so much controversy sometimes.
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons. Of course, you can disagree, but I hope I have a right to express my opinions too.
Although I can't get over that steel pot. I served with my "Fritz" cover and was very grateful for it after trying on one of those metal monsters. The old timers (no offense) said that thing would bounce all over their head when they ran.
As for the dingleberry commenting on violence further up the posts....
Good thing my grandfathers were OK with violence. You'd probably be in a slave camp nowadays if it weren't for men and women like them. And yes, you are completely within your rights to voice your feelings and opinions on it. I will simply have to drown you out with USMC cadences played at top volume.
OOOOOORAH!
Semper Fi,
Purplebeard
One more note...at the end of the day....the kid is just playing a game and spicing up the theme a little. Having fun and being a kid. Good for him. At his age I was doing such things as stuffing the pool filter with bananas...because.....it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Taking Berlin during WWII was necessary. Raping Berliner civilians was, to use the absolutely, utterly minimum understatement I have ever uttered, unnecessary.
For a more contemporary example, fighting the Taliban was necessary. Guantanamo wasn't.
In that picture, what the father is teaching his child -- if anything -- and what the child is learning -- if anything -- are unknowns. We'll read our own values into them, and accuse others of being immoral, ignorant, or worse for having views different from ours.
The boardgame blog with worse luck than you! dicehateme.com
Lordamercy... only on BGG could a picture of a kid playing with some plastic army men elicit such controversy.
On a sorta-related note, I would never have left the house if I had this game as a kid... and I'd be wearing my dad's old steel pot, too. I still do, occasionally, to this day.
I love that your Boy is wearing your old steel pot.
As you know, I'm a DD too. I come from a USMC family, and I remember the day when my Dad came home from work with an old helmet just like that, an old cartridge belt, and some empty ammo cans. I geared up and grabbed my toy rifle and headed out into the woods.
So when I saw this I thought about my Father and growing up in a Marine Corps family. I have had some people ask me if my up-brining was like "The Great Santini" hahaha. Far from it, my Dad was and is the most loving and encouraging man I have ever known. He's still my hero. I'll bet your boy thinks the same of his old man.
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of photo FAR, far more obscene that the images of a naked females that awake so much controversy sometimes.
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons. Of course, you can disagree, but I hope I have a right to express my opinions too.
If you're SO 'concerned' that they'll "grow up to be just like ME!", then rest assured that I certainly HOPE so! Once I was "in" the Military, then it taught me the most important 'lessons' regarding such, and that was with the firm assertions that I didn't wish to REMAIN"in"! Those of YOU yourselves before, during, and even after I'd "gotten out", have my dearest and sincerest 'regards' upon yourselves and the sacrifices you've endured for any "services rendered". At least WE were of firm enough "moral fortitude" to have enlisted in the 1st place and take our chances, whilst anyone ELSE who shirked or outright refused to "serve", don't 'rate' EVEN on the same level as a "snake fart", since you're miles beneath THAT in MY'book'!
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons. Of course, you can disagree, but I hope I have a right to express my opinions too.
Um... A few of your highest rated boardgames: Memoir '44, Battlelore, Arkham Horror, Fury Of Dracula, Doom...
In other words, how can you POSSIBLY take this philosophical stance while playing (and rating highly) some of the more violent games (content-wise) of the past few years???
I grew up playing with war toys, playing wargames and watching violent movies and television and at 39, I am one of the most anti-war people you would ever meet!!!
Playing with war toys or games does not a warmonger make!
There is entertainment and then there is real life.
Once I was "in" the Military, then it taught me the most important 'lessons' regarding such, and that was with the firm assertions that I didn't wish to REMAIN "in"! Those of you yourselves before, during, and even after I'd "gotten out", have my dearest and sincerest regards upon yourselves and the sacrifices you've endured for any "services rendered".
Ditto.
GROGnads wrote:
At least WE were of firm enough "moral fortitude" to have enlisted in the 1st place and take our chances, whilst anyone else who shirked or outright refused to serve, don't rate EVEN on the same level as a "snake fart", since you're miles beneath THAT in MY book!
You may want to look into getting the second edition of your book.
I have known people who enlisted for the benefits and I have known people who enlisted to serve their country. I have known people who had been out of the military for years and re-enlisted to fight in the first Gulf War, and while I haven't known any who were glad to be long done with the armed forces by the time we got into a new war, I'm sure they exist.
There are those of us who know the military isn't for them, and those of you that don't know it until they sign on. Why are we less than snake farts? Because we are better judges of our own character?
Maybe what you mean by
Quote:
who shirked or outright refused
is not what I read. Perhaps you are talking about those who fled to Canada during Vietnam. But I take offense at the idea that not signing up for the volunteer military makes you less of a citizen. In today's America, military service is certainly not the only way to serve your country, and it could be argued that up until the end of 2001, it was one of the easiest and least valuable ways to "do your part" for the country.
Either it is an ingenious trolling manoeuvre or the most radical jump to conclussions I've ever read.
I won't reiterate the "grew up among toy tanks and soldiers and I'm a pretty pacifist person" argument. Just add something:
PurpleBeard wrote:
Good thing my grandfathers were OK with violence. You'd probably be in a slave camp nowadays if it weren't for men and women like them.
It would be nice if you got informed about the Spanish Civil War and kept your My-grandad-fought-in-WW2 rhetoric to yourselves when you deal with Spaniards.
Either it is an ingenious trolling manoeuvre or the most radical jump to conclussions I've ever read.
I won't reiterate the "grew up among toy tanks and soldiers and I'm a pretty pacifist person" argument. Just add something:
PurpleBeard wrote:
Good thing my grandfathers were OK with violence. You'd probably be in a slave camp nowadays if it weren't for men and women like them.
It would be nice if you got informed about the Spanish Civil War and kept your My-grandad-fought-in-WW2 rhetoric to yourselves when you deal with Spaniards.
If this game had been made 30 years earlier, I'm sure that exact photo would be on the box.
Nice pic!
That was exactly my first response to the photo! Of course, that lad would have looked awkward and badly coached for the photo shoot, as opposed to young Mr. Edwards here, who appears to be having the time of his life while playing a game with his dad. And I strongly suspect the latter was the senior Mr. Edwards's intent, both in posting the photo and in teaching the game to his son.
In response to our friendly Spaniard who decided to troll on this post...
My grandfather fought in World War Two. He went ashore on D-Day with a unit that lost about 60% of it's total strength to death or wounded. He volunteered to join the Army at the age of 33. The Army tried not to take him because of his age, but he insisted on going because it was the right thing to do.
I always idolized my grandfather, and still do to this day, some ten years since his passing. Since I was a child he was my hero. He was someone that could stand up for what was right and put his money where his mouth was.
