EA: New Medal of Honor Won't Be "Propaganda Piece"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I might just buy this game, but only if everyone has sweet beards in a variety of styles, and I get to play as that guy on the cover. Jus' sayin'.

I don't care what the game's about, the guy on the cover has an awesome frikkin' beard!

I'm not interested in what it will not be, I'm interested in what it will be.

How will this instalment of the MoH series will distance itself from it's nearest and most obvious competitor, MW2. Gameplay-wise, graphically, anything. I was already pretty sure it wouldn't be an "America, fuck yeah!" type of game, seeing as people are generally done with that nowadays.

Also, I already like the sub-title. Bearded Justice, I mean who doesn't want to play as a Lumberjack Commando?
image
OOH-RAH!!

Nickolai77:
4)Finally, America is the worlds most powerful economy. It's own domestic economy can confortably support highly American-centric games like the MOH series or Fallout 3. But on the other hand, non-American games developers, living in a country with lesser economic and cultural power, has to take a more international perspective and make a game that both non-Americans and Americans will be able to relate too. I will be very surprised if i ever came across a British made shooter or a combat flight sim about the Falklands War. However, for the sake of argument lets say the Falklands war involved America, if that was the case then i think we can surely say that there would be a number of American made games out there focused on the Falklands war. The Americans can make games about themselves, the only other nation that can do that is Japan. Other Western nations, like Australia and Canada, or even the economically united Europe can not compete with this, we can not make games specific to ourselves. Here's another exhample affirming Americans cultural dominance, Assasins Creed 2 is a Canadian made game with an American protaganist...why? Why wouldn't the Canadians make a game with a Canadian protaganist? It seems you need an increadibly powerful economy to have the freedom to make games about your own country or culture. America has that ability to make highly America-centric patrotic games, which is why we have seen games like MOH, telling the American story of WW2.

You make some very good points. But I wonder, is there such a thing as a japanise world war two game?

I dread to think what that could possibly be like.

Grubnar:

You make some very good points. But I wonder, is there such a thing as a japanise world war two game?

I dread to think what that could possibly be like.

See: Grave of the Fireflies

But seriously... Nickolai hit the nail on the head. It's about target audience. There's no telling if other games aren't already made like what you're talking about, but it would never be marketed out of the country of origin and therefore developing them would be economically questionable. It would literally have to be the best game ever made to get passed subject matter that depicts your grandparents as the "Evil Bad Guy". US Dev's don't have to worry about it because we can sustain our own game sales (see: MW2, GTA, et. al.) and break records all on our own.

I'd totally play it though just out of curiosity.

Im just waiting for the MOH game that has you killing Hitler in person while "America, Fuck Yeah" plays in the background.

Furburt:
Do you know what's going to happen now? The same thing that happened to 6 days in Fallujah. (which looked shite, so no big loss, but still)

Because it actually gives a balanced and rational view of the war, it's going to be shut down and protested against for somehow being 'disrespectful' to the soldiers who died in the war.

Don't quote me on this, but it's sadly a plausible outcome.

Does anyway.

I'm afraid this will happen also. It seems the only way you can actually get by in video games is making it totally unrealistic if it has violence in it. I'm guessing that since EA is such a massive brand it may not work out just like that though.

Now if only they can leave out any smarmy political commentary coming from the other side of things, it has the potential to be a good game.

Crunchy English:
Patriotism is an odd beast. I'm a Canadian and I honestly feel that I live in the greatest country on earth. Our health care system has saved the lives of people close to me, our education system is definitely adequate and violence, while not unheard of in any part of the nation, is very uncommon. Our low crime rate, the strict laws regarding gun ownership, humane prisons, the blocking of fundamentalist involvement in government, the list goes on and on. That said, getting a huge chant of "Go Canada!" or getting people to proudly sing the national anthem at the drop of a hat, that kind of pride doesn't run as deep with out country, we know full well the short-comings of our nation.

And while not extensively well-travelled, I know that there are things other countries do better than us. Denmark, for instance, is far more politically active, and as I understand it, that level or participation is found to varying degrees throughout Europe. And in other nations, were people are getting the economy back on its feet, a lot of nations offer free university education to citizens, now THAT's a progressive idea. So yes, I assume that I could come up with dozens if not hundreds of things other countries do better than us. I think most Canadians are acutely aware of that.

