I know every last one of you has some games sitting around that you don't play or, alternatively, a fat wad of cash just looking for a decent cause. Well, this is your time to shine! Let the DTOID Army unite and bounce on over to
Cheap Ass Gamer, where you can donate your games to troops currently stationed in Fallujah! At the very least,
give CheapyD a Digg and let others do the work!
No matter what your stance on the war, I think we can all agree that Fallujah is not a place that most of us would currently like to be. Rather than get a meager Gamestop store credit or let your unplayed games continue to gather dust, why not send them to some guys who could really use a distraction? Any games (new or used) and consoles can be mailed to:
SK1 Shane Neuhaus
30 NCR DET 1
FPO AP 09381-1702
Fortunately, there is no need to worry about excessive shipping charges to this address; it is treated as any other US address. So, a standard bubble mailer with game should run about $1.40-1.80 and a flat rate priority box, for those larger donations, can be shipped for $8.95 at your local post office.
Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, PLAYSTATION 3, PlayStation Portable, Wii, and DS games are preferred. All further questions can be directed to shane.neuhaus@tq.mnf-wiraq.usmc.mil.
(# 0) on 02/05/2008 10:10
(# 1) on 02/05/2008 10:15
(# 2) on 02/05/2008 10:15
(# 3) on 02/05/2008 10:19
(# 4) on 02/05/2008 10:21
(# 5) on 02/05/2008 10:37
(# 6) on 02/05/2008 11:02
(# 7) on 02/05/2008 11:03
(# 8) on 02/05/2008 11:24
(# 9) on 02/05/2008 11:26
I'm surprised you haven't gotten games for doing your job--you're certainly in the right business for it.
(# 10) on 02/05/2008 11:45
I'm inclined to agree with you.
(# 11) on 02/05/2008 12:03
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a have to hook'in fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
How are we helping the troops by giving them our games? Will they be using them as armor?
(# 12) on 02/05/2008 12:17
(# 13) on 02/05/2008 12:24
(# 14) on 02/05/2008 12:28
There are more kinds of help than body armor.
(# 15) on 02/05/2008 12:57
I dunno, it's not like I don't recognize it's a tough job, but it's a JOB -- one they chose. They are there because that's what they signed up for. I think it's cool you wanna give them something, but I don't think it's dickish not to, and I think there's a lot of undue worship that gets given to the military.
(# 16) on 02/05/2008 13:02
Can't wait till I have kids and I don't have the money or the time to play games. I expect all of you to send me the latest XBox 720 games.
(# 17) on 02/05/2008 13:24
My intent was simply to grab some attention and point out a decent cause. If, for whatever reason, people don't support the cause, don't help. I, personally, have no connection to the military and I think war is typically the result of a failure in negotiation and the political process. That said, I do think troops oversea are doing a particularly difficult job in a conflict that many Americans don't believe in--have we learned nothing from First Blood?
I don't think that giving away games to troops is any different from donating things to teachers or any other overworked and underpaid profession. Yes, it is a job, but it's an immensely difficult job that has universal social value--what's the harm in helping or even pointing out a cause?
Sending games to troops doesn't mean you support the war or a you're a warmonger or you hate the world--it means you're willing to help those that may need it. People join the military for a variety reasons and I'm sure that many troops don't want to be in Iraq just as much as we want them to come home. If there was a videogame-related charity for teachers or garbage men or any other group, I'd be more than happy to contribute. I just don't believe this one is less worthy than others because you don't like war.
(# 18) on 02/05/2008 13:34
Oh wait, were you kidding, Jim? I thought you get free games for working at Destructoid.
(# 19) on 02/05/2008 13:35
I just see a lot of people moaning about the "plight" of "the troops" and it makes me sick. If this was the age of conscription, they'd have a point, but this isn't the age of conscription. They made the decision, they knew the risks. While I don't revel in what they have to do, I certainly do not see it as a "plight." That's just bleeding-heart bullshit.
If a lion tamer gets savaged by a lion, it was his decision to walk into a cage with a gigantic killer cat. Same logic applies.
(# 20) on 02/05/2008 13:38
(# 21) on 02/05/2008 13:46
Totally agree with the logic bit but here's stuff from another perspective...
Sometimes people don't have a choice but to sign up. The reasons are endless. Not everyone can say no and not everyone can resist pressure. Guess that's what seperates a games blogger and a soldier.
The reason why "plight" applies is perhaps if you ever thought about it, someone decides to forsake a civilian life to go out and (apparently) protect the "liberty" and "freedom" we all (apparently) have.
(# 22) on 02/05/2008 13:58
And please, enough of this freedom crap. Anyone that thinks this war is about giving freedom to the freedomless needs to do some reading, or they just believe killing a "freedomless" civilian is giving them freedom.
(# 23) on 02/05/2008 14:00
Agree with you totally. But that's how a few idiots i know see it. The brainwashing is pathetic.
(# 24) on 02/05/2008 14:02
I completely understand your logic, but I think this is a significantly different scenario. While a lion tamer assumes a risk in his career, he does it for his own personal gain and whatever harm befalls him is his own plight. Military men and women also assume a risk when they enlist, but, for many, the decision to enlist is not a decision made for personal gain or "thrills." Instead, the choice to enlist often times comes from an inner sense of "duty," whether you agree with that mindset or not is irrelevant, to serve their country. Because military men and women assume this risk for a societal benefit (rather than personal gain or thrill seeking), I don't think it's unreasonable to have a desire to help.
I, again, return to the "teachers" example because they are another group that is poorly reimbursed for performing a job that is an essential public service. Yes, teachers know that they are entering a field that does not pay particularly well, but many of them do it because it's societal necessity and they feel a sense of "duty" to community. It's this same social benefit that rallies individuals to donate millions each year to primary school teachers in the United States.
Again, I don't think you or anyone else is a dick for not donating. I chose my words poorly, but helping those in need is nearly always a noble cause--whether it be their "fault" or not--particularly when the assistance is something as insignificant as donating a few old games. All things aside: Jim, you're still one of my favorites.
(# 25) on 02/05/2008 14:19
Have you heard of the US Stop-Loss policy? Many troops who enlisted and don't support this war effort or desire to stay in service have had their enlistment contracts involuntarily extended through stop-loss. These people aren't brainwashed and aren't in a war they want to be a part of.
Furthermore, please don't make this a discussion about "freedom" and whether or not the war and occupation are justified. That's not at the core, or even the periphery, of what we are actually discussing here.
(# 26) on 02/05/2008 15:26
HarrassmentPanda: Whether or not it's a service is irrelevant. Joining the army might be a more "noble" pursuit than lion taming, but the logic remains the same -- you know the risks when you make the decision, and if you don't then you're stupid. Just because one career may be more "worthy" than the other, that doesn't mean you're naive if you think you won't run the risk of getting into trouble.
It's not a plight. It's really not that I don't appreciate their sense of duty (I don't understand it, but I appreciate it), but I don't feel sorry for them doing the job they agreed to do.
(# 27) on 02/05/2008 19:21
I think it's fair to give more honor to military personnel. I mean, I could never do it, put my life on the line, all that stuff. The fact that someone can actually willingly choose to do something that will very likely end with him either getting painfully wounded or killed, well, I have to respect that. As either a coward or a pacifist (I haven't decided yet), I'm not currently capable of making that choice.
That said, I understand your point.