Let’s pass on the real motivations of the protesters and whether or not the military should advertise itself to those under 18 just for a moment and talk about the “law” the protesters say the U.S. government is violating.

The very first thing that bothered me was the terminology “optional protocol”. How many laws are “optional”? Well the U.N. defines that phrase for us on its website: A protocol is ‘optional’ because it is not automatically binding on States that have already ratified the original treaty; States must independently ratify or accede to a protocol.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Definitions.pdf

The U.S. did sign and ratify it several years later (under the present administration) with no reservations (http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf). If you click the link, notice how many and which countries did NOT sign and ratify the protocol – the actual meaning of which is an order to States to not arm and force children (under 18) into hostilties.

Very few Middle Eastern (including Iran, Iraq, & Israel) countries signed it (at least by 2004) and I think it’s fair to say many (perhaps most) “third world” countries did not, esp. those in Africa – where children are routinely used in armed conflicts in some areas.

So the “law” written to keep children out of armed conflicts was pretty much only signed by those countries who do not use children in armed conflicts or think they will never need to (looking at you here Israel).

ATTENTION ALL THOSE WHO FEEL RAPE IS WRONG!! PLEASE SIGN THIS PIECE OF PAPER STATING YOU WILL NOT RAPE. YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FORTHWITH! everbody else who like to rape, or think they might, go about your raping – have a nice day

And always read the fine print. The “S” means they signed it but never ratified (that means “approved” kids) it – for example, Russia.

Those 20 protesters in SF would have done far more good for humanity and impressed me morally had they gone to any of the non-signatory countries’ embassies or consolates and protested, particularly those with a history of arming children. Instead, they basically threw shit on America and protested an out-of-date video game. Rah fucking rah! Power to the people! Yeah!

To finish this blog o’mine on a humorous note, you have to love the Brits. Here’s their addendum to the protocol: The United Kingdom understands that article 1 of the Optional Protocol would not exclude the deployment of members of its armed forces under the age of 18 to take a direct part in hostilities where: – a) there is a genuine military need to deploy their unit or ship to an area in which hostilities are taking place;

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty17.htm

For you special ed students, that means “we’re agreeing to not send children into armed conflict unless we need to”.

As to whether or not the game targets 13 year olds….and by that right this game, to a typical 13 year old, should be the same as playing any other first person shooter. Plus you cannot join the armed forces until you are at least 18 years old and by that time you should be mature enough to make your own decisions. And I would hope that a logically thinking individual would not base a life decision on what they experienced in a video game.

Go Marlins!!!!

Ii would argue that AA is also entertainment.. I don’t know of a single person I’ve met who joined the service because of a video game so I guess as a recruitment tool its pretty flawed.. as an awareness tool it seems to be doing the same job as the other games.

Personally I think if it encourages a young person to take the oath to serve to protect and defend their country this is a good thing. Excusing the politics of the current president and congress, why is encouraging national service a negative? Being a soldier is not something that makes you a killer.. that’s Vietnam era hippie logic.

Americas Army is an official recruitment tool, COD and the other titles mentioned aren’t. They exist purely for entertainment not to groom people into becoming soldiers.

The entire purpose of Americas Army’s existence is to recruit people and as such its essentially the start of their military training. That’s where the problem lies. Kids as young as 13 are essentially being trained and groomed by stealth by the US Army.

That is a fact. Whether it breaks any laws or conventions is highly debatable and I personally don’t believe it does however it IS morally corrupt.

So, how do these fall in. The America’s Army game is rated T because it doesn’t have graphic content, but you do have to say you’re 18 to play it.

The military has always tried to brainwash young folks though since the draft disappeared, this shouldn’t be news to anyone.

I fell its false logic that we see applied to a lot of discussions about entertainment forms – especially gaming. Why would AA be any more a converter than say Left 4 Dead or Battlefield?