233 réponses à ce sujet

[N00blet666]

Shep's trying to destroy the reapers. He has been for 2 games now. Cerberus doesn't want the reapers destroyed. Hence TIM wants Shepard dead.

[AquamanOS]

Yep. Renegade Shep might have been cool with Cerberus when they both fighting to take out the Collectors, but even a Renegade Shep wants the Reapers taken out. They'd never try to mess with them to take control. They saw first hand what happened to the last guy who tried to make nice with the Reapers.

[MAZ77]

Kazanth wrote...

Because Bioware's target audience can't handle moral ambiguity.

This. Plus TIM is indoctrinated, he just believes to be in control (like Saren). So TIM=Saren (just lamer).

[Farbautisonn]

Well... I hope they can provide some sort of logical switch from "Go hunt the reapers" to "Im allied with them... hohoho... Noone can stand before the powers of the twin towers".

If its just "oh.... hes indoctrinated now", that will end up being "a bit" lame.

[Clearly Balkan]

Farbautisonn wrote...

I like TIM. He is ruthless and doesnt give a crap as long as his ends are met, but we are fighting a war against an enemy that wants to wipe out all organic life. Every man woman and child of every sentient species in the galaxy. We are fighting Hitler on roids.

If we are not prepared to make every single sacrifice possible to ensure that we survive as a race, then we dont deserve to live. Then we can go into oblivion with any morals and ethics intact... in which case the morals and ethics wont matter crap.

I dont like most of what TIM does. I find it rather horrid, morally and ethically questionable at best and I see him as a guy who does have a huge opinion of the criticallity of his own work. However... He might be right. Keeping the collector base might be the very edge we need. It might also spell our doom. But TIM has proved he can make the near-impossible happen. We just dont like him because he isnt a nice guy.

Guess what. The history books are full of people who did very questionable things and ended up building empires and civilizations. Hell alot of the products we use today have histories and owe themselves to practices that are barbaric when looked at from a certain point of view.

The two last great wars was won by people who got the job done. People who did things that were morally and ethically wrong by todays standarts, but things that ensured that we live as we do today. And when they won they usually scooped up the tech and scientists from the other side that was superiour to their own.

I wouldnt be surprised to see TIM as a crucial player with crucial knowledge of the Reapers and a nessesary albeit "evil" player to ensure survival of humanity or the galaxy as a whole.

And you yourself effectively kill hundreds of thousands of batarians to wipe out a Mass Relay. To buy time. Scortched earth tactics. You are not a saint.

WOW ! ......

*Respect

[Abram730]

Easy answer TIM is indoctrinated.. and / or
Another possible answer is in the Demo if you are sharp.
If you took the renegade path you can't beat them.. So what is the other option?
The phrase is ________ and the last word is cost. What Saren was thinking?
Ilos?

[Aimi]

Farbautisonn wrote...

-Yep. I do. And they did.  The "Bomber harris" firebombardments of Dresden and other industrial hubs were hampered by the fact that at the time you didnt have laser guided weapons of precition. You required tonnes of ordenance to take out a single target where as today a single bomb might do it. Also the population in these areas were essential in the warindustry as they were manning the factories. No workers, and no factories = No wareffort. The primary objective wasnt terror. It was hampering the wareffort. Terror was a secondary or perhaps even thirtiary goal. Robbing **** germany of factories and infrastructure was the primary and secondary objectives. The civillians... got in the way. Tough cookies.

The nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done for several reasons. Mostly to save lives. The war in the pacific had shown the americans that the japs would fight vehemently for every single scrap of land to the point of fanaticism. The deathtoll for a marine corps landing in mainland Japan would have been staggering. Secondary purpose of nuking was to show the Russians that the US now had nuclear capability and to pressure them at the bargaining tables, trying to ensure a US hegemony. Thridly both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had infrastructure and factories that was considered crucial in the japanese wareffort.

The objective of the massacres you mention had nothing to do with protecting the USSR from outside or even inside agression. It was simple calculus from Stalin. He wantted to eliminate any and all opposition to his regime and to his puppet governments in the east.  Stalin was merely continuing the progoms he had allready conducted at home. Modus operandi. Business as usual.

The victors did deny many a thing. However fortunately history isnt a static size. We know considerably more about the actions of the allies before during and just after the war, than the victors at the time wanted us to know.

