343 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

The mentality of the Taliban at display.

If you think that, then you really don't understand the Taliban or their ilk.

[Whatever42]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Lol, Donovan Hock fans?

Can't you discuss this without the playground antics?

Playground?

Listen to Hock's speech at the party.  He's saying exactly what many of the defenders of Cerberus are saying.

Hock is providing luxuries for depraved individuals. We are saving the galaxy. If you say that extraordinary problems don't require extraordinary means then you're an absolutist.

And no one said don't try to control Cerberus - but waging war against it now, would be like the Americans helping to finish off Soviet Russia during the German invasion.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

I can make a list of crimes we (allies) did in WWII that makes Cerberus look like boyscouts. I can make a list of activities on this war on terror that makes TIM look like Mother Teresa.

First, please, make a list of the "crimes" of the Allies in WW2.  I'm guessing that they're things that fall firmly under the conduct of a war against a beligerent nation or organization.

As for this "war on Terror", you'd be preaching to the choir.  We have done and are doing things that degrade our moral authority and deminish us as a people and a country. 

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
We are not worth saving today by your definition. So, basically, you're siding with the Reapers all the way. Well, its hard to argue with someone who sees the universe in such simplistic black-and-white terms.

No.  I'm pointing out that stopping the Reapers by becomming as bad as the Reapers is the same as losing to the Reapers in the first place.

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


I did read it.

That is the same kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world self-justify torture and abuse on a daily basis.  It's the same kind of thinking that gave us waterboarding and extraordinary rendition.  It looks good in fiction, when TIM or Jack Bower are "saving the world", but it's a load of crap in the real world, and ends up doing far more harm than any good it supposedly accomplishes.

 
The kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world justify torture and abuse is that nobody can stop them. What I demonstrate here is a simple acknowledgement of this fact of real life. And it's what makes the Mass Effect series story worth playing through (in spite of multiple holes in the plot) - the acknowledgement of facts of real life. The Systems Alliance ain't some elven kingdom with rose bunnies, and TIM ain't an evul necromancer who animates dead because he hates rose bunnies, and that's what makes them interesting.

At least in a democracy, the people CAN stop them, if they don't allow themselves to be scared into believing that it's necessary or luled into complacency with bread and circuses.

Care to bring up an example when the people in a democracy didn't allow themselves to be scared or lulled into complacency and stopped the government from anything?

Now you're just being a hipster-cynic.  Take off those 80s shades and study American history with objective eyes.

(I'll get some examples when I have time to make them solid, I'm posting while waiting for reports to run.)

Yeah, while studying the history of American democracy since the end of WW2 it is recommended to have a steel helmet on your head. 'Cause it's a hiiighly explosive subject.

Not to mention the Human experimentation in the United States.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Lol, Donovan Hock fans?

Can't you discuss this without the playground antics?

Playground?

Listen to Hock's speech at the party.  He's saying exactly what many of the defenders of Cerberus are saying.

Hock is providing luxuries for depraved individuals. We are saving the galaxy. If you say that extraordinary problems don't require extraordinary means then you're an absolutist.

And no one said don't try to control Cerberus - but waging war against it now, would be like the Americans helping to finish off Soviet Russia during the German invasion.

Listen.  To.  Hock's.  Speach.  He's using the exact same justifications as many of the defenders of Cerberus.


As for Stalin's USSR, in hindsight, there was no real need to lift a finger to help the Soviets in WW2, and it was probably a mistake.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Now you're just being a hipster-cynic.  Take off those 80s shades and study American history with objective eyes.

(I'll get some examples when I have time to make them solid, I'm posting while waiting for reports to run.)

Yeah, while studying the history of American democracy since the end of WW2 it is recommended to have a steel helmet on your head. 'Cause it's a hiiighly explosive subject.

Not to mention the Human experimentation in the United States.

And anyone involved in experiments on unwitting, unwilling, or deceived human subjects should have been prosecuted and spent the rest of their lives in prison.

[Mox Ruuga]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you think that, then you really don't understand the Taliban or their ilk.

Call it what you will. Your kind of fanaticism would sacrifice the lives of an entire Galaxy for the sake of rigid ideological purity.

Who would have saved the Galaxy, if it hadn't been Cerberus?

Who will next save the Galaxy, now that Cerberus might be gone?

Is it good, that Shepard has less allies and less resources than before, and "The Reapers are still out there"?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you think that, then you really don't understand the Taliban or their ilk.

