168 réponses à ce sujet

[HiddenInWar]

If they go with the Liara/Ashley love triangle and Shepard mentions the whole "why do I have to choose? maybe we could...ya know..."

That alone would be the price of admission.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Made Nightwing wrote...

I don't hate you. I am simply thankful that as an outlier, you are not proof that humanity has de-evolved, again.

I don't think of it as de-evolution.

I don't believe in morals or rules of war. All's fair.

I won't kill or torture if I don't have to. I'm not a sadist.

But if I have to kill civilians to achieve my goals, it'll be done in a heart-beat. Ending conflict by showing your opponents the real hell of war is the best way to end said conflict. And keep it ended. 

Show them how terrifying and horrible it really is firsthand. They'll never bother fighting again.

That's not to say I'll wipe out a colony to test a new assault rifle. 

But if the benefits of the information or of my goals outweighs the lives of the people who suffer, then I'll do it. I don't believe in torture for it's own sake (though I do believe in situations where that applies).

I've never seen anyone in Cerberus who was an advocate for that belief

There's no such thing as minimizing suffering in war. You're either all in, or you don't fight. That's one of the useful things I learned from Marines. They're good for something at least.

And please don't compare me to Lt. Calley of My Lai. You have no grasp of the actual circumstance of that situation and how it doesn't relate at all to Cerberus.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 mai 2013 - 05:51 .

[dreamgazer]

HiddenInWar wrote...

If they go with the Liara/Ashley love triangle and Shepard mentions the whole "why do I have to choose? maybe we could...ya know..."

That alone would be the price of admission.

Your choices matter.

[Made Nightwing]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

I don't hate you. I am simply thankful that as an outlier, you are not proof that humanity has de-evolved, again.

I don't think of it as de-evolution. I think of it as pragmatism. 

I don't believe in morals or rules of war. Alls fair. I won't kill or torture if I don't have to. I'm not a sadist.

But if I have to kill civilians to achieve my goals, it'll be done in a heart-beat. That's not to say I'll wipe out a colony to test a new assault rifle. 

But if the benefits of the information or of my goals outweighs the lives of the people who suffer, then I'll do it.

There's no such thing as minimizing suffering in war. You're either all in, or you don't fight. That's one of the useful things I learned from Marines. They're good for something at least.

Ah yes, "pragmatism", a mysterious word that permits human beings to disregard the innate rights of others. Hague and Geneva and the rest of humanity has dismissed that claim.

I have trained with US Marines. They believe in going all out against the enemy, but would never harm a civillian. Namely because they can get court-martialled for it. I highly doubt you are or were a US Marine.

Calley believed that because he had lost men in ambushes, and because his orders loosely allowed him to use any means necessary, he was justified in what he did. Why My Lai was used as an example in my training was because it showed the terrible cost of soldiers divorcing themselves from morality. And let's not even touch on Agent Orange or Abu Grahib.

Modifié par Made Nightwing, 17 mai 2013 - 06:01 .

[HiddenInWar]

Since I'm in such a relaxing mood and I feel like it, why not go off-topic for a while and ask if any of you have seen star trek yet?

Modifié par HiddenInWar, 17 mai 2013 - 06:09 .

[Made Nightwing]

HiddenInWar wrote...

Since I'm in such a relaxing mood and I feel like it, why not go off-topic for a while and ask if any of you have seen stark trek yet?

Yes, and it was brilliant. You?

[HiddenInWar]

Made Nightwing wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Since I'm in such a relaxing mood and I feel like it, why not go off-topic for a while and ask if any of you have seen stark trek yet?

Yes, and it was brilliant. You?

I go tomorrow. Everyone says it was great but I read a review of it giving it a 4 out of 10 and I was like 

still excited though 

[KiwiQuiche]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Stop going off topic, guys.

But damnit, if they do stick romance in the ME it would probably end up as a Romance Plot Tumor like that horrible thing in Transformers. Admittedly, Michael Bay is a horrendous director but I could have tolerated that more without the horrid romance which I don't doubt ME romance would turn out like.

Now that you mention, I'd almost pay to see an ME film directed by Michael Bay.

It'd be entertaining to see how bad of an idea can be slummed with something from that hack.

I'm getting hideous visons of Michael Bay and the Mac co-writing the Mass Effect movie.

