223 réponses à ce sujet

[collectorfreak]

Imagine Shepard in a straitjacket like Isaac in Dead Space 2

"the end is nigh! the reapers are comin!"

[procyon8]

Let's examine this situation for a second. I can accept that these assclowns wouldn't want to prepare to go to war based on the word of one person, even a Spectre, alone.  Fine, whatever.

But there already IS a multitude of circumstantial evidence to prove the existence of these Reaper things as more than just some ****ty Geth conspiracy. We have a Collector ship we have to board. We have a derelict Reaper we can go on. We have a whole DLC mission dedicated to a high-level Alliance scientist person who openly acknowledges the existence of and has evidence for the Reapers' impending arrival. You know what else we have? CAMERAS! And news reporters! We can build it! We have the technology!

Why couldn't we just bring a camera with us so we could record Shepard talking to Dr. Kenson during the Arrival thing (**** the Alliance; they're even more worthless, self-centered and corrupt than the ****ing Council is, and beating Reapers > racial politics)?

Why didn't anybody think to bring a camera with them to Ilos?

Never mind considering the most obvious and the most simple step anybody in this ****head video game universe would have to take to settle this problem once and for all -- to just have the Asari councilor mind-meld with Shepard and see everything for herself like someone a page or two back already said -- and none of this should be an issue at all. WTF is wrong with these people???

Why can't we walk up to Emily Wong or Khalisa bint Punching Bag Al-Qaeda whatever-her-name-is and temporarily recruit them so they can broadcast our shenanigans to the galaxy live and show everyone, positively, without a doubt, that they're about to be prison-****ed by cheap Flood ripoffs if they don't get their **** together?


Al-Jilani: Hello Shepard, I am Khalisa bint-Sinan al Jilani, would you like to --

Shepard: --go live on TV so you can try to make me look stupid to sell tabloids? I've got a better idea. How'd you like a REAL scoop? One that doesn't involve peeking into Lindsay Lohan's windows or sniffing Justin Bieber's underwear?

Al-Jilani:  :DDDDDDDDDDDDDD


LATER, ONBOARD THE COLLECTOR VESSEL/DERELICT REAPER...


Al-Jilani:  DDDDDDDDDDDDDD:

Shepard:  Problem? 


There would be not a word of denial from anyone after that point. Not a ****ing word. And it'd be worth it just to traumatize that worthless **** of a muckraker into a coma. I'd PAY to see that.

Modifié par procyon8, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:17 .

[SpiffySquee]

procyon8 wrote...

Let's examine this situation for a second. I can accept that these assclowns wouldn't want to prepare to go to war based on the word of one person, even a Spectre, alone.  Fine, whatever.

But there already IS a multitude of circumstantial evidence to prove the existence of these Reaper things as more than just some ****ty Geth conspiracy. We have a Collector ship we have to board. We have a derelict Reaper we can go on. We have a whole DLC mission dedicated to a high-level Alliance scientist person who openly acknowledges the existence of and has evidence for the Reapers' impending arrival. You know what else we have? CAMERAS! And news reporters! We can build it! We have the technology!

The collector ship only proves that it is a collector ship. We find no ties to the reapers at all, so what would that prove? nothing.

The reaper ship was sunk to the bottom of a gas giant... good luck finding it to show the council. Besides, they already made up their minds that it is a geth ship. Any pictures and what not would not change their minds that it is a geth ship.

How would cameras help? Let's say you record Ilos. So what? The council could just dismiss it as Saren playing with Speard's head. Same with Sov in Virmire. Holograms can be programed to say anything, and they think Saren was trying to play Shepard. How would showing a video tape of a hologram saying the Reapers are coming change that, when the Council could claim Saren did it?

Why couldn't we just bring a camera with us so we could record Shepard talking to Dr. Kenson during the Arrival thing (**** the Alliance; they're even more worthless, self-centered and corrupt than the ****ing Council is, and beating Reapers > racial politics)?

Why didn't anybody think to bring a camera with them to Ilos?

You were trying to bust Kenson out of jail. You were not expecting her to drop a bomb shell like Object Rho on you. Why would you think to take a camera with you to break someone out of prison? 

