Medal of Honor

[Ursa Majoris]

The first presentation of the Medal of Honor to a living recipient since Vietnam

 

On a moonlit Afghan ridge in 2007, Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta ran alone through a barrage of gunfire to rescue a friend being dragged off by insurgent fighters.

 

On Friday, the White House said Sgt. Giunta will receive the Medal of Honor for his bravery, making him the first living serviceman from the Iraq or Afghan wars to receive the nation's highest military award.

 

"His courage and leadership while under extreme enemy fire were integral to his platoon's ability defeat an enemy ambush and recover a fellow American paratrooper from enemy hands," the White House said.

 

President Barack Obama called Sgt. Giunta, a 25-year-old born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, at his base in Italy on Thursday to tell him the news.

 

The selection of a living Medal of Honor recipient comes as welcome news to the military. The seven medals from Iraq or Afghanistan announced until now had been for men killed performing the acts of courage for which they were being recognized.

 

The medal is reserved for those who risk their lives beyond what duty requires.

 

Sgt. Giunta's action came on his second deployment to Afghanistan, when his unit—Co. B, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Airborne)—was operating in the Korengal Valley, at the time considered the most dangerous spot in the country for U.S. troops.

 

On the night of Oct. 25, Sgt. Joshua Brennan led Sgt. Giunta's squad single-file along the top of a rocky spur, according to Sebastian Junger's 2010 book "War." Sgt. Giunta, then holding the rank of specialist, was fourth in line when the patrol walked into an ambush, with 13 insurgents spraying them with rifle, machine-gun and rocket-propelled grenade fire from as close as 15 to 20 feet.

 

"Out of nothing—out of taking your next step—just rows of tracers, RPGs, everything happening out of nowhere with no real idea of how it just f— happened," Sgt. Giunta told Mr. Junger.

 

Sgt. Brennan was hit eight times. Sgt. Giunta, who had a Purple Heart from his first combat tour, was hit in the ceramic chest plate of his body armor. A rocket strapped to his back absorbed a second hit, according to the Army.

 

Under fire, Sgt. Giunta first helped a staff sergeant who had been hit in the helmet. He and two other soldiers threw hand grenades to clear a path to two other men isolated ahead of them.

 

After tossing his final grenade, Sgt. Giunta ran toward where he thought he would find Sgt. Brennan. Instead, he saw two insurgents dragging the sergeant away. Sgt. Giunta emptied his rifle at them, and then chased them down the hill.

 

His shots killed one insurgent. Wounded, the other fighter released Sgt. Brennan and fled. Sgt. Giunta called for a medic and pulled his friend to cover.

 

"I didn't run through fire to save a buddy—I ran through fire to see what was going on with him and maybe we could hide behind the same rock and shoot together," Sgt. Giunta said in the book. "I didn't run through fire to do anything heroic or brave; I did what I believe anyone would have done."

 

Airstrikes ended the firefight. Sgt. Brennan, 22, from McFarland, Wisc., died in surgery at a nearby base. A medic, Spc. Hugh Mendoza, 29, of Glendale, Ariz., died after being shot through the femur. Five other paratroopers survived their wounds.

 

Compare and contrast to the filthy weasels who think it's OK to play at being Taliban.

[WaterMan]

The first presentation of the Medal of Honor to a living recipient since Vietnam

 

 

 

Compare and contrast to the filthy weasels who think it's OK to play at being Taliban.

 

I see plenty of games where you can be a Nazi. I don't think kids will be flocking to the Taliban because of a videogame.

[detlef]

I see plenty of games where you can be a Nazi. I don't think kids will be flocking to the Taliban because of a videogame.

I think there's something particularly wrong with "playing Nazi" or the Taliban in a video game. Not that you shouldn't be allowed to do so, but that you're pretty messed up if you do. There are certain sides you should never root for even if it's not real. Like the Cowboys, for instance.

[WaterMan]

I think there's something particularly wrong with "playing Nazi" or the Taliban in a video game. Not that you shouldn't be allowed to do so, but that you're pretty messed up if you do. There are certain sides you should never root for even if it's not real. Like the Cowboys, for instance.

 

I see what you mean, since I never use the Cowboys on Madden.

