437 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

The UN has stood by when many nations were invaded. There are many times in Earth history when bodies with the power to act have not. If you're saying the Council has committed injustices we haven't you're wrong. And you have no way of knowing we won't commit just as many injustices once we're in power.

There are also many nations which have done more good than the UN has. It's harder to do less evil because the UN is so easy to block, and for various reasons I consider not acting less an evil than a contemptable weakness.

The reason Humans are less likely to commit the same injustices in power is because Humanity's grip would be weaker and less secure than the Council's has been, and so would have less incentive and risk-tolerance to, say, leave a trusted ally akin to the Quarians to be slaughtered by their own mistake. Udina is even reigning in the Spectres, which is probably one of the better things anyone's done in the galaxy.

Seriously, put us in the galaxy for a few thousand years and come back to me. It's not fair to say they've made mistakes where we haven't when we've only been here a few decades. We're just as flawed.

Exactly. Which undermines all claims that the Council has any more moral right to dominance than we do: they aren't better than us. Their only claim is they were ignorring everyone else first, while we can claim we won't simply because we aren't in a position to not pay attention to others.

The Council has many flaws and I have strong opinions about them. I'm not saying that's not the case - I'm opposing human dominance. If there's an answer it's not that.

Why not? Between two equally flawed groups, the one that advances you, is more likely to acknowledge the common threat, and more importantly more vulnerable to reform is better.

I wouldn't object to that. Be more specific. Most people paint a much more human aggressive picture.

The great dominant empires of history weren't stand-alone states which ignorred all others: those kingdoms rose and fell from power relatively quickly. No, the great dominant powers were built on alliances, and often ones in which one (sometimes two) dominated.

It really is hard to know where to begin. Which do you want: the thousand nations of the Persian Empire, where one ruler more or less had benevolent control over a host of associate states of various autonomy and independence? Alexander the Great, who after dominating regions would recruit their best forces and give them stake in continuing his conquests? Ancient China, in which the central leader kept the periphery nations and loose local kingdoms friendly not by terror or occupation, but by gifts and presents and bribes? What we know of as Roman Empire, which included many autonomous states and client tribes that thought of themself as Roman allies and not Roman subjects? The British Empire, which made striking alliances of convenience and supporting key local allies the basis of a strategy unrivaled in history? The US in the post Cold War during the unipolar moment, a time at which calling American actions 'oppression' is laughable when compared to experiences of others in living memory? The European Union, a great collective in which Germany dominates in agreement with France?

Heck, to go to a lower level: Washington D.C. dominates the US. Your state capital likely dominates your city. Your boss's boss dominates your buisness position. When you were young, your parents dominated your life

Most relations in life are not equal. Most have dominant relationships. Most are also productive and happy for all sides.

And races which were formerly in control of the galaxy would object to humanity grabbing the reins.

Which amounts to three races out of a galaxy of hundreds of races. Three exceptionally powerful races, but that gives reason to keep their concerns in mind, and impetus to strike alliances to represent others.

Human dominance as described by most people is more of a dictatorship; these are hated.

I am not most people. I am me. Consider my words as you will.

Domination entails the ability to abuse power. But it does not require it, and is unwise to do so if you seek to maintain it. This is one reason Udina is actually an attractive candidate for an all-human council: Udina places high value on keeping nice to the other races even from a position of power. Anderson maight bludgeon the beuracracy and strongarm others for the right reasons, but that's much more dangerous from a position of shakey strength than from within the confines of stagnant council

You seem very sure we will solve all the problems and everyone will see how we do it right.

I am sure Humanity is in a better position and mood to change old ways as it ascends, and I am confident that when that ascent stops and the revolutionary fever turns into a more conservative position, the environment for establishing a more balanced order than the first Council will exist: having lost their exclusiveness, either the Council races ascent and ally themselves with Humanity (securing it's stability) or will align themselves with arguments to expand the Council to be truly representative, more so than they were when they were in control.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 28 mai 2010 - 10:17 .

[Nightwriter]

Well in that case Dean I quite like your idea and think it has potential – if it could be achieved. But why call it human-dominant? It seems more like an interconnection of cross species alliances sharing mutual benefits.

