742 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

I've had a thought (regarding Anderson's punishment):

Would Anderson lick Udina's feet, if Kahlee's life hinged on that?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sylvianus wrote...
2 -The reapers are a distant threat, Cerberus an immediate threat. It has the possibility of a strike one or the other, what he should do?

What? The Reapers are immediate, considering the scale of their threat and the preparations required to have the ficklest hope of matching them.
Because of the Reapers, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of human colonists lost their lives, and while the Alliance didn't do anything, Cerberus was there to deal with the threat. How does that make Cerberus the immediate threat and the Reapers, who via agents only killed tens of thousands of lives, distant?

Anderson knows that the Reapers are active and that they will not stop. He knows about the cycle of extinction. He knows how dangerous they are. And he came to the conclusion that Cerberus is the immediate threat?

Anderson thinks like a soldier, not like a politician as Udina.

A major reason why important decisions like this have to be kept out of his hands.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 avril 2011 - 04:49 .

[Dean_the_Young]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
2 -The reapers are a distant threat, Cerberus an immediate threat. It has the possibility of a strike one or the other, what he should do?

What? The Reapers are immediate, considering the scale of their threat and the preparations required to have the ficklest hope of matching them.
Because of the Reapers, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of human colonists lost their lives, and while the Alliance didn't do anything, Cerberus was here to deal with the threat. How does that make Cerberus the immediate threat and the Reapers, who via agents only killed tens of thousands of lives, distant?

Hundreds of thousands, if not low millions, actually. Horizon alone bumps into the six-digit range.

Anderson thinks like a soldier, not like a politician as Udina.

A major reason why important decisions like this have to be kept out of his hands.

Uh, what about soldiers who don't think Anderson was right?

Soldiers are like Jew stereotypes: everyone thinks they know the best, more sensible course of action.

[Drake_Hound]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
2 -The reapers are a distant threat, Cerberus an immediate threat. It has the possibility of a strike one or the other, what he should do?

What? The Reapers are immediate, considering the scale of their threat and the preparations required to have the ficklest hope of matching them.
Because of the Reapers, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of human colonists lost their lives, and while the Alliance didn't do anything, Cerberus was there to deal with the threat. How does that make Cerberus the immediate threat and the Reapers, who via agents only killed tens of thousands of lives, distant?

Anderson knows that the Reapers are active and that they will not stop. He knows about the cycle of extinction. He knows how dangerous they are. And he came to the conclusion that Cerberus is the immediate threat?

Anderson thinks like a soldier, not like a politician as Udina.

A major reason why important decisions like this have to be kept out of his hands.

First off Anderson going after Cerebus is cause of his ideals same as saving his GF .
There is nothing wrong with those ideals , you make a decisions and go for it .
So you would leave your wife husband friends to rot in hell , if you are able to do something about it ?

2nd the best and most famous politicians or leaders were infact soldiers .
Sherman , Roosevelt , Grant , Washington Eisenhower !!!
Lets not forget about Ceasar Napoleon ... Ghensis Khan ...

Do I have to go on 

Modifié par Drake_Hound, 19 avril 2011 - 04:54 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]
Anderson thinks like a soldier, not like a politician as Udina.
[/quote]

A major reason why important decisions like this have to be kept out of his hands.

[/quote]Uh, what about soldiers who don't think Anderson was right?

Soldiers are like Jew stereotypes: everyone thinks they know the best, more sensible course of action.
[/quote]

If they are in a position of authority, representing something much greater than themselves, and have at least a grasp on the political context, then they could make such a decison. Anderson was acting alone, representating no one, has no authority and doesn't seem to grasp the big picture. 

Though my comment may have been influenced by another steroeype a la George Clemenceau. I apologize for that.

And yea hundreds of thousands. As I recall, Horizon lost 1/3 of its colony. I stand corrected.