Call it what you will. Your kind of fanaticism would sacrifice the lives of an entire Galaxy for the sake of rigid ideological purity.

Who would have saved the Galaxy, if it hadn't been Cerberus?

Who will next save the Galaxy, now that Cerberus might be gone?

Is it good, that Shepard has less allies and less resources than before, and "The Reapers are still out there"?

What good is defeating monsters if you become monsters in the process?

[Whatever42]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

I can make a list of crimes we (allies) did in WWII that makes Cerberus look like boyscouts. I can make a list of activities on this war on terror that makes TIM look like Mother Teresa.

First, please, make a list of the "crimes" of the Allies in WW2.  I'm guessing that they're things that fall firmly under the conduct of a war against a beligerent nation or organization.

As for this "war on Terror", you'd be preaching to the choir.  We have done and are doing things that degrade our moral authority and deminish us as a people and a country. 

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
We are not worth saving today by your definition. So, basically, you're siding with the Reapers all the way. Well, its hard to argue with someone who sees the universe in such simplistic black-and-white terms.

No.  I'm pointing out that stopping the Reapers by becomming as bad as the Reapers is the same as losing to the Reapers in the first place.

* During the war, the U.S. bomber command deliberately targeted non-worker civillian populations such as in Dresden

* The U.S. bombed Nagasaki even though it was clear that the Japanese would surrender but they wanted to hasten the decision because of Soviet gains in Asia.

* The U.S. fire bombing of Tokyo.

* After the war, the allies deliberately withheld food from German POWs, leading thousands to die of malnutrition and starvation.

* The British returned Cossack POWs to the Soviets, including their families, even though they knew the Soviets would kill them.

* Churchhill argued to try to cut the Soviets off by an invasion through the Baltics, to prevent Soviet enslavement of as much as Europe as possible. Rosevelt didn't want to rock the boat and said no.

So compare this to Cerberus having aggressive research? With the exception of Teltin, they were all fully informed volunteers. You would condemn all galactic life for that?

[Mox Ruuga]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What good is defeating monsters if you become monsters in the process?

So you would rather allow the Galaxy to be destroyed, than allow Shepard and co to willingly become monsters and "lose their souls"?

Or do you believe every sentient being in the Galaxy lost their souls because Cerberus was the secret behind the unknown victory?

Should the concentration camp victims have refused the help of the Red Army when it reached them? After all, the Red Army is infamous for its atrocities and brutal conduct.

[jbblue05]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you think that, then you really don't understand the Taliban or their ilk.

Call it what you will. Your kind of fanaticism would sacrifice the lives of an entire Galaxy for the sake of rigid ideological purity.

Who would have saved the Galaxy, if it hadn't been Cerberus?

Who will next save the Galaxy, now that Cerberus might be gone?

Is it good, that Shepard has less allies and less resources than before, and "The Reapers are still out there"?

What good is defeating monsters if you become monsters in the process?

Then we have already become monsters because we're using the technology the Reapers wanted us to

Modifié par jbblue05, 30 septembre 2010 - 04:59 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

I can make a list of crimes we (allies) did in WWII that makes Cerberus look like boyscouts. I can make a list of activities on this war on terror that makes TIM look like Mother Teresa.

First, please, make a list of the "crimes" of the Allies in WW2. I'm guessing that they're things that fall firmly under the conduct of a war against a beligerent nation or organization.

Are you kidding? Hiroshima & Nagasaki. A live test (and demonstration for Comrade Stalin) of nuclear weapons, in full awareness that it would result in ugly death of tens of thousands of non-combattants. Not a crime of course, because the Allies won (in fact, even before the bombings). But even those wacky Nаzis never achieved such a magnificent output of death in their camps.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
As for this "war on Terror", you'd be preaching to the choir. We have done and are doing things that degrade our moral authority and deminish us as a people and a country.

So, when it's gonna stop already? You know, the people resisting scaring and lulling and stopping their government?

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
We are not worth saving today by your definition. So, basically, you're siding with the Reapers all the way. Well, its hard to argue with someone who sees the universe in such simplistic black-and-white terms.

No. I'm pointing out that stopping the Reapers by becomming as bad as the Reapers is the same as losing to the Reapers in the first place.

TIM can't even quit smoking. How can he hope to become "free of all weakness" in his lifetime?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 30 septembre 2010 - 05:02 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

I can make a list of crimes we (allies) did in WWII that makes Cerberus look like boyscouts. I can make a list of activities on this war on terror that makes TIM look like Mother Teresa.