You should know I think of human dominant as having no alliances because Cerberus and the pro-human bunch (like Ashley) push the idea of a self-sufficient humanity which makes no allies or alliances. I hope that helps explain conceptions I might have about your standpoint.

When you say setups that involve dominance can be good, I suppose it really depends upon the extent and the nature of the dominance. If the dominance is a protective and regulative dominance, it’s okay – if it’s an oppressive dominance it becomes abusive.

Also, don’t tell anyone, but I only choose Anderson in regards to the current situation, with the Reaper threat coming. I would never peg him for long term politician status. This is for Udina.  

[Vaenier]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

Why is it impossible to keep the collector base? Is Shep that stupid that he could not figure out how to get non Cerberus researchers there to study it? Or did bioware just remove part of his brain in order to create "important choices"...

Cerberus has the Reaper IFF. Cerberus has the ability to pass through the Omega 4 Relay.

To give the Collector Base to someone else, Shepard would have to leave the Collector Base, go to the Citadel, meet with the Council/Alliance and convince them that there is a Collector Base full of "Reaper" technology, organize an expedition of force and number to go straight into the heart of the Terminus systems (you know, the ones that could spark a war at any time), and install the IFF on other ships before leaving.

At which point, they would most likely find an largely empty Collector Base, if Cerberus hadn't blown the rest up already.

"I found the secret headquarters of the terrorist organization Cerberus! If you hurry, you can catch them before they escape!" *gives Collector base location* "They rigged the relay, so we need to take this captured Cerberus ship to get through."

Win! Eat cake.

Better yet, dont make an even bigger plot hole by allowing Cerberus to manufacture Reaper IFFs for multiple ships in less than one day... without ever even having Shep give TIM the scans of the device...

You don't understand what a plot hole is, then.

The Reaper IFF is a signal to be broadcast. It's software: it's not like they ripped a chunk of the Reaper out and took it with them. There's no reason Cerberus shouldn't be able to replicate it a second time after the derilect Reaper team was able to get it the first time.

Moreover, you gave it to EDI. Everything that goes to EDI goes to the Illusive Man.

It was definitaly hardware they took from the Reaper, and had installed into EDI. You have no idea how it produces that signal. Dont just assume something for the sake of your argument.
My understanding of a plot hole is when something happens in the plot without any reason given as to why or how. I could be wrong here, but that is beyond the point, my original argument still stands about Bioware forcing Shep to pick between two stupid choices when alternate choices are much easier to achieve with better results.

[Undertone]

I agree with Dean the Young.



For a number of reasons I keep the station. In all my playthroughs I have destroyed the station once for the sake of seeing the outcome in ME 3.



Before I give out the reasons I must state that my Shepard was pro-human in all the ways that matter.



ME1 decisions:

- Killed the Queen

- Kept Wrex

- Left the Council to die

- Anderson



The Queen was too much of a variable. No krogans to defeat the rachni should it go rogue, no reason to believe her promises, could be indoctrinated again.



Left the Council to die, because they were stagnant fools, which didn't believe in me the entire time. Saw it as the perfect opportunity for humanity to rise. I don't think anyone in their right mind would put Udina on top. And for war you need someone with military knowledge.



ME2 decisions:

- Destroyed Krogan genophage data.

- Destroyed the heretic Geth.

- Kept the station.





Restoring the Krogan to it's previous strength - thanks but no thanks. Just another factor with too many variables like the Rachni Queen.

I might be missing some other important decisions from the game, but those are the ones that come to mind.



Again too many variables - who's to say the virus wouldn't get defeated/adapted in the future by the heretic Geth and them returning to their previous calculations etc. Also didn't trust Legion enough to give him an army.

When it comes to the old council, I remember overhearing some random salarian talking to a turian how the humans have disrupted something 2000 years old by making a human council. That ringed immediately for me the word stagnation. Humans are dynamic, resilient, quickly adapting. Hell as Young pointed out - Rachni, Krogan Rebellions, Saren etc. The old council was made up by bunch of fools only interested in preserving the status quo - turian, salarian, asari dominance.