As a kid I played around with toy guns and pretended I was him, just like this kid is doing. When I was old enough to enlist in the Army I did so. It was the best thing I have ever done in my life. Unfortunately, my time in the service was cut short by a training accident that damaged my knees pretty badly. I twice tried to reenlist, despite my medical discharge, trying to get it overturned. Those times I tried were for Gulf War I and the current conflict going on in the Gulf now.
My kids look up to me for my service to this country. Those are the kinds of role models that I wish they would have. Every single person serving in our nation's armed forces should be looked up to as a hero, whatever sacrifices they made. They should be looked up to as a role model for the way a citizen should act, never taking anything for granted and being willing to lay it on the line for what you believe is right and good.
Many kids today look up to sports heroes or hip-hop singers or other possibly negative role models. I would sooner have my son idolizing our troops by wearing a steel pot on his head while playing Memoir than have him idolizing Fifty Cent or some other artist telling him to do bad things to people.
Our soldiers would never wish violence on anyone but know that there are times when it is necessary to bring peace to our country. They are not warmongers nor are those that idolize them and want to be like them. To say otherwise would be to besmirch the honor these people so truly deserve.
...Every single person serving in our nation's armed forces should be looked up to as a hero, whatever sacrifices they made. They should be looked up to as a role model for the way a citizen should act, never taking anything for granted and being willing to lay it on the line for what you believe is right and good.
My Lai.
Abu Ghraib.
Alfredo Lorente (That's my signature, not another massacre.)
Either it is an ingenious trolling manoeuvre or the most radical jump to conclussions I've ever read.
I won't reiterate the "grew up among toy tanks and soldiers and I'm a pretty pacifist person" argument. Just add something:
PurpleBeard wrote:
Good thing my grandfathers were OK with violence. You'd probably be in a slave camp nowadays if it weren't for men and women like them.
It would be nice if you got informed about the Spanish Civil War and kept your My-grandad-fought-in-WW2 rhetoric to yourselves when you deal with Spaniards.
Two-edged swords cut both ways.
Maybe I am being dense, but I don't follow...
From what I gather, his grandad fought with the Republicans...
And speaking as a Puertorican whose grandfather and oldest uncle (on his father side) fought with the Nationalists, Illuminatus, thank you and I'm sorry.
In all honesty, when I posted this my thought process was "He looks kind of cute in the helmet and it's a great expression" and that was that.
I can understand a visceral negative reaction to an image of a child in war gear, and one who seems to be enjoying the whole thing, to boot.
I'm not teaching him that war is fun, although I am teaching him that games about war can be. I do insert an appropriate level of reality in to the discussions we have. For instance, that heavy helmet came off pretty quick, and I asked him how it would be to have to wear it all the time and carry a lot of other heavy things, in all kinds of weather and with very little food or sleep. I think he understood what I was saying. It will get more explicit as he gets older.
He is aware that the losses in the game are abstractions of horrific tragedies that actually happened. Does he "really" get it? I doubt it, but a lot of my adult peers who are not veterans don't "really" get it.
When he asks questions, I try to give a balanced answer. I've told him even the cleanest, best intentioned battles leave innocents dead and shattered, and that there are really heroes and honorable sacrifices.
I suspect if I forbade all playing at war, out of my sight he would engage in mock battles with stick rifles and pine-cone grenades. I prefer to have some input beyond a ban I know I can't enforce every day, all the time.
I don't hide my pride at having served, or my father's service, nor do I hide my disgust at the boredom, waste and horror of war. I know that the time I spend playing these games with him opens up an avenue for discussions, and we have a great time.
Besides, I still think he looks cute in the helmet, and that's a great expression. I really beat the tar out of him that game, by the way.
As for the dingleberry commenting on violence further up the posts....
Good thing my grandfathers were OK with violence. You'd probably be in a slave camp nowadays if it weren't for men and women like them. And yes, you are completely within your rights to voice your feelings and opinions on it. I will simply have to drown you out with USMC cadences played at top volume.
OOOOOORAH!
My god, what is wrong with you people?
Just think for a second - you feel the need to drown out someone's politely-voiced opinion.
Don't you get the difference between adding your opinion to a discussion, and actively trying to stifle dissenting voices?
As for the dingleberry commenting on violence further up the posts....
Good thing my grandfathers were OK with violence. You'd probably be in a slave camp nowadays if it weren't for men and women like them. And yes, you are completely within your rights to voice your feelings and opinions on it. I will simply have to drown you out with USMC cadences played at top volume.
OOOOOORAH!
My god, what is wrong with you people?
Just think for a second - you feel the need to drown out someone's politely-voiced opinion.
Don't you get the difference between adding your opinion to a discussion, and actively trying to stifle dissenting voices?
John, remember: In the last seven years dissent became un-American.
Heck, maybe it is because Michele Bachmann is part of Minnesota's congressional delegation (and thank the lord she isn't MY representative), but at least according to her, not being a Republican made you, essentially, an enemy non-combatant in training.
(And as an aside, I am always amused by those servicemen who proudly declare how they fought to defend my right to free expression -- always in a foreign war, never here in the U.S. -- when trying to prevent me from exercising that same right.)
You may want to look into getting the second edition of your book.
I have known people who enlisted for the benefits and I have known people who enlisted to serve their country. I have known people who had been out of the military for years and re-enlisted to fight in the first Gulf War, and while I haven't known any who were glad to be long done with the armed forces by the time we got into a new war, I'm sure they exist.
I happen to fall into BOTH of those 'categories' you initially indicated, with an added *twist*: I was "pre-destined" for such! I won't go into greater 'details' about it all, but it was during MY"Basic Training" times, then I had an epiphany 'moment' where I fully realized that such was MY "fate" and destiny at least, yet nothing could have changed the FACT! It JUST was to 'be', so I accepted this for the time being and "continued to march" based on that, as it were.
alfredo lorente wrote:
There are those of us who know the military isn't for them, and those of you that don't know it until they sign on. Why are we less than snake farts? Because we are better judges of our own character?
I don't personally, or even actually, KNOW about yourself in these 'regards', so I'll just have to take your 'word' on any self-assessments or character judgments for yourself concerning being physically, or mentally, and even morally "unfit for duty". I'm certain they'd have "culled the herd" for any completely "undesirable" 'elements', and you'd probably point these OUT as well in your own behalf, no doubt.
alfredo lorente wrote:
Maybe what you mean by
Quote:
who shirked or outright refused
is not what I read. Perhaps you are talking about those who fled to Canada during Vietnam.
No, since those folks garner some "sympathy" from myself at least on taking and making a 'stand', as they pursued their "moral high-ground" with their 'beliefs' about anything in particular. While I WAS talking upon those who sought ANY 'means' to: "avoid and get out of compulsory, or even voluntarily military services rendered". Sound anything like what you've been doing?
alfredo lorente wrote:
But I take offense at the idea that not signing up for the volunteer military makes you less of a citizen. In today's America, military service is certainly not the only way to serve your country, and it could be argued that up until the end of 2001, it was one of the easiest and least valuable ways to "do your part" for the country.