You said it yourself. No allied soldier was convicted of warcrimes. And thats a bit odd. Because I dont know any conflict where there have been no violations by one side only.  Fortunately we know today that even allied soldiers did partake in practicies that would have been seriously questionable if not downright criminal. Fortunately because knowing your history does rather give you a chance of not repeating it. The firebombings of dresden would have been an all out warcrime today. The Nukes would have been questionable, at the very best. The interrigation, exploitation and sometimes (often in some cases) outright torture of Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and SS prisoners, especially on the eastern front would be warcrimes today. The use of civillians as shields. The use of political kommisars who drove soldiers into attacks at gunpoints, often making frontal assults on dug in positions... Actions that at the time was acceptable but with current eyes would be downright criminal negligence and abuse of rank and position.

The postwar prosperity even depended on people from the very highest echelons of **** governance. Werner von Braun was crucial in giving the US a headstart in the space race, from which you and I derived many benefits. One  "Spymaster of europe" was an ex **** (Reinhard Gehlen) who had a considerable HUMINT network in the east bloc and thusly was an essential part of the cold war.

There are no saints in warfare. Not in peace either.

You're creating false dilemmas.

There was a clear delineation between bombings of industrial and military targets that were producing weapons of war and terror-bombings of cities to a) cause hopeless destruction and try to force the civilian population to turn against the war. Attacks on industrial targets made sense in context, and weren't a total moral black hole like terror bombing. I'm not arguing that, say, the Schweinfurt raid was a Horrible Thing and Objectively a War Crime that Totally Falls Under the Rubric of Things That Simply Shouldn't Be Done. But fire-bombing Tokyo, or Dresden? Yeah, that's objectively a war crime, and it didn't do any damn good.

Same sort of thing with the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. You can, theoretically, make the argument that they were unnecessary and that the Japanese government would have agreed to unconditional surrender without an invasion or the nukes. I won't, because I don't fully understand the scholarship behind the issue. But they were made against relatively hard military targets with a clear goal in mind, and furthermore didn't even cause the same sort of destruction as LeMay's firebombing raids on Tokyo. They weren't nihilistic terror-for-terror's-sake attacks. And, if you accept the argument that nuking Japan forced the government to surrender without an invasion (an eminently reasonable argument to make), then their use was objectively the moral choice, because far more people - soldiers and civilians - would've died in an invasion, unquestionably.

The fact that Stalin's massacres were "business as usual" for the Soviet regime does not mean that they were even remotely acceptable in any humane sense. Sure, you can explain why Stalin ordered them to be carried out (or Beriya, or Yezhov, or whomever), but explaining something and condoning it are not the same thing. And explaining why something happened does not mean that it happened for anything approaching 'the right reasons'. Stalin may have been a paranoiac who saw threats where they did not exist and who took extreme measures to eliminate those perceived threats. So what? The Polish officers massacred at Katyn were not, in any sense, threats to the stability and security Soviet state. They were only threats to Stalin's ultimate control over Poland. Their murder does not qualify in any sense as having helped the USSR defeat the Hitlerites. It's basically impossible to justify such actions, and I'm slightly horrified that you're even trying. This whole discussion is, at least in theory, about condoning the horrible things many people in history have done to ensure the success or survival of their state and/or society, right? Because Cerberus has done many horrible things, ostensibly for the same purpose? But most of these actions you're referencing - or rather, that you referenced vaguely and I fleshed out by necessity - weren't actually good at all, for anybody, in the short or long term. If we play the what-if game, and say, "what if the Red Army hadn't tacitly supported genocide in Eastern Europe", would the Hitlerites have won the Second World War because of this lack of tacit support? Of course not. Would we not have been able to develop rocket technology if the Wilhelm Gustloff hadn't been torpedoed? Of course not.

I'm not trying to say that the Grand Alliance of the Second World War was blameless. In fact, I've been arguing the exact opposite, from the beginning of the thread. Of course both sides committed war crimes, both by the definition of 'war crime' as it was back in the 1940s and by the definition of 'war crime' as it is now. What I am saying is that you don't need to blindly take the good with the bad. The Allies didn't have to commit war crimes to win the war. There was no point at which the Grand Alliance balanced on the edge of defeat, with only their violations of human rights keeping the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the Imperial Japanese Army at bay.