So how DOES a media, any media, anywhere in the world, successfully create a propaganda piece in the 20th century? If Hollywood continues to make back to back movies where in the first part Americans single-handedly wing the Second World War and in the sequel they fight the "Evil" Russians (how's that for revisionists' history?) how can they make money? I mean, sure it's a nice lie, but its pretty blatant manipulation and World War II is perhaps the most prevalant topic on the internet (after the porn). Anybody with so much as a dial-up connection already inherently knows that that's not how it happens. And I don't mean to pick on the Americans. At least free enterprise is responsible for most of its propaganda, which marginally superior to the state-sponsored propaganda found in the more unfortunate parts of the world.

Go Denmark!! go go, go Denma
sorry nationalism clouding my mind

"Bearded justice..."
Oh, Mister Funk, you do make me laugh sometimes.

I fail to see what's so bad about us sticking our red, white and blue combat boots up Hitler's ass. Or Osama Bin Laden or any of the other oppressive, murdering dickheads that are polluting the planet. But I imagine such discourse springs for the same anger that presents itself when an asshat Erik Estrada wannabe hands you a speeding ticket.

That being said, I doubt I would have bought the game regardless of the subject matter, as I find military shooters to be uninteresting. I just wanted to give our troops some much deserved love.

DirtyCommie:
Im just waiting for the MOH MW3 game that has you killing Hitler in person while "America, Fuck Yeah" plays in the background.

i think that correction is necessary.
yeah, it'll be in modern warfare 3, hilter was just cryogenicially frozen, data was in that satellite in MW2, and its his secret grandson was on the cargo ship in MW1.

activision/IW want to do this, i know.

i say cool, i found teh hurt locker to be an interesting movie, and to have that kind of 'realistic' style, but as a LOLOPERATOR doing LOLOPERATOR shooting stuff.

MR T3D:

DirtyCommie:
Im just waiting for the MOH MW3 game that has you killing Hitler in person while "America, Fuck Yeah" plays in the background.

i think that correction is necessary.
yeah, it'll be in modern warfare 3, hilter was just cryogenicially frozen, data was in that satellite in MW2, and its his secret grandson was on the cargo ship in MW1.

You know, I actually think they might do that. I wouldnt be that surprised.

To quote Yahtzee, MW2 does fuck political correctness over the head with an american flag wrapped around a baseball bat.

WanderFreak:

John Funk:
And I have a sinking feeling that people are going to completely miss the sarcastic tone in the first two or so paragraphs.

The internet is a wonderful place.

I'm quite glad. I have to give it to World at War for bringing it back to reality somewhat. The Americans didn't win the war single handedly, the best they did was storm a castle. The Russians pwned Germany like nothing else. It was nice to see a somewhat more open view on the war for a change. Hopefully with this one they'll follow suit and treat the enemy as more than waves of faceless enemies. Give it some actual weight.

Where Modern Warfare 2 went Hollywood, Medal of Honor needs to go arthouse.

While you're 100% correct that the US didn't "do it alone", I would be semi uncomfortable with the Soviet Union ever being portrayed as the stalwart hero b/c Stalin was just as if not more evil the Hitler, killing millions of his own citizens and solidifying communism, and creating a nightmare cold war that lasted til the late 80s/early 90s.

While I get the fact that the old Medal of Honor series over did the "My country tis of thee" thing, it does irk me that many Europeans are so quick to cry fowl. I get criticism from the countries and factions the US is currently in conflict in, but (the way it appears to me) many Europeans just like taking jabs at the US when nothing we do effects them. Sometimes, it even feels disrespectful for the number of US troops the died trying to liberate them (France, I'm looking directly at you with a strong stare)

The US has done some pretty fucked up things, and some questionable things in the last 200+ years, and most Americans will admit it, but if you look at the histories of France, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Russia, and the Netherlands, you'll see that they did the same kind of stuff, if not WORSE done in Africa, India, Asia, and to each other and their OWN populations.

Honestly, I love my European brothers and sisters, but I think this anti-American attitude is unfair. I understand being critical and disagreeing with some of our recent actions, but none of them should be strong enough to have you hate us for it.

EDIT: I don't know if the poster that I'm quoting is European or not... but this does go to other Americans as well...