I fail to see how most people think human dominance is bad. I see it as illogical. Human dominance doesn't necessarily also means oppressive dominance.



As for Cerberus, the whole crew of the Normandy pretty much says it - they are the only ones doing something. The Alliance abandons you, the old Council (if alive) abandons you, everyone abandons you and nobody does anything. Cerberus might be immoral but they are the only ones doing something and that was good enough for me. Hell they gave you your life back, a new ship and the resources to carry on what you started minus the second-guessing at every step about every decision the stupid old council did.



For those saying that TIM will betray Shepard. Look at it from that perspective - why would TIM go through all that effort of bringing Shepard back, building new Normandy etc etc just to betray him. TIM is the only one logical and intelligent enough to recognize the Reaper thread and Shepard's importance. And the only one doing something about it.



When you have a strong threat against you, you need people willing to fight it at any cost. That's Cerberus, that's TIM.



For those that have played KotoR - look at Revan and how he won against the Mandalorians. I saw the Alliance/Cerberus split as the Jedi Council/Revanchist split. Everyone agreed that if it weren't for Revan and his revanchist style of fighting the Mandalorians would have conquered the Republic. Efficient, willing to sacrifice unimportant planets for the sake of important ones, calculated losses to win the long term war.



I could go on and on but Young already made good points so that's my 5 cents.

[The Spamming Troll]

Barquiel wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Imagine yourself in that situation.

I would give the base to the council.
- If we find something useful (I am not sure) = every species benefits.
- evidence

I destroyed the base because I didn't want TIM to have it. He never tried to conceal the fact that he'll use the base to ensure human (cerberus?) dominance. How? I doubt he would only study indoctrination...
I'm not saving the galaxy so he can turn it into a human tyranny.

this is logic i dont understand. your destroying the base just becasue your scared of TIM? you really have no idea what TIM would or wouldnt do with the tech they may or may not find at the base. in my opinion TIM isnt the kind of guy to destroy everything in the galaxy except humans. TIM isnt that humancentric. not even close. id rather have the potential to save the galaxy, with or without TIMs knowledge, then simply be dead, along with every living thing in the entire galaxy. its such as easy decision to make in my opinion that i dont get how someone could even want to destroy the base for any reason at all. i honestly dont see a single reason to destroy the base.

[Vaenier]

TIM is in no way as strong or as capable as the Reapers/Collectors. You effortlessly took the base from the Collectors, what makes you thing TIM would even put up a challenge?

[Vicious]

Killing the Rachni Queen is killing the only living being that knows exactly what Indoctrination is, what it feels like, and likely where it comes from.



IMO it's a huge mistake. There are hundreds of Reapers, each one capable of indoctrinating vast amounts of people. Since the Rachni queen knows the above, that means that she is one of the most powerful weapons in the battle against the Reapers. All she has to do is stay hidden and her armies are completely incorruptible, unlike, say, every single other species in Mass Effect.



Ultimately the best reasons for preserving the Rachni are metagame, which is unfortunate, but it's there.





The longterm goal is defeating the Reapers. Every decision needs to be made with this is mind. Excluding any Deus Ex Machina, without the Rachni the Citadel Races have zero chance of winning against the Reapers or even scoring major victories. Sovereign by himself was owning the Alliance Arcturus Fleet until SovSaren was killed.





That said,



I was pleased that when you tell the Quarians not to go to war, Shepard very clearly states, "The reapers are coming and we don't have time for you to fight the Geth."





Rewriting the Geth is something even Renegade Shep agrees with: A renegade dialogue choice in which He clearly states, "You can't judge Geth based off our own morality, they are too different." Which Legion agrees with.



And yes I know rewriting them nets paragon points, which is a stupid foible.

[Pacifien]

Vicious wrote...
Killing the Rachni Queen is killing the only living being that knows exactly what Indoctrination is, what it feels like, and likely where it comes from.

Unless you let Shiala live.

And Rana Thanoptis.

But I get your point.

