Support War weekend again

Excuse me SOE, I thought we had that discussion last year and it was pretty controversial. This year I thought you guys have learned and put only the bundles for supporting the goals of that foundation, but you once again spend money for every transaction.

If you reply please do it in a mannerly way - thx.

please explain what is so controversial:

The Travis Manion Foundation has a national reputation for developing innovative programs that transform communities through service and honoring those who serve. Their Mission is to assist and commemorate America's veterans and the families of Fallen Heroes through the use of Challenge Grants, the Character Does Matter program, and the 9/11 Heroes Run, which includes teams at the Marine Corps Marathon, and supporting marathons and runs on military bases in Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, Navy ships at sea, and other international locations.

Supporting veterans and service members isn't the same as supporting war.

You are mainly supporting an organization that supports warfare, by taking away responsibility from the government. Further it isn't an anti war supporter as it glorifies military (at least they don't represent like that).
This may be totally different from what they "really" do, but all I can see is the website. As a lot of people told on last year thread there are so many better organisations to fund because this game is not all American.

@Elrobochanco
I understand that American welfare system is mostly privatized so you have to be in one of the groups of interest to get more them basic support, but this should not take away responsibility from the government to care for casualties happen in their service.

As I told, its OK to have the bundles, if you like to support, then buy them, buy 10, 20 or pledge directly but this game is played around the world and people may have different opinions on the last few wars.

I fully agree with the OP.

I'm here to play a game not to support the military force of a country spying the communications of my country.

Also I was thinking politics were forbidden here and what is more "politics" than supporting a military force ?


PS: I'm in a no-way an "anti-war gonzo leftist".

OK, are you upset because this is an american charity, or are you upset because SOE refuses to put down, demean, and neglect service members like this country did during vietnam?

Are there better charities? sure, probably so. there are a 1000 different charities for 1000 different causes, however, the travis manion foundation not only fails to endorse warfare (as you ignorantly suggest), but its sole function is to place aid, and support for service members, and their families. This is not a political group, and it is NOT a special interest group. It has no political affiliations, and as far as i have read, makes NO (as in NONE) comments on foreign affairs. This means that the travis foundation does NOT endorse war (thats a VERY abstract, and silly notion), and it does NOT make going to war a more viable, or easy option, by taking weight off of the government of the united States. Its sole function is to help those a specific demographic, effected by USA's decision to get involved in multiple conflicts/wars/

Just because a charity doesnt cater to your preference, it doesnt mean that said charity is a detriment to society. There are only a handful of charities that I can think of that are actual detriments, and thats simply because they are special interest groups with a "non-profit" sticker slapped on them.

This thread will likely be locked, and for good reason. Political idealism should not be on these forums.

Well, regardless of political problems this is about helping families and veterans- not the actual war. I don't really think this matters whether you are with or against war, the cause seems good.

*facepalm*

do you understand that there is a rather large difference between a countries foreign policy, and the people that get sent to act on it? I mean right? Private John Smith did NOT make the decision to go to war in Iraq. Lt. Paul Jones did NOT create the NSA surveillance program.

Supporting military personnel is NOT a political issue. In fact, under the correct circumstances, its exactly the opposite. its something we can all stand behind. When people ignorantly connect the members of a military service, to the decisions of POTUS and congress, we create a political environment that negatively effects the wrong people, which is the service members.

If you have a problem with this countries leadership (which i understand), neglecting service member charities, and even chastisingthose that get involved, is NOT the right approach to solving the problems.

Fantasy war game supports war veterans.

@MichaelS That's fair. I'm not from the US, but yes the need for regular citizens to take care of the end result of government decisions is a pretty poor state of things. Though really if you cared to support the charities I'd just donate directly, or choose another. The % split to them is pretty paltry.


Things in here looks pretty ok so far, but I'm just going to say this is probably going to get moved to off topic.

Then stop playing the game. Really OP, do us all yourself a favor.

US personnel are sent to war by the elected officials that the PEOPLE vote for. Therefor it is not the responsibility of merely the government to care for the veterans, but everyone. Not to mention not all veterans who have been injured in service have been injured in war. But in peacetime relief efforts and natural disasters as well as normal training.