First, please, make a list of the "crimes" of the Allies in WW2.  I'm guessing that they're things that fall firmly under the conduct of a war against a beligerent nation or organization.

As for this "war on Terror", you'd be preaching to the choir.  We have done and are doing things that degrade our moral authority and deminish us as a people and a country. 

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
We are not worth saving today by your definition. So, basically, you're siding with the Reapers all the way. Well, its hard to argue with someone who sees the universe in such simplistic black-and-white terms.

No.  I'm pointing out that stopping the Reapers by becomming as bad as the Reapers is the same as losing to the Reapers in the first place.

* During the war, the U.S. bomber command deliberately targeted non-worker civillian populations such as in Dresden

* The U.S. bombed Nagasaki even though it was clear that the Japanese would surrender but they wanted to hasten the decision because of Soviet gains in Asia.

* The U.S. fire bombing of Tokyo.

* After the war, the allies deliberately withheld food from German POWs, leading thousands to die of malnutrition and starvation.

* The British returned Cossack POWs to the Soviets, including their families, even though they knew the Soviets would kill them.

* Churchhill argued to try to cut the Soviets off by an invasion through the Baltics, to prevent Soviet enslavement of as much as Europe as possible. Rosevelt didn't want to rock the boat and said no.

So compare this to Cerberus having aggressive research? With the exception of Teltin, they were all fully informed volunteers. You would condemn all galactic life for that?

This idea that they're all volunteers... laughable.  Was David (Overlord) a volunteer?  By any medical or legal definition, he was incapable of giving consent.  Where the soldiers on Akuze volunteers to be killed by a Thresher Maw?  The Alliance Marines who died when the Rachni escaped?  Admiral Kohaku?  Give me a break.

As for your list of examples from WW2, most of them are exactly what I expected them to be. 

I won't  argue against the US and UK buddying up with the Soviets being a terrible mistake, I've already that it was a mistake.  We should have told Stalin to deal with his own mess, being the monster he was.

Bombing Nagasaki was an absolute necessity given the alternatives.  The idea that Japan was about to surrender before the second bombing is a sad bit of revisionist nonsense.  The Japanese miltiary staged a failed coup to prevent surrender AFTER the bombing of Nagasaki.

Bombing any German or Japanese city during WW2 falls firmly within the conduct of war against a belligerent state. 

I'd like some kind of link I can take a look at on the one about witholding food from German POWs after the war was over.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

I can make a list of crimes we (allies) did in WWII that makes Cerberus look like boyscouts. I can make a list of activities on this war on terror that makes TIM look like Mother Teresa.

First, please, make a list of the "crimes" of the Allies in WW2. I'm guessing that they're things that fall firmly under the conduct of a war against a beligerent nation or organization.

Are you kidding? Hiroshima & Nagasaki. A live test (and demonstration for Comrade Stalin) of nuclear weapons, in full awareness that it would result in ugly death of tens of thousands of non-combattants. Not a crime of course, because the Allies won (in fact, even before the bombings). But even those wacky Nаzis never achieved such a magnificent output of death in their camps.

I would challenge you to find a source that shows more deaths at Hiroshimi and Nagasaki than in the concentration camps.  You know, a source not from Aryan Nations or the Austrian far-right parties...

And as I said, the idea that the Japanese were about the surrender and that the atomic bombings were unneeded is a sad bit of revisionist nonsense.  After the SECOND bombing, had the military coup in Japan succeeded, they would still not have surrendered.  And without a surrender, many more Japanese civilians would have died during any Allied invasion, or during a years-long blockade of the home islands. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 septembre 2010 - 05:07 .

[Whatever42]

So unnecessarily killing hundreds of thousands of civillians is covered by the conduct of war? But cooperating with Cerberus is not? You're jigging madly on the cliff's edge there, buddy.

And Hiroshima was unnecessary. We could have displayed it first at least.

Nagasaki was completely unnecessary. It was only done to hurry up the surrender to try to limit Soviet Asia expansion. This is not revisionist. People have known this for decades.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 30 septembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[jbblue05]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


This idea that they're all volunteers... laughable.  Was David (Overlord) a volunteer?  By any medical or legal definition, he was incapable of giving consent.  Where the soldiers on Akuze volunteers to be killed by a Thresher Maw?  The Alliance Marines who died when the Rachni escaped?  Admiral Kohaku?  Give me a break.