[FourSixEight]

I destroyed the base in both playthroughs. I don't care what the Cheerleader says, you cannot trust Cerberus. They brought Shepard back to life, yes, that's true, but only because their asses were on the line. They were experimenting with husks, thorian creepers, and God knows what else, and my two Shepards are not working with a agency that's fervently pro-human and fervently anti-human.

And I don't like the Illusive Man. I think he'll try to, I dunno, build an Asari reaper or something for his own private amusement if I give him the base.

And even if I did, Reaper technology's dangerous. Everyone that's ever studied it has ended up either dead or indoctrinated or worse. EDI and the Thanix aside, you really can't afford to take any chances with that sort of thing. What if Harbinger messed with it before he released control? Can you really know? And even if you gave it to TIM he'll use it for things you can't predict. I don't like not predicting things.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well in that case Dean I quite like your idea and think it has potential – if it could be achieved. But why call it human-dominant? It seems more like an interconnection of cross species alliances sharing mutual benefits.

Because it is human-dominated. Don't kid yourself for a minute that it isn't. But simply because Humans have the most power (and benefits from power) doesn't mean that it can't, won't, or shouldn't work out better for the rest if Humanity is just smart enough to play the proper amount of nice. (And if the aliens are smart enough to sell themselves as allies: a very profitable enterprise, that, if you look at places like Pakistan.)

The Council had plenty of platitudes of cooperation and galactic
concern, but at heart cooperation was a one way street outside Council
itself, or even inside the council, and galactic concerns were
inevitably defined as what benefited or embarrassed the Council most,
with plenty of actions and arguments keeping other peoples content with
chasing the highly nebulous and arbitrary dream of being 'worthy' of
joining the Council.

Since the Council had a vested interest in
its own influence, that definition kept some species trying hundreds
(thousand+, for Volus) of years of  good behavior without advancement,
representation, or say. It wasn't until Humans, who were powerful enough
and rude enough to have to be taken seriously, that another species was
welcomed after saving the Council from it's own oversight. Much like
how the Turians got a seat after saving the Council for the Krogans.


They were secure enough to ignore real problems because they were
strong enough not to need to pay attention. The Council wasn't much more
representative of the galaxy than the Humans, but based a lot of it's
legitimacy that it was.


Calling the Human-council human-dominated cuts the pretensions of the prior Council system. Humans are dominant: no one else has the veto ability, or is required to more or less agree to anything major. And if the Alliance is so determined, it can overrule most other people. But to keep that power, the Alliance can't abuse it: the less secure the Alliance is, the less dangerous to abuse and the more interested in striking deals with others it is. Already the human representatives are varied: Anderson, head hancho or not, can't get them to want to see someone as controversial (and seen as pro-human) as Shepard. That strongly suggests that even if they are human, those Councilors are highly sensitive to how they are perceived by the Aliens.

You should know I think of human dominant as having no alliances because Cerberus and the pro-human bunch (like Ashley) push the idea of a self-sufficient humanity which makes no allies or alliances. I hope that helps explain conceptions I might have about your standpoint.

Ash is a poor person to lump with Cerberus, which in and of itself is a varied group. Ash sn't that she's against allies, but she doesn't think it right to rely on them: dependence has a way of devestating you if you lose it, and there's plenty of support for the Council turning on races when it's either inconvenient or dangerous for them to: the Batarians have a sob story, and so do the Quarians and the Krogan. Ash has concerns as a soldier about defending the Alliance's ability to protect, but she isn't out to turn away allies. Just not looking to bet anything that humanity couldn't afford to lose.

TIM and Cerberus are more akin to survivalists: no matter whether you're hated or loved, being able to survive the worst takes priority to friendship. In many cases, that means preparations that don't facilitate friendship: fearful people are the least likely to reach out. But having that friendship already, TIM is not adverse to it: he wouldn't take the risk necessary for those leaps of faith if it were a risk to something else, but both Miranda and TIM will agree that saving the Council and winning the galaxy's trust was a great achievement by Shepard. Having it already, throwing it away is more costly than not.