Try going up to Shepard before Illos and tel him, "Ok, we have to stop Saren as fast as we can. Wait Wait!! Someone go get a camera and take it with us because we just might magically run into a prothean hologram that could tel us all about the reapers!!!"

We expect things like this because it is a game, but eh chances of them finding Vigil were one in a million, and no where near the front of their to do list. And Again, recording what Vigil said is not enough to convenience the skeptical council.

Never mind considering the most obvious and the most simple step anybody in this ****head video game universe would have to take to settle this problem once and for all -- to just have the Asari councilor mind-meld with Shepard and see everything for herself like someone a page or two back already said -- and none of this should be an issue at all. WTF is wrong with these people???

Yes, I am sure the Asari Council would jump at the chance to share her mind with Shepard. They share thoughts, remember? I mean, he's only working for Cerberus, and mind melding would only give him access to every government secret the council knows about. What's to worry about? She would never risk exposing all the secrets of the council to someone who is working with terrorist.

[_Mr vas normandy]

The cake is a lie. That is all.

[SpiffySquee]

Because of some of the great points brought up in this thread, I made a quick add on to the video. It deals with Ash proving there are suit recordings, and the idea that he Asari could just mind meld with Shep to get he truth. Enjoy!!

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Savber100 wrote...

There's an issue about the Council denying the Reapers? 

We (as in Americans) had a government that pretended for years that Iraq had WMD. We overlooked the the concentration camps despite plain evidence. We made up crap to start the Vietnam War.

Governments are stupid.

Sure it might be a cliche but it's hardly a total leap in logic to see the Council bury their heads in the sand just as a ineffectual government usually is.

While on the whole you are right about the foolishness of Politicians, your examples speak more of deception rather than stupidity. The Iraq and the Vietnam Wars were wars of  western Imperialism. The Holocaust and "complacency" of the west in intervening in Adolph Hitler's folly of starting World War 2 (A War he couldn't win) were in some cases deliberate. There are many Elites in the US and Britain who were **** sympathizers in more ways than one. Add to the fact that anti-jewish feelings were not limited to **** Germany. (granted that is beyond obvious) Even if the Holocaust was more publicly stated in Germany prior to the war, I highly doubt any Nation at that time would have stood up against the ****s. Land, resources and the threat of attack are always primary motivations for going to war. Rescuing oppressed people is a selling point for more nefarious intentions.

To me a perfect example of Government complacency would be the Pre-9/11 dithering of the previous administration and their bungling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Oh and how can I forget the Climate change debate!! The fact that I have to call it a debate speaks volumes. 

[KevShep]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

There's an issue about the Council denying the Reapers? 

We (as in Americans) had a government that pretended for years that Iraq had WMD. We overlooked the the concentration camps despite plain evidence. We made up crap to start the Vietnam War.

Governments are stupid.

Sure it might be a cliche but it's hardly a total leap in logic to see the Council bury their heads in the sand just as a ineffectual government usually is.

While on the whole you are right about the foolishness of Politicians, your examples speak more of deception rather than stupidity. The Iraq and the Vietnam Wars were wars of  western Imperialism. The Holocaust and "complacency" of the west in intervening in Adolph Hitler's folly of starting World War 2 (A War he couldn't win) were in some cases deliberate. There are many Elites in the US and Britain who were **** sympathizers in more ways than one. Add to the fact that anti-jewish feelings were not limited to **** Germany. (granted that is beyond obvious) Even if the Holocaust was more publicly stated in Germany prior to the war, I highly doubt any Nation at that time would have stood up against the ****s. Land, resources and the threat of attack are always primary motivations for going to war. Rescuing oppressed people is a selling point for more nefarious intentions.

To me a perfect example of Government complacency would be the Pre-9/11 dithering of the previous administration and their bungling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Oh and how can I forget the Climate change debate!! The fact that I have to call it a debate speaks volumes. 

