Geth don't have children. Quarians do.
And how does that make the Geth or Quarian any different? They have to have expanded quantities of programs, otherwise it'd be the same number of Geth, and they'd eventually grow smaller in number to limit their intelligence. What does adding children do?
Atrocity doesn't justify counter atrocity, by your own argument the Geth were as bad as the Quarian military/government.
You'd have to commit an atrocity to balance it against another.
they didn't "let" them leave, they hesitated and the quarians made it out before the geth mad up their minds
In other words, let them go because they did not want too destory an entire race. They had doubts that would solve things.
they had to make up their minds over whether to kill off the .01% that were still left or not
paragons of mercy right there
Sometimes? Try 'always'.
And I can't pull up the last time you've used headcanon, but I can say that you've stuck to it before.
You'd have to commit an atrocity to balance it against another.
You'd have to commit an atrocity to balance it against another.
That's not very nice and quite exaggerated.
Then prove it please, I might have used uncertain or conflicting canon in my arguments, but never full on headcanon. Even if I did, not as often as Shod or certain other people here.
It's not very nice, no. Why do you make bad arguments? You really should check them through. It's hardly exaggerated as well. I don't think I've seen an argument from you that I couldn't blow out of the water with enough effort. There's no dig or personal attack on you here. You're just bad at making arguments.
You just made a partial concession to my statement right there. I'll argue long enough and eventually you'll slip into that area.
There's also the fact that he's a veteran of the Afghanistan war (not sure if you toured in Iraq, Massively) who is likely far better versed on the situation there than any of us.No you don't as soliders try to limt Cilvian deaths in wars. I'm not bringing Iraq and Afagnstain in too this with the amount if cilvians dead it's amazing we get any help from the people.
No you don't as soliders try to limt cilvian deaths in wars. I'm not bringing Iraq and Afagnstain in too this with the amount of cilvians dead it's amazing we get any help from the people of those countires.
Not all Soldiers try (or should try) to limit collateral damage.
My advice to the civilians there? Stop harboring idiot terrorists and jihadist insurgents and maybe we'll stop blowing your villages to ****.
There's also the fact that he's a veteran of the Afghanistan war (not sure if you toured in Iraq, Massively) who is likely far better versed on the situation there than any of us.
Fair warning.Oh my touched a nerve did I? Yes my grandfathers both severed in navy and peace core. So yeah I have knowdegle from them thanks. Yes, I know he's a vet.
Not all Soldiers try (or should try) to limit collateral damage.
My advice to the civilians there? Stop harboring idiot terrorists and jihadist insurgents and maybe we'll stop blowing your villages to ****.
You don't win hearts and minds by blown up people's children. I have met many soilders and they say they try too limt as many cilvlan deaths as possible. Hell civlains die in wars that's a given but limiting those deaths is a good idea.Not all Soldiers try (or should try) to limit collateral damage.
My advice to the civilians there? Stop harboring idiot terrorists and jihadist insurgents and maybe we'll stop blowing your villages to ****.
It's not very nice, no. Why do you make bad arguments? You really should check them through. It's hardly exaggerated as well. I don't think I've seen an argument from you that I couldn't blow out of the water with enough effort. There's no dig or personal attack on you here. You're just bad at making arguments.
You just made a partial concession to my statement right there. I'll argue long enough and eventually you'll slip into that area.
There's also the fact that he's a veteran of the Afghanistan war (not sure if you toured in Iraq, Massively) who is likely far better versed on the situation there than any of us.
Civilian deaths are unavoidable in war. I see it as something to be minimized as best as possible without compromising the mission.
Far too often I saw people who weren't very receptive to efforts for them, and too often they'd come to us with their problems, explaining that it was our fault, and sending and encouraging their teenagers to take $5 from the Chechnyan or Taliban insurgents to come lob mortars at us. My view is that we're too concerned with being the good-guy, too concerned with being compassionate humanitarians? My personal solution? Put the ****** fear of god into them. Show them what happens when you **** around with the top dog. Make them afraid, so terrified as to render any hope of retaliation into the realm of pathetic impotence on their part.
And to me, that's being hopelessly merciful. Honestly, the solution to the problem is the same as the Catalyst's: You have a terrorist problem (or whatever problem you think of from people in some region)? Go in, kill em' all. What problem? That's the more nihilistic side of me.
I have another side, and I prefer deferring to it. Not nearly as messy, and I typically don't have to fill out as many DD-449 Forms stating why I just expended $26 million worth of munitions in a week in some shanty village on the side of a mountain (true story, I'll have to get back to you on that).
Depending on what your view of them, targeting them can be a valid strategy if you're going for shock and awe factor: Terrorize them. Cow them into submission. It can work. There's a million and one other COB tactics (civilian on battlefield), and you do have to deal with it on a case by case basis. Sometimes, winning hearts and minds work, sometimes hard war works. Depends on what your endstate, strategy, mission intent, and objective are.
You can call in an MLRS or Strike Eagle to deal with a building the bad guys are holed up in, or you can send in soldiers in a high-risk attempt to clear it out room by room. Watch out for door charges and other booby traps.Seriously?
The Geth couldn't assess the consequences of completely wiping out the Quarians, so the Geth let the Quarians escape. That's a plain reading of what was displayed in ME3. The proQuarian/antiGeth version is "the Geth hesitated."they didn't "let" them leave, they hesitated and the quarians made it out before the geth mad up their minds
The Geth couldn't assess the consequences of completely wiping out the Quarians, so the Geth let the Quarians escape. That's a plain reading of what was displayed in ME3. The proQuarian/antiGeth version is "the Geth hesitated."
hesitation isn't mercy
You don't win hearts and minds by blown up people's children. I have met many soilders and they say they try too limt as many cilvlan deaths as possible. Hell civlains die in wars that's a given but limiting those deaths is a good idea.
I'm not trying to win their hearts and minds. I'm trying to stop them from killing our guys or facilitating people who do.
Look at as a case of transactional strategy, rather than transformational.
I know many of my Soldiers are Vets as well, and they'll tell you that sometimes, it's best to let them know who's boss. Goes along with the transactional ideology: quid pro quo. Don't kill our people, we won't kill you. I'm glad there's some anonymity here, but yes, I and many other fellow servicemen do hold a bit of a kill em' all attitude. I won't say we all do, or that even a majority of us do, but there are many of us who feel that the value of the civilian lives is comparable to the ammunition we expend. We don't outright target them, but when they **** around, we don't play nice either.
Don't have time for such musing when you're being shot at.Have you ever wondered why these civilians might be doing it though? And the fact that killing them will not magically make it end?
Massively, you'd make a good officer in the Imperial Navy. And that's a compliment.
I'm not going to defend the terrorists, their actions are obviously absolutely wrong, but most of the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East stems from aggressive American actions in the Middle East. The US invades foreign countries, they strike back, the US hits even harder ad infinitum. It's a vicious cycle and ultimately the US goverment is mostly to blame for starting it. Although the insurgents are at fault too of course, it's a grey vs gray conflict.Not all Soldiers try (or should try) to limit collateral damage.
My advice to the civilians there? Stop harboring idiot terrorists and jihadist insurgents and maybe we'll stop blowing your villages to ****.
Retour en haut