[HiddenInWar]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Stop going off topic, guys.

But damnit, if they do stick romance in the ME it would probably end up as a Romance Plot Tumor like that horrible thing in Transformers. Admittedly, Michael Bay is a horrendous director but I could have tolerated that more without the horrid romance which I don't doubt ME romance would turn out like.

Now that you mention, I'd almost pay to see an ME film directed by Michael Bay.

It'd be entertaining to see how bad of an idea can be slummed with something from that hack.

I'm getting hideous visons of Michael Bay and the Mac co-writing the Mass Effect movie.

Is it bad I wouldn't actually mind Bay being involved in some way...

[Made Nightwing]

HiddenInWar wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Since I'm in such a relaxing mood and I feel like it, why not go off-topic for a while and ask if any of you have seen stark trek yet?

Yes, and it was brilliant. You?

I go tomorrow. Everyone says it was great but I read a review of it giving it a 4 out of 10 and I was like 

still excited though 

The person who wrote that review was obviously a troll and should be removed from their nipples immediately.

[dreamgazer]

I like The Island, and I'm not even sorry about it.

But, I agree with the general gist of your anti-Bay stance.

[HiddenInWar]

Made Nightwing wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Since I'm in such a relaxing mood and I feel like it, why not go off-topic for a while and ask if any of you have seen stark trek yet?

Yes, and it was brilliant. You?

I go tomorrow. Everyone says it was great but I read a review of it giving it a 4 out of 10 and I was like 

still excited though 

The person who wrote that review was obviously a troll and should be removed from their nipples immediately.

The new unoffical motto of this subforum.

[KiwiQuiche]

HiddenInWar wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Stop going off topic, guys.

But damnit, if they do stick romance in the ME it would probably end up as a Romance Plot Tumor like that horrible thing in Transformers. Admittedly, Michael Bay is a horrendous director but I could have tolerated that more without the horrid romance which I don't doubt ME romance would turn out like.

Now that you mention, I'd almost pay to see an ME film directed by Michael Bay.

It'd be entertaining to see how bad of an idea can be slummed with something from that hack.

I'm getting hideous visons of Michael Bay and the Mac co-writing the Mass Effect movie.

Is it bad I wouldn't actually mind Bay being involved in some way...

Hmm, well I suppose Bay would have to try really damn hard to outsrip the Mac in the horrible writing department, even considering the mess that is the Transformer movies.

[Jafroboy]

HiddenInWar wrote...

Since I'm in such a relaxing mood and I feel like it, why not go off-topic for a while and ask if any of you have seen stark trek yet?

Stark Trek? Is that some kinda Star Trek prono, where they're all Stark Naked?

[PsyrenY]

I'd say Talimance is unlikely (except as a ship tease or something) since she and Garrus are canonically attracted to one another, both are dextro and neither has a backup romance if you take one of them. Pair the Spares, Beta Couple, No Loves Intersect etc... choose your secondary romance trope and Tarrus will probably fit it.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

If you have an alien LI, she has to pretty much be completely human in appearance with only something like skin/eye/haircolor as the difference.

Right, so how does this disqualify the Asari? They are literally blue women with weird hair.

Han Shot First wrote...

The Navi are more alien in appearance than the Asari, and Avatar did the whole interspecies thing. 

Except it didn't, really. If you turn into one of them to bang them, it's not really interspecies.

And given that Asari are placental (Aethyta: "I didn't pop her out") we know they have all the necessary... parts.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Made Nightwing wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

I don't hate you. I am simply thankful that as an outlier, you are not proof that humanity has de-evolved, again.

I don't think of it as de-evolution. I think of it as pragmatism. 

I don't believe in morals or rules of war. Alls fair. I won't kill or torture if I don't have to. I'm not a sadist.

But if I have to kill civilians to achieve my goals, it'll be done in a heart-beat. That's not to say I'll wipe out a colony to test a new assault rifle. 

But if the benefits of the information or of my goals outweighs the lives of the people who suffer, then I'll do it.

There's no such thing as minimizing suffering in war. You're either all in, or you don't fight. That's one of the useful things I learned from Marines. They're good for something at least.

I have trained with US Marines. They believe in going all out against the enemy, but would never harm a civillian. Namely because they can get court-martialled for it. I highly doubt you are or were a US Marine.