Alfredo Lorente
You, and any others that THINK alike, have the select FEW of US who have "served", to "thank" on maintaining OUR "Freedoms", in which to promulgate YOUR 'beliefs' here or anywhere, that some other lesser governing "bodies" would then DENY this to their own citizenry AND continue with that even today. While I don't FIND"it" bemusing at ALL when someone whose main stance were that: "I've managed to 'shirk-off' from any morally reprehensible 'duty' that were called FOR, so why didn't YOU also?" and then attempt to PREACH upon such to others in the guise of this image commentary. We HAVE the RS&P forums here now, so get your "high-horsed-ass" & slanted-views well entrenched within THERE, and let's just 'see' how well-received those shall entail hmmmmm?
I don't imply endorsement of the sentiments, but I'm honored to have one of the largest single examples of GROGNadish, fit for study as the Rosetta Stone of the GROGnadish dialect by future linguistic historians, attached to this humble thread about a picture.
Believe or not, I inmensely respect your grandfather for what he did.
Now, I'm not so sure the Gulf War, or the present invasion of Iraq are the same as World War II, but that's a different story.
I only posted my opinion about the picture, something I don't consider trolling and I'm sorry you do. Rereading my post, I see I had a visceral overreaction and I apologize about that. It just happens that I truly find the picture obscene, what do you want me to say? that it's lovely to dress kids in millitary gear? I'm sorry I think it's not cute at all, and I'm sorry you disagree. And, finally, I don't see what your grandfather has to do with it.
As for how much I owe you, your grandfather or anybody else, my grandfather also fought against fascism back in 1936, even before you Americans and British started worrying about it. We Spaniards fought, alone, against Germany, Italy and our own millitary and, not surprisginly, we lost, alone (but for a few thounsands of volunteers from all over the world who faced, not only the danger of war, but the reprisals of their own goverments). And we endured 40 years of a US-backed millitary dictatorship. So please, don't tell me about slave camps. Even when, as I've already said, I truly, sincerely respect and admire your grandfather, I owe him nothing.
As for the dingleberry commenting on violence further up the posts....
Good thing my grandfathers were OK with violence. You'd probably be in a slave camp nowadays if it weren't for men and women like them. And yes, you are completely within your rights to voice your feelings and opinions on it. I will simply have to drown you out with USMC cadences played at top volume.
OOOOOORAH!
My god, what is wrong with you people?
Just think for a second - you feel the need to drown out someone's politely-voiced opinion.
Don't you get the difference between adding your opinion to a discussion, and actively trying to stifle dissenting voices?
John, remember: In the last seven years dissent became un-American.
Heck, maybe it is because Michele Bachmann is part of Minnesota's congressional delegation (and thank the lord she isn't MY representative), but at least according to her, not being a Republican made you, essentially, an enemy non-combatant in training.
(And as an aside, I am always amused by those servicemen who proudly declare how they fought to defend my right to free expression -- always in a foreign war, never here in the U.S. -- when trying to prevent me from exercising that same right.)
Alfredo Lorente
Alfredo & John,
I agree that one of the greatest forms of patriotism is reasoned dissent. But let me briefly clarify what my original comment was in relation to. I never, ever stated that I fought to defend your right to free expression in my term of service. My grandfathers did however, both of them having fought in WWII, one in the Pacific Theatre and the other in Africa and Europe, which the game directly relates to. Myself having been raised in a USMC family, and having served proudly as a US Marine, I have no problem with violence or imagined violence on Nazis or WWII Imperial Japan. Both were horrible entities in their time. I will gladly put that in context for my young son. As for bringing current conflicts into this discussion, eggh. It has nothing to do with the photo (Great cute Photo!) or the amount of trolling that it generates. That is all.
Cheers to all,
Purplebeard
PS And since you're proud of Spain's "neutrality" during WWII they merely played whatever side they thought was winning. A fair amount of Spainards fought on the Russian Front as volunteers early in the war. Franco was all about cozing up to whoever he thought was going to come out ahead. So you can still thank my grandfathers. Dweeb.
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of photo FAR, far more obscene that the images of a naked females that awake so much controversy sometimes.
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons. Of course, you can disagree, but I hope I have a right to express my opinions too.
You may want to look into getting the second edition of your book.
I have known people who enlisted for the benefits and I have known people who enlisted to serve their country. I have known people who had been out of the military for years and re-enlisted to fight in the first Gulf War, and while I haven't known any who were glad to be long done with the armed forces by the time we got into a new war, I'm sure they exist.
I happen to fall into BOTH of those 'categories' you initially indicated, with an added *twist*: I was "pre-destined" for such! I won't go into greater 'details' about it all, but it was during MY"Basic Training" times, then I had an epiphany 'moment' where I fully realized that such was MY "fate" and destiny at least, yet nothing could have changed the FACT! It JUST was to 'be', so I accepted this for the time being and "continued to march" based on that, as it were.
I am glad that you joined not just because of the benefits you were entitled to upon completion of your service, but also because you wanted to serve your country. Having said that, I don't know how that has anything to do with my point.
As to your "pre-destiny" to join (whether it was the draft during Vietnam, being part of a family with a long military history, a Joan of Arc-like vision, or some other reason), I am also unsure as to what that has to do with anything.
GROGnads wrote:
alfredo lorente wrote:
There are those of us who know the military isn't for them, and those of you that don't know it until they sign on. Why are we less than snake farts? Because we are better judges of our own character?
I don't personally, or even actually, KNOW about yourself in these 'regards', so I'll just have to take your 'word' on any self-assessments or character judgments for yourself concerning being physically, or mentally, and even morally "unfit for duty". I'm certain they'd have "culled the herd" for any completely "undesirable" 'elements', and you'd probably point these OUT as well in your own behalf, no doubt.
Again, I am not sure what this has to do with anything. But let me tell you why I think I am unfit for duty: I believe America's foreign policy has taken a huge detour from America's founding principles, and more often than not we now use our armed forces not to protect and defend our freedoms but instead to impose our economic goals on others. Essentially, I'm not willing to follow orders so either the armed forces would have to break my will (and make me someone I am not), or I would spend a bit of time in the brig. Neither are choices I am willing to entertain.
Now, you may think those are poor reasons, and perhaps they are. I am glad that the Armed Forces became all-volunteer after Vietnam (and because of Vietnam), because for all of the problems that has caused (the poor are over-represented, those who enlist to serve the nation generally have a "we-can-do-no-wrong" attitude, for example) our military happens to be amongst the most professional in the world.
And of course, I don't have to serve.