In a sense, a Paragon Shepard could see him/'herself as the moderating influence Cerberus needs to be useful to the galaxy as a whole, as well as Humanity. Reconciling with the Quarians, building bridges with the Krogan and Geth, even the Rachni. Cerberus isn't big on building bridges, but it hasn't shown itself to have a desire to burn them for the sake of it either. Once Cerberus has a proven investment in ties with other races, it will defend them. Sure, at the end of the day at the eleventh hour Cerberus will put humanity above aliens every time, but that's both predictable and something you can (should) expect from almost every other race. (The dog and the bear analogy.)

When you say setups that involve dominance can be good, I suppose it really depends upon the extent and the nature of the dominance. If the dominance is a protective and regulative dominance, it’s okay – if it’s an oppressive dominance it becomes abusive.

Of course. But the Council is (supposedly) more or less hands-off anyway: it has certain areas of regulation and coercion that it enforces regularly, but inside those bounds species can handle their own affairs. The exception is the Citadel.

Also, don’t tell anyone, but I only choose Anderson in regards to the current situation, with the Reaper threat coming. I would never peg him for long term politician status. This is for Udina.  

Consider my lips sealed.

In a Council-saved situation, I'd selected Anderson: head-banging to move the slow consensus of politicians.

For an all-human Council, Udina: a more measured hand to balance an unsteady but potentially greatly advantageous situation.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mai 2010 - 12:05 .

[Gundar3]

Dean I have to say I agree with your consensus about the Council. I also thought your evaluation of Ash was very reasonable.

[Nightwriter]

Hmm. Dean, it seems like some of the stronger races wouldn't bow to human domination forever. So how could you fix that?

These races would eventually push for more power. In the end, I think we'd end up giving a little ground and granting small concesssions to avoid war - like you said, we can't handle a full scale galactic war, which is part of why you think human rule will work.

So to avoid conflict I think we'd keep letting races have a little bit more power just to placate them for now, making us more and more equal, until finally you've got a recreation of the Council all over again where the top four races or so with the most power cooperate and rule over the "lesser species". How would you stop that?

And I never meant to lump in Ashley with Cerberus, I was trying to address two separate groups. Cerberus is terrorist, aggressive - Ash is simply pro-human, there is a difference.

[Alex_SM]

I destroyed the base. Even if it ends up being useful, using it would be like fighting a war using Auswitz. That's not for me.

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Alex_SM wrote...

I destroyed the base. Even if it ends up being useful, using it would be like fighting a war using Auswitz. That's not for me.

how is auswitz useful?

[Alex_SM]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

I destroyed the base. Even if it ends up being useful, using it would be like fighting a war using Auswitz. That's not for me.

how is auswitz useful?

It wasn't, but if it where used to win the war  it would have been a crime nearly as big as creating it. I thought the parallelism was easy:

Reaper base = Evil --> Using it in any way (even if a useful one could be found)= Evil

Modifié par Alex_SM, 29 mai 2010 - 01:04 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Hmm. Dean, it seems like some of the stronger races wouldn't bow to human domination forever. So how could you fix that?

To some extent, the institutionalism of the system established: Turians and Asari and Salarians already accept the Human Council, and the longer it exists the more they legitimize it by accepting it.

In the case of an active confrontation (as opposed to more subtle pressures), matching it (as Humans can do to various extents) and building alliances/bribing neutrals to support  you. "Admiral vas Normandy, the Quarians have initial settlements on a world the Turians want to colonize? Well, they're causing some trouble right now and denying us shipping vessels, but I think we could spark a deal if you just ---"

These races would eventually push for more power. In the end, I think we'd end up giving a little ground and granting small concesssions to avoid war - like you said, we can't handle a full scale galactic war, which is part of why you think human rule will work.

Concessions now, concessions later. Eventually, I have little doubt that Humanity will have to concede to a new multi-racial council unless it is (a) very skilled, at which point it won't need to make the sort of permanent concessions described, or ( the Collector Base boon, at which point others can't threaten. But if a multi-racial council is formed, I doubt it would be the Big 3 + Humanity, but also Hanar, Elcor, Volos, and so on as well, to dilute the strength of the Council Members.

So to avoid conflict I think we'd keep letting races have a little bit more power just to placate them for now, making us more and more equal, until finally you've got a recreation of the Council all over again where the top four races or so with the most power cooperate and rule over the "lesser species". How would you stop that?