[Gopher]

I have mixed feelings on this. First, let me say that I rarely play video games myself... I do own a Wii, but haven't played it in months. Part of me agrees with the sentiment that it's just a game, and people can do whatever they want. It's their choice. They might be considered "messed up" to want to play the part of the Taliban or Nazi, but that's their problem. There are certainly worse things going on in our society, for us to worry about.

 

On the other hand, I think there is a pretty significant difference between playing the role of a Nazi soldier, and playing the role of a Taliban member, in 2010. In other words, World War II ended over 60 years ago. Doesn't make it any less significant, but we're not currently at war with the Nazis. Another way of looking at it is this... If video games did exist in the 1940's (hypothetically speaking), do you think it would have been appropriate for Jewish kids to play the role of Nazi soldiers?

 

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that we should be compared to the Jews during the WWII era, or anything of the sort... All I'm saying is that it's a little bit different, to play the role of a villain from 60+ years ago, compared to playing the role of scumbags who are killing our soldiers as we speak.

[WaterMan]

I don't really see the difference whether it's current or 60 years in the past. Either way people are going to be dead or dieing because it's war.

[Ursa Majoris]

On the other hand, I think there is a pretty significant difference between playing the role of a Nazi soldier, and playing the role of a Taliban member, in 2010. In other words, World War II ended over 60 years ago. Doesn't make it any less significant, but we're not currently at war with the Nazis. Another way of looking at it is this... If video games did exist in the 1940's (hypothetically speaking), do you think it would have been appropriate for Jewish kids to play the role of Nazi soldiers?

 

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that we should be compared to the Jews during the WWII era, or anything of the sort... All I'm saying is that it's a little bit different, to play the role of a villain from 60+ years ago, compared to playing the role of scumbags who are killing our soldiers as we speak.

 

Bingo

 

I don't really see the difference whether it's current or 60 years in the past. Either way people are going to be dead or dieing because it's war.

 

Bollocks

[detlef]

I have mixed feelings on this. First, let me say that I rarely play video games myself... I do own a Wii, but haven't played it in months. Part of me agrees with the sentiment that it's just a game, and people can do whatever they want. It's their choice. They might be considered "messed up" to want to play the part of the Taliban or Nazi, but that's their problem. There are certainly worse things going on in our society, for us to worry about.

 

On the other hand, I think there is a pretty significant difference between playing the role of a Nazi soldier, and playing the role of a Taliban member, in 2010. In other words, World War II ended over 60 years ago. Doesn't make it any less significant, but we're not currently at war with the Nazis. Another way of looking at it is this... If video games did exist in the 1940's (hypothetically speaking), do you think it would have been appropriate for Jewish kids to play the role of Nazi soldiers?

 

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that we should be compared to the Jews during the WWII era, or anything of the sort... All I'm saying is that it's a little bit different, to play the role of a villain from 60+ years ago, compared to playing the role of scumbags who are killing our soldiers as we speak.

FWIW, as messed up as I think it is that someone would want to play the Nazi side in a war game, I agree that it's even more so to play the side of a enemy that we are currently at war with.

[WaterMan]

EA's President is standing firm:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20014691-17.html

 

August 25, 2010 11:34 AM PDT

EA stands by Medal of Honor Taliban feature

by Don Reisinger

 

Electronic Arts isn't wavering in its support of game developer DICE's decision to let gamers play as Taliban members in the upcoming Medal of Honor.

 

"At EA we passionately believe games are an artform, and I don't know why films and books set in Afghanistan don't get flack, yet [games] do," EA Games President Frank Gibeau told game developer publication Develop Online this week. "Whether it's 'Red Badge of Courage' or 'The Hurt Locker,' the media of its time can be a platform for the people who wish to tell their stories. Games are becoming that platform."

 

(Credit: DICE)

Gibeau acknowledged that allowing gamers to play as a Taliban solider is a "creative risk," but he won't allow media outcry to "compromise our creative vision and what we want to do."

 

That outcry has been gaining steam as of late. Earlier this week, U.K. Defense Secretary Liam Fox took aim at the new Medal of Honor title in an interview with the U.K.'s Sunday Times. He said that retailers should "show their support for the armed forces" and not sell the title. He went on to say that "it's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban."