So you may think I am self-centered and egotistical and whine whine whine (and for the record, I am). The country made a decision I agree with. If the all-volunteer army is not something you like, Contact your Senators and Representative and ask them you want a return to the draft.
Now, getting back to the actual point...
GROGnads wrote:
alfredo lorente wrote:
Maybe what you mean by
Quote:
who shirked or outright refused
is not what I read. Perhaps you are talking about those who fled to Canada during Vietnam.
No, since those folks garner some "sympathy" from myself at least on taking and making a 'stand', as they pursued their "moral high-ground" with their 'beliefs' about anything in particular. While I WAS talking upon those who sought ANY 'means' to: "avoid and get out of compulsory, or even voluntarily military services rendered". Sound anything like what you've been doing?
Heh. I also thought those who left for Canada had some guts, even if it was motivated for fear of being shot or not having the contacts to get deferments or get cushy jobs stateside.
What I do detect from you -- and I may be misinterpreting your colorful words -- is that those Americans who choose not to serve, EVEN IN AN ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY, are lesser citizens. And I made the point in another message that a kid, boy or girl, who skips the army and instead is a teacher in an underfunded inner-city school district in a place like Chicago, or L.A., or St. Louis, or Miami, or any of the hundreds of inner city neighborhoods in the U.S., where poverty is rampant, kids are third-generation gang, teen pregnancy is sky-high, and the question isn't whether but how many are going to die before reaching their senior year of high school, is a more valuable citizen than any who choose to join the armed forces.
Now, I am far too self-centered and egotistical for that, but I respect those who choose that path a whole lot more than those who joined the armed forces previous to September 12, 2001.
(And that is not to say that servicemen didn't sacrifice between 1973 and 2001 -- soldiers have lost their lives in Lebanon; in Grenada; and in the first Gulf War; and they have served their nation and their nation's principles in the Balkans and Haiti -- and whether rightly or wrongly, god knows our two current wars have not been easy on our men and women. But my point was and is that there are more ways to serve your country than signing up for the army.)
GROGnads wrote:
alfredo lorente wrote:
But I take offense at the idea that not signing up for the volunteer military makes you less of a citizen. In today's America, military service is certainly not the only way to serve your country, and it could be argued that up until the end of 2001, it was one of the easiest and least valuable ways to "do your part" for the country.
Alfredo Lorente
You, and any others that THINK alike, have the select FEW of US who have "served", to "thank" on maintaining OUR "Freedoms",
Robert,
Thank you for joining the armed forces and scaring the Canadians and the Mexicans from invading the U.S. and robbing us of our rights and freedoms.
GROGnads wrote:
... in which to promulgate YOUR 'beliefs' here or anywhere, that some other lesser governing "bodies" would then DENY this to their own citizenry AND continue with that even today.
Thank you, too, for making sure I can go to Riyadh and say loudly in their public plazas that Islam ought to look towards the future and not the past, and more secular versions of it, like those practices in Indonesia, may very well be the future of the religion. I am glad that I won't be stoned to death in a public ceremony.[/q]
GROGnads wrote:
While I don't FIND"it" bemusing at ALL when someone whose main stance were that: "I've managed to 'shirk-off' from any morally reprehensible 'duty' that were called FOR, so why didn't YOU also?" and then attempt to PREACH upon such to others in the guise of this image commentary.
This started because one man expressed an opinion.
I think in Spain military service is compulsory, so he may very well have served his time.
It seems like his family history may include actual war -- perhaps even torture at the hands of Franco's regime.
He said he finds the picture offensive. I may not agree with it, but we Americans claim to believe he has a right to express his views, regardless of whether we agree with them or not -- not "only if we agree with them."
GROGnads wrote:
We HAVE the RS&P forums here now, so get your "high-horsed-ass" & slanted-views well entrenched within THERE, and let's just 'see' how well-received those shall entail hmmmmm?
Sorry, I don't ride horses. I have wanted to get a Halloween costume of a horse's ass now for maybe five years, if only because when people ask "what are you?" I want to respond: "I'm a horse's ass!" But that's not what you meant, I don't think...
For the record, I don't care if you agree or disagree with me. As a matter of fact, I am glad you value military service so highly -- we do need a standing army, after all.
I simply refuse to allow those who "defend" our rights from curtailing those same rights -- in particular if the irony escapes them. If you joined the military and sworn the oath to defend the constitution, that means EVERY American gets to exercise those rights -- even if that means idiots to blind to recognize the irony of burning a flag, or creatures so ignorant and hate-filled that they would deign to deny the Holocaust. We may have nothing but spite and hatred for them, but if we start to pick and choose what rights we defend, our unique spot in the world becomes less so -- and god knows in the last seven years we dove off that spot and ran very, very far away from it.
Alfredo Lorente
P.S. Since this has gone WAY off-topic, I'm respectfully asking you to send me a private geek mail if you feel you must respond.
Why is anyone who dares to have a different or unpopular opinion automatically branded a troll? There's not one geeky forum on the Internet where this word doesn't get abused. So the guy's not going along with the groupthink. Maybe he's being a hypocrite, even. Still, it's no reason to shout "TROLL TROLL!" and chase him out of the village with pitchforks and flaming brands.
I think what's really sad is that Dan posted a great pic and a lot of us appreciate it . . . but when Dan's boy comes to look at "his picture on the 'geek" later, Dan's going to have to explain this meaningless pseudo-political wanna-be-intellectual soapboxing drivel posted underneath his boy's picture that could only occur in a place like BGG.
"You mean . . . adults act like retarded children on the internet, dad?"
If this were a thread, it would already be in RSP. Most sites allow disabling of comments on items that you post (I'm thinking movies on youtube, etc). Same should be true here.
Careful with those glass houses. Manifest Destiny manifested itself rather strongly on the native population of the U.S. Here in Minnesota, we have the reservations to remind us...
Wilhammer wrote:
BTW, Franco was not a US problem the US was responsible, for, so yyou might want to work on your history lessons.
Hitler "was not a US problem the US was responsible, [sic] for," either. But we decided to help the British (and the Soviets), not the Spaniards.
I think his point is that the U.S. (and for that matter, the world) decided to fight Fascism some three years after it established itself in the world...
I think what's really sad is that Dan posted a great pic and a lot of us appreciate it . . . but when Dan's boy comes to look at "his picture on the 'geek" later, Dan's going to have to explain this meaningless pseudo-political wanna-be-intellectual soapboxing drivel posted underneath his boy's picture that could only occur in a place like BGG.
"You mean . . . adults act like retarded children on the internet, dad?"
If this were a thread, it would already be in RSP. Most sites allow disabling of comments on items that you post (I'm thinking movies on youtube, etc). Same should be true here.
Dan's kid was going to learn that "adults act like retarded children" sooner or later.