The ability to pick and choose winners.

One of the aspects of the first Council was it got to choose it's next members. Humans, it was suggested, were so favored (or not, depending on the context) because the Salarians and Asari were positioning them against the Turians: whichever one became a threat first, the other would pick their bones. The Coucil as a whole could choose it's next member to its interests. At the same time, they had differing goals: the Asari and Turians were conservative, while the Salarians shared a fast-paced nature with humans.

Humans have their own priorities, and their own needs, and most importantly can choose their allies. The Salarians, the least militarily intimidating the closest in nature, could make a natural ally: Salarians allied militarily with the Turians because the Turians were in a position to cover for them, but now that position is filled by the Humans. And with the Salarians, offer the Volus a slot on the new Council (or, if there isn't a new Council, a position of privaleged interest short a Council spot) to cover economics and weaken the Turians, and then Elcor as the politically-inclined. All three are respectable, cover a general category (intelligence, financial, well respected generalists).

Humanity can play a number of different roles, sometimes at the same time. Consider, for example, a grand bargain with the Turians over a sense of shared power: Human and Turians split the military responsiblities leerily, but eschew the Asari influences that hold them back. Turians get a freer hand in defense than the Asari allowed, while humans are known as the more cunning group.

A third suggestion: an economic alliance with the Asari, who try to pull a Benezia and moderate the human actions by helping. Again Humans provide the majority of Council military forces, but are much aided in doing so by Asari biotics and investment. Who's using who is up to debate, as the Asari try and bring in their old allies, but they never did get along perfectly with the militant Turians and were always  more conservative than the Salarians. Perhaps the next council should include some calmer species, like the Hanar.


Humanity can choose winners and losers, even without an actual new council. Just alliances and using the all-human council. The former big three could all try to work together, but they balanced eachother because they clashed in a system they all had desire to maintain. Without the council they lack that passive enforcer, and Humans have the levers to divide them.

And I never meant to lump in Ashley with Cerberus, I was trying to address two separate groups. Cerberus is terrorist, aggressive - Ash is simply pro-human, there is a difference.

Strictly speaking, Cerberus doesn't fit the traditoinal terrorist classification either. Terrorists seek to influence public policy and debate through fear by highly visible acts to which they want credit. Cerberus is Black Ops, about as far from the news as it can be, and tries to keep its role silent. Cerberus is more akin to a cabal/conspiracy than a terrorist group.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mai 2010 - 01:10 .

[Dean_the_Young]

No need for a WW2 tangeant.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mai 2010 - 02:53 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Alex_SM wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

I destroyed the base. Even if it ends up being useful, using it would be like fighting a war using Auswitz. That's not for me.

how is auswitz useful?

It wasn't, but if it where used to win the war  it would have been a crime nearly as big as creating it. I thought the parallelism was easy:

Reaper base = Evil --> Using it in any way (even if a useful one could be found)= Evil

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I-M: Shepard, I want you to keep Auswitz. It'd be vital to our research against the reapers/****'s! Who knows what advancement we'll gain from studying their technology/base camp.

Auswtiz is very useful and resourceful today. (sarcasm)



curiosity: is the illusive man a human reaper?

N A Z I is a bleeped out word?

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 29 mai 2010 - 01:25 .

[Alex_SM]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Auswitz became a post-facto absolute moral justification for the war that made WW2 a 'good' war for history. It was certainly priceless politically for supplanting the 'the US is in a land war in Europe because.... uh...'

Militarily, Auswitz wasn't beneficial against the N-word: there was nothing much to use. The Collector Base is useful, and in using it would save lives.

If using Auswitz after capture saved Jews, it would not be immoral to do so.

It wasn't a moral justification to the war. The reich was more than enough for itself. That wasn't needed. Europe saw the US as saviours long before knowing that. 

And in your second part i'm not with you. Not anything is worth to achieve goals, even the surviving goal. Win loosing ourselves in the way is exactly the same as loosing. No matter what the opposite does, it doesn't allow us to do the same. Otherwise there is no difference between them and us. 