 

EA, which is publishing Medal of Honor, isn't breaking new ground with its desire to push the envelope of war gameplay. Last year, Konami found itself embroiled in a similar debate over Six Days in Fallujah. The company opted against publishing the game after critics took issue with the title being based on such a recent event--the infamous 2004 battle in Iraq. Critics have the same issue with Medal of Honor.

 

But to some extent, EA believes those critics should understand the franchise they're taking aim at. As Gibeau pointed out in his interview with Develop Online, the Medal of Honor franchise has always been set in war zones.

 

"That's always been a Medal of Honor concept--we put you in the boots of a solider, whether it's in the Pacific, Europe, Afghanistan; it's always been the story of the solider," he told Develop Online.

 

Maybe we can hope Obama can become CEO of EA for a day and stop the biggest military warfare game title from hitting shelves.

[Ursa Majoris]

Gibeau acknowledged that allowing gamers to play as a Taliban solider is a "creative risk," but he won't allow media outcry to "compromise our creative vision and what we want to do."

 

This is a crock of smug, self-satisfied crap from a worthless tit. I fully understand the company has the right to publish whatever it wants and I actually support that. None of that stops me wondering just what this turd would say to a man with three limbs blown off by an IED.

 

This sums up the entire problem with these non-draft wars. The public loses interest and drifts off into it's self-centered little worlds while half a planet away the best of us are engaged in a life or death mission, supported at home only by a few SUV magnets and pious claptrap at sports events.

 

Bah. Draft everyone and then see whether art is really that f'n important. What will you do in a foxhole, Mr Smug EA Chairman? Useless fack.

[detlef]

This is a crock of smug, self-satisfied crap from a worthless tit. I fully understand the company has the right to publish whatever it wants and I actually support that. None of that stops me wondering just what this turd would say to a man with three limbs blown off by an IED.

 

This sums up the entire problem with these non-draft wars. The public loses interest and drifts off into it's self-centered little worlds while half a planet away the best of us are engaged in a life or death mission, supported at home only by a few SUV magnets and pious claptrap at sports events.

 

Bah. Draft everyone and then see whether art is really that f'n important. What will you do in a foxhole, Mr Smug EA Chairman? Useless fack.

Beyond that, is this guy somehow trying to draw a correlation between books and movies that are not pro-war and a game made by a US company that allows players to play the part of a Taliban soldier blowing up US troops?

[Ursa Majoris]

Beyond that, is this guy somehow trying to draw a correlation between books and movies that are not pro-war and a game made by a US company that allows players to play the part of a Taliban soldier blowing up US troops?

Wouldn't it be great if the Patriot Guard showed up at his house and cameras caught him pissing his pants live on TV?

[detlef]

Wouldn't it be great if the Patriot Guard showed up at his house and cameras caught him pissing his pants live on TV?

You know, in the name of art, of course.

[WaterMan]

You know, in the name of art, of course.

 

It could be a video game they release next year when times get hard.

[Vicster]

Pretty surprised by the discussion in here. I mean, as an avid gamer, I have played several WW2 era games. I have often played as the nazi's in those games. I don't share the views of nazi's but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying the challenge of trying to hold off the invasion of Normandy in Close Combat or the strategy of trying to take Stalingrad or other theatres in Panzer General 2. I get no perverse joy of killing SAS or American soldiers in Call of Duty Modern Warfare. They are just games and should be treated as such. Not Taliban recruiting tools or nazi propaganda machines. You guys are seriously indulging in some over-reactionism over a game. This coming from a website dedicated to supporting a gambling mechanism in fantasy football.

 

Just because I play a game does not mean I share the ideas of the people portrayed in those games. Hell, if you feel that way about it, play the game to kill the Taliban and don't indulge in the killing of the American soldiers. I bet none of you have even played any of those series of games and as such, doubt you know much of what you are talking about.

[Gopher]

Pretty surprised by the discussion in here. I mean, as an avid gamer, I have played several WW2 era games. I have often played as the nazi's in those games. I don't share the views of nazi's but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying the challenge of trying to hold off the invasion of Normandy in Close Combat or the strategy of trying to take Stalingrad or other theatres in Panzer General 2. I get no perverse joy of killing SAS or American soldiers in Call of Duty Modern Warfare. They are just games and should be treated as such. Not Taliban recruiting tools or nazi propaganda machines. You guys are seriously indulging in some over-reactionism over a game. This coming from a website dedicated to supporting a gambling mechanism in fantasy football.