I'm perfectly fine with a game not carrying any kind of "pro" or "anti" theme. In fact, that's the way it should be. Modern Warfare 2 did it fairly well, and I hope that Medal of Honor can follow suit. But I'm also really glad that in an industry that seems to lean to the left on occasion can do it without CRITICIZING the current wars or past officials.

Flimsii:

Onyx Oblivion:
Sweet. I was like of god-damn "GO AMERICA!" in games. An I'm an American, and a Republican.

oh your one of the XD lol i joke im not even american and im glad too see a game that doesnt have US marines beating there chests screaming "Hoo Raah" constantly.

arent republicans,bigot, war monger,bible bashers (thats what i hear from people) i'd like too hear from one if thats true...no offence XD

Nope. I'm a non-religious Republican.

I think the team should 'return to the source'.

MOH and MOH:U were a lot of fun.

Flimsii:

Onyx Oblivion:
Sweet. I was like of god-damn "GO AMERICA!" in games. An I'm an American, and a Republican.

oh your one of the XD lol i joke im not even american and im glad too see a game that doesnt have US marines beating there chests screaming "Hoo Raah" constantly.

arent republicans,bigot, war monger,bible bashers (thats what i hear from people) i'd like too hear from one if thats true...no offence XD

That's just what the hardcore liberals want people to think. The extremes of each side try to demonize each other. And I must say, they've done a pretty good job of splitting the country in half. You might hear bad things about republicans more often because young people and their internet tend to be a more liberal leaning.

Daystar Clarion:
I remember when I first played CoD 4 and I started off playing as a British S.A.S. soldier. I was like "Wait, England? But we're never the main characters!"

and then all the americans die
i (being british) was like "did that happen?"
i actually looked up whether the game designers were based in britain
also the russians live, and some of them are good, which is especially strange

Sir John The Net Knight:
I fail to see what's so bad about us sticking our red, white and blue combat boots up Hitler's ass.

ummm... the fact that you didnt?
russia captured berlin first, while the allies waited to the west for full time
im not saying america wasnt neccessary, as if they werent there ww2 would have been a victory for the germans
but, all joking aside, the same could be said for almost all, if not every, nation that took part, spreading the german, japanese and italian forces. in fact, america only joined when their own land was attacked, so the protectors of peace were actually only protecting themselves (prepares for some hate)
but russia took a big hit themselves, and derserve to be appreciated for it. they fought to the borders of their most famous city, the equivilent of new york really.
ww2 was not americas war. being british, and so probably very biased, i believe it was our war or the frances war. because there was a time when it was just britain against occupied europe

Asehujiko:
And EALA still doesn't realize that people won't care what they say until they admit that dissolving Westwood was a fucking retarded idea?

red alert 1 was a genius mix of gameplay and story, as much as you can in an rts
ra2 was (much) better in graphics, but the storyline confused me a bit. what time(line) are they in? so about even, maybe slightly worse
ra3 was a mind f*ck, and was basically porn, in a bad, selling-out oh-look-this-girl-isnt-doing-her-top-up way. and how does the timeline work? is this before ra1? before ra2?
the original developers must cry themselves to sleep

SavingPrincess:

Grubnar:

You make some very good points. But I wonder, is there such a thing as a japanise world war two game?

I dread to think what that could possibly be like.

See: Grave of the Fireflies

*headdesk*

OMFG That movie was on TV on Monday night and I completely forgot to watch it! I had it circled in the guide and everything! Man, I am so pissed off right now. Grahhhh...

OT: I've noticed they never ever feature Australians in war games. I expect the all Aussie adventures aren't quite as shiny or heroic as those about Americans or Russians. If they made a game about Gallipoli, I can imagine it would be something along the lines of "You are to run as fast as you can along this long stretch of land towards the heavily fortified Turkish strongholds into oncoming bullets. If you manage to make it all the way across, you get the achievement "Bullet-Proof", because nothing short of invincibility can possibility hope to help survive. Good luck."

Hmm. It occurs to me that a game in which one could rewrite history and give the ANZACs the upper hand might come across as either really inspirational, or just really insulting. I shall have to ponder on this further...

as long as the game has a good singleplayer and isn't tacked on like most fps games lately I'll be more then happy to pick this game up when I have the money.

Low Key:

Daystar Clarion:
I remember when I first played CoD 4 and I started off playing as a British S.A.S. soldier. I was like "Wait, England? But we're never the main characters!"

The very first CoD on consoles was like that. It went from a Russian soldier's missions, to a British soldier's, then to an American's.

