You miss the point that AH is a game. That war is by theoretically and practically supposed to be unfair, which is what a game is supposed to not be.
Two groups in conflict choosing to resolve their differences thru games, are not at war.
The war games used for training are war games -- Games. No one is killed.
That people get a kick out of war doesn't change the fact that it's war, and not a game.
Using an AF simulator isn't war -- there's a reset button. You could argue that it is virtual war because it's not meant to be fair IE it's meant to reflect WAR conditions, but there's your amalgamation: that's just what AH does not intend to reflect.
The politically correct quip is irrelevant, just an opportunistic snipe.
You've taken a bunch of different contexts and meanings to words IE semantics, and mixed em all together indiscriminately to get the result that supports your POV.
Who said war was supposed to be unfair? What definition of war did you find that in? What definition did you find that said warfare required death?
I am perfectly capable of seeing that AH is a game. A game that simulates warfare. I never said an AF simulator was a real life war, it is simulated war. No it is not always programmed to be unfair. They use multiple scenarios and they are not ALWAYS set up to be "unfair" scenarios.
By EVERY CRITERIA in the definition that hitech himself posted, AH is warfare. TECHNICALLY it is not even a "simulation" because again, the game fits the DEFINITION of warfare. It is a video game that has a sole purpose of allowing players to engage in a war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whether it is on the ground, in the air, or on the water, players engage in warfare.
All of your twisted, excessive, vainglorious verbiage doesnt change the fact that several people, for some ridiculous reason, are arguing that AH is not a war simulation. Im done. Call it what you want. When you get webster to change the definition, you can have it your way.
Spend some time talking to the guys who got shot at for real, and then come back and tell me that it was fun for them.
I could quote any number of Spitfire pilots I've talked to, but I'll refer to my Nephew who is with the 101st in Afghanistan and has seen a lot of combat. His comment, in all seriousness, and in reference to having killed and having watched friends die was that 'it wasn't any video game'.
Going in, lots of folks romanticize war. Coming out, those that survive, don't.
The politically correct comment was completely relevant and Guppy here just proved it. He is following the politically correct doctrine by pointing out the many men who have seen warfare and came away with haunting experiences. The truth is, the vast majority of vets will probably come away with those feelings.
As you should have seen, I didnt say ALL men enjoyed war. I didnt even say it had to be a sane man who likes war. But that doesnt change the fact that there is a small percentage of men who enjoyed it. How many spec ops guys did multiple combat tours in Vietnam when they didnt have to? I knew one. He didnt romanticize it, but he neither did he shy away from talking about his experiences and even laughed at memories. He didnt bow his head in some politically correct display of grief or regret. He enjoyed his combat experiences and military service and that's why he made a career out of the Army for at least another eleven years that I know of. And now I'm done with the ridiculous tangent!