 

Just because I play a game does not mean I share the ideas of the people portrayed in those games. Hell, if you feel that way about it, play the game to kill the Taliban and don't indulge in the killing of the American soldiers. I bet none of you have even played any of those series of games and as such, doubt you know much of what you are talking about.

 

So, is it safe to say that your answer to the question below would be yes? Just curious.

 

If video games did exist in the 1940's (hypothetically speaking), do you think it would have been appropriate for Jewish kids to play the role of Nazi soldiers?

[Ursa Majoris]

I bet none of you have even played any of those series of games and as such, doubt you know much of what you are talking about.

How so? What exactly do we need to know?

[Vicster]

How so? What exactly do we need to know?

 

I've played head to head with some Jewish folks from overseas that played as the nazi's in the close combat series.

 

If you don't like the idea of the game, then don't buy it. But the target audience isn't you guys anyway so whether it offends you or not is largely irrelevant. You weren't going to purchase the game anyway. Unless you have actually played online in some of these FPS circles you wouldn't understand the mentality of the people this game targets. Most are very young and they could care less about any message you guys may get out of the game. These games are just a digitized version of the games I played as a kid in the neighborhood with my friends. We played army all over the neighborhood, now kids today don't have to, they do it online.

 

And both of my grandfathers and one stepgrandfather were in WW2. One was a waistgunner on B24's, another was a mapmaker for the Air Force and the stepgrandfather was in the army in the European theatre. I don't find myself being irreverant because I kill animated American soldiers in a game. I respect what all of our American soldiers fight for and have sacrificed for no matter where/when they have fought. Hell, I tried to get into the Marine Corp but was medically DQ'd at the MEPS for my knee. I'm just saying I don't get the hypersensitivity is all. Doesn't make me a bad person.

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm just saying I don't get the hypersensitivity is all. Doesn't make me a bad person.

It's much, much deeper than hypersensitivity for me, it's extremely personal. Playing history is one thing because time eventually heals (and softens) everything. Making amusement from current events going on right now is quite another.

 

I'm glad we are a free enough country for cocooned buffoons like this EA President (who likely has never known a day's discomfort in his life and gets all bent out of shape if his plane's late) to be able to squawk about his rights, his artistic blah blah blah. I'm also glad we're free enough for me to call him a filthy lying toerag, only interested in making a buck from the mindless out of the sacrifices of real people dying right now.

[The Holy Roller]

It's much, much deeper than hypersensitivity for me, it's extremely personal. Playing history is one thing because time eventually heals (and softens) everything. Making amusement from current events going on right now is quite another.

 

I'm glad we are a free enough country for cocooned buffoons like this EA President (who likely has never known a day's discomfort in his life and gets all bent out of shape if his plane's late) to be able to squawk about his rights, his artistic blah blah blah. I'm also glad we're free enough for me to call him a filthy lying toerag, only interested in making a buck from the mindless out of the sacrifices of real people dying right now.

 

Bingo!

 

I'm with you Ursa. Prayers always for your Marine.

[detlef]

I bet none of you have even played any of those series of games and as such, doubt you know much of what you are talking about.

Well, there's two sides to that, isn't there. There's the side of those of us who have not played these games (of which I include myself). Not sure, mind you, what insight I would gain doing so. I mean, I get it. You likely played the first 1000 or so times from the standpoint of the US storming the beaches, then you got bored with it and wanted to play the other side. And, hell, you can't play head to head without someone taking the side of the Germans, right? So, I understand this.

 

Then there's the side of those of us who are actually fighting in this current war or have family over there doing so. I actually don't fit into that category either but I'm going to let you in on a little secret, you don't have to look very far here at the huddle to find someone who does. Regardless, I don't think it is being oversensitive to say they "need" us to be a bit more respectful about what they are going through right now more than you "need" the ability to keep your gaming habit more fun and interesting by being able to switch over and play the side of the Taliban.