I know this is off topic but the war with Vietnam was NOT an "imperialism" of america. It was to stop the spread of communism. The truth that people are not seeing with this debate is that the ugly truth is that "if" we did not try to stop them then most of the world would have been communism(communism a system which we know does not work). Had we Never stopped the Soviet Union then the world would have been in a worse spot then it is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Do you really want places like North Korea all over the place???????People that think that it was a take over of america are just stupid! Like the war with Iraq.....I agree that it was wrong of our government to lie to us., But the ugly truth again is that that region of the world needs to be stabilized so they have to lie to get support from the U.S. people(most people ont all) who dont understand how the world turns! 

The U.S. has always been about civil rights(even thought there is still alot of problems with our own) and we TRY to get the rest of the world in on that, so you can call it "imperialism" but I call it doing the right thing. The fact that we have to go through a horrible wars to do it shows how bad it is (or was back then) in the world. THAT is the ugly truth!

As with the conucil this is a prime example of not doing what is needed to stop the reapers. I understand there reason...they dont want to cause a panic. But the truth is that there is still going to be a panic when they arrive. They could at least give people a warrning that they MIGHT be real and to prepare. If there not going to listen to there Specters then why do they have them? Iam sure earth  would have loved to have a warring form the council.

Modifié par KevShep, 30 juillet 2011 - 12:00 .

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

KevShep wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

There's an issue about the Council denying the Reapers? 

We (as in Americans) had a government that pretended for years that Iraq had WMD. We overlooked the the concentration camps despite plain evidence. We made up crap to start the Vietnam War.

Governments are stupid.

Sure it might be a cliche but it's hardly a total leap in logic to see the Council bury their heads in the sand just as a ineffectual government usually is.

While on the whole you are right about the foolishness of Politicians, your examples speak more of deception rather than stupidity. The Iraq and the Vietnam Wars were wars of  western Imperialism. The Holocaust and "complacency" of the west in intervening in Adolph Hitler's folly of starting World War 2 (A War he couldn't win) were in some cases deliberate. There are many Elites in the US and Britain who were **** sympathizers in more ways than one. Add to the fact that anti-jewish feelings were not limited to **** Germany. (granted that is beyond obvious) Even if the Holocaust was more publicly stated in Germany prior to the war, I highly doubt any Nation at that time would have stood up against the ****s. Land, resources and the threat of attack are always primary motivations for going to war. Rescuing oppressed people is a selling point for more nefarious intentions.

To me a perfect example of Government complacency would be the Pre-9/11 dithering of the previous administration and their bungling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Oh and how can I forget the Climate change debate!! The fact that I have to call it a debate speaks volumes. 

I know this is off topic but the war with Vietnam was NOT an "imperialism" of america. It was to stop the spread of communism. The truth that people are not seeing with this debate is that the ugly truth is that "if" we did not try to stop them then most of the world would have been communism(communism a system which we know does not work). Had we Never stopped the Soviet Union then the world would have been in a worse spot then it is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Do you really want places like North Korea all over the place???????People that think that it was a take over of america are just stupid! Like the war with Iraq.....I agree that it was wrong of our government to lie to us., But the ugly truth again is that that region of the world needs to be stabilized so they have to lie to get support from the U.S. people(most people ont all) who dont understand how the world turns! 

The U.S. has always been about civil rights(even thought there is still alot of problems with our own) and we TRY to get the rest of the world in on that, so you can call it "imperialism" but I call it doing the right thing. The fact that we have to go through a horrible wars to do it shows how bad it is (or was back then) in the world. THAT is the ugly truth!

As with the conucil this is a prime example of not doing what is needed to stop the reapers. I understand there reason...they dont want to cause a panic. But the truth is that there is still going to be a panic when they arrive. They could at least give people a warrning that they MIGHT be real and to prepare. If there not going to listen to there Specters then why do they have them? Iam sure earth  would have loved to have a warring form the council.

If I can be allowed to go off topic to respond...