No I'm not a US Marine. I would be insulted if you ever called me one.

I'm a Soldier in the US Army. A veteran of Afghanistan. I know my regulations and rules of engagement. 

I don't like them, but at my rank, I can't afford to risk any serious violations. 

Then again, there's an acceptable difference between civilian deaths in combat versus blatant murder. Collateral damage it's called. If civilians die in the course of a mission objective, theirs nothing I can do. I'm not out to kill them or terrorize them. I'm out to accomplish my mission. That comes first. That always comes first.

I've worked with and befriended many people among the Aimuk tribe of Eastern Afghanistan, and been there as relief in response to Taliban insurgents who did terrorize them. I wouldn't want to see them harmed, and I'd do everything I could to protect them. 

But I also believe that in war, normal morality must be suspended. Things don't make much of a difference anymore. You must be willing to do some truly terrible things to your opponent to win. As of yet, it's been a bit of a pissing contest over who's more willing to do what.

I can't say that I approve of the Taliban or their goals or methods. I despise them, and what they're trying to do. I've proudly fought against them, even though I no longer totally support the OEF or it's mission anymore.

But I admire their resolve, their determination, their tenacity. They're willing to break the "rules" to achieve their ends. 

Really, their are no rules in war, nor should their be. General William Tecumseh Sherman knew that. General George Smith Patton knew that. Field Marshall Erwin Rommel knew it. Admiral Raymond Spruance knew it. General Douglas MacArthur knew it. Chesty Puller knew it. Creighton Abrams knew it. Winston Churchill knew it. FDR knew it. Harry S. Truman knew it. General Georgy Zhukov knew it. Michael Mullen knew it. David Petraeus knew it. General Casey knows it. 

Niccolo Machiavelli knew it. If you're going to fight, you must be willing to inflict terrible and horrendous acts upon your foe. Break their resolve, or operate outside their boundaries. Through victory, you end conflict. And you leave a lasting impression upon your former foe to know what happens when conflict arises.

Total war is the only way to fight a war.

[HiddenInWar]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Stop going off topic, guys.

But damnit, if they do stick romance in the ME it would probably end up as a Romance Plot Tumor like that horrible thing in Transformers. Admittedly, Michael Bay is a horrendous director but I could have tolerated that more without the horrid romance which I don't doubt ME romance would turn out like.

Now that you mention, I'd almost pay to see an ME film directed by Michael Bay.

It'd be entertaining to see how bad of an idea can be slummed with something from that hack.

I'm getting hideous visons of Michael Bay and the Mac co-writing the Mass Effect movie.

Is it bad I wouldn't actually mind Bay being involved in some way...

Hmm, well I suppose Bay would have to try really damn hard to outsrip the Mac in the horrible writing department, even considering the mess that is the Transformer movies.

DOTM and the first entry were good imo.

ROTF was okay.

I honestly miss Rachael Taylor/Anthony Andersons' roles as Maggie and Glen in the first one.

[HiddenInWar]

Jafroboy wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Since I'm in such a relaxing mood and I feel like it, why not go off-topic for a while and ask if any of you have seen stark trek yet?

Stark Trek? Is that some kinda Star Trek prono, where they're all Stark Naked?

DAMMIT

[dreamgazer]

It's pretty amusing that these two conversations are going on at the same time.

Check the writing credits for the Transformers movies and the Star Trek reboot movies, folks.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Made Nightwing wrote...


Ah yes, "pragmatism", a mysterious word that permits human beings to disregard the innate rights of others. Hague and Geneva and the rest of humanity has dismissed that claim.

Calley believed that because he had lost men in ambushes, and because his orders loosely allowed him to use any means necessary, he was justified in what he did. Why My Lai was used as an example in my training was because it showed the terrible cost of soldiers divorcing themselves from morality. And let's not even touch on Agent Orange or Abu Grahib.

Well, that's their problem.

War is ugly. Adding "rules" to it trivializes it. It makes us too willing to engage in it. It's naive really. "Laws of war?" That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. War is chaos. Hell. ****.

There's nothing honorable about war. There is only one goal, and that is to accomplish your mission and win the war, for the objective reason of ending conflict. The sooner you win a war, the less condflict there is. The less conflict there is, the less suffering there is.

And yes, I do believe in the innate rights of others.

