Citizenry and troop deployment

Over the past 40 or so years, there has been an increasing amount of citizen-based objection towards the deployment of combat troops around the world. America’s involvement in Vietnam served to highlight this problem, and was largely the initiating force behind it. My own personal theory, a view held by I’m sure many, is that the increasing awareness caused by the media forms has served to demonstrate the nature of war to those at home, creating a sense of disparity and disillusionment.

The Second Indochina War, more commonly known as the Vietnam War, was granted the name “The Television War”, because it observed the introduction of live broadcasted footage from the front. This allowed those not actively participating, to catch a glimpse of the nature, and the precise, not always likeable details of the progression of the conflict. While providing a way of closely tracking the progress of the war, this combination of war and media creates a number of immediate problems.

Firstly, the anti-war movements that occurred in not only America, but across a number of participating factions engaged in the Vietnam War, are a violent demonstration of the effect of media warfare coverage. The coverage granted the public a viewing over the war, and allowed many to take a justified standpoint opposing the way the US forces were engaging in the conflict. Public opinion was at an all time low.

This, in turn created trouble within the troops that were fighting, as it is understandable that they became increasingly disillusioned as to why they were fighting for people who opposed their actions. Many Vietnam War veterans still feel this disillusionment to the day.

Similarly, the US engagement of forces in Iraq seems to be having a similar effect on today’s America, as well as the international coverage of other global conflicts around the world.

My opinion is that whether or not we support the government’s decisions, we should offer support to those troops that are fighting for their nation.

Anyone bearing an opinion on the matter feel free to step forward and let it be known below. Thanks everyone

Violence in video games

Another widespread, contemporary social issue is the presence of violence in video games. In Australia for example, there is currently no “R” rating for video games; that is, when a game is deemed to be under the “R” classification, then it cannot be legally sold or distributed. This is a unique situation, which is at the current time bringing a lot of the argument I have raised into very prominent political debate. Should Australia have an “R” rating? Is the amount of violence currently seen in many games too much?

The main argument against allowing the “R” rating, and subsequently the amount of highly mature themes (being mainly violence, drug use, sex etc), is the high level of interactivity that video gaming grants to the user. Sure, movies and television programs incorporate a large deal of these themes as well, but gaming allows the gamer to actively engage in acts of extreme violence, and outlandish acts of generally unacceptable social behaviour. The extreme of this was reached when Infinity Ward released their latest installment in the Call of Duty franchise, the highly popular Modern Warfare 2. In one of the opening sequences, the plot guides the user into engaging in a direct act of terrorism, running rampage through an airport, killing anyone and anything in their way. Not a particularly pleasant message to be sending out to our young people really.

On the other hand, there are also a number of reasons FOR allowing “R” ratings and violence in the game industry. Firstly, Australia is the only place without this classification, and so we have been slightly left in the dark with regards to these games. Secondly, many fail to realize that the average age of the active gamer is now low-mid thirties, a far cry from the stereotyped gamer; a slightly chubby young teenager yelling at his X-box out of rage. Many of this grouping are therefore above the age of 18, and so should come to expect access to the same range of games available anywhere else in the world. Another potential point to raise is the required informed decision to be made by the parents should a young person wish to purchase one of these games in question. If the person is socially/mentally unstable, then surely it’s the parent’s responsibility to identify that, and realize that allowing them to engage in acts of digitalized violence is perhaps not the best idea.

Once again, this is no simple matter to resolve. People come from differing backgrounds, differing levels of religious engagement and differing social perspectives. It is therefore understandable that not everyone agrees on this issue. In offering my own opinion, I feel that if someone is over the required age to purchase such games, then it is their decision. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy it. If they are below this age, then it is up to the parents/guardians of the child to make an informed decision as to whether they wish this content to be granted use by their children. Any thoughts?