And the Second World War is possibly the most clear-cut example in history of a war in which it would be a Good Thing if one side won and the other lost. I can't imagine anybody seriously suggesting that the authoritarian, racist, xenophobic regimes that dominated the Axis would have created a better world than the one we currently enjoy. But if, say, the Central Powers won the First World War, who cares? Things would be different, but hardly worse. Some Europeans would be better off, some worse; both sides committed war crimes in equal measure (the British perhaps slightly edging the Germans), so there's really little to choose from. You can't say that modern civilization depended on the Royal Navy starving millions of Germans with an illegal blockade. Get further back, and things get even murkier. Chinggis Qayan and the Mongols reportedly committed some of the most horrific atrocities in medieval history, and practically destroyed large chunks of the Muslim world. Even if the Mongols hadn't massacred the people of, say, Bukhara, or Baghdad, would they really have lost their wars of conquest? And if they had lost, would that really have been a Bad Thing?

So you can't really compare this situation to the Cerberus one at all. If Cerberus' atrocities actually are in the service of a greater good (a meaningful 'greater good', like 'billions don't die at the hands of the Reapers'), and if what Cerberus is doing really is the difference between defeat and not-defeat in the Reaper War, then they would not be comparable to anything we have seen in history to this point. You can try to justify it all on the principles of the game itself - I won't stop you. Far be it from me to denounce Renegade play for the sake of Renegade play. I play Renegade myself sometimes, although I'm not a Cerberus ass-kisser like some of the other people in this thread. Just don't try to justify this with appeals to perceived history.

[Alithinos]

TIM just wants to do different things than Shepard,because he sees things with a different eye.
And he MIGHT be indoctrinated.
Remember his cause might be good,but how he tries to achieve it is very different.
[ATTENTION SPOILERS]
So at one point he wants the Charon Relay to get destroyed so aliens will not be available to fast-travel from the Citadel to the Sol system.
In his mind this protects Earth from.. the aliens.It's just a nationalistic move to close the borders to strangers.
But Shepard doesn't believe this is the right thing to do,because he belives in the Intergalactic Council,policies and relations...
With another eye you could point out that this might be the outcome of Reaper indoctrination.
Because closing the Charon Relay is a part of what the Reapers had for plan A,remember ?
Reapers where about to use the Citadel to travel to it,and then close all relays so there is no communication between the different places,so they can attack each system/civilization one at a time without having them joining an allied army and fighting all together at the same time.
Who knows ?

[John Locke N7]

Atleast we know 100% that TIM HATES SHEPARDS F***ING GUTS?

how do i know this? why els would anyone send 'phantoms' after us...

Modifié par John Locke N7, 20 février 2012 - 01:04 .

[Farbautisonn]

daqs wrote...


You're creating false dilemmas.

There was a clear delineation between bombings of industrial and military targets that were producing weapons of war and terror-bombings of cities to a) cause hopeless destruction and try to force the civilian population to turn against the war. Attacks on industrial targets made sense in context, and weren't a total moral black hole like terror bombing. I'm not arguing that, say, the Schweinfurt raid was a Horrible Thing and Objectively a War Crime that Totally Falls Under the Rubric of Things That Simply Shouldn't Be Done. But fire-bombing Tokyo, or Dresden? Yeah, that's objectively a war crime, and it didn't do any damn good.

Same sort of thing with the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. You can, theoretically, make the argument that they were unnecessary and that the Japanese government would have agreed to unconditional surrender without an invasion or the nukes. I won't, because I don't fully understand the scholarship behind the issue. But they were made against relatively hard military targets with a clear goal in mind, and furthermore didn't even cause the same sort of destruction as LeMay's firebombing raids on Tokyo. They weren't nihilistic terror-for-terror's-sake attacks. And, if you accept the argument that nuking Japan forced the government to surrender without an invasion (an eminently reasonable argument to make), then their use was objectively the moral choice, because far more people - soldiers and civilians - would've died in an invasion, unquestionably.

The fact that Stalin's massacres were "business as usual" for the Soviet regime does not mean that they were even remotely acceptable in any humane sense. Sure, you can explain why Stalin ordered them to be carried out (or Beriya, or Yezhov, or whomever), but explaining something and condoning it are not the same thing. And explaining why something happened does not mean that it happened for anything approaching 'the right reasons'. Stalin may have been a paranoiac who saw threats where they did not exist and who took extreme measures to eliminate those perceived threats. So what? The Polish officers massacred at Katyn were not, in any sense, threats to the stability and security Soviet state. They were only threats to Stalin's ultimate control over Poland. Their murder does not qualify in any sense as having helped the USSR defeat the Hitlerites. It's basically impossible to justify such actions, and I'm slightly horrified that you're even trying. This whole discussion is, at least in theory, about condoning the horrible things many people in history have done to ensure the success or survival of their state and/or society, right? Because Cerberus has done many horrible things, ostensibly for the same purpose? But most of these actions you're referencing - or rather, that you referenced vaguely and I fleshed out by necessity - weren't actually good at all, for anybody, in the short or long term. If we play the what-if game, and say, "what if the Red Army hadn't tacitly supported genocide in Eastern Europe", would the Hitlerites have won the Second World War because of this lack of tacit support? Of course not. Would we not have been able to develop rocket technology if the Wilhelm Gustloff hadn't been torpedoed? Of course not.