David was volunteered by his brother and who knows David probably thought it would be fun at first.
Are you a 100% sure that a traumatized Corporal Toombs is telling the truth. Your really just going to take his word after he hired mercs to slaughter ALLIANCE SCIENTISTS.
The Rachni escaped from Cerberus and killed the Cerberus crew.
It was all coincidence that the Rachni chose to colonize on Nepmos and Altahe when their is an Alliance presence

[Killjoy Cutter]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

So unnecessarily killing hundreds of thousands of civillians is covered by the conduct of war? But cooperating with Cerberus is not? You're jigging madly on the cliff's edge there, buddy.

Nations go to war. 

Cerberus was not at war with random humans and aliens, was it?

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
And Hiroshima was unnecessary. We could have displayed it first at least.

Nagasaki was completely unnecessary. It was only done to hurry up the surrender to try to limit Soviet Asia expansion. This is not revisionist. People have known this for decades.

"Known" as in "promoted as the truth".  It's only actually "true" if you ignore the fact that the Japanese military attempted to stop the Emperor's surrender anouncement after the SECOND bomb was dropped, and almost succeeded. 

[Whatever42]

So atrocities are just if perpetrated by nations at war? Its not the ethics of the action that you're concerned about but simply that all the paperwork is completed correctly before horribly torturing and murdering people?



And your weak defense of this atrocity sounds very much like jbblue05 above you defending Cerberus.

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

I can make a list of crimes we (allies) did in WWII that makes Cerberus look like boyscouts. I can make a list of activities on this war on terror that makes TIM look like Mother Teresa.

First, please, make a list of the "crimes" of the Allies in WW2. I'm guessing that they're things that fall firmly under the conduct of a war against a beligerent nation or organization.

Are you kidding? Hiroshima & Nagasaki. A live test (and demonstration for Comrade Stalin) of nuclear weapons, in full awareness that it would result in ugly death of tens of thousands of non-combattants. Not a crime of course, because the Allies won (in fact, even before the bombings). But even those wacky Nаzis never achieved such a magnificent output of death in their camps.

I would challenge you to find a source that shows more deaths at Hiroshimi and Nagasaki than in the concentration camps.  You know, a source not from Aryan Nations or the Austrian far-right parties...

I mean the efficiency - the amount of innocent lives forfeit per time unit.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
And as I said, the idea that the Japanese were about the surrender and that the atomic bombings were unneeded is a sad bit of revisionist nonsense.  After the SECOND bombing, had the military coup in Japan succeeded, they would still not have surrendered.  And without a surrender, many more Japanese civilians would have died during any Allied invasion, or during a years-long blockade of the home islands. 

As I said, strategically the war against Japan was won when the Soviets agreed to join in. And they did commence actual land and airborne offensive in China and northern Japanese islands before the second bombing. So it was more about forcing Japan to surrender before the Communists take it by force.

And why am I not surprised to find a clear logical fallacy in your argument? The military coup occuring after the second bombing only proves that the bombings were pointless. Because, right you are, if the coup succeded, Japan wouldn't surrender, and there would be either more bombings, or an invasion. But the coup failed, and there is no telling it would have been otherwise without the bombings.

Once more: the coup failed and it would probably fail even without the bombings and Japan would surrender by, say, the end of September '45, but the dirty Commies would take too much of it. So here is an argument that suits you more: the Hiroshima and Nagasaki dwellers would themselves prefer to be vaporized to living under Stalin's proxy government, should they have been given that kind of choice.

But, returning to the Mass Effect universe, what gives you ground to think Cerberus is going to turn the galaxy into just as bad a hell as the Reapers definitely would?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see the Standard Antinuclear Version of events being quoted verbatim here, it's all too common. It's sad, really.

Kinda odd to see it coming from the Cerberus defenders, though, seeing as they're of the "by any means necessary" philosophy when it comes to that group...

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 septembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

As I said, strategically the war against Japan was won when the Soviets agreed to join in. And they did commence actual land and airborne offensive in China and northern Japanese islands before the second bombing. So it was more about forcing Japan to surrender before the Communists take it by force.

And why am I not surprised to find a clear logical fallacy in your argument? The military coup occuring after the second bombing only proves that the bombings were pointless. Because, right you are, if the coup succeded, Japan wouldn't surrender, and there would be either more bombings, or an invasion. But the coup failed, and there is no telling it would have been otherwise without the bombings.

Once more: the coup failed and it would probably fail even without the bombings and Japan would surrender by, say, the end of September '45, but the dirty Commies would take too much of it. So here is an argument that suits you more: the Hiroshima and Nagasaki dwellers would themselves prefer to be vaporized to living under Stalin's proxy government, should they have been given that kind of choice.