[Sylvianus]

The reason is simple, Anderson doesn't believe that Cerberus is part of the solution against the reapers. They're terrorist, a great threath against the Alliance, within the Alliance. Early in M2, we see his hostility to them. Even shepard, he does not trust to say where is Ashley / Kaidan, because he works for them.

Anderson thinks like a soldier, not like a politician as Udina.

A major reason why important decisions like this have to be kept out of his hands.

Yeah, it's true. Udina has a long-term vision unlike Anderson, is the absence of Anderson.  But in the same time, it can be bad to think like Udina.

You're sure to have the bureaucracy, like the European Union, unable to take military action consistent.

Doing politics on a military subject can be a good thing, but can also lead to many negative consequences and major.

With Udina, although Cerberus began to actually threaten to destroy the Alliance, he would not do something just to keep up appearances, and because it would make too much noise in the media.

Rather leave it running, rather than react, even if difficult decisions.

2nd the best and most famous politicians or leaders were infact soldiers .
Sherman , Roosevelt , Grant , Washington Eisenhower !!!
Lets not forget about Ceasar Napoleon ... Ghensis Khan ... 

I agree bro !

Modifié par Sylvianus, 19 avril 2011 - 05:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Drake_Hound wrote...
First off Anderson going after Cerebus is cause of his ideals same as saving his GF .
There is nothing wrong with those ideals , you make a decisions and go for it .
So you would leave your wife husband friends to rot in hell , if you are able to do something about it ?

If something much greater is at stake? Like, trillions of lives?
Yes.

I don't really care about his ideals.

2nd the best and most famous politicians or leaders were infact soldiers .
Sherman , Roosevelt , Grant , Washington Eisenhower !!!
Lets not forget about Ceasar Napoleon ... Ghensis Khan ...

Caesar was a politician. Napoleon was meh in foreign policy. Genghis Khan was in a completely different context where skills in war are demanded.
And those examples are irrelevent, as Anderson was representing no one and had no authority even if he was fit to (and he's not).

The fact that he is a soldier, does not make him a good sensible leader who grasps politics.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 avril 2011 - 05:03 .

[88mphSlayer]

didymos1120 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i don't hate Anderson... i just hate everybody i worked for in ME1

people have short memories but the only reason you win in ME1 is by going rogue, and if it were up to the Alliance there would've been no Normandy SR-1

Yeah, and Anderson is the one who starts the "going rogue" ball rolling.  It was his idea.

right, except we only worked for him during Eden Prime, and he helped us by going rogue himself

i'd gladly let him join me IF he went rogue again... i'm not working with anybody who works for the council

[Dean_the_Young]

Drake_Hound wrote...

First off Anderson going after Cerebus is cause of his ideals same as saving his GF .
There is nothing wrong with those ideals , you make a decisions and go for it .

Ideals that cause and risk greater harm to be born by others are not laudable.

It's one thing to say that you would rather die than accept something. It's quite another to say you would rather millions or even billions of other people suffer rather than accept something.

So you would leave your wife husband friends to rot in hell , if you are able to do something about it ?

I wouldn't billions millions of other people to hell and/or purgatory, nor would I gamble such.

Mind you, that's if one even accepts the idea of hell... or believes that someone who is in hell isn't in there for good reason. (Hint: opposing divine providence just gets you a ticket in as well.)

2nd the best and most famous politicians or leaders were infact soldiers .
Sherman , Roosevelt , Grant , Washington Eisenhower !!!

Sherman was never a president. You probably meant Grant, who is widely regarded as one of the worst, and certainly most corrupt, presidents of all time. The only other president at that level in recent times was our last soldier-president.

Roosevelt wasn't an exceptionally brilliant (read: mediocre) officer who bought his rank with money and influence, while Washington single-handedily started on of the most wide-spread wars of all time in a series of events any officer would be embarrased to read about. He was lucky and political, but not a tactical genius.