As for the "meaningless pseudo-political wanna-be-intellectual soapboxing drivel" I find that listening to the others opinions can be illuminating. I never would have thought the picture obscene, but it was interesting to hear a differing voice. I'm glad the original dissenter expressed himself. All those "cool picture!" notes didn't make me think. His did, and while I still disagree that the photo is obscene, I found that more valuable than most of the other comments.
But that's just me, and generally speaking I understand and respect people with different views from mine.
Careful with those glass houses. Manifest Destiny manifested itself rather strongly on the native population of the U.S. Here in Minnesota, we have the reservations to remind us...
Wilhammer wrote:
BTW, Franco was not a US problem the US was responsible, for, so yyou might want to work on your history lessons.
Hitler "was not a US problem the US was responsible, [sic] for," either. But we decided to help the British (and the Soviets), not the Spaniards.
I think his point is that the U.S. (and for that matter, the world) decided to fight Fascism some three years after it established itself in the world...
Alfredo Lorente
And that would be my point - all cultures and nations are guilty and all are victims.
It just happens to be fashionable to trash the US and to ignore one's own past.
I just want to add that in my opinion it is OK to let children play the Second World War, since it is one of the last and few "moral" wars, i.e. an alliance of good fighting against evil. By the way my grandpa served on the wrong side in that war.
Still, I wouldn't play violent games with my kid before a certain age, but I certainly would try to teach him/her to be good. Even if that sounds stupid ...
I just want to add that in my opinion it is OK to let children play the Second World War, since it is one of the last and few "moral" wars, i.e. an alliance of good fighting against evil. By the way my grandpa served on the wrong side in that war.
Still, I wouldn't play violent games with my kid before a certain age, but I certainly would try to teach him/her to be good. Even if that sounds stupid ...
Well put.
Sweeping stuff under the rug won't serve anything or anyone.
My son and I (he is 16) watch Dexter together - I certainly don't think this promotes being a Serial Killer.
We talk about history, that does not make him a killer.
We discuss Sex, that does not make him a rapist.
We are white, and that does not make us racists.
We are Americans, which does not make us the devil.
----------------
Back in the Day, we did not have Tide of Iron, we had REAL helmets, with REAL Hasbro Guns, and we went outside, in the cold, uphill, both ways, to play soldier with the other kids.
This image is not cute or funny because it shows a kid in army gear. we can all agree that warfare should not ever involve children.
It's cute because it's a kid wearing adult sized head gear. Tiny head, big helmet, it's just fun!
Just like if a little girl is trying on her moms high heals, only the most jaded activist would think the image was about engendering body issues and totally miss the fact that it's a kid wearing very large ill fitting shoes.
I am glad that you joined not just because of the benefits you were entitled to upon completion of your service, but also because you wanted to serve your country. Having said that, I don't know how that has anything to do with my point.
#-1)
alfredo lorente wrote:
As to your "pre-destiny" to join (whether it was the draft during Vietnam, being part of a family with a long military history, a Joan of Arc-like vision, or some other reason), I am also unsure as to what that has to do with anything.
#2)
alfredo lorente wrote:
Again, I am not sure what this has to do with anything. But let me tell you why I think I am unfit for duty: I believe America's foreign policy has taken a huge detour from America's founding principles, and more often than not we now use our armed forces not to protect and defend our freedoms but instead to impose our economic goals on others. Essentially, I'm not willing to follow orders so either the armed forces would have to break my will (and make me someone I am not), or I would spend a bit of time in the brig. Neither are choices I am willing to entertain.
#3)
alfredo lorente wrote:
Now, you may think those are poor reasons, and perhaps they are. I am glad that the Armed Forces became all-volunteer after Vietnam (and because of Vietnam), because for all of the problems that has caused (the poor are over-represented, those who enlist to serve the nation generally have a "we-can-do-no-wrong" attitude, for example) our military happens to be amongst the most professional in the world.
And of course, I don't have to serve.
So you may think I am self-centered and egotistical and whine whine whine (and for the record, I am). The country made a decision I agree with. If the all-volunteer army is not something you like, Contact your Senators and Representative and ask them you want a return to the draft.
Now, getting back to the actual point...
#4)
alfredo lorente wrote:
Heh. I also thought those who left for Canada had some guts, even if it was motivated for fear of being shot or not having the contacts to get deferments or get cushy jobs stateside.
What I do detect from you -- and I may be misinterpreting your colorful words -- is that those Americans who choose not to serve, EVEN IN AN ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY, are lesser citizens. And I made the point in another message that a kid, boy or girl, who skips the army and instead is a teacher in an underfunded inner-city school district in a place like Chicago, or L.A., or St. Louis, or Miami, or any of the hundreds of inner city neighborhoods in the U.S., where poverty is rampant, kids are third-generation gang, teen pregnancy is sky-high, and the question isn't whether but how many are going to die before reaching their senior year of high school, is a more valuable citizen than any who choose to join the armed forces.
#5)
alfredo lorente wrote:
Now, I am far too self-centered and egotistical for that, but I respect those who choose that path a whole lot more than those who joined the armed forces previous to September 12, 2001.
(And that is not to say that servicemen didn't sacrifice between 1973 and 2001 -- soldiers have lost their lives in Lebanon; in Grenada; and in the first Gulf War; and they have served their nation and their nation's principles in the Balkans and Haiti -- and whether rightly or wrongly, god knows our two current wars have not been easy on our men and women. But my point was and is that there are more ways to serve your country than signing up for the army.)
#6)
alfredo lorente wrote:
Robert,
Thank you for joining the armed forces and scaring the Canadians and the Mexicans from invading the U.S. and robbing us of our rights and freedoms.
You're NOT "welcome" on those condescending 'aspects'! oh dear! Had I "discerned" this accurately? Because, when I was actively "on duty" then it was the "Red Menace" we were contending WITH at the times, and they truly were living UP to their moniker during then.
alfredo lorente wrote:
Thank you, too, for making sure I can go to Riyadh and say loudly in their public plazas that Islam ought to look towards the future and not the past, and more secular versions of it, like those practices in Indonesia, may very well be the future of the religion. I am glad that I won't be stoned to death in a public ceremony.
Yes, please DO"go" and let's just 'see' how well for a reception you'd obtain from those 'fundies' WHERE: "they put the FUN & DIES 'in' 'fundies'!" but, just don't come running and crying to anyone when they lop your head clean OFF! And just WHY would they be 'doing' such?
alfredo lorente wrote:
This started because one man expressed an opinion.
No, ONE "idjit" decided to sully an innocuous photo with HIS unrealistic expectations about "child rearing", ALL of such from his own 'jaded viewpoint', and then YOU continue to "dump upon the heap" with your banal presumptions.
alfredo lorente wrote:
I think in Spain military service is compulsory, so he may very well have served his time.
It seems like his family history may include actual war -- perhaps even torture at the hands of Franco's regime.
