I wanted to see if anyone thinks Modern Warfare 2 has a good story.  If you think they story was good, please speak up here, and explain why you believe it has a good story.  I am not speaking about the production value, but the story itself.

I dont think it was a good story, i can hardly remember it...whereas i can clearly remember the first modern warfare story.

Plus the story was over before it began! If the campaign is too short then it doesnt allow you to get to involved or care too much.

I remember set pieces and certain action parts were great in modern warfare 2. But that was about it.

A big dissapointment for me...as i found the story and immersion in the first modern warfare was great.

it wasn't bad, but it could've been told much better.

Yes. A lot of people say it doesn't make sense, but it does if you think.

Shepherd was manipulating everybody. He wanted revenge for the COD4 nukes and to show off the might of the US military ("We are the most powerful army in the history of the world" or whatever that line is at the beginning) He also made sure the satelite crashed in Russia in order to set the plan in motion. He worked with Makarov on the airport assault, even supplying the American weapons to make it look like it was America's fault. That gave Russia a reason to attack the US. Then TF141 goes on the search for who they think started the attacks. So when the attack the safehouse and get the intel that would show that it is Shepherd's fault, he kills them to get rid of that "loose end." Then he attempts to eliminate both Makarov's men and Soap and Price, but Soap and Price are just freaking epic and end up killing him, but the US thinks that they are bad because they killed their top general who they THINK is a really awesome guy who was looking out for the country.

So it makes sense, its just a little strange. And VERY short. MW3 does need to clarify some things though.

I though the story itself was VERY solid, in fact one of the better ones of all the "realistic" warfare games.

The problem wasn't with the story itself but the way it was told.  It was far too quick and confusing to really get a grip on.  They should have expanded the campaign by about 2 - 3 hours and told things a little more slowly and in more detail so it was easier to follow and understand, because the story was pretty awesome.

^agreed. Great story but wasn't told very well

The story felt like it was being told 3rd hand from the perspective of an 8 year old with ADHD.

So, which do people believe here had a better story, Red Dawn or Modern Warfare 2?  

I ask that, because I am of the personal belief that Red Dawn has a borderline nonsensical storyline that only made sense during the Cold War.  I would be interested in seeing someone say how the story in MW2 had more credibility than that of Red Dawn.  So, for me, there is a ton of issues I could take with the story in Modern Warfare 2.  Not taking shots at the production value, just the story.  This is particularly true, considering the original story of Modern Warfare 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare

Modern Warfare 2 did a HORRIBLE job justifying how the events turned out in it, coming off the prior storyline.  For me, I was left with, this is utter B.S.  Oh highly polished B.S with a great music score, but a story that seemed utter bullocks for me.  But, others can fill in why.  I just don't buy the events.  No way a single attack in an airport would set off a series of events like that.  Nothing about going before the U.N or anytying, and no sign thaqt the Ultrantaionalists actually did take over in Russia.  Don't see it at all.  If it is all there, then they did a poor job explaining it to me.

What you wrote above looks like utter nonsense to me, regarding the airport.  So guys, without masks, gun down an airport, and there is no interpol to identify who they are?  Just because they are American weapons doesn't mean there isn't a black market?  If someone goes and shoots up in America with AK-47s, it means that Russia is behind the attack?  Doesn't matter if Shepherd is mad, angry or insane, and wants things to happen.  This doesn't mean it could happen.  If you want to make it so, you need to make it plausible, and this, to me, doesn't.  Even Homefront, with its utterly absurd storyline, at least takes a stab at doing this.  And even if it is loopy and inanely wierd, at least it tried to do it, and proposed a world governed by the logic of Red Dawn.  When did Modern Warfare franchise set up what happened in Modern Warfare 2 as even remotely plausible.  In attempts to do plot twists, it looked like utter nonsense to me.

I can contrast this a bit with Bad Company 2.  And yes, it still had the same nonsense about America being invaded by Russia, but it set up the basis for this, even if it failed to explain how Bad Company went from the ending of the original to the place of working for the government in the sequel.  It is bullocks, and not really much better actually, but I would say it is better.  They did a backstory for the main hook in the game, and you play it out.