Good presidents are good because they are good politicians independent of military service, not because they put on a uniform. Eisenhower, probably the best example of a genuine General-President, was a political expert before he became famous (and his political skills were why he was selected as Supreme Commander), while on the other side of the spectrum our last soldier-president was... George Bush II.

Do I have to go on 

If by 'go on' you mean 'go on a history lesson so that I do not make a historical argument that fataly undermines my position', then yes. Badly.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 19 avril 2011 - 05:04 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sylvianus wrote...
Yeah, it's true. Udina has a long-term vision unlike Anderson, is the absence of Anderson. Anderson. But in the same time, it can be bad to think like Udina.

Both are not my ideal kind of leader. But if I had to pick one or the other, I'd pick Udina. Or Anderson and force him to remain in his office so that he wouldn't do something stupid like that.

[Drake_Hound]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...
First off Anderson going after Cerebus is cause of his ideals same as saving his GF .
There is nothing wrong with those ideals , you make a decisions and go for it .
So you would leave your wife husband friends to rot in hell , if you are able to do something about it ?

If something much greater is at stake? Like, trillions of lives?
Yes.

I don't really care about his ideals.

2nd the best and most famous politicians or leaders were infact soldiers .
Sherman , Roosevelt , Grant , Washington Eisenhower !!!
Lets not forget about Ceasar Napoleon ... Ghensis Khan ...

Caesar was a politician. Napoleon was meh in foreign policy. Genghis Khan was in a completely different context where skills in war are demanded.
And those examples are irrelevent, as Anderson was representing no one and had no authority even if he was fit to (and he's not).

The fact that he is a soldier, does not make him a good sensible leader.

And you can fathom trillion lives , if Shepard thinks like that , who cares about loyalty of the crews .
We got collectors to stop , who cares about side issues like mining and preparations .

Infact Anderson does nothing wrong , he just does what every person would do .
My wiife my kids first then my country . If you don´t understand that character but brings up 3 trillion lives first.
You are very insightfull or devoid of emotions .

I put him on the council cause the council was full of backstabbing politicians .
And in return I gotten my spectre status back , if that is no power or authority , then what is power or authority .
Yes his dislike for cerebus goes far , but then again you can say the same for Ashley / Kaiden .
So will you murder those too ?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Drake_Hound wrote...
And you can fathom trillion lives , if Shepard thinks like that , who cares about loyalty of the crews .
We got collectors to stop , who cares about side issues like mining and preparations .

Yea, that means we have to be as reckless as possible and reduce our chances of succeeding.
By that logic, why waste time putting on armor? <_<

You're seriously comparing gameplay with Anderson's decision?

If you don´t understand that character but brings up 3 trillion lives first.
You are very insightfull or devoid of emotions .

Or reasonable rather. And not childishly selfish and short sighted.

I put him on the council cause the council was full of backstabbing politicians .
And in return I gotten my spectre status back , if that is no power or authority , then what is power or authority .
Yes his dislike for cerebus goes far , but then again you can say the same for Ashley / Kaiden .
So will you murder those too ?

In the novel, he retired from the seat. He held no power and authority when he made that decision.

No I will not kill those two because they didn't do anything as of yet. Nor would I kill Anderson as I do not believe in petty revenge nor am I a punitive person. But if he gets in our way, yea probably.

EDIT: anyways gotta go. Cheers!

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 avril 2011 - 05:17 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Drake_Hound wrote...

And you can fathom trillion lives , if Shepard thinks like that , who cares about loyalty of the crews .
We got collectors to stop , who cares about side issues like mining and preparations .

Sure. On the other hand, loyal crew and preparations heighten your chances of success, a worthy balancing judgement. Killing people on the same side because you don't like them, does not.

The proper analogy isn't mining or loyalty missions: it's trying to kill Jack and Samara because you don't like their morals and past actions and maybe even worry that they might hurt your crew, even though you know they're willing to help you on the suicide mission.

My wiife my kids first then my country . If you don´t understand that character but brings up 3 trillion lives first.
You are very insightfull or devoid of emotions .

