Exactly my point. There is some maneuverability on earth. Anderson says it himself, they spread people out, try to keep the reapers off balance, delay them as best we can. You are turning your arguments around. Your first one was that Anderson should get out because it is not safe enough, now he should get out because it is relatively safe. So what is it?
I think we had a different inference in context on your point. I am literally saying that 8 million is not, relatively speaking, a very large number compared to 11 billion. I never stated that Anderson should leave because its safe. It's most certainly not safe. I don't see where you're making the inference that I think it's any safer for him.
The point I was making was that we have plenty of time to gather resources going by the current rate of harvest before Earth is depleted (which then leads me to the question of why we're basing our time estimate figures for the Crucible on the number of people on Earth).
When do they ever do that? It's something all of you keep saying "they blindly go for earth" but they never do. Yes, they mention that earth is at stake and sometimes they are a bit overzealous in their comments but they (Shep, Hackett & Co.) never do what all you guys are accusing them of (see my previous posts).
Through their statements. Now you're taking what I'm saying too literally. They're being stupid for even prioritizing retaking Earth, for even mentioning it at all in the context of 'come to Earth now and help us'. Hell, Shepard more or less tells Victus to drop the defense of Palaven to help him retake Earth. The only reason he doesn't do it is because the Council flat out tells him no when he says that they should drop everything and rush to Earth (before even mentioning the Crucible). It's not a matter of them acting or not, it's the matter of them not focusing more on the task of beating the Reapers. I think it's a narrative and characterization flaw. It's more than a bit overzealous.
Well, I didn't start with the Afghanistan analogies, I just ran with it (and I think the population percentages are slightly less ridiculous with Hawaii but I am happy to drop the bad analogies 
).
I wasn't using Afghanistan as an analogy to begin with, I was mentioning how the context of my primary mission there fit with the context of the Reapers interdiction efforts on Earth against the resistance forces.
And where would that be? Some colony? How is that any better?
No. On operations that included strategic planning, doctrinal creation, and force allocation. Someone to coordinate operations on a galactic scale against Reaper interests; not just on Earth. Other worlds.
You don't put a Flag officer on the front lines. You put him in a command environment where he's commanding and directing efforts for everyone else.
Well, apart from a difference for morale, as I said, it's not like Anderson is the only leader, he is one of them and he is volunteering for the earth position. I still don't see how that makes him a bad leader. Also, it is not really a bad call to keep resistances on the reaper occupied worlds going because it slows them down, you can try and get some intel out and - as we see in the end - it's easier to mount an assault if you have an ally on the inside. Ok, I admit, that last one is not really predictable but I think given that the situation is also a fictional scenario and we have only so much exposure, I find it tough to make a definitive call for or against Anderson's decisions.
I always thought you military types didn't like armchair second guessing.
He's not the only leader, but leaders function best when they're in an environment where they can direct, disseminate, and delegate orders and commands they hold, and know that, despite what their heart tells them, to follow what's the most objective and useful complement towards the mission. It's the leader's duty to survive. And he's throwing that away to lead a resistance force on Earth that isn't strategically effective as far as we know, not knowing at the time that Earth would play as the center stage for the climax of the conflict. He's abandoning his duty to humanity to serve in an effective position in helping direct the large-scale war effort to play hero on a planet that has already been utterly conquered by the Reapers. On issues like that, look at Charles de Gaulle. He's who I'd make a comparison too. He didn't stay in France and fight (even though he really wanted too). Granted, his utility was less than ideal in England, but he focused on directing Free French Forces elsewhere on other strategic fronts than staying and risking death or capture to assist a relatively independent and fractured resistance movement that, while being tactically effective and a viable source of intelligence for the allies (even aiding downed allied air crews and escaped POW's evade capture), only had limited strategic progress against the German occupiers.
And yes, it is typically much more useful to have assistance on the inside; however in the scale and scope of the offensive allied forces and the Reaper occupiers in London, that balance of assistance would be relatively marginal in the long run (realistically). For some reason, BW decided that, instead of massed and organized armies from nearly every species with support from CAS missions and naval gunfire, they'd portray the London assault as little more than a few Battalions of human forces and relatively small number of alien allied support (in effect, basically ignoring the millions of warriors that could potentially be delivered onto London en masse with tremendous fire support).
And philosophically, we do need the armchairs to an extent to keep us grounded and be something tangible to fight for or aspire too. That said, on matters of military application (and military necessity, which I'm sure you know what I'm talking about given our prior PM), we sometimes do prefer when the civilians let us do our thing and not ask questions.
Retour en haut