If you don't fall for all the reactionary rhetoric about the Cold War, (I used to buy into to some of it) there are a lot of things you can learn about the conflict. Now to clear thing up: I am not a Communist nor do I think Communism in practice (historically speaking) has worked. The same can be said about any form of Government or economic system. (including Capitalism)
The Cold War like all other wars has always been about the same thing: Wealth, Land and Resources or simply put Imperialism.  To give you a bit of a history lesson on Vietnam that you left out, Vietnam was a French Colony Called French Indochina. Originally the French and the US aided the Vietminh against Japanese Imperialism but when the French reoccupied Indochina the Vietminh rebelled. The French eventually lost in Dien Bien Phu and the Americans eventually took over. The problem I see in explaining the Cold War is that it is always simplified to a black and white dichotomy when both sides were were fighting an Imperialist war. Neither side has a moral high ground. China and even more so the Soviet Union could be seen as Co-opting the numerous independence movements (against colonialism) throughout what is now called the "Developing" world. (or 3rd world) Some of these countries might have seen some wisdom in Communism's tenets that mirror the plight of the worker against the oppression of the wealthy. (The Colonizers) Some used Marx's teachings like Cuba to defeat the US planted dictator Batista while other countries just wanted the Colonial and Neo-Colonial rule to end.

Regardless of which method was used to fight Imperialism/Neo-colonialism the western powers did everything they could to stop these movements without regarding what form of government took hold. (Including democracies) they assassinated, toppled any leader or form of government that put it own country's interest over the west. (and replaced them with military or fascist dictators) Which renders meaningless the notion that the west wishes to spread democracy throughout world. Much of Africa, (ex. the Congo) Central and South America and the Middle East have been victims of Neo-Colonialism.
       
As for the Iraq War. That was a textbook Imperialism war. Saddam Hussein was a friend of the US and the CIA  for some time. (Look up videos of Donald Rumsfeld Shaking hands with Saddam) He committed horrible crimes against Iraqis and War Crimes Against Iran and the US didn't care. When he decided to consolidate control of Middle Eastern Oil, he became the Adolph Hitler of the Middle east and he had to be stopped. Thus we had the Gulf part 1. The Second Gulf war was W's consolidating control of Iraqi Oil under US and UK control. Iran is the next Hostile nation (to the west) with Lots of oil. Sadly they have a very good reason to be afraid/angry at the US and UK since their Democratic Government under Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown by the CIA and MI:6. Do I think the Current Iranian government is just? Hell NO! But that is up to the Iranians to deal with. If they want to go back to a Mossadegh styled nationalistic democracy let them fight for it! Be forewarned, I anticipate a conflict in Iran in the next 10-15 years.

But if you think any of the conflicts the US or NATO has been involved in were righteous or were for a good cause then I hate to let you down but they aren't at all. This isn't a point of view or a some conspiracy theory rant. This is history that is left out of history books. If you are open to hearing more I can bombard you with info.

Now getting back on topic of examples of shortsighted Governments: Neo-Colonial policies of the west are incredibly stupid since it does not ensure the national security of the NATO countries and will only precipitate more wars and conflicts and possibly acts of Terrorism.   

[KevShep]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...


If I can be allowed to go off topic to respond...

If you don't fall for all the reactionary rhetoric about the Cold War, (I used to buy into to some of it) there are a lot of things you can learn about the conflict. Now to clear thing up: I am not a Communist nor do I think Communism in practice (historically speaking) has worked. The same can be said about any form of Government or economic system. (including Capitalism)
The Cold War like all other wars has always been about the same thing: Wealth, Land and Resources or simply put Imperialism.  To give you a bit of a history lesson on Vietnam that you left out, Vietnam was a French Colony Called French Indochina. Originally the French and the US aided the Vietminh against Japanese Imperialism but when the French reoccupied Indochina the Vietminh rebelled. The French eventually lost in Dien Bien Phu and the Americans eventually took over. The problem I see in explaining the Cold War is that it is always simplified to a black and white dichotomy when both sides were were fighting an Imperialist war. Neither side has a moral high ground. China and even more so the Soviet Union could be seen as Co-opting the numerous independence movements (against colonialism) throughout what is now called the "Developing" world. (or 3rd world) Some of these countries might have seen some wisdom in Communism's tenets that mirror the plight of the worker against the oppression of the wealthy. (The Colonizers) Some used Marx's teachings like Cuba to defeat the US planted dictator Batista while other countries just wanted the Colonial and Neo-Colonial rule to end.