Funny. Most people would call you a monster, and a bigoted racist, for putting identity of someone over equality.

I put him on the council cause the council was full of backstabbing politicians .

Congratulations: you put someone who was both a politician and backstabbed his organization for personal reasons.

And in return I gotten my spectre status back , if that is no power or authority , then what is power or authority .

Something else entirely.

Yes his dislike for cerebus goes far , but then again you can say the same for Ashley / Kaiden .

When did Asley or Kaiden do what Anderson did? Indent AND Action matter.

So will you murder those too ?

Where has KoP ever wanted to murder Anderson.

[NKKKK]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
Yeah, it's true. Udina has a long-term vision unlike Anderson, is the absence of Anderson. Anderson. But in the same time, it can be bad to think like Udina.

Both are not my ideal kind of leader. But if I had to pick one or the other, I'd pick Udina. Or Anderson and force him to remain in his office so that he wouldn't do something stupid like that.

I'd pick Shepard

[Drake_Hound]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

First off Anderson going after Cerebus is cause of his ideals same as saving his GF .
There is nothing wrong with those ideals , you make a decisions and go for it .

Ideals that cause and risk greater harm to be born by others are not laudable.

It's one thing to say that you would rather die than accept something. It's quite another to say you would rather millions or even billions of other people suffer rather than accept something.

So you would leave your wife husband friends to rot in hell , if you are able to do something about it ?

I wouldn't billions millions of other people to hell and/or purgatory, nor would I gamble such.

Mind you, that's if one even accepts the idea of hell... or believes that someone who is in hell isn't in there for good reason. (Hint: opposing divine providence just gets you a ticket in as well.)

Opnions are opnions , hindsight is hindsight , but being human is that you care about what you can affect now .
Sorry you know that healthcare is none excistance for the poor  , still people don´t care as long they have healthcare themself .
This is the best example in modern times what is causing so much unneeded suffering .
Do we see a instant improvement , people with health care don´t care , are they evil ?
no they are just human .

Roosevelt wasn't an exceptionally brilliant (read: mediocre) officer who bought his rank with money and influence, while Washington single-handedily started on of the most wide-spread wars of all time in a series of events any officer would be embarrased to read about. He was lucky and political, but not a tactical genius.

Sombody who ended the probations by stating he likes to drink , thus ending the ridiculous alcohol crime rate is not exceptionally brilliant ?
Somebody who was the foundation of supporting Britain trough means when the american public wanted isolation or was divided by love for then german regime .
Somebody who first time ever got reelected for a 3rd term , and was loved by all .
Gee what a way to recolor your tainted glasses ... saying that person was lucky .

Good presidents are good because they are good politicians independent of military service, not because they put on a uniform. Eisenhower, probably the best example of a genuine General-President, was a political expert before he became famous (and his political skills were why he was selected as Supreme Commander), while on the other side of the spectrum our last soldier-president was... George Bush II.

And again he did what he had to do ! , you can criticise him for his decisions now , and we can all laugh at him.
But heck you people reelected him twice , so who fails more the general public or him .
Even if he pushed aside the United Nation to invade Iraq , the United Nation in New York .
Who is more the laughing stock of the world , a bush or the american people .
Honestly I do not blaim Bush at all, I definetly do not love him but it is all hindsight  , infact we got a politician like Obama with all his good intentions , he keep making wrong decisions .

So honestly the responses I gave you already showed you how colored your tainted glasses are .
Maybe you don´t like it , but history is always revolving around you .

Modifié par Drake_Hound, 19 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[Nashiktal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It's even better when you consider Retribution is just as valid not only in a Paragon Council setting, but even in a Renegade's Human Council setting. Anderson's motivations ascend past time and space, apparently.

In a Renegade Council setting, where Humanity and the Turians are in an open arms race, possibly on the brink of war, and in which galactic stability depends on Humanity's continued grip on galactic governance... Turian task forces making sudden attacks into Alliance space without provocation or forewarning isn't just reckless, it's a war scare.