He said he finds the picture offensive. I may not agree with it, but we Americans claim to believe he has a right to express his views, regardless of whether we agree with them or not -- not "only if we agree with them."
R-E-A-L-L-Y-? So then I should go around and 'do' likewise as well? Because I am "offended" by HIM or YOU, and others that can't distinguish between reality and their own "F*'d up Fantasy World" they exist within, and wished to impose upon another.
alfredo lorente wrote:
Sorry, I don't ride horses. I have wanted to get a Halloween costume of a horse's ass now for maybe five years, if only because when people ask "what are you?" I want to respond: "I'm a horse's ass!" But that's not what you meant, I don't think...
Don't sell yourself short: I do believe you're a perfect "Horse's Ass"!
alfredo lorente wrote:
For the record, I don't care if you agree or disagree with me. As a matter of fact, I am glad you value military service so highly -- we do need a standing army, after all.
Yes, you 'slack-offs' just don't APPRECIATE this is what were implied.
alfredo lorente wrote:
I simply refuse to allow those who "defend" our rights from curtailing those same rights -- in particular if the irony escapes them. If you joined the military and sworn the oath to defend the constitution, that means EVERY American gets to exercise those rights -- even if that means idiots to blind to recognize the irony of burning a flag, or creatures so ignorant and hate-filled that they would deign to deny the Holocaust. We may have nothing but spite and hatred for them, but if we start to pick and choose what rights we defend, our unique spot in the world becomes less so -- and god knows in the last seven years we dove off that spot and ran very, very far away from it.
Alfredo Lorente
Just HOW are they accomplishing this? I'd ply some "morony" on your behalf, but it'd escape YOUR immediate, or eventual, attentions no doubt. Instead of general, broad assumptions in casting aspersions then why don't you quit "talking out of yer ASS" and provide some substantial basis to back your allegations UP with?
alfredo lorente wrote:
P.S. Since this has gone WAY off-topic, I'm respectfully asking you to send me a private geek mail if you feel you must respond.
#1)-#6) For someone that admits to NOT knowing a whole "helluva lot", then you sure know how to: "shovel the BS!" What's the OLD 'saw' again about: "If you can't 'dazzle' them with 'brilliance', then BAFFLE `em with BS!" You certainly 'got'THAT down to a "science"... AND 'moi' should KNOW!
And that would be my point - all cultures and nations are guilty and all are victims.
I'm not a Catholic neither a nationalist and I will support your arguments about the immoral and ashaming behaviour of the Spanish Empire in the New World any day of the week.
Wilhammer wrote:
It just happens to be fashionable to trash the US and to ignore one's own past.
It seems to be just as fashionable for some Americans, as soon as any European disagrees with their ideas, no matter how well mannered their argument, to use the above answer about their grandfather fighting in WW2 as if that gave them the higher moral ground and the right to quell dissent. It cheapens the sacrifice of their ancestors to use it in such a manner and it only serves to give an image of arrogance as if there was any kind of debt to be paid anymore.
alfredo lorente wrote:
From what I gather, his grandad fought with the Republicans...
And speaking as a Puertorican whose grandfather and oldest uncle (on his father side) fought with the Nationalists, Illuminatus, thank you and I'm sorry.
Alfredo Lorente
Yep, my grandfather fought with the Republicans and was reported MIA in the Battle of the Ebro river. To add insult to injury, my grandmother, nurse in duty in the same army, was "purged" for such a "crime" and jailed after the war, but, you know, fascisms had those annoying little details. I hope you understand that using the WW2-liberating-US Army sounds like mockery to me. Just as Non-Intervention Committee.
I can take it to geek mail and waste my time replying to you in private, or I can waste my time replying to you in public.
Actually, no, there is a third option: I can read your response, briefly point out a few things, and move on.
As it regards #6, Yes I was being condescending. Same way you were. You didn't like it? What made you think I did?
But for the record, the "red menace" wasn't planning on eliminating our freedoms -- it was planning on launching it's missiles and vaporizing the world. And from what I understand, that was the entirety of their war plan.
I also find it interesting that you took my Riyadh comment out of context. Go back and read what you wrote and my response, and you'll see that it was (a) condescending, and (b) accurate.
The rest is just insults and various colors, so it really doesn't merit either time or attention.
Finally, I don't claim to either know everything or to have all the answers. I do claim to think carefully about my beliefs, and by extension, to have more nuanced and better thought-out answers. Some are going to be wrong, some are going to be right, and none require me calling others names.
If that last bit is difficult to understand and you want to go back and call some "idjit" and me "moron," let me finish with this:
"I'm rubber and you are glue, you stinky, ugly poopyhead!"
Alfredo Lorente
P.S. If I offend you, you must have a surprisingly thin skin. It's not like I am Bill O'Reilly or anything...
This is the most stupid argument. to quote the joker in the dark knight, "Why so Serious?" Everyone here agrees that war is bad but sometimes necessary. The people who put their lives on the line in conflict are for the most part hero's. Some people will take offense to the most stupid things imaginable, including the truth. Everyone is allowed to express an opinion no matter how smart or stupid it is. i think the picture is great. when i was a kid i played games LIKE RISK. i had toy soldiers. my parents outlawed war toys for a while but i still imagined stuff. i made guns out of wood and sticks and pipes. i share a common bond with the kid in the picture. its a fun picture.
I just want to add that in my opinion it is OK to let children play the Second World War, since it is one of the last and few "moral" wars, i.e. an alliance of good fighting against evil.
What if they want to play as the Germans?
You know, I always did end up choosing those gray game pieces when playing Attack!
I just want to add that in my opinion it is OK to let children play the Second World War, since it is one of the last and few "moral" wars, i.e. an alliance of good fighting against evil.
What if they want to play as the Germans?
You know, I always did end up choosing those gray game pieces when playing Attack!
The Nazi's may have been the ultimate "bastards" of the millennium, but they sure were snappy dressers.
When I was 10 years old we used to play a lot of "Escape from Colditz" with family and neighbours. The gentleman who lived next door on one side absolutely loved it and, as his brother was an antiques dealer, he acquired an Iron Cross for whoever got to play as the German guards !
...don't 'rate' EVEN on the same level as a "snake fart"
JackFlash wrote:
I didn't serve in the military after Vietnam because I have flat feet. I don't think I'm beneath a snakes fart whatever that is!
If you at least TRIED to enlist with all intents and purposes on accomplishing THAT, and then proceeded to [COLOR=#FF0000]FAIL after your "physical" or what-not were completed with this due to whatever, then NO! you wouldn't 'be' considered as such IMNSHO. While those who actively sought some nefarious ways or means OUT for that in order to AVOID it entirely, then yeah they certainly were. Can you make the 'distinctions' between these 2 'situations'?