Regardless of which method was used to fight Imperialism/Neo-colonialism the western powers did everything they could to stop these movements without regarding what form of government took hold. (Including democracies) they assassinated, toppled any leader or form of government that put it own country's interest over the west. (and replaced them with military or fascist dictators) Which renders meaningless the notion that the west wishes to spread democracy throughout world. Much of Africa, (ex. the Congo) Central and South America and the Middle East have been victims of Neo-Colonialism.
       
As for the Iraq War. That was a textbook Imperialism war. Saddam Hussein was a friend of the US and the CIA  for some time. (Look up videos of Donald Rumsfeld Shaking hands with Saddam) He committed horrible crimes against Iraqis and War Crimes Against Iran and the US didn't care. When he decided to consolidate control of Middle Eastern Oil, he became the Adolph Hitler of the Middle east and he had to be stopped. Thus we had the Gulf part 1. The Second Gulf war was W's consolidating control of Iraqi Oil under US and UK control. Iran is the next Hostile nation (to the west) with Lots of oil. Sadly they have a very good reason to be afraid/angry at the US and UK since their Democratic Government under Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown by the CIA and MI:6. Do I think the Current Iranian government is just? Hell NO! But that is up to the Iranians to deal with. If they want to go back to a Mossadegh styled nationalistic democracy let them fight for it! Be forewarned, I anticipate a conflict in Iran in the next 10-15 years.

But if you think any of the conflicts the US or NATO has been involved in were righteous or were for a good cause then I hate to let you down but they aren't at all. This isn't a point of view or a some conspiracy theory rant. This is history that is left out of history books. If you are open to hearing more I can bombard you with info.

Now getting back on topic of examples of shortsighted Governments: Neo-Colonial policies of the west are incredibly stupid since it does not ensure the national security of the NATO countries and will only precipitate more wars and conflicts and possibly acts of Terrorism.   

You make alot of sense here. I agree that nothing is soild black and white (never believed there was) . We have never been 100% rigthteous but nether has any other country. As far as I know the U.S. have been the most righteous country in history (and yes its not perfect).  Like you said the japanese were trying to spread imperialism throughout the asian countries and that might sound the same as what the U.S. were doing but the difference is that Japan does not have civil rights...the U.S. does. We have violated our own civil rights here in the U.S. in our history but we live and learn and we are better for it. We learn from our mistakes like everybody else. What the U.S. did in other countries was not always about land weath and resources its been about stability. I wont lie we do get an advantage by taking over other countries that have viotated the basic rights of a man(at the time was every country), but without the aid of the U.S. throughout history I doubt that we would be in a better world.

The U.S. has alot of influence throughout the world that has helped many many countries over time and without that help there would not be as many countries with civil rights today. Every  time that we have ever attacted a country that country has violated the basic rights of a man no matter the real reason we actually went there! Fighting for civil rights does not equal imperialism. Just look at what the japanese imperialism was all about and you will see the difference between imperialism and what the U.S. was doing. For example the Japanese were conquering and holding those countries as its own in order to establish its own views and laws(many of which were unjust). The U.S. did not force there views on other countries nor did they keep them as there own.The U.S. has more power and more influence then any other country and it would be wrong if we did not support doing the right thing, such as holding the rights of a man in the highest or developing a globle economy that gives stability to most countries.  ----Those that have the ability to do great things have the responsibliliy to do them---- The U.S. is not perfect but at least there trying to do what is in the best interest of man....no one else is! The country with the most influence and most power has to be held in the highest standared and we have done a pretty good job so far(and yes there have been problems with the U.S. no one is perfect).

I guess what Iam saying is that I think to call america "imperialism" is the wrong choice of words. It is however the right choice of words when referring to japan in WW2. Someone(country) has to step up, be held to a higher standared and influence the world to do the right thing if they have the power to(such as supporting basic rights). If this means that the U.S. is entitled to a few things in the world then they deserve it.

What you said--------- Now getting back on topic of examples of shortsighted Governments: Neo-Colonial policies of the west are incredibly stupid since it does not ensure the national security of the NATO countries and will only precipitate more wars and conflicts and possibly acts of Terrorism------ The world is in a developing state and with so many twisted view points out there from so many countries that it stands to reason that there is going to be some kicking and screaming by some people who dont share the whole civil rights/freedom of religion/freedom of speech thing.

