^

*spoiler alert*

I'm glad the mission didn't go like that. Your guy is undercover by the way... why would he help the civilians? Wouldn't it give away that he's not russian? The thing is, you got used by Shepperd which was also working with Makarov from what we can analyze (also later on, Makarov gives away the last place Shepperd could be hiding... more facts that they were working together).

Anyways, the story is complicated! xD

Why would he help civilians?? Do you realize how dumb of a question that is? It's his moral obligation, it's the right thing to do, it's his job, etc.. I'm not saying have him standing in front of Makarov saying "hey hey let them go free!" He's undercover... He's trained to deceive. What makes you think he can't let civilians escape behind Makarov's back by deceiving him?? It's called a moral dilemma, this game doesn't give you one. It's a poor attempt at trying to pull you in emotionally. It fails completely. 

My question is stupid because your suggestion is stupid. It has nothing to do with the main point of the game!

You're not seeing the bigger picture here. I believe what the developers wanted to show is how ugly war can be when it's driven by the madness of one or two people. The image shown from this mission in the game is that you're a handpicked soldier to do the dirty job, a pawn for someone's "greater good," which is a damn shame because in a way it's the truth. I don't think the MW games really focus on what's going on in the head of soldiers anyways, it's looking for more bang than anything. (Besides, you're given the choice to shoot civilians or not...)

This mission really is the starting point of the "fake" conflict, and this is what CAL4M1TY (a member here) wrote on the subject of Shepperd's betrayal:

personally i dont like it much
skipped SP ad just finished Uncharted 2 and played about an hour of MW2 SP and its just.....poo
and the online..well. after all the hype and people saying how amazing it is.....its average at best, what is special about it?

Nobody likes every book written by one author.
But one thing is guaranteed. Each book will have it's own cult following.

I think the story is really cool and stylized.
THe problem is, MW is not based on history or fact. It is purely fictional with some factual aspects.

The regular COD series are all based on historical events. One reason why some might feel one COD is better than another is based on their attraction to certain events, like Stalingrad or Normandy.
Some people are history buffs and some are into fiction. Everything about this game is as good if not better than MW1. It's just a different story.
/ramble

Not to be rude, but there's a pretty big gap between not all well written books being liked by everyone and crap books being liked by some.  The story in MW2 is simply plain crap - the airport scene is nonsense of the highest order and would have ended in failure, the subsequent 10 minute invasion of US was so silly as to be plain laughable - I guess it allowed us to fight in imaginery Burger Kings, but it simply is nonsese beyond the sense of even bad fiction.

MW2 is simply guff, and badly written and orded guff at that.  Great fun to play with your brain turned off, but simply stupid in concept.

The historical argument is somewhat moot because MW itself was pure fiction, simply less extravegant fiction.  MW was like a fairly okay James Bond rouge military/militant causes bit of trouble plot, MW2 is the worst kind of Bond with villans with access to start wars and set in motion events that are completely implausible.

I guess in the end, while the concept of fighting in a war torn US city is kind if interesting, for me (and others it would seem from the comments) it is in the end just far too implausible and far fetched, which leads to detachement from the story and characters.  Playing the SP for MW2 right after the SP for Uncharted 2 (which has rightly been hailed as one of the best SP campaigns in an action title yet) didn't help either, as by comparison MW2 felt very creaky and unstructured.

Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I like Bond for it's style and interesting scenarios, not really for it's realism. Moonraker is my favorite, and yet the most implausible of the series.

I just don't see how it's a badly written "book". Everything makes sense and fits into place. It's not illogical, it's just not in keeping with what some of us perceive as reality.

A game cant be called GOTY cuz just one thing like multiplayer or sells a game is called goty cuz a whole

It's illogical because you cannot appear in an airport suddenly totting large guns and mow people down, nor will four unarmoured men march through an army of armoured guards in the process, because following an attack and a mysterious American being found, with the other men having mysteriously disappeared, the US cannot be simply invaded by the size of force shown.  And that's not even getting into the huge mess of loose ends thrown up by the SP 'story'.

But hey, you like Moonraker, which is just avout the worst Bond movie ever made!  So we're clearly never going to agree on this one.  I'll just settle for knowing the narrative quality control police are on my side. 

Each to their own, and so long as you enjoy it then fair enough.

No way, I completely disagree.