I also believe that no one's rights are greater than anothers. That's why I'm willing to violate a few people's rights if it helps and protects the many others.

I'm going to ask on these bits how anything is related to Cerberus.

Lt. William Calley was a PL for a unit that was on patrol, and yes he was losing men. He was the scapegoat. His OIC snapped and that's how My Lai happened. I don't condone what he did, as a human or as PL myself. Abu Grahib was torture and humiliation for the sake of torture and humiliation. There was no need for it. It was a bunch of soldiers getting together to be stupid and idiotic. That's a stain on the Army's history. 

But Cerberus doesn't perform random acts of violence for the sake of random acts of violence. I've never seen that at all from them. What they do is questionable means to achieve reasonable ends. They could definitely use an ethics code, and TIM could definitely specify NOT to immediately resort to the most extreme methods to accomplish a goal. But they're willing to do evil to prevent evil. To do dark and terrible things so that people don't suffer later from the even darker and more terrible things. I believe they had limits that they overlooked. Their willingness to find a way to turn the Reapers into a benefit for humanity caused them to operate too loosely with Reaper tech. I think they're idiots since they should have known better, DID know better. Afterwards, they were indoctrinated. Any action they took was under the new twisted and perverted goals set forth by their new masters - the Reapers. 

But again, it's that tenacity, that willingness to do anything for the greater good. I admire that and respect that greatly. 

I can only imagine how useful Cerberus would have been in ME3 if they weren't indoctrinated.

I and my Shepard believe whole heartedly that TIM and Cerberus would have been his most useful ally in ME3 if they weren't.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 mai 2013 - 06:33 .

[Made Nightwing]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

I don't hate you. I am simply thankful that as an outlier, you are not proof that humanity has de-evolved, again.

I don't think of it as de-evolution. I think of it as pragmatism. 

I don't believe in morals or rules of war. Alls fair. I won't kill or torture if I don't have to. I'm not a sadist.

But if I have to kill civilians to achieve my goals, it'll be done in a heart-beat. That's not to say I'll wipe out a colony to test a new assault rifle. 

But if the benefits of the information or of my goals outweighs the lives of the people who suffer, then I'll do it.

There's no such thing as minimizing suffering in war. You're either all in, or you don't fight. That's one of the useful things I learned from Marines. They're good for something at least.

I have trained with US Marines. They believe in going all out against the enemy, but would never harm a civillian. Namely because they can get court-martialled for it. I highly doubt you are or were a US Marine.

No I'm not a US Marine. I would be insulted if you ever called me one.

I'm a Soldier in the US Army. A veteran of Afghanistan. I know my regulations and rules of engagement. 

I don't like them, but at my rank, I can't afford to risk any serious violations. 

Then again, there's an acceptable difference between civilian deaths in combat versus blatant murder. Collateral damage it's called. If civilians die in the course of a mission objective, theirs nothing I can do. I'm not out to kill them or terrorize them. I'm out to accomplish my mission. That comes first. That always comes first.

I've worked with and befriended many people among the Aimuk tribe of Eastern Afghanistan, and been there as relief in response to Taliban insurgents who did terrorize them. I wouldn't want to see them harmed, and I'd do everything I could to protect them. 

But I also believe that in war, normal morality must be suspended. Things don't make much of a difference anymore. You must be willing to do some truly terrible things to your opponent to win. As of yet, it's been a bit of a pissing contest over who's more willing to do what.

I can't say that I approve of the Taliban or their goals or methods. I despise them, and what they're trying to do. I've proudly fought against them, even though I no longer totally support the OEF or it's mission anymore.

But I admire their resolve, their determination, their tenacity. They're willing to break the "rules" to achieve their ends. 

Really, their are no rules in war, nor should their be. General William Tecumseh Sherman knew that. General George Smith Patton knew that. Field Marshall Erwin Rommel knew it. Admiral Raymond Spruance knew it. General Douglas MacArthur knew it. Chesty Puller knew it. Creighton Abrams knew it. Winston Churchill knew it. FDR knew it. Harry S. Truman knew it. General Georgy Zhukov knew it. Michael Mullen knew it. David Petraeus knew it. General Casey knows it. 

Niccolo Machiavelli knew it. If you're going to fight, you must be willing to inflict terrible and horrendous acts upon your foe. Break their resolve, or operate outside their boundaries. Through victory, you end conflict. And you leave a lasting impression upon your former foe to know what happens when conflict arises.