I'm not trying to say that the Grand Alliance of the Second World War was blameless. In fact, I've been arguing the exact opposite, from the beginning of the thread. Of course both sides committed war crimes, both by the definition of 'war crime' as it was back in the 1940s and by the definition of 'war crime' as it is now. What I am saying is that you don't need to blindly take the good with the bad. The Allies didn't have to commit war crimes to win the war. There was no point at which the Grand Alliance balanced on the edge of defeat, with only their violations of human rights keeping the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the Imperial Japanese Army at bay.

And the Second World War is possibly the most clear-cut example in history of a war in which it would be a Good Thing if one side won and the other lost. I can't imagine anybody seriously suggesting that the authoritarian, racist, xenophobic regimes that dominated the Axis would have created a better world than the one we currently enjoy. But if, say, the Central Powers won the First World War, who cares? Things would be different, but hardly worse. Some Europeans would be better off, some worse; both sides committed war crimes in equal measure (the British perhaps slightly edging the Germans), so there's really little to choose from. You can't say that modern civilization depended on the Royal Navy starving millions of Germans with an illegal blockade. Get further back, and things get even murkier. Chinggis Qayan and the Mongols reportedly committed some of the most horrific atrocities in medieval history, and practically destroyed large chunks of the Muslim world. Even if the Mongols hadn't massacred the people of, say, Bukhara, or Baghdad, would they really have lost their wars of conquest? And if they had lost, would that really have been a Bad Thing?

So you can't really compare this situation to the Cerberus one at all. If Cerberus' atrocities actually are in the service of a greater good (a meaningful 'greater good', like 'billions don't die at the hands of the Reapers'), and if what Cerberus is doing really is the difference between defeat and not-defeat in the Reaper War, then they would not be comparable to anything we have seen in history to this point. You can try to justify it all on the principles of the game itself - I won't stop you. Far be it from me to denounce Renegade play for the sake of Renegade play. I play Renegade myself sometimes, although I'm not a Cerberus ass-kisser like some of the other people in this thread. Just don't try to justify this with appeals to perceived history.

-False dilemmas? Nope.

Dresden did have a high industrial infrastructure and was a rail hub... one of the few remaining at the time of the bombing. It was largely intact and supplied munitions that prolongued the war. Leaving it be would have been "nice" but would also have lead to more allied casulties. Perhaps significantly more.

The Tokyo bombardments cut the citys industrial output in half (!), So that also had a purpose. Wasnt "Terror for terrors sake". Was it absolutely nessesary? Perhaps not. But at the time it was deemed nessesary.

Im not condoning the Stalinist regime and its purges. Im merely explaining to you why the purges had nothing to do with "fear of aggression". They were as you yourself conceed a threat to Stalins plan. Along with clergy, nobles and intelligensia. Im not trying to justify them at all. Im just saying that they were done by an ally who later decried the loss of millions... mostly millions that they themselves pushed into harms way like lemmings due to crap tactics, scortched earth tactics and ridiculous leadership. The action however did serve the very purpose later that Stalin wanted. No opposition. The very reason why the soviets could hold on to the east bloc for so long was because of brutal repression and pursecution of dissidents. And during the war, western allies suppressed any news of atrocities committed by their eastern ally. Mass rapes, suicidal tactics, purges, etc. All suppressed. And yet the russians were instrumental in beating **** germany... correct? 

There is no need to blindly take the good with the bad. Nope. And yet its done every single day, even in current theaters of war (and out of them for that matter). Its a matter of "niceties toward allies" and "fight against terror". He might be a rotten bastard, but at least he is our rotten bastard has been the credo of realpolitik since the romans. Thats not really going to change in any foreseeable future.

The second world war was a war that we had to win. I agree. But the fruits of war, many of which you and I enjoy today, are tainted by results achieved by slave labour, medical experiments and more. Ignoring that is a bit naiive. The allies used the very warcriminals that they themselves had demonized.