I have to admit that my history is not as good as it should be so if you do want to "bombard" me then that will be ok.

Modifié par KevShep, 30 juillet 2011 - 07:42 .

[CroGamer002]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Because of some of the great points brought up in this thread, I made a quick add on to the video. It deals with Ash proving there are suit recordings, and the idea that he Asari could just mind meld with Shep to get he truth. Enjoy!!

Good video.

[turian councilor Knockout]

Turian councilor is indoctrinated, i support the knockout renegade option in ME 3 doesn't anyone else ?

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

KevShep wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...


If I can be allowed to go off topic to respond...

If you don't fall for all the reactionary rhetoric about the Cold War, (I used to buy into to some of it) there are a lot of things you can learn about the conflict. Now to clear thing up: I am not a Communist nor do I think Communism in practice (historically speaking) has worked. The same can be said about any form of Government or economic system. (including Capitalism)
The Cold War like all other wars has always been about the same thing: Wealth, Land and Resources or simply put Imperialism.  To give you a bit of a history lesson on Vietnam that you left out, Vietnam was a French Colony Called French Indochina. Originally the French and the US aided the Vietminh against Japanese Imperialism but when the French reoccupied Indochina the Vietminh rebelled. The French eventually lost in Dien Bien Phu and the Americans eventually took over. The problem I see in explaining the Cold War is that it is always simplified to a black and white dichotomy when both sides were were fighting an Imperialist war. Neither side has a moral high ground. China and even more so the Soviet Union could be seen as Co-opting the numerous independence movements (against colonialism) throughout what is now called the "Developing" world. (or 3rd world) Some of these countries might have seen some wisdom in Communism's tenets that mirror the plight of the worker against the oppression of the wealthy. (The Colonizers) Some used Marx's teachings like Cuba to defeat the US planted dictator Batista while other countries just wanted the Colonial and Neo-Colonial rule to end.

Regardless of which method was used to fight Imperialism/Neo-colonialism the western powers did everything they could to stop these movements without regarding what form of government took hold. (Including democracies) they assassinated, toppled any leader or form of government that put it own country's interest over the west. (and replaced them with military or fascist dictators) Which renders meaningless the notion that the west wishes to spread democracy throughout world. Much of Africa, (ex. the Congo) Central and South America and the Middle East have been victims of Neo-Colonialism.
       
As for the Iraq War. That was a textbook Imperialism war. Saddam Hussein was a friend of the US and the CIA  for some time. (Look up videos of Donald Rumsfeld Shaking hands with Saddam) He committed horrible crimes against Iraqis and War Crimes Against Iran and the US didn't care. When he decided to consolidate control of Middle Eastern Oil, he became the Adolph Hitler of the Middle east and he had to be stopped. Thus we had the Gulf part 1. The Second Gulf war was W's consolidating control of Iraqi Oil under US and UK control. Iran is the next Hostile nation (to the west) with Lots of oil. Sadly they have a very good reason to be afraid/angry at the US and UK since their Democratic Government under Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown by the CIA and MI:6. Do I think the Current Iranian government is just? Hell NO! But that is up to the Iranians to deal with. If they want to go back to a Mossadegh styled nationalistic democracy let them fight for it! Be forewarned, I anticipate a conflict in Iran in the next 10-15 years.

But if you think any of the conflicts the US or NATO has been involved in were righteous or were for a good cause then I hate to let you down but they aren't at all. This isn't a point of view or a some conspiracy theory rant. This is history that is left out of history books. If you are open to hearing more I can bombard you with info.

Now getting back on topic of examples of shortsighted Governments: Neo-Colonial policies of the west are incredibly stupid since it does not ensure the national security of the NATO countries and will only precipitate more wars and conflicts and possibly acts of Terrorism.   

You make alot of sense here. I agree that nothing is soild black and white (never believed there was) . We have never been 100% rigthteous but nether has any other country. As far as I know the U.S. have been the most righteous country in history (and yes its not perfect).  Like you said the japanese were trying to spread imperialism throughout the asian countries and that might sound the same as what the U.S. were doing but the difference is that Japan does not have civil rights...the U.S. does. We have violated our own civil rights here in the U.S. in our history but we live and learn and we are better for it. We learn from our mistakes like everybody else. What the U.S. did in other countries was not always about land weath and resources its been about stability. I wont lie we do get an advantage by taking over other countries that have viotated the basic rights of a man(at the time was every country), but without the aid of the U.S. throughout history I doubt that we would be in a better world.