Woo! that a storm... you creat a monster whit your pic. Anyway i have one more thing to say (very sorry for my english i learn it in boardgame rulbook )
If violent video games affected children then everyone who played Pacman would just walk around in the dark, eating pills & listening to repetitive music (~ Marcus Brigstock)
First. I do think the picture is nice and am not offended by it. A child that age should not have to understand what war is really about. Let them be children. When I was a child we played war in the woods with stick rifles. We even made our own rules to determined when someone had been shot. It was so much fun (basically like playing a wargame "live") with lots of tactical decisions and problem solving. Looking back, I can't really see that as "violent", but more as a fun, physical and very active game...
Now I'm an adult and can understand things that back then I wasn't prepared for, so I'm mostly anti-war (especially the profit driven wars of recent years) and if you'd see me you'd think I'm more of a hippie... I still play wargames though (mostly solo) because I can separate reality from the game.
I'll just add that I usually don't like posting pictures of my kids on public forums. I probably wouldn't like people posting pictures of me when I was a kid for all the world to see, so I'd rather hold off and wait until they're old enough to decide if and what they want to put online....
Now, about the other discussion, I'll just say that were it not for the people that fought the nazis in WWII (including many Spanish that had exiled to Europe after the Civil War) Europe (and also Spain) would be a very different place today, and even though Franco's dictatorship survived after WWII and went on for too long, things probably wouldn't have changed after his death if the Nazis had won WWII.
When I was 10 years old we used to play a lot of "Escape from Colditz" with family and neighbours. The gentleman who lived next door on one side absolutely loved it and, as his brother was an antiques dealer, he acquired an Iron Cross for whoever got to play as the German guards !
Dave
Cool!
when i was a kid in the UK we used to watch the battle of Britain and Great Escape movies on TV wearing grandads WW2 steel helmets , and I turned out fine
Great pic! I can't wait to play games with my son and see him enjoy playing as much as the kid in the photo. At 9 months old, it'll be a little while 'til he's ready.
Great pic! I can't wait to play games with my son and see him enjoy playing as much as the kid in the photo. At 9 months old, it'll be a little while 'til he's ready.
But must it be a wargame to lift up his social behaviour.
I really enjoy to play games with my daughter. She is nearly six years old. I´m glad that she is a girl, so I don´t have to let the tanks roll to see her happy.
Every single person serving in our nation's armed forces should be looked up to as a hero.
Perhaps a nurse, a firefighter, a social worker, someone which helps an old lady to do the shoping or maybe even a policeman, but never ever a soldier!
A lot of responses for a picture of a father spending time with his son.
So he's wearing a helmet. So what? Maybe he's scared dad will throw dice at him when he overruns his forces.
What if after playing the games, he decides to learn more about the past and do a little reading and reads accounts of what soldiers have gone through (on both sides of any conflict) and decides not to become a soldier?
Is playing the game still evil then?
My kids (son and daughter) aren't old enough to play SL with me yet, but they both enjoy watching me play SP:WAW on the PC. And yes, we play Candyland and Chutes and Ladders as well. And my son is learning chess.
And to the comment that a soldier should never be a hero... Anyone can be hero. The people you listed, or a soldier / Marine on the battlefield or in peace. It takes all kinds to show courage and self-sacrifice.
IMHO, I really think that there is nothing wrong with the picture. The first thing I thought when I saw it was: LOL thats so cool! This boy reminds me of myself when I was a child playing Risk!
Additionally, not only the kid is having a great time with his father but he might be even learning some history
Here in Canada we are not obliged to serve in the military. If we dont want to join the army, navy or the air force it does not make us snake farts or cowards. It depends on the society and the context you are living in.
Canada is a peaceful country in which peaceful people live, and we still play Memoire 44, Risk, Conflict of Heroes, etc. You should go to a hockey match, one of, if not, the most violent sports, here in Montreal. You will see little boys and girls cheering the players. It is a great family activity. It has been for almost a century. And still Canada is one of the most peaceful and peace-loving nations in the world.
Canadians fought in both world wars, and very bravely. Canadian corps still defend democracy and fight against the Taliban terror. God save the Canadian soldiers!
Speaking of an "alliance of Good against Evil" about WWII is simply too wrong to let it pass.
Looking the way both side fight and the attrocities both sides commited against civilian population (and I thing strategic terror bombing on civilian is attrocities regardless they are done with He-111 or B-17), I really think this should be titled : "Alliance of Isolationist Capitalist and Greedy Colonial Power with Nearly Totalitarian Pseudo Socialist against Xenophobical Autocraties" .... Except you can find xenophobic behaviour in each side (being anti-semitic or anti-japanesian).
A war is never fought after Justice nor Freedom, nor it really care about the people it is supposed to free. A war is always fought over money and power and thoses possessing them defending other from acquire from themself or stealing them from weaker ones.
When you kill more of the people you are liberating by massive bombardement on highly populated area than the one that occupy them, are you really liberating them ?
And about the Good Guys, you know about Allies stock of Poison Gas they were prepared to use in European Theater of Operation ?
There is no good guy in war, there is two opponent : a winner and a loser, one from your side of the fronteer one from the other side, one that believe in your god on that believe in another, one that vote left one that vote right. They are both the same, they are both alike and ultimately they are both dead and forgotten after awhile.
Speaking of an "alliance of Good against Evil" about WWII is simply too wrong to let it pass.
Looking the way both side fight and the attrocities both sides commited against civilian population (and I thing strategic terror bombing on civilian is attrocities regardless they are done with He-111 or B-17), I really think this should be titled : "Alliance of Isolationist Capitalist and Greedy Colonial Power with Nearly Totalitarian Pseudo Socialist against Xenophobical Autocraties" .... Except you can find xenophobic behaviour in each side (being anti-semitic or anti-japanesian).
A war is never fought after Justice nor Freedom, nor it really care about the people it is supposed to free. A war is always fought over money and power and thoses possessing them defending other from acquire from themself or stealing them from weaker ones.
When you kill more of the people you are liberating by massive bombardement on highly populated area than the one that occupy them, are you really liberating them ?
And about the Good Guys, you know about Allies stock of Poison Gas they were prepared to use in European Theater of Operation ?
There is no good guy in war, there is two opponent : a winner and a loser, one from your side of the fronteer one from the other side, one that believe in your god on that believe in another, one that vote left one that vote right. They are both the same, they are both alike and ultimately they are both dead and forgotten after awhile.
Yeah, this is real good nonsense. Can't help but notice your country flag, man.
You'll forgive most people for not taking a thing said by a French revisionist to heart.
Of course it's real easy to say what you want and point fingers (all while ignoring your own sickening war crimes) when all you can do is fight to the last drop of American blood.
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of photo FAR, far more obscene that the images of a naked females that awake so much controversy sometimes.
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons. Of course, you can disagree, but I hope I have a right to express my opinions too.