 

If I had to pick which side needs to get over themselves, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have a much easier time telling that to gamer dude than I am parent of kid in the war. But that's just me.

 

Nobody here thinks that this game will convert people to the Taliban. That's not the point. It simply comes down to showing respect to those who are fighting in a war, right this very moment, that their own countrymen not create games where they're being shot at. And, again, I'm not saying EA shouldn't be allowed to do so, I'm saying they shouldn't do so.

 

Oh, and another thing. What does the fact that this site is dedicated to Fantasy Football have to do with being sympathetic to role playing action games where you can choose to blow up US soldiers? How are the two even close to the same thing?

[WaterMan]

You mean "blowing up" colored pixels on a TV screen in the dark with the windows closed.

 

If Medal of Honor let you play as the Taliban throughout an entire single-player campaign, then we would have a real controversy on our hands. Imagine the reaction to a game that included a mission where you were cooperating with Al Qaeda during the siege of Tora Bora and had to protect Osama bin Laden while spiriting him to safety.

 

That is not what is going on here. Medal of Honor allows you to play as the Taliban only during multiplayer matches. In such matches there is no story — and no presumption of success. And there is no sense of character development. The job is to match wits with the other humans on the other end of the Internet and defeat them through coordination, tactics and execution under pressure. The actual identities of the combatants are no more meaningful than the choice of black and white in a chess game. (The seminal multiplayer online game Counter-Strike, one of the most popular team-based combat simulators, sets its two sides as terrorists and counterterrorists, without any explicit political identification.)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/arts/tel...on/02medal.html

Edited September 12, 2010 by WaterMan

[detlef]

You mean "blowing up" colored pixels on a TV screen in the dark with the windows closed.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/arts/tel...on/02medal.html

 

 

The actual identities of the combatants are no more meaningful than the choice of black and white in a chess game. (The seminal multiplayer online game Counter-Strike, one of the most popular team-based combat simulators, sets its two sides as terrorists and counterterrorists, without any explicit political identification.)

Says who? The guys who rationalize playing the game? Great, thanks for the insight, but I'll side with those who have family in harm's way and would appreciate a little more dignity.

 

If there's no back story, why have sides? Why not make it like the game Counter-Strike that they referenced, just two sides without political identification. Funny, they offer that up, seemingly to justify what EA is doing but it's really an argument for what EA should be doing.

[WaterMan]

Says who? The guys who rationalize playing the game? Great, thanks for the insight, but I'll side with those who have family in harm's way and would appreciate a little more dignity.

 

If there's no back story, why have sides? Why not make it like the game Counter-Strike that they referenced, just two sides without political identification. Funny, they offer that up, seemingly to justify what EA is doing but it's really an argument for what EA should be doing.

 

There's no back story for the Taliban, because(from what I've seen) all the Medal of Honor games have been in the shoes of the American soldier. That would defeat the title of the game series if the Taliban were the main focus plus a backstory and campaign to play through. All of the games have been about real wars.

 

I guess they ran out of American wars to make war games about. I think EA decided to do this because video games have gotten a free pass after Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton had their rants for 15 years and the only thing that happened out of that was the Everyone to Mature ratings.

 

And who's to say there's not active duty soldiers who are excited to play this? Medal of Honor has a huge following in the military and I don't think 100% of that following is going to boycott this game.

Edited September 12, 2010 by WaterMan

[detlef]

There's no back story for the Taliban, because(from what I've seen) all the Medal of Honor games have been in the shoes of the American soldier. That would defeat the title of the game series if the Taliban were the main focus plus a backstory and campaign to play through. All of the games have been about real wars.

 

I guess they ran out of American wars to make war games about. I think EA decided to do this because video games have gotten a free pass after Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton had their rants for 15 years and the only thing that happened out of that was the Everyone to Mature ratings.

 

And who's to say there's not active duty soldiers who are excited to play this? Medal of Honor has a huge following in the military and I don't think 100% of that following is going to boycott this game.

No, my point is, if there's truly no significance to which side you play, that's it's just like black and white in chess, why not make it more like the other game they referenced and just make it terrorist vs counter terrorist?

 

Because there is significance to which side you play, at least to those with a personal attachment to soldiers over there. You can pretend it's not the case, but there's some rather empirical evidence to suggest the opposite.