The U.S. has alot of influence throughout the world that has helped many many countries over time and without that help there would not be as many countries with civil rights today. Every  time that we have ever attacted a country that country has violated the basic rights of a man no matter the real reason we actually went there! Fighting for civil rights does not equal imperialism. Just look at what the japanese imperialism was all about and you will see the difference between imperialism and what the U.S. was doing. For example the Japanese were conquering and holding those countries as its own in order to establish its own views and laws(many of which were unjust). The U.S. did not force there views on other countries nor did they keep them as there own.The U.S. has more power and more influence then any other country and it would be wrong if we did not support doing the right thing, such as holding the rights of a man in the highest or developing a globle economy that gives stability to most countries.  ----Those that have the ability to do great things have the responsibliliy to do them---- The U.S. is not perfect but at least there trying to do what is in the best interest of man....no one else is! The country with the most influence and most power has to be held in the highest standared and we have done a pretty good job so far(and yes there have been problems with the U.S. no one is perfect).

I guess what Iam saying is that I think to call america "imperialism" is the wrong choice of words. It is however the right choice of words when referring to japan in WW2. Someone(country) has to step up, be held to a higher standared and influence the world to do the right thing if they have the power to(such as supporting basic rights). If this means that the U.S. is entitled to a few things in the world then they deserve it.

What you said--------- Now getting back on topic of examples of shortsighted Governments: Neo-Colonial policies of the west are incredibly stupid since it does not ensure the national security of the NATO countries and will only precipitate more wars and conflicts and possibly acts of Terrorism------ The world is in a developing state and with so many twisted view points out there from so many countries that it stands to reason that there is going to be some kicking and screaming by some people who dont share the whole civil rights/freedom of religion/freedom of speech thing.

I have to admit that my history is not as good as it should be so if you do want to "bombard" me then that will be ok.

I'll try to keep this as brief as possible...

As a fellow American I know that the US is far from the most righteous country on Earth. If you completely read my response and look up some of the historically inhumane thing that a few far right wing extremists (in power) have committed in the name of Liberty and all the USA should be standing for then you would know what I'm talking about. As far as fighting for Civil Rights, to say that is one of their goals is absurd. In my last post I gave plenty of examples of the US and NATO depriving basic civil rights by destroying democratic nations and installing military and in some cases fascist dictators in numerous countries. I can give you a list of Countries from the turn of the last century to the modern day that have lost civil right due to western intervention but Honestly I don't know every single country. (And there are many)

If you look at the Civil rights struggles within the US then you should know that it is fully of Civil Rights abuses to say the least. Many that continue to this very day. The reactionary forces to this day still have contempt for Unions so we have all these right wing Governors throughout the US depriving Union of collective bargaining rights. To add to that many of these extremists are not making it harder to either register to vote or to vote period. Looking at our "Democratic" system we are always limited to voting for 2 parties when voting for the POTUS. (Looking at the Presidential primary rules of both parties shows that it is very undemocratic) George W. Bush was SELECTED President. He not only lost the popular vote but Al Gore actually won in Florida. As far as I'm concerned, that is a HUGE civil rights violation. We need to stop looking at Authoritarian/Totalitarian rule as forceful and violent. More creative Countries have far more clever ways of maintaining control by using fear and ignorance as weapons instead of bullets.  

But as far as some interesting history that is often left out I can PM you some stuff. There are some interesting documentaries on youtube that I can try to find. 

[KevShep]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

I sent you a reply to your inbox because I dont want bioware to lock out this thread because of us.

[Luigitornado]

And when the Reapers show up at Earth the Council will refuse to give aid and call it a Earth-localized problem, and some mumbo-jumbo that if they step in any chance for diplomacy will cease.

Modifié par Luigitornado, 01 août 2011 - 04:11 .

[SpiffySquee]

Luigitornado wrote...