I played with toy soldiers, guns, plastic knives, cowboy outfits, plastic airplane kits and Action Man tanks for years and it didnt do any harm to me. Anyone whos got boys as kids will tell you they are made that way and thats all there is to it. I see this kind of picture as being really healthy and it makes my heart glow when I think of all the brilliant times I spent playing with my brother and our soldiers and I'm blooming glad there are kids tday who are getting the same kind of enjoyment out of life rather than spending it stuck looking at a computer monitor all day.
I love violent films, games, books, etc (grew up on so-called 'video nasties' in my early teens in the mid 80's). This didn't mold me into a sociopath, gun-wielding nut, serial killer, or whatever. I abhor violence and the mindless people who carry it out
During the WWII, my father was a radio operator on the sub HMS Dolphin which went down with nearly all hands. The only way to get out was via one of the torpedo tubes but it needed to be flooded, so the officer stayed behind and got my dad out. My dad was proclaimed MIA (still have the old yellowed newsclippings). He was alone for almost 2 weeks with a busted ankle (it's still the size of baseball). He was about 17 years old at the time. The officer's actions are something to be proud of, truly selfless. Yet there is nothing to proud about serving in a war, where people are nothing more than expendable pawns following orders blindly, for reasons they will never know the truth of. And don't spout nonsense about patriotism, that is an excuse for the feeble minded.
Nope, that's my helmet...but from the early 1980's. We were still using the old Steel Pot, mostly unchanged from the WWII M1 model. A gear grog would note the swiveling bales on the helmet in the picture and peg it as a post WWII model. I think mine is from the 1960's, near as I can tell. Heavy old thing, but you could bathe and cook in it!
Please prove this by submitting a photo.
You can cook with any metal container, and bathe WITH a helmet easily.
I find the picture kind of cool. I play Memoir 44 with my children too, and they love the game. My kid also love to disguise as a soldier and play war, and I don't see it as a big problem.
But on the other hand, I teach them that war is an ugly thing, and will never ever tell them otherwise, nor be proud of them if they decide to chooze a military career (or any other career that implies carrying a gun, for that matter).
Illuminatus wrote:
Wilhammer wrote:
It just happens to be fashionable to trash the US and to ignore one's own past.
It seems to be just as fashionable for some Americans, as soon as any European disagrees with their ideas, no matter how well mannered their argument, to use the above answer about their grandfather fighting in WW2 as if that gave them the higher moral ground and the right to quell dissent. It cheapens the sacrifice of their ancestors to use it in such a manner and it only serves to give an image of arrogance as if there was any kind of debt to be paid anymore.
I completely agree with that. Of course, lots of US soldiers gave their lives to free Europe from the grasp of the Germans, and their deaths are still honored in our lands. But that doesn't mean that we have to agree on every matter with every single US citizen today.
My grand-dads, one of them is still alive today, lived during the second world war and one of them was in the resistance. Both told me lots of stories about the occupation, and none of them was very funny or particularly heroic for that matter. Only the usual ugliness of human soul. Both of them had trouble to consider the german people as otherwise than enemies. Of course, their perception of reality influenced me as a child...
Today, I raise my child so they look at germans not as enemies but as fellow europeans, who have numerous qualities and make fine friends...
I believe that Europeans citizens (and not only soldiers) suffered a lot during WWII, and that's probably why peace is valued a lot in European countries.
Anyway, that doesn't change anything to the fact that this picture is cool and it's fun to share gaming time with our enthousiasts children.
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of photo FAR, far more obscene that the images of a naked females that awake so much controversy sometimes.
I find this way of teaching kids to love violence is not of my taste. Imho, kids should not ware millitary clothes or shoot, even less so in a game enviroment where they could learn the wrong lessons.
of course you'll get some FLAK from this. but i agree, it can sort of glorify war to a child. and i'm pretty sure that's wrong. more wrong that looking at boobs anyway.
maybe teaching children to love war and glorifying war are similar??..
those of us that watch an international news service will note images of palestinian and jewish children running around playing soldiers on the box from time to time. we gasp at that.. but is a child immersing it's self something too difficult for it to understand in the comfort of a lounge all that different?
Although I can't get over that steel pot. I served with my "Fritz" cover and was very grateful for it after trying on one of those metal monsters. The old timers (no offense) said that thing would bounce all over their head when they ran.
As for the dingleberry commenting on violence further up the posts....
Good thing my grandfathers were OK with violence. You'd probably be in a slave camp nowadays if it weren't for men and women like them. And yes, you are completely within your rights to voice your feelings and opinions on it. I will simply have to drown you out with USMC cadences played at top volume.
If everyone was opposed to violence, there would be no wars.
Now, I can't honestly condemn teaching kids wargames - as I played them when I was a kid too. It didn't turn me into a gun-loving (don't own one), flag-waving (ditto), militaristic maniac. As long as you teach children that real violence is not a good way to solve your problems, then they should turn out fine. Humans have a violent tendency and ignoring it and hoping it will go away doesn't work. What works is channeling it into harmless forms - like gaming and sports.
I completely agree with that. Of course, lots of US soldiers gave their lives to free Europe from the grasp of the Germans, and their deaths are still honored in our lands. But that doesn't mean that we have to agree on every matter with every single US citizen today.
Ahem. Lots of US and Canadian soldiers gave their lives. Let's be honest, though - they weren't there to free Europe. They were there either for a paycheck or because they were drafted and had no choice. Sure, some few were there to 'defend liberty' or whatever, but let's not brand them all as selfless paragons.
I love violent films, games, books, etc (grew up on so-called 'video nasties' in my early teens in the mid 80's). This didn't mold me into a sociopath, gun-wielding nut, serial killer, or whatever. I abhor violence and the mindless people who carry it out
During the WWII, my father was a radio operator on the sub HMS Dolphin which went down with nearly all hands. The only way to get out was via one of the torpedo tubes but it needed to be flooded, so the officer stayed behind and got my dad out. My dad was proclaimed MIA (still have the old yellowed newsclippings). He was alone for almost 2 weeks with a busted ankle (it's still the size of baseball). He was about 17 years old at the time. The officer's actions are something to be proud of, truly selfless. Yet there is nothing to proud about serving in a war, where people are nothing more than expendable pawns following orders blindly, for reasons they will never know the truth of. And don't spout nonsense about patriotism, that is an excuse for the feeble minded.
Very well said. War brings out the best and worst of mankind. It is a sad truth that there is far more of the latter than the former.
I sure did! and even 'wore' one just like his'ns! 
#2)
You're NOT "welcome" on those condescending 'aspects'! oh dear! Had I "discerned" this accurately? Because, when I was actively "on duty" then it was the "Red Menace" we were contending WITH at the times, and they truly were living UP to their moniker during then. 
Don't sell yourself short: I do believe you're a perfect "Horse's Ass"!
