Yet as a Company Spokes-Woman, has same sentiment (read more) I too say What about all the Games that are already out? You are playing anything from Americas Army to World at War and they all represent fighting one side against the other, would that mean that it is fair to say that the Title is Misrepresenting in reality?  Maybe it is!!!

 Then if that was the case then Games based on any War should be Stopped because they all have One pitted up against the other and 90% of all games have the USA/British as on one side SO why all of a sudden are people starting to say it has a detremental effect or is being as close to the real thing that it is taking its affect on War Today.. 

  I say (my opinion) like Vietnam we put ourself in a place that was none of our business, but the game industrie put games out based on the Vietnam War and the games sold.... Did they stop that? No, and why should they, It gives people a job and yet it is an exscape from the Reality of what is or did happen.... You be the Judge!  Pro. vs Con. Hmmm just like that Good vs Bad, Heaven vs Hell, USA vs Taliban what is the Difference is it all = WAR at its WORSE form in Reality but in Game the imagination is all in what your thinking is it not?

Below you will see that Fox has his profile as a politician put into proper perspective anyway

as QUOTED from pcworld

http://www.pcworld.com/

"

UK Defense Secretary Clueless About Medal of Honor

Matt Peckham, PC World

Aug 23, 2010 6:39 pm

Liam Fox sounds astonishingly uninformed. Britain's Secretary of State for Defense went on record yesterday calling for a retail ban on EA's forthcoming Medal of Honor, a modern military first-person shooter set during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. This, despite the fact that he's never played it.

Ignorance never silenced a politician. Fox told The Sunday Times he was "disgusted" with the game, and that it was "shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers." The game, like most faction-based shooters, allows you to play as either of two opposing sides--a group of invading U.S. Army Rangers, or the defending Taliban forces.

"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands," opined Fox, adding that "It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game," and urging retailers "to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product."

EA's response to Fox's comments was unequivocal. The company said Fox was inaccurately describing the game, that the game "does not allow players to kill British soldiers," and that "no British troops feature in the game."

Fox was undeterred. A spokeperson today said Fox "stood by" his comments, arguing that "the point remains that part of this game allows you to play the part of the Taliban attacking ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] troops in the area of central Helmand where British troops are operating."

Picking up a broader brush to paint with? It's certainly one way to avoid the implications of an error, the rationale behind the original point notwithstanding.

MCV reports that the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) has "distanced itself" from Fox's comments.

"Dr Fox was expressing a personal view and we understand why some people might find the subject matter of the game offensive," said a DCMS spokesperson.

"There is a ratings system in place which exists to categorize games appropriately, in this case the game in question is rated 18 so should only be sold to, and played by, adults."

Kudos to the DCMS for getting it right. Boo-hiss Liam Fox--the same Liam Fox previously accused of racism for referring to Afghanistan as a "broken 13th-century country"--for ignorantly calling for a ban on a game he's neither seen nor played."