Total war is the only way to fight a war.

To a degree, you are right. War is terrible and rightly so. However, allow me to point out some flaws in your argument. First off, most of the people on your list did their utmost to uphold the rules of war to the very best of their ability. Rommel ignored Hitler's order to kill captured commandos and to identify Jews in the allied ranks, both of which were legitimate strategies to the Germans. Patton was determined that all normal rules of war would be upheld in battle, (his great respect for Rommel was indeed partially based on the other man's chivalrous treatment of the men he captured). General Abrams implemented a hearts and minds program, not a total war program, which was hugely successful (given the ARVN's defeat of the NVA's Easter Offensive). Winston Churchill opposed the destructive total war policies of the Red Army (amongst them the Massacre at Katyin Forest, wherein the Red Army murdered thousands of Polish officers who had surrendered to them, plus the Red Army abandonment of the Polish Home Army, leaving them to be slaughtered by the Germans). Harry S.Truman clearly did not know it, as he did not allow General MacArthur to pursue it. The Chinese tried to deliver total war on NATO in Korea, which led to the massacre of their forces (particularly at the Battle of Kapyong)

Niccolo Machiavelli's prized militia was also defeated, btw. So he really wasn't very effective at war.

The Soviet's tried those tactics in Afghanistan and were utterly destroyed anyway.

So more than half the names on your list held views that are the complete opposite to yours. They abhorred torture and needless destruction, they tried to act in has moral a manner as possible within the crucible of war. They did not always succeed, but they can be admired for their strength.

Your policies of 'collateral damage' have only incited more resistance against US forces. Wherever a civillian dies, his family will always be more susceptible to Taliban recruitment. A refusal to see that is what defeated the US efforts in Vietnam.

Australian troops, on the other hand, have always acted with restraint and discernment. Instead of blazing away, as you prefer, our troops have always acted to limit civillian casualties. Nathan Mullins, a Commando who served his time in Afghanistan, commented in his book 'Keep Your Head Down', that there were several times when they could have belted the door down, blown off the roof and stormed into a 'confirmed' Taliban safehouse. However, half the time all he found were a couple of old women, because Intel had dropped the ball. But, since they acted with calm restraint and careful behaviour, they were able to recruit informants, build bonds with the villagers and generally gain influence against the Taliban.

But now you've got me wondering. Because it was General McChrystal who advocated the 'soft' tactics that the coalition is now using in Afghanistan to great effect. The tactics you are proposing haven't been used in almost eight years. So you're either advocating hopelessly out-of-date strategy, or you're just an armchair strategist. I can't figure out which is worse.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Made Nightwing wrote...

To a degree, you are right. War is terrible and rightly so. However, allow me to point out some flaws in your argument. First off, most of the people on your list did their utmost to uphold the rules of war to the very best of their ability. Rommel ignored Hitler's order to kill captured commandos and to identify Jews in the allied ranks, both of which were legitimate strategies to the Germans. Patton was determined that all normal rules of war would be upheld in battle, (his great respect for Rommel was indeed partially based on the other man's chivalrous treatment of the men he captured). General Abrams implemented a hearts and minds program, not a total war program, which was hugely successful (given the ARVN's defeat of the NVA's Easter Offensive). Winston Churchill opposed the destructive total war policies of the Red Army (amongst them the Massacre at Katyin Forest, wherein the Red Army murdered thousands of Polish officers who had surrendered to them, plus the Red Army abandonment of the Polish Home Army, leaving them to be slaughtered by the Germans). Harry S.Truman clearly did not know it, as he did not allow General MacArthur to pursue it. The Chinese tried to deliver total war on NATO in Korea, which led to the massacre of their forces (particularly at the Battle of Kapyong)

Niccolo Machiavelli's prized militia was also defeated, btw. So he really wasn't very effective at war.

The Soviet's tried those tactics in Afghanistan and were utterly destroyed anyway.

So more than half the names on your list held views that are the complete opposite to yours. They abhorred torture and needless destruction, they tried to act in has moral a manner as possible within the crucible of war. They did not always succeed, but they can be admired for their strength.

Your policies of 'collateral damage' have only incited more resistance against US forces. Wherever a civillian dies, his family will always be more susceptible to Taliban recruitment. A refusal to see that is what defeated the US efforts in Vietnam.