Indeed. Even in a paragon "happy council" (not so happy) setting, such an act is probably going to embolden the Turian hawks (and from the other alien races) and enrage the human ones. The political situation is very fragile.

The Council is stable with the "trinity", with the 3 races that are almost perfectly complementary. But when you have the new comer that is humanity, which does not fit a specific niche and encroaches on the Turian's, at best fragility would be the result. At worse, inevitable confrontation.

So now was really not the time for such recklessness.

don't forget that in a paragon setting humanity loses its councilor. We don't know who will take over for Anderson, but this person will either...

A. Not believe in the reapers, thus negating the whole point of putting Anderson on the council in the first place.

B. Will be caught up in the political BS that comes with the job, either as a pro-human or pro-cooperation.

[Sylvianus]

I still find it surprising that you can be so much angry. They are traitors, they are acting against your sides. They are not your allies. they contribute to infiltrate the Alliance, they plot, steal information, all that to grow and cons your organization. And all for the interests of a terrorist group acting on its own ambitions. And among them there are traitors officers who let go of sensitive information.

You are a human soldier, an alliance's soldier , a patriot, how can you accept that people act actively within your military branch, with interests that are not those of your camps, which is the first organization to represent humanity, first to actually be able to protect and defend humanity.

This organization is not perfect, but it is what it is, it can be improved. And for that, we must first eliminate the branch that works against your sides, against your organization to which you have sworn.

As a soldier of the Alliance, I could'nt accept that this story remains silent  just to keep humanity intact. No, it's not helping humanity to let her sink, while the household is not done inside. What it is impossible, without to be outside, so with the help of turians.

That's why I do not blame Anderson. Yes there has been no only positive consequences, but this situation was impossible. It is obvious that in such situations, it can't only result in positive things. From my point of view, Anderson has done well, is not a traitor, and helped reinforce the Humanity's image working with Turians by directly attacking terrorists, and its traitors.

Humanity in the light of all this does not appear to be low at all, but proud and honest.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 19 avril 2011 - 05:39 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Merchant2006 wrote...

But it happened. Just because things don't conform to some of our perceived images of characters and their behavour doesn't mean it didn't happen. Oh shi- *Serious Business stamp pressed onto forehead*

Goddamit. Now I remember why I don't go to deep into conversations,.

Stop disrupting my fragile reality!

[Dean_the_Young]

Drake_Hound wrote...


Opnions are opnions , hindsight is hindsight , but being human is that you care about what you can affect now .

Being Human also means that you care about what you affect later. Both are human: one is shortsighted, one is longsighted. Being shortsighted in the extreme is not an excuse, even if it is sympathetic.

Sorry you know that healthcare is none excistance for the poor  , still people don´t care as long they have healthcare themself .

And on the other end, bankrupting the state in an attempt to provide healthcare to everyone is assured to mean no one will get any.
See? I can play the morality game too.

Sombody who ended the probations by stating he likes to drink , thus ending the ridiculous alcohol crime rate is not exceptionally brilliant ?

No, he isn't a brilliant miliatary officer .

Somebody who was the foundation of supporting Britain trough means when the american public wanted isolation or was divided by love for then german regime .

Are you talking about the Roosevelt who was a critical, and had never served, or the Roosevelt who actually was a war hero?

Somebody who first time ever got reelected for a 3rd term , and was loved by all .
Gee what a way to recolor your tainted glasses ... saying that person was lucky .

Never mind. You're ignorant.

FDR was not a soldier, and never had been, having been crippled in you younger life. His political skills were in no way resulting from his non-existent military career.

Theodore Roosevelt was a former soldier before becoming President.

And again he did what he had to do ! , you can criticise him for his decisions now , and we can all laugh at him.
But heck you people reelected him twice , so who fails more the general public or him .