No, if Japan hadn't surrendered after Nagasaki, the next bomb built would have been used on another city, and so on, until they did.  And rightly so.

The fact that Japan almost did not surrender after TWO atomic bombings makes it clear how much nonsense there is in the claim that they were about to surrender after ZERO atomic bombings.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 septembre 2010 - 05:57 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see the Standard Antinuclear Version of events being quoted verbatim here, it's all too common. It's sad, really.

Kinda odd to see it coming from the Cerberus defenders, though, seeing as they're of the "by any means necessary" philosophy when it comes to that group...

Kinda odd to see Cerberus condemnation from a person that defends nuking Japan as absolutely necessary, seeing how it was all about freeing the Japanese folks from their samurai junta that volunteered them for it...

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see the Standard Antinuclear Version of events being quoted verbatim here, it's all too common. It's sad, really.

Kinda odd to see it coming from the Cerberus defenders, though, seeing as they're of the "by any means necessary" philosophy when it comes to that group...

Kinda odd to see Cerberus condemnation from a person that defends nuking Japan as absolutely necessary, seeing how it was all about freeing the Japanese folks from their samurai junta that volunteered them for it...

The typical Japanese civilian was all for the war as long as they were winning it and killing Chinese...

The atomic bombings were NOT "any means", they were the only means, short of an invasion in which at least 10 times as many Japanese civilians would have died, if not more, and anywhere between 100000 and 1000000 Allied servicemen. 

Operation Downfall:  http://en.wikipedia....vasion_of_Japan

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 septembre 2010 - 06:07 .

[PrinceLionheart]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

so, why isn't commander sheperd arrested for working cerberus entering alliance territory (the citadel), speaking with the alliance council, having them reinstate his spectre status, aswell as talk with anderson in the process?

"Request Denied"

-Admiral Hackett  

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The fact that Japan almost did not surrender after TWO atomic bombings makes it clear how much nonsense there is in the claim that they were about to surrender after ZERO atomic bombings.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see the Standard Antinuclear Version of events being quoted verbatim here, it's all too common. It's sad, really.

Kinda odd to see it coming from the Cerberus defenders, though, seeing as they're of the "by any means necessary" philosophy when it comes to that group...

Kinda odd to see Cerberus condemnation from a person that defends nuking Japan as absolutely necessary, seeing how it was all about freeing the Japanese folks from their samurai junta that volunteered them for it...

The typical Japanese civilian was all for the war as long as they were winning it and killing Chinese...

The atomic bombings were NOT "any means", they were the only means, short of an invasion in which at least 10 times as many Japanese civilians would have died, if not more, and anywhere between 100000 and 1000000 Allied servicemen. 

Operation Downfall:  http://en.wikipedia....vasion_of_Japan

The fact that Japan did surrender after the bombings proves that it had been conditioned to surrender. It, however, tells nothing as to whether the nuclear conditioning in particular added up or the glass was already full by then.

On the other hand, the fact that should the coup succeed, it would require more nuking to bring Japan to its knees, defeats your argument about "saving more lives by nuking".

Of course, nuking Japanese women and children is preferable to sending tens of thousands of young Americans to their deaths in the urban and mountain warfare on the Japan's core islands, or, even worse, allowing young Russians, Ukranians, Georgians and Kazakhs to take the young Americans' place in eternity. I absolutely agree with you, sir. What I refuse to understand now that you admit it, how can you honestly condemn Cerberus for doing their stuff, which is quite petty, compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

As for your remark about a "typical Japanese civilian" and winning the war, it's (a) self-explanatory, ( self-defeating as the common sense suggests that any typical "typical civilian" is all for the war as long as it's going to be won, and © knowing the Japanese history and culture, it's simply doubtful, that a "typical Japanese civilian" of that time could have had any opinion about the war of their own. All your Opereation Downfall predictions are, in fact, based on the assumption that the "typical Japanese civilian" wouldn't be against the war until he died, and it does justify the nuking, but not from your high anti-Cerberus morals standpoint, where people must be saved even against their will and by the book, even at a higher cost.

Simply put, nuking was immoral. An invasion, and trying to save each innocent life of "typical Japanese civilans" misled to believe that America was evil, at any cost in American soldiers' lives would've been moral.

All right, you need to drop your double standards routine.

And again, how is Cerberus just as bad as the Reapers?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 30 septembre 2010 - 06:43 .