Can't really argue that it was a fair representation. Russian campaign was mostly Stalingrad, British campaign was 3 missions with the Long Range Desert Group in North Africa, and American campaign was the longest going from France to the Battle of the Rhine crossings, which including among its bullshit a Black guy commanding an entire platoon of tanks, single-handedly clearing out entire villages full of enemy Panzers in a Sherman, engaging and destroying multiple 88mm guns (and able to take more than one shot from said tank-killers),clearing two houses full of Germans on foot, a single squad of Americans walking into a German town, engaging an (unarmed and open) German APC and a couple platoons of German soldiers, clearing the entire city, taking out a King Tiger with a single Panzerschrek rocket, escorting tanks and an armour bulldozer to the last bridge across the Rhine, and finally doing a one-man assault across the entire bridge, clearing out an entire tower full of German troops, and shooting down an entire wing of Stuka's using a quad-barrel AA machine gun. No mention of anyone else fighting in France (especially Canadians, the THIRD LARGEST COUNTRY fighting in West Europe). From what I've heard, similar non-US and non-Russian campaigns in later CoD games (especially the Canadian campaign in CoD3) were a massive joke and full of rather blatant mistakes (YOU GOT THE FUCKING FLAG WRONG IDIOTS). CoD4 looked to be changing that, then... CoD5 & 6.

Pyromaniac1337:

Low Key:

Daystar Clarion:
I remember when I first played CoD 4 and I started off playing as a British S.A.S. soldier. I was like "Wait, England? But we're never the main characters!"

The very first CoD on consoles was like that. It went from a Russian soldier's missions, to a British soldier's, then to an American's.

Can't really argue that it was a fair representation. Russian campaign was mostly Stalingrad, British campaign was 3 missions with the Long Range Desert Group in North Africa, and American campaign was the longest going from France to the Battle of the Rhine crossings, which including among its bullshit a Black guy commanding an entire platoon of tanks, single-handedly clearing out entire villages full of enemy Panzers in a Sherman, engaging and destroying multiple 88mm guns (and able to take more than one shot from said tank-killers),clearing two houses full of Germans on foot, a single squad of Americans walking into a German town, engaging an (unarmed and open) German APC and a couple platoons of German soldiers, clearing the entire city, taking out a King Tiger with a single Panzerschrek rocket, escorting tanks and an armour bulldozer to the last bridge across the Rhine, and finally doing a one-man assault across the entire bridge, clearing out an entire tower full of German troops, and shooting down an entire wing of Stuka's using a quad-barrel AA machine gun. No mention of anyone else fighting in France (especially Canadians, the THIRD LARGEST COUNTRY fighting in West Europe). From what I've heard, similar non-US and non-Russian campaigns in later CoD games (especially the Canadian campaign in CoD3) were a massive joke and full of rather blatant mistakes (YOU GOT THE FUCKING FLAG WRONG IDIOTS). CoD4 looked to be changing that, then... CoD5 & 6.

Well, it was originally an American game for an American audience by an American producer... so I would think the primary missions being American ones is an understandable thing.

Also, with regards to single soldiers killing boatloads of Germans... I remember seeing a History channel special about a group of precisely two Airborne troopers clearing a village of over eighty german troops in extremely close quarters combat. It's not that it happened a lot, but it's not unheard of... although the downing of an entire Stuka wing was just a wee bit excessive.

cobrausn:

Pyromaniac1337:

Low Key:

Daystar Clarion:
I remember when I first played CoD 4 and I started off playing as a British S.A.S. soldier. I was like "Wait, England? But we're never the main characters!"

The very first CoD on consoles was like that. It went from a Russian soldier's missions, to a British soldier's, then to an American's.