Which one, Bush or Eisenhower? 

Eisenhower didn't do such moral sacrifices. Neither did Bush: Bush's mistakes were of a different sort, and his re-election was due to him not being worse than the unclear alternative.

Obama with all his good intentions , he keep making wrong decisions .

Which is why we hold Anderson responsible: we do not question his intents or character, but his results.

So honestly the responses I gave you already showed you how colored your tainted glasses are .
Maybe you don´t like it , but history is always revolving around you .

You don't even know middle-school American history, and misuse your own analogies, and you're accusing me of rose-tainted glasses in regards to American history?

[Nashiktal]

Look guys, Anderson messed up. You have to admit this. Ideals, morals, all of this does not matter in the face of the reapers.

Anderson ****ed up just by doing any sort of action that gets him kicked off the council. Everything else just adds to the list of his betrayal.

Do we really want someone who would sacrifice every advanced (and not so advanced, reapers killed bronze age creatures as well for some reason) just for some tail?

I am a Talimancer, I would kill Tali myself if it meant saving the galaxy.

[jbblue05]

Sylvianus wrote...

I still find it surprising that you can be so much angry. They are traitors, they are acting against your sides. They are not your allies. they contribute to infiltrate the Alliance, they plot, steal information, all that to grow and cons your organization. And all for the interests of a terrorist group acting on its own ambitions. And among them there are traitors officers who let go of sensitive information.

You are a human soldier, an alliance's soldier , a patriot, how can you accept that people act actively within your military branch, with interests that are not those of your camps, which is the first organization to represent humanity, first to actually be able to protect and defend humanity.

This organization is not perfect, but it is what it is, it can be improved. And for that, we must first eliminate the branch that works against your sides, against your organization to which you have sworn.

As a soldier of the Alliance, I could'nt accept that this story remains silent  just to keep humanity intact. No, it's not helping humanity to let her sink, while the household is not done inside. What it is impossible, without to be outside, so with the help of turians.

That's why I do not blame Anderson. Yes there has been no only positive consequences, but this situation was impossible. It is obvious that in such situations, it can't only result in positive things. From my point of view, Anderson has done well, is not a traitor, and helped reinforce the Humanity's image working with Turians by directly attacking terrorists, and its traitors.

Humanity in the light of all this does not appear to be low at all, but proud and honest.

Because your being selfish, you think your own personal views is what's best for everyone.
Shepard gets to see first-hand that the Alliance aren't saints.  THey make dealls with Warlords, force their way to colonize planets, created black ops organization like Cerberus and the Corsairs,  exploit Shepard's position as a spectre, Alliance and Cerberus are entangled.

What Anderson did is clearly not in the best interests of the Alliance and its clear that it was Anderson's personal hatred couded his reasoning

[Drake_Hound]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Snip

Now you are just argueing for the sake of arguements , when you need to cut paragraphs to oneliner .
You already lost .
No matter what you debate , sorry welcome to modern times .
No matter how good your intentions , when you cut down paragraphs to oneliner .
And state them with simple boring statements , no matter how truth , the discussion has come to a end .

So butt hurt you may be , I was trying to be reasonable .
So we will end this discussion
And we will part our marry ways ...

[Nashiktal]

To be fair Drake isn't American. You can't expect him to know our history, at least not perfectly. Hell plenty of Americans don't know their own history.

[AdmiralCheez]

Am I the only one here who gave Anderson bro-points for tag-teaming with turians to kick Cerberus in the balls? If you omit Kahlee from the equation, that's pretty badass.

So he screwed up, so what? I like my heroes flawed.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nashiktal wrote...

To be fair Drake isn't American. You can't expect him to know our history, at least not perfectly. Hell plenty of Americans don't know their own history.

Don't worry: I tear into more than a few Americans for rhetorically ****ting out horrible historical analogies. If they accept it and move on, good for them: if they cling harder, then the more they deserve to have the weaknesses in their arguments pointed out.