And when the Reapers show up at Earth the Council will refuse to give aid and call it a Earth-localized problem, and some mumbo-jumbo that if they step in any chance for diplomacy will cease.

Actually, I think it will be more along the lines of, "We would love to help, but they are kicking our ass too!"

[mrklean007]

Carbon dating doesn't work in space: It compares the levels of a certain carbon isotope and matches it it with levels present in the atmosphere...There's a lot more to it, and I can't quite remember it properly, but it absolutely won't work in space.
http://en.wikipedia....iocarbon_dating

As for the the whole camera argument: In the opening minutes of ME1 there's a guy with a camera filming the distress call on eden prime, so you could assume people (maybe with omni-tools) can capture audio or video. But this argument doesn't stand up: homemade-video can't be used as evidence! Even in our time its all too easy to fake fake video, let alone hundreds of years in the future. In fact, I think one of the main "plot-holes" in ME was how quickly the council believed Shepard that Saren had gone rogue just because of a sound file with his voice.

[Juha81FIN]

How about Rana Thanoptis incase she survived Virmire, could verify that Saren was controlled by other entity and can tell about the indoctrination?

[captainoblivious]

Aren't the council's own explanations contradictory? They say that sovereign was a geth creation and then they say that saren convinced the geth that sovereign was a reaper/god to get the geth to follow him. If the geth created sovereign wouldn't they know he's not a reaper when saran told them he was? Or am I just missing something?

:/

[didymos1120]

captainoblivious wrote...

Aren't the council's own explanations contradictory? They say that sovereign was a geth creation and then they say that saren convinced the geth that sovereign was a reaper/god to get the geth to follow him. If the geth created sovereign wouldn't they know he's not a reaper when saran told them he was? Or am I just missing something?

:/

 No.  It's that Sovvy was a geth creation and that, in addition, Saren bamboozled them with the Reaper myth. I.e. playing to his to audience:  "Hey, y'all are machine intelligences and don't really like organics.  Bet you'd love to meet these other machine intelligences who, as it just so happens, also don't like organics!  Whaddya say?"

[Clonedzero]

i never thought it was odd that the council denies the reapers, i mean what evidence has shepard really shown? he has absolutely no solid evidence.

think of it this way, if we sent a super badass special ops dude to say, russia to do some covert mission, then came back and started telling the military command and congress that theres a race of mole people living under ground planning to attack us and he has no solid evidence, do you think we'd believe him? really?

[Blarty]

Everyone understands the denial in public, but why would they deny it to Shepard, who fought Sovereign at the Council's own doorstep, it's this piece that doesn't make sense.

[Wulfram]

The "Saren made it up" theory doesn't really stand up when he committed suicide.

[Blarty]

Clonedzero wrote...

i never thought it was odd that the council denies the reapers, i mean what evidence has shepard really shown? he has absolutely no solid evidence.

think of it this way, if we sent a super badass special ops dude to say, russia to do some covert mission, then came back and started telling the military command and congress that theres a race of mole people living under ground planning to attack us and he has no solid evidence, do you think we'd believe him? really?

I'd imagine that Sovereign would be a pretty obvious 'Exhibit A' plus there is no doubt in my mind that the Council races would not have inspected Sovereign to see it was different from the geth technology.

[Blarty]

Wulfram wrote...

The "Saren made it up" theory doesn't really stand up when he committed suicide.

Plus there would have been the remains of the powered up saren, and no 'geth' Spike to attribute his transformation

Modifié par Blarty, 01 août 2011 - 09:48 .

[Blarty]

captainoblivious wrote...

Aren't the council's own explanations contradictory? They say that sovereign was a geth creation and then they say that saren convinced the geth that sovereign was a reaper/god to get the geth to follow him. If the geth created sovereign wouldn't they know he's not a reaper when saran told them he was? Or am I just missing something?

:/

Indeed, if the geth had created Sovereign, Saren would be working for, and as an agent of, the geth not the other way around. Also, the geth, after gaining their own sentience and the battle with the Quarians, wouldn't think of creating a race that would then control them as a logical thing to do. Indeed, the geth would most likely build Sovereign as a huge mobile platform, but still intrinsically linked as a peer within the network