As for speculating on the mongols, I dont see the relevance or the point.

Its not "renegade for the sake of being a renegade". Its a simple "survive or die" option. If the reapers win, all sentient organic life dies. Period. Cerberus (as it looks in me2 at least) wants to ensure the survival of man, at all costs. It concerns itself with results, with ends. Not with means. Thats the central part for me. I know enough about human nature to accept that a father will steal the bread from another hungry family to feed his own kids, even if it means slaying the other parents and abandoning the kids. Its not nice. Its not ethical, but its simply human nature. We look out for our own first.  And if I have the choise between ensuring the safety of my own kids and my own family at the cost of some other poor guys family and kids, Ill choose my own, every single day and twice on sundays, and Im not going to kid myself about it. Ethics and morals are a Luxury I cant afford if faced with "do or die". And in the history of the world, I have been proven right ad nauseam. If faced with utter destruction people will do anything to survive. Including using bows and arrows against winchesters. Or cavalry attacks against tanks. Or sending mere kids with next to no flight training into cockpits of Spitfires and Blenheims.

Cerberus are bastards. No question. No if and or buts about it. But they are "our" bastards. And historically speaking.... thats all that has ever mattered.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Farbautisonn wrote...
*SNIP*

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing here.

The necessiy of some actions is dictated by the costs and alternatives. Most such ruthless, unethical actions ARE indeed unjustified.

I for one don't think the Nuke was justified. I dont' think ti was necessary.. I mean it was - IF the US invaded Japan. But that's hte point - they didn't have to. Japans air nad naval force was broken - it ceased to be a direct threat to the US.

All the US had to do was ...nothing. The pressure and blame-throwing in Japan would eventually lead to the collapse of hte regime either way.


Is everything TIM did justified? I don't belive so. Does he belive it is? Probably.
Are some things he did necessary? Yes.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AquamanOS wrote...

Yep. Renegade Shep might have been cool with Cerberus when they both fighting to take out the Collectors, but even a Renegade Shep wants the Reapers taken out. They'd never try to mess with them to take control. They saw first hand what happened to the last guy who tried to make nice with the Reapers.

And that's BS. Taking full control of Shep like that..how is that a role-playing game anymore, when the player cannot even take rational and logical options presented?

It's even more BS because the ending allows Shep to do exactly the same thing Cerberus wants.

[movieguyabw]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AquamanOS wrote...

Yep. Renegade Shep might have been cool with Cerberus when they both fighting to take out the Collectors, but even a Renegade Shep wants the Reapers taken out. They'd never try to mess with them to take control. They saw first hand what happened to the last guy who tried to make nice with the Reapers.

And that's BS. Taking full control of Shep like that..how is that a role-playing game anymore, when the player cannot even take rational and logical options presented?

It's even more BS because the ending allows Shep to do exactly the same thing Cerberus wants.

I agree.  Maybe your Shepard wouldn't want to take control of the Reapers, but that doesn't mean *everyone's* Shepard wouldn't.  If the Illusive Man tells my Female Shepard "Hey, I want to control the Reapers, and use them as weapons", I damn well want the option that says "Oh, cool.  I like that idea."    Moreover, I've been thinking of doing a playthrough, where I play as though Shepard is indoctrinated already.  That Shepard would not want the Reapers taken out.

[Dean_the_Young]

Eterna5 wrote...

Stop posting spoilers you jerks.

This has been in the media for monthes.

Not the leaks, but the honest to god bioware-approved advertising.

[Dean_the_Young]

As for the 'why use Cerberus as an antagonist regardless'... I think 'plot clay' is a valid argument.

Really, Cerberus is unnecessary for the role and motivations being filled. It could just as well be the Batarians, making a deal with the devil they hope to control: heck, you wouldn't even need to change the character models besides TIM if it were. With those Cerberus-uniforms, who would know the difference?

Cerberus could have been a smaller role. One might say it deserved one, and was being foreshadowed for one. The Cerberus strength could have made a good Consequence if you kept the base, and if not they could have been much weaker after the events of Retribution.

But Bioware wanted a certain plot done, and their chosen agent was Cerberus. Because.

[Bad King]

If we controlled the reapers, I wonder if we could use their uber tech to invade other galaxies and create a human led intergalactic empire run by Shepard, TIM, Udina, Lord Darius, Anderson, and Admiral Hackett?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...
*SNIP*

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing here.