Australian troops, on the other hand, have always acted with restraint and discernment. Instead of blazing away, as you prefer, our troops have always acted to limit civillian casualties. Nathan Mullins, a Commando who served his time in Afghanistan, commented in his book 'Keep Your Head Down', that there were several times when they could have belted the door down, blown off the roof and stormed into a 'confirmed' Taliban safehouse. However, half the time all he found were a couple of old women, because Intel had dropped the ball. But, since they acted with calm restraint and careful behaviour, they were able to recruit informants, build bonds with the villagers and generally gain influence against the Taliban.

But now you've got me wondering. Because it was General McChrystal who advocated the 'soft' tactics that the coalition is now using in Afghanistan to great effect. The tactics you are proposing haven't been used in almost eight years. So you're either advocating hopelessly out-of-date strategy, or you're just an armchair strategist. I can't figure out which is worse.

I think you misread my intent. 

I know what each of the Generals did, and why.

I think you're assuming that I advocate needless death and destruction. I do not. I think you believe I advocate torture for it's own sake or even for interrogation. I do not. I think you believe that I advocate being reckless with civilian casualties. I do not. 

Nor does the US Military for that matter. Stan's tactics of hearts and minds has worked wonders. In fact, that's how I have always advocated the treatment of civilians. 

You're thinking I'm a "charge in, kill everyone, take no prisoners type." I'm not. I believe in subtlety. I believe in compassion. But above all, I believe in ending a problem quickly. 

You're thinking I'm inclined to go through with the most extreme option for it's own sake. I believe in finding alternatives and stopping conflict if I can. 

But if I can't find a viable alternative, I'm going to do what I need to do. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

You're also mistaking a willingness to do whatever is necessary to accomplish a goal with tactics and offenses used. Kapyong for instance. I admire the Chinese tenacity, but blindly charging an enemy isn't going to win a battle. Especially when he has Artillery, Air Support, and a Battleship off the coast shelling him.

I think this is coming down to a fundamental difference in our perspective.

I'll ask this. What are you prepared to do to win a war? 

What is off the table completely?

Do I need to kill prisoners? No. That's off the table. Do I need to organize terror bombings? Not like Dresden. Early on in a war? Perhaps.

See, I view solutions differently than you I think.

I don't believe in a solution that is overly necessary. You're thinking I do, and that's not the case.

I don't believe in executing civilians in a conflict if it's not necessary, and 9/10 times, it's not. But in that 1 case, what do you do?

Can I be more clear? I see exactly where you're coming from, and now I'm trying to get you to see where I'm coming from.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 mai 2013 - 06:57 .

[Made Nightwing]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...


Ah yes, "pragmatism", a mysterious word that permits human beings to disregard the innate rights of others. Hague and Geneva and the rest of humanity has dismissed that claim.

Calley believed that because he had lost men in ambushes, and because his orders loosely allowed him to use any means necessary, he was justified in what he did. Why My Lai was used as an example in my training was because it showed the terrible cost of soldiers divorcing themselves from morality. And let's not even touch on Agent Orange or Abu Grahib.

Well, that's their problem.

War is ugly. Adding "rules" to it trivializes it. It makes us too willing to engage in it. It's naive really. "Laws of war?" That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. War is chaos. Hell. ****.

There's nothing honorable about war. There is only one goal, and that is to accomplish your mission and win the war, for the objective reason of ending conflict. The sooner you win a war, the less condflict there is. The less conflict there is, the less suffering there is.

And yes, I do believe in the innate rights of others.

I also believe that no one's rights are greater than anothers. That's why I'm willing to violate a few people's rights if it helps and protects the many others.

I'm going to ask on these bits how anything is related to Cerberus.

Lt. William Calley was a PL for a unit that was on patrol, and yes he was losing men. He was the scapegoat. His OIC snapped and that's how My Lai happened. I don't condone what he did, as a human or as PL myself. Abu Grahib was torture and humiliation for the sake of torture and humiliation. There was no need for it. It was a bunch of soldiers getting together to be stupid and idiotic. That's a stain on the Army's history. 