Sorry I'm going to say it. The OP is a POS that wants to see a return of how veterans were treated in the 60s. Using some veiled excuse of responsibility. As a veteran myself I don't want to see that crap happen to me, or my collective brothers and sisters across the services.

You have 2 choices:

1. Don't buy anything during that time period so you are in fact boycotting said issue.

2. "Use your imagination here" !

That is, in my opinion, as mannerly as your inflaming post deserves.

SOE could just do one pro-war fundraiser, and follow it up the next week with an anti-war fundraiser. That'd be fair.

Like a fundraiser for Wikileaks, Assange, Manning, or Snowden.

Then don't buy anything. If you want to debate privitazation and the failing of the US to create a baseline standard of living that's one thing, but if you want that to preclude anybody getting help then you're extremely misguided in your beliefs.

Personally I'd say that the veterans who would be benefited by this are, at least a majority of the ones I know, the least likely to be pro-war rahrahrah people in the coming decades.

He's not misguided. He knows exactly what he is saying. Its a veiled attempt on his part to project hate and jealousy towards vets. Plain and simple.

I'm just not comfortable with so much RL in this(Including Sports or too specific celebrations), or causes less than global like the US military and its people. No offense.

XMass sales? OK. Summer sales? OK. Patriot Camo? Not OK. Soccer stuff? Not OK. Politics? Definitely not. If SOE wants to make a Fund Raiser they have other ways, and they should advertise such a thing if they ever do it so we can take part if we want to. But this kind of In-Your-Face/Game is too aggressive and too specific.

Too much RL, to sum it up. I'd say the exact same things if they were done for stuff relative to where I live.

Ehhh... in a weird, inhumane way you can affect policy by abusing veterans.

Say we treat veterans terribly after they get back home. Turn them all out into the street. Don't offer any VA services.

What happens? Our streets are flooded with homeless and ill veterans. No honor, no glory. It gets on the news.

Then any young person who ever wanted to enlist or become an officer looks at it, and thinks to themselves, "naw, as much as I love my country I don't want to end up like that". So they never enlist or do ROTC or OCS.

As a result the manpower of the US military falls, and politicians in charge of making military decisions are faced with a few choices:
1) Keep fighting wars with undermanned forces, which might result in greater defeat or more losses (all politically unpopular)
2) Implement a draft system to boost manpower (politically unpopular)
3) Don't fight as many wars

I bet if you significantly decreased the number of active military personnel and the number of new enlistees, the US overall would be doing much less foreign intervention.

And in a weird way, achieving this through abusing veterans would be more effective than the traditional political avenues like voting or lobbying.

Not that it would be fair to veterans. But if it's an "end justifies the means" thing, then there probably is a relationship between how you treat veterans and how often you (can afford to) fight wars.

TROLL THREAD!!!! TROLL THREAD!!!! TROLL THREAD!!!! I commend you SOE. The gesture is much appreciated. To our service members I would say I thank you for your service. To the families of Fallen Heroes you have my sympathy and my prayers. As a United States Marine I expect no praise and certainly not anyone's understanding why I serve as I do. You may debase me as you wish and I will say nothing but thank you Ma'am or Sir. It is a sensitive topic and many players do not want to think of such things or be conflicted over whether they are supporting WAR or not.

Again I thank you SOE and appreciate your efforts in regards to the Foundation.

As others have said; just don't spend any SC during the event and you won't be supporting this charity that helps wounded/KIA veterans and their families. You are not forced to contribute.

Personally, I will go out of my way to make SC purchases this weekend because I want to support veterans and their families. I also support and applaud SOE for creating this event that will no doubt help a lot of people.

OP: Get off your political high horse. You can contribute to a soup kitchen without supporting the drug addictions and bad choices of many of people that are fed there. (Just an analogy, don't read too much into it.)

First world problems.

On a serious note I think this should be about respecting people's choices. From reading this thread it sounds like any SC purchases automagically result in a contribution and IMO that shouldn't be the case. On the other hand I think it's important for charities to be in public view for obvious reasons.....I just wish they'd have a check box that says without adding any cost to your purchase we will donate x% to this charity. There's always a middle path and it's pretty often a solid choice.