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

I destroyed the base. Even if it ends up being useful, using it would be like fighting a war using Auswitz. That's not for me.

how is auswitz useful?

It wasn't, but if it where using it to win the war would have been a crime nearly as big as creating it. 

I thought it was easy:

Reaper base = Evil --> Using it in any way (even if a useful one could be found)= Evil

Auswitz became a post-facto absolute moral justification for the war that made WW2 a 'good' war for history. It was certainly priceless politically for supplanting the 'the US is in a land war in Europe because.... uh...'

Militarily, Auswitz wasn't beneficial against the N-word: there was nothing much to use. The Collector Base is useful, and in using it would save lives.

If using Auswitz after capture saved Jews, it would not be immoral to do so.

WW2 was retarded. Nothing good about the friggin' war. Killing nearly 50 million people, for nothing...for one crazy dictator named Hitler who killed off a bunch of jews for no absolute reason, then turned on his own dutch citizens who weren't blond or had blue eyes, and then killed off his own men, his loyal subjects just because his plans began to fail even when they obeyed every single order demanded of mr. crazy mustache man... 

how does using Auswitz while it may then contained jews saved lives? nearly 50 million jews died, and 5 million alone at that ****ing place... for absolutely ****ing nothing!!!!

Auswitz had no black folks, just jews who were sent to their unsuspecting deaths in promised with lies of freedom through hard labor without pay.

And america was invaded by then Feudalism Japan during Pearl Harbor which led to a ****ing horrible event in Hiroshima and Nigasawi, the A-Bomb of retaliation (the first nuke ever detonated in war, killing alot of people)... completely horrible.(thanks to hitler likely encouraging them to side with **** World Order, Japan is totally different today... i'm so glad... Japan = great country)...

how was WW2 great?

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 29 mai 2010 - 01:46 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Aiken Drum wrote...

Every time people have messed with Reaper tech it has gone poorly. I blew it without a moment's heartsearching. Sure the tech could be useful, but the price and the risks were too great. There was no way I was going to set TIM and Cerberus up with that. They couldn't even control mindless Rachni and Thorian Creepers, so letting them loose on the Collector base? I'd rather give a monkey a nuclear trigger disguised as a banana.

I know. I think that's the point of the game. just do ALL of the missions (even side missions for Cerberus, and noticed how alot of their OWN projects have internal conflict or some type of bloodshed). 
Opening scene m(attacked), Lazarus Project Base (attacked), Horizon (attacked), "disabled" Collectors' Vessel (attacked), and the Reaper IFF (attacked by your own cerberus people who were husks)... why keep a base to have cerberus repeat their cycle of projects and experiments always going wrong?

[Alex_SM]

how was WW2 great?

Hey, calm down, he is not saying that 

He just said it gave USA a justification to join it and declare themselves as the "good guys", nothing more. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 29 mai 2010 - 01:34 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Alex_SM wrote...

how was WW2 great?

Hey, calm down, he is not saying that 

He just said it gave USA a justification to join it, nothing more. 

We jumped in, thanks to Pearl Harbor (our justification for even joining the war, we were completely uninvolved/neutral). It was actually the Russians who assisted the Polish against the N A Z I's pushing them back into former N A Z I germany kicking their ****ing asses. The Russians were the ones who finalized the victory against the N A Z I's. Hitler ****ed over the Russians by betraying Stalin (or somebody) and ****ing over some type of N A Z I pact deal (probably attacked them, instead of trade them some type of N A Z I technology goods/etc with their "deal"), and then the Russians retaliated.

That is why Russians are the way that they are today, a group of Macho men who seem difficult with foreign affairs/relations. They don't trust people/"stuff" thanks to what Hitler did to them, they prefer peopling minding their own business as they do their own type of thing.

Probably have modern day N A Z I's who still exist today constantly trying to generate a  false-villainous image against the Russians today... as if they're the evil bad commie dudes who're trying to take over the world and destroy earth and america, when they're likely not trying any of those things.

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 29 mai 2010 - 01:51 .

[Alex_SM]

well, the important point is that it may have been a bad Idea to use that simile.