But Cerberus doesn't perform random acts of violence for the sake of random acts of violence. I've never seen that at all from them. What they do is questionable means to achieve reasonable ends. They could definitely use an ethics code, and TIM could definitely specify NOT to immediately resort to the most extreme methods to accomplish a goal. But they're willing to do evil to prevent evil. To do dark and terrible things so that people don't suffer later from the even darker and more terrible things. I believe they had limits that they overlooked. Their willingness to find a way to turn the Reapers into a benefit for humanity caused them to operate too loosely with Reaper tech. I think they're idiots since they should have known better, DID know better. Afterwards, they were indoctrinated. Any action they took was under the new twisted and perverted goals set forth by their new masters - the Reapers. 

But again, it's that tenacity, that willingness to do anything for the greater good. I admire that and respect that greatly. 

I can only imagine how useful Cerberus would have been in ME3 if they weren't indoctrinated.

I and my Shepard believe whole heartedly that TIM and Cerberus would have been his most useful ally in ME3 if they weren't.

I have a card permanently slotted into my kit that says you're wrong. It's called OFOF. Orders For Opening Fire. We are fighting an insurgency. An insurgency must be fought on a different level, as everyone is someone else's brother, cousin or sister. It's the reason that General McChrystal ordered that all coalition forces operating in Afghanistan must travel with an ANA unit or Provisional Police unit that knows the area and has contacts with the people. It prevents me from shooting dead an armed man who's just a member of the local neighbourhood watch, and who just wants to approach me to say hello.

War must be fought sensibly, not with savagery. Where sensible, logical tactics and strategy are applied, success has followed. Where savagery and a disregard for basic morality has been allowed, the opposite has been true. The interrogators at Abu Grahib thought that they were achieving a goal of helping to stop the insurgency by torturing those rebels. Instead, they only inspired further insurgency and got more men killed. Part of the innate rights of mankind, as set down by the UN, Hague and Geneva states that everyone has a right not to be tortured, not to be killed, not to be mutilated. A violation of those rights is a war crime, and the perpetrators are harshly punished. The LOAC has at its core the principle that all combatants are victims in their own way. Once they are captured, they cease to become threats, and so must be treated with honour. War is not honourable, but that does not mean our own conduct cannot be.

If I can know this, as a lowly Private, then someone must have seriously skipped a step in your eductation 'Lieutenant'.

The reason why Agent Orange, My Lai and Abu Grahib all apply to Cerberus? Because their tactics are the same. A violation of rights is a violation of rights, no matter the context. It is in-excusable to claim that a death or a torture is more or less acceptable based on how 'necessary' it was. That some kids died in a Commando raid on a Taliban compound is tragic. But those troops threw those grenades because they were under fire from gunmen in the house, not because they were ordered to 'cause civillian casualties for the purpose of reducing enemy morale'. Unlike the fictional idea of Cerberus, which sanctions kidnapping children for the purpose of biotic experiments. And I don't care if TIM knew about it or not, he sanctioned the abduction of children from their families. You know what would have been impressive? If he'd had those biotic children rescued or bought back from batarian slavers and then had them sent back to their families. But no, he orders that they be experimented on, researched. What did he think was going to happen, that they were going to live in some kind of damn children's paradise? A man as intelligent as your beloved Illusive Man didn't have the foresight to guess at what was going to go on?

The 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' means that if you cannot prevent all loss of life, then it's preferrable to save as many as possible. But that does not give you permission to deliberately go after and abduct that few for the purposes of killing them to save the many (what did Teltin result in but more misery and bloodshed? Even if it had never existed and Jack had never come to being, Samara would have held up the biotic shield, and only Ensign Prangley would have died on Grissom, a willing volunteer who was proud to save the life of his friend in exchange for dozens of innocent, tortured kids.

[Jafroboy]

dreamgazer wrote...

It's pretty amusing that these two conversations are going on at the same time.

Check the writing credits for the Transformers movies and the Star Trek reboot movies, folks.

Why? was a ME writer in them?