The necessiy of some actions is dictated by the costs and alternatives. Most such ruthless, unethical actions ARE indeed unjustified.

I for one don't think the Nuke was justified. I dont' think ti was necessary.. I mean it was - IF the US invaded Japan. But that's hte point - they didn't have to. Japans air nad naval force was broken - it ceased to be a direct threat to the US.

All the US had to do was ...nothing. The pressure and blame-throwing in Japan would eventually lead to the collapse of hte regime either way.


Is everything TIM did justified? I don't belive so. Does he belive it is? Probably.
Are some things he did necessary? Yes.

Yes indeed. The Japanese Navy and Air force were mostly destroyed at the time before Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuclear catastrophe. In few weeks or months USA could have forced Japan to surrender, and if not Japan couldn't do anything big to attack USA forces. ... Truman and his gay atomic bomb, I've dismissed that claim.

Modifié par Jedi Sentinel Arian, 20 février 2012 - 05:12 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

A) You gave them what they wanted so they don't need you anymore

Or

B ) TIM deliberately placed the reaper tech in you to be his pawn against the reapers. The reapers were suppose to hack you and then he was suppose to use that control chip in your brain to make sure you undermine the reapers when it his interest are involved and eventually have you weaken them via sabotage from the inside out then TIM foundout the chip won't work shep being hack is greater then a chip and so he now must get you back and retool you and if he can't retool you he'll kill you so you can't be used as a weapon against him and his interest. One or the other.

[jaza]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Because it's easier to write one story with no deviation than one story with little deviation.

That.

[Xayoz]

Meh.
I must say this'll be a hard hit for my S, who was pretty much a poster girl for Cerberus. (In both ME1 and 2)

If they turn Cerberus and tIM into a another bunch of mindless villains or indoctrinated drones... I'll weep.

[incinerator950]

Time to abandon topic.

[MassStorm]

Kazanth wrote...

Because Bioware's target audience can't handle moral ambiguity.

So true. My renegade Shepard was a xenophobic bastard who supported Cerberus and now everything is messed up in that storyline for me. Kinda lose his appealing to be renegade if you cannot join Cerberus.

What is right in a war? Maybe Cerberus is right...maybe the Alliance is wrong....but noooooo...why asking these questions just let's continue with "shoot the bad guy" mentality, which is the exact mindset of little kids. Well i'm a little bit disappointed.

Modifié par MassStorm, 20 février 2012 - 06:35 .

[movieguyabw]

MassStorm wrote...

So true. My renegade Shepard was a xenophobic bastard who supported Cerberus and now everything is messed up in that storyline for me. Kinda lose his appealing to be renegade if you cannot join Cerberus.

What is right in a war? Maybe Cerberus is right...maybe the Alliance is wrong....but noooooo...why asking these questions just let's continue with "shoot the bad guy" mentality, which is the exact mindset of little kids. Well i'm a little bit disappointed.

This.

[Soccer FeverMan]

Farbautisonn wrote...

I like TIM. He is ruthless and doesnt give a crap as long as his ends are met, but we are fighting a war against an enemy that wants to wipe out all organic life. Every man woman and child of every sentient species in the galaxy. We are fighting Hitler on roids.

If we are not prepared to make every single sacrifice possible to ensure that we survive as a race, then we dont deserve to live. Then we can go into oblivion with any morals and ethics intact... in which case the morals and ethics wont matter crap.

I dont like most of what TIM does. I find it rather horrid, morally and ethically questionable at best and I see him as a guy who does have a huge opinion of the criticallity of his own work. However... He might be right. Keeping the collector base might be the very edge we need. It might also spell our doom. But TIM has proved he can make the near-impossible happen. We just dont like him because he isnt a nice guy.

Guess what. The history books are full of people who did very questionable things and ended up building empires and civilizations. Hell alot of the products we use today have histories and owe themselves to practices that are barbaric when looked at from a certain point of view.

The two last great wars was won by people who got the job done. People who did things that were morally and ethically wrong by todays standarts, but things that ensured that we live as we do today. And when they won they usually scooped up the tech and scientists from the other side that was superiour to their own.

I wouldnt be surprised to see TIM as a crucial player with crucial knowledge of the Reapers and a nessesary albeit "evil" player to ensure survival of humanity or the galaxy as a whole.

And you yourself effectively kill hundreds of thousands of batarians to wipe out a Mass Relay. To buy time. Scortched earth tactics. You are not a saint.

Yes