Can't really argue that it was a fair representation. Russian campaign was mostly Stalingrad, British campaign was 3 missions with the Long Range Desert Group in North Africa, and American campaign was the longest going from France to the Battle of the Rhine crossings, which including among its bullshit a Black guy commanding an entire platoon of tanks, single-handedly clearing out entire villages full of enemy Panzers in a Sherman, engaging and destroying multiple 88mm guns (and able to take more than one shot from said tank-killers),clearing two houses full of Germans on foot, a single squad of Americans walking into a German town, engaging an (unarmed and open) German APC and a couple platoons of German soldiers, clearing the entire city, taking out a King Tiger with a single Panzerschrek rocket, escorting tanks and an armour bulldozer to the last bridge across the Rhine, and finally doing a one-man assault across the entire bridge, clearing out an entire tower full of German troops, and shooting down an entire wing of Stuka's using a quad-barrel AA machine gun. No mention of anyone else fighting in France (especially Canadians, the THIRD LARGEST COUNTRY fighting in West Europe). From what I've heard, similar non-US and non-Russian campaigns in later CoD games (especially the Canadian campaign in CoD3) were a massive joke and full of rather blatant mistakes (YOU GOT THE FUCKING FLAG WRONG IDIOTS). CoD4 looked to be changing that, then... CoD5 & 6.

Well, it was originally an American game for an American audience by an American producer... so I would think the primary missions being American ones is an understandable thing.

Also, with regards to single soldiers killing boatloads of Germans... I remember seeing a History channel special about a group of precisely two Airborne troopers clearing a village of over eighty german troops in extremely close quarters combat. It's not that it happened a lot, but it's not unheard of... although the downing of an entire Stuka wing was just a wee bit excessive.

Operation Lumberjack did not happen that way, and the game conveniently leaves out the fact that the bridge (and one of the last links across the Rhine, the other being a rail bridge at Wesel) would have been lost had it not been for two Polish Wehrmacht conscripts cutting enough of the fuses to allow the Americans to get across.

"There's been a lot of really good movies - the Gotham Awards just came out and Hurt Locker was the top one,"

That pretty much sums up the entire EA board meeting when deciding what to do with the next Medal Of Honor. They could have stopped making crap ww2 games and started making decent ww2 games, but hey, it's so much easier to make a crap modern warfare game, right?

Lazarus Long:
I want to say there was a game that pulled Modern Warfare's "musical chair protagonist" gimmick, but switched you between different sides of the same conflict. If there wasn't, there should be. Something that plays with the fact that no one is a villain in their own eyes.

I'd like to see that too, but anyone who's played online with auto-team switch knows how jarring a sudden side shift can be. I think Battlestations: Pacific has the right idea- a campaign for each side, plus bonus special challenges for both teams.

Pyromaniac1337:
Operation Lumberjack did not happen that way, and the game conveniently leaves out the fact that the bridge (and one of the last links across the Rhine, the other being a rail bridge at Wesel) would have been lost had it not been for two Polish Wehrmacht conscripts cutting enough of the fuses to allow the Americans to get across.

Dude, it's a fucking video game. If you want a history lesson, go read a book.

Low Key:

Pyromaniac1337:
Operation Lumberjack did not happen that way, and the game conveniently leaves out the fact that the bridge (and one of the last links across the Rhine, the other being a rail bridge at Wesel) would have been lost had it not been for two Polish Wehrmacht conscripts cutting enough of the fuses to allow the Americans to get across.

Dude, it's a fucking video game. If you want a history lesson, go read a book.

When the game tries to pass itself off as historical, and most kids don't read books anyway, shit like this is wrong and should not be allowed to happen.

I'd argue about how historical literature can be as well, but that would lead to massive rant.

Ignignokt:

Flimsii:

Onyx Oblivion:
Sweet. I was like of god-damn "GO AMERICA!" in games. An I'm an American, and a Republican.

oh your one of the XD lol i joke im not even american and im glad too see a game that doesnt have US marines beating there chests screaming "Hoo Raah" constantly.

arent republicans,bigot, war monger,bible bashers (thats what i hear from people) i'd like too hear from one if thats true...no offence XD

That's just what the hardcore liberals want people to think. The extremes of each side try to demonize each other. And I must say, they've done a pretty good job of splitting the country in half. You might hear bad things about republicans more often because young people and their internet tend to be a more liberal leaning.

yeah true i also hear democrates are a bunch of pussies XD so yeah you do only hear the worst :P

Pyromaniac1337:

Low Key:

Pyromaniac1337:
Operation Lumberjack did not happen that way, and the game conveniently leaves out the fact that the bridge (and one of the last links across the Rhine, the other being a rail bridge at Wesel) would have been lost had it not been for two Polish Wehrmacht conscripts cutting enough of the fuses to allow the Americans to get across.

Dude, it's a fucking video game. If you want a history lesson, go read a book.

When the game tries to pass itself off as historical, and most kids don't read books anyway, shit like this is wrong and should not be allowed to happen.