[Made Nightwing]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

To a degree, you are right. War is terrible and rightly so. However, allow me to point out some flaws in your argument. First off, most of the people on your list did their utmost to uphold the rules of war to the very best of their ability. Rommel ignored Hitler's order to kill captured commandos and to identify Jews in the allied ranks, both of which were legitimate strategies to the Germans. Patton was determined that all normal rules of war would be upheld in battle, (his great respect for Rommel was indeed partially based on the other man's chivalrous treatment of the men he captured). General Abrams implemented a hearts and minds program, not a total war program, which was hugely successful (given the ARVN's defeat of the NVA's Easter Offensive). Winston Churchill opposed the destructive total war policies of the Red Army (amongst them the Massacre at Katyin Forest, wherein the Red Army murdered thousands of Polish officers who had surrendered to them, plus the Red Army abandonment of the Polish Home Army, leaving them to be slaughtered by the Germans). Harry S.Truman clearly did not know it, as he did not allow General MacArthur to pursue it. The Chinese tried to deliver total war on NATO in Korea, which led to the massacre of their forces (particularly at the Battle of Kapyong)

Niccolo Machiavelli's prized militia was also defeated, btw. So he really wasn't very effective at war.

The Soviet's tried those tactics in Afghanistan and were utterly destroyed anyway.

So more than half the names on your list held views that are the complete opposite to yours. They abhorred torture and needless destruction, they tried to act in has moral a manner as possible within the crucible of war. They did not always succeed, but they can be admired for their strength.

Your policies of 'collateral damage' have only incited more resistance against US forces. Wherever a civillian dies, his family will always be more susceptible to Taliban recruitment. A refusal to see that is what defeated the US efforts in Vietnam.

Australian troops, on the other hand, have always acted with restraint and discernment. Instead of blazing away, as you prefer, our troops have always acted to limit civillian casualties. Nathan Mullins, a Commando who served his time in Afghanistan, commented in his book 'Keep Your Head Down', that there were several times when they could have belted the door down, blown off the roof and stormed into a 'confirmed' Taliban safehouse. However, half the time all he found were a couple of old women, because Intel had dropped the ball. But, since they acted with calm restraint and careful behaviour, they were able to recruit informants, build bonds with the villagers and generally gain influence against the Taliban.

But now you've got me wondering. Because it was General McChrystal who advocated the 'soft' tactics that the coalition is now using in Afghanistan to great effect. The tactics you are proposing haven't been used in almost eight years. So you're either advocating hopelessly out-of-date strategy, or you're just an armchair strategist. I can't figure out which is worse.

I think you misread my intent. 

I know what each of the Generals did, and why.

I think you're assuming that I advocate needless death and destruction. I do not. I think you believe I advocate torture for it's own sake or even for interrogation. I do not. I think you believe that I advocate being reckless with civilian casualties. I do not. 

Nor does the US Military for that matter. Stan's tactics of hearts and minds has worked wonders. In fact, that's how I have always advocated the treatment of civilians. 

You're thinking I'm a "charge in, kill everyone, take no prisoners type." I'm not. I believe in subtlety. I believe in compassion. But above all, I believe in ending a problem quickly. 

You're thinking I'm inclined to go through with the most extreme option for it's own sake. I believe in finding alternatives and stopping conflict if I can. 

But if I can't find a viable alternative, I'm going to do what I need to do. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

You're also mistaking a willingness to do whatever is necessary to accomplish a goal with tactics and offenses used. Kapyong for instance. I admire the Chinese tenacity, but blindly charging an enemy isn't going to win a battle. Especially when he has Artillery, Air Support, and a Battleship off the coast shelling him.

I think this is coming down to a fundamental difference in our perspective.

I'll ask this. What are you prepared to do to win a war? 

What is off the table completely?

Do I need to kill prisoners? No. That's off the table. Do I need to organize terror bombings? Not like Dresden. Early on in a war? Perhaps.

See, I view solutions differently than you I think.

I don't believe in a solution that is overly necessary. You're thinking I do, and that's not the case.

I don't believe in executing civilians in a conflict if it's not necessary, and 9/10 times, it's not. But in that 1 case, what do you do?

Can I be more clear? I see exactly where you're coming from, and now I'm trying to get you to see where I'm coming from.

But you're still condoning the experimentation on innocent kids, and that is still unacceptable. I think we need to look at Cerberus further. Let's look at their actions and then reach a final decision on what they were or weren't.

I'd like you to list all the good actions that Cerberus took, and then look at all the needless, moral insanity that they perpetuated and write that down as well. Seriously, let's compare notes on this. I feel it's the only way I can actually see what kind of Cerberus you're arguing for.

Modifié par Made Nightwing, 17 mai 2013 - 07:03 .