Gulf War 2

January 27, 2003 11:07 AM

Not really a game, but is scary/funny:This is a projection of the most likely outcome of a new war in the Gulf. I used sophisticated temporal algorithms and historical semiotic analysis to achieve an accuracy rating of 99.999%. It's the mother of all Flash games.
posted by samelborp (31 comments total)

Wow... Twisted.
posted by dazed_one at 11:19 AM on January 27, 2003

I was actually just about to post this, but was put off by the new WARNING on the Post a Link page. When I went back to the front page, here it was.

Now that samelborp has bitten the bullet, my question was, does this really provide a service in showing in a very visual way how unintended consequences might crop up, or is it just a fancy way of dressing up someone's paranoid predictions?
posted by soyjoy at 11:30 AM on January 27, 2003

Anyone notice how in this little animation Iraq did have WMD (and therefore the US/UN had justification)? No offence to the author but that's kind of self defeating...
posted by PenDevil at 11:32 AM on January 27, 2003

Lots of countries have WMD, and bad people running them. George Bush is going to have to do better than that in the minds of the rest of the world to justify his little adventures.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:37 AM on January 27, 2003

I'm kind of annoyed it's not actually a game. It had such great graphics; I thought it was gonna be like a mini "Axis & Allies" thing. Overall, it's a cute alternative to the usual blog entires about everyone's worst-case scenario predictions.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:40 AM on January 27, 2003

It'd be nice if this kind of thing had some real-world references. Its entertaining and all, but is it any different than some pundit rattling off chicken-little prophecy?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 11:44 AM on January 27, 2003

That was a well-plotted piece of non-claptrap that never made me want to retch. Retch my pancakes, of course. The pancakes that I love so dearly.

Seriously, haven't we seen every idea in this 6.02*10^23 times before in Guardian editorials?

Some people think a war is justified, and others don't. The ones who disagree with me are poopyheads who are either stoopid l00sers or wilfully evil.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! That's what I say.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:45 AM on January 27, 2003

Anyone notice how in this little animation Iraq did have WMD (and therefore the US/UN had justification)? No offence to the author but that's kind of self defeating...

I think the point is that it's not really justified if the consequences are that terrible.
posted by Hildago at 11:55 AM on January 27, 2003

Hildago: Remember the Iraqi Republican Guards? Remember how everyone thought they were going to put up a helluva fight and introduce the US to true desert warfare and make it a really tough battle?

Massive speculation like this is just that. Massive speculation. A animation showing the war over in 2 weeks with little fighting and no flare ups would probably be just as accurate at the moment.
posted by PenDevil at 12:02 PM on January 27, 2003

I was annoyed it wasn't a game as well. I was already moving my Kurds in position (always wanted to say), when the game started to play for itself.

What fun is a war if you can't even influence it?
posted by sebas at 12:02 PM on January 27, 2003

Colin Powell is on tv (3:02 eastern time) with the reaction to the weapons inspectors' report.

He says time is running out. You can take your best guess as to what that means.

I don't feel good about it.
posted by konolia at 12:13 PM on January 27, 2003

Slippery-slope fantasy with loads of unproductive conjecture.

(I loved it)
posted by cadastral at 12:34 PM on January 27, 2003

What fun is a war if you can't even influence it?

Exactly.
posted by soyjoy at 12:38 PM on January 27, 2003

I'm kind of annoyed it's not actually a game.

With all the advisors popping up, I thought I was playing SimWorld 2003 Unlimited.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:38 PM on January 27, 2003

Its entertaining and all, but is it any different than some pundit rattling off chicken-little prophecy?

Looks like you answered your own question, there.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:45 PM on January 27, 2003

Well, I was disappointed the author didn't have the guts to take it all the way! Why did he build up all this tension in the middle east and then stop? What about the Islamic Republic of Arabia's 5 nukes and Pakistant vs. India? I would have like to see all of those go up and then some nukes hit Europe.
posted by PigAlien at 12:45 PM on January 27, 2003

I would have like to see all of those go up and then some nukes hit Europe.

I was expecting the "camera angle" to begin to steadily widen myself...
posted by badstone at 12:50 PM on January 27, 2003

i got tired of hitting 'continue', my mouse finger hurts.
posted by tomplus2 at 12:52 PM on January 27, 2003

What fun is a war if you can't even influence it?

That would make for a funny bumper sticker, Sebas.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:18 PM on January 27, 2003

Very cute illustrations

PigAlien you asked my question

I agree the game should go "all the way"

So according to this game it looks like the "nuking" will spread with Al Queda reps to London and to NYC

BUT then our US power will nuke the hell out of the whole Arabian continent (mean no sign of any living being there)
By that time Israel will be more or less dead too

And in the end USA will emerge as the winner

Can we still use the oil from radio-active territories ?
posted by bureaustyle at 1:30 PM on January 27, 2003

Most people aren't doubting that the war with Iraq will be over quickly, the question is what the costs of that war will be. Odds are pretty fucking good that Saddam will go running to save his own ass and he'll light up every oil pipe in Iraq and use every baby he can find as a human shield to cover his tracks. The fundamentalist world will blame the US for real and imagined war crimes.

The scenario portrayed in the animation is exaggerated, but the moral isn't. Here's our choice America, what makes you feel less safe: A selfish sociopath with a few, and possibly none, petty weapons of "mass destruction" or several million freshly indoctrinated suicide bombers?

It's called the cycle of violence, people.
posted by Skwirl at 1:54 PM on January 27, 2003

I, for one, welcome the prospect of Judy Woodruff getting wet on national TV.
posted by alumshubby at 2:20 PM on January 27, 2003

I thought the war wasn't on until February 21st?
posted by Berend at 2:25 PM on January 27, 2003

Berend, that's gotta be about the right date.

The last major unit, the 4th infantry division, is scheduled to arrive in the region on on the 14th. No word on where they'll disembark, but the best guess is Turkey. Give them a week to uncrate and check out their equipment and move to forward positions.

That's the 21st.

The only question is - will they wait till then to start the air war, or will they start it sooner?
posted by Jos Bleau at 2:53 PM on January 27, 2003

Needs more French.
posted by chipr at 3:19 PM on January 27, 2003

In regards to "worst-case scenarios," Salon has a pretty good set of those, two of which are about the WCS for Iraq and the Middle East. (obedience to the almighty Mercedes ad required)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:57 PM on January 27, 2003

"Needs more French."

The French were there chipr, right until the first gunshot. Then they promptly surrendered.
posted by dazed_one at 5:42 PM on January 27, 2003

...beat me to it.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:19 PM on January 27, 2003

According to my sources (ahem) all UK transport planes have to be services by the beginning of Feb and all special services (ie, SAS etc) by the middle of Feb.

Their guess is that it will be war between 21st and 28th... probably nearer to the 21st.
posted by twine42 at 12:36 AM on January 28, 2003

The good thing is, you don't have to program your TiVo to record it, as we will be showed re-runs of missiles hitting bunkers at least 700 times.
posted by sebas at 12:49 AM on January 28, 2003

Yeah. "Bunkers", carefully taken out with "precision bombing" by people who've grown up with "simulations" that distance themselves physically and emotionally from the "collateral damage".

As entertaining as that was, I think painting the war as some kind of game is about as helpful as painting Bush as an idiot. Neither are true, and both are incredibly dangerous.

How about a nice game of chess?
posted by bwerdmuller at 2:11 AM on January 28, 2003