I'd argue about how historical literature can be as well, but that would lead to massive rant.

In what way does it pass itself off as being historical? I have never heard anyone make that claim except people who think just because WWII is in the history books that everything regarding it has to be 100% factual. It's a video game about war, like Halo or Resistance. Another example would be Assassin's Creed. Geographically, it's pretty factual, but aside from that it's not. Do you have a problem with that game too? I mean, there were more than just Muslims and English christians in Jerusalem during that time, but the game made no mention of them.

And if you have a hard time believing what is in books, why do you think a video game about it should be any different? Your complaints make absolutely no sense and I think you just need to let it go. Don't buy the games if it makes you that angry.

Low Key:

Pyromaniac1337:

Low Key:

Pyromaniac1337:
Operation Lumberjack did not happen that way, and the game conveniently leaves out the fact that the bridge (and one of the last links across the Rhine, the other being a rail bridge at Wesel) would have been lost had it not been for two Polish Wehrmacht conscripts cutting enough of the fuses to allow the Americans to get across.

Dude, it's a fucking video game. If you want a history lesson, go read a book.

When the game tries to pass itself off as historical, and most kids don't read books anyway, shit like this is wrong and should not be allowed to happen.

I'd argue about how historical literature can be as well, but that would lead to massive rant.

In what way does it pass itself off as being historical? I have never heard anyone make that claim except people who think just because WWII is in the history books that everything regarding it has to be 100% factual. It's a video game about war, like Halo or Resistance. Another example would be Assassin's Creed. Geographically, it's pretty factual, but aside from that it's not. Do you have a problem with that game too? I mean, there were more than just Muslims and English christians in Jerusalem during that time, but the game made no mention of them.

And if you have a hard time believing what is in books, why do you think a video game about it should be any different? Your complaints make absolutely no sense and I think you just need to let it go. Don't buy the games if it makes you that angry.

Maybe because it, like Medal of Honour, actually act like it's historical and completely factual, never once even IMPLYING it's fiction. Even the shit that didn't happen is presented as being completely true.

As for books: First, don't jump to conclusions, kid. Second, it's not hard for me to believe literature when it's historically accurate. It's just most "history" books are written by Americans for Americans, full of bullshit and putting aside anyone that isn't them or Russia. The most historically accurate books I have are two Canadian books centering on the Canadian Forces, a book written by an American of Hungarian descent about the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the escape of Hungarians after the Russians brought in tanks, a book about the War of 1812 focusing on one Brit written by one of his (Canadian) descendants, Mein Kampf, and two books written from Winston Churchill's World War II memoirs. Of the American-made books I have, only two of them, Battles of the 20th Century and Great Military Figures of the Twentieth Century are historically accurate enough to deserve mention, and both of them focus more on Americans and tends to ignore or sideline important battles like Vimy Ridge, and while the second book does mention quite a few non-Americans, the majority of them were involved in some important way to American history, neatly glosses over America breaking it's promise to the Filipino's, and contains only one Canadian, Billy Bishop, while containing two American World War I pilots (Eddie Rickenbacker and some other pilot who wasn't actually important), while implying that Eddie scored more kills than Bishop.

... Damn it, I DIDN'T want to rant >_<

Pyromaniac1337:
snip

Kid? Junior, I'm almost 8 years older than you. If you'd like to degrade this to some sort of age related thing, you can argue with yourself. I have better things to do than get into it with a high school student who knows diddily about anything outside of his parent's basement.

Low Key:

Pyromaniac1337:
snip

Kid? Junior, I'm almost 8 years older than you. If you'd like to degrade this to some sort of age related thing, you can argue with yourself. I have better things to do than get into it with a high school student who knows diddily about anything outside of his parent's basement.

Figure of speech, learn it.

As for me knowing nothing outside of my second floor bedroom (yeah, thanks for the unnecessary generalization), you're argument is that CoD and MoA are video games and therefore exempt from historical scrutiny, that has nothing to do with how much history I know. Considering I have 50+ books on history at various times and from various viewpoints, my one Advanced Placement class in high school is Social Studies, and I'm planning on taking History in post-secondary, I laugh at your attempted insult.

Do you want to continue to debate your original point, or is this argument over with?

Sounds like a good idea to do it from a soldiers perspective since the reasons why they war happend are irrelevant they are only there because they have a job to do

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here