359 réponses à ce sujet

[Habelo]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...

The problem with picking civilians over a council, is the matter of how everything is going to work again.

As much as people hate or feel betrayed by governments, the truth is that they are very much needed. Whilst letting the council die to save the many is an honorable choice, it is actually a bad idea. But picking the council over civilians, would get things up and running again much quicker.

Whilst the masses would ****** and moan about being left to die, they would eventually need parental figures to guide them into the future. This is where the council is the better choice, but not the most agreed on.

Politicians are disposable.  The death of the Council doesn't have to mean that the whole system of government suddenly collapses.  It just means that three more blind, self-serving humps get chosen from among the council races.  When Taft was assassinated, we managed to survive the ordeal without anything real apocalyptic happening.

ahem... ceasar? he was a politician. Was a ****ing apocalypse after his assasination.

Modifié par Habelo, 30 avril 2010 - 12:26 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Or, more recently, look at what happened in Poland. The President, the Military Joint Chiefs, nearly 100 of the top officials of the Polish government died in a single plane crash. Somehow it's avoided sinking into the ocean.

.

[Dean_the_Young]

Habelo wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...

The problem with picking civilians over a council, is the matter of how everything is going to work again.

As much as people hate or feel betrayed by governments, the truth is that they are very much needed. Whilst letting the council die to save the many is an honorable choice, it is actually a bad idea. But picking the council over civilians, would get things up and running again much quicker.

Whilst the masses would ****** and moan about being left to die, they would eventually need parental figures to guide them into the future. This is where the council is the better choice, but not the most agreed on.

Politicians are disposable.  The death of the Council doesn't have to mean that the whole system of government suddenly collapses.  It just means that three more blind, self-serving humps get chosen from among the council races.  When Taft was assassinated, we managed to survive the ordeal without anything real apocalyptic happening.

ahem... ceasar? he was a politician. Was a ****ing apocalypse after his assasination.

Ceasar's time was already a period of civil war. His successor after his death brought in a period of stability and peace that lasted for generations. That rather goes against your point.

[Wildecker]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or, more recently, look at what happened in Poland. The President, the Military Joint Chiefs, nearly 100 of the top officials of the Polish government died in a single plane crash. Somehow it's avoided sinking into the ocean.
.

Well, Poland is not under attack from its neighbours. Or wasn't when I last heard the news. But has anyone made an important decision in Poland since that accident beyond "Let's entomb him with the kings of old"?

[Dean_the_Young]

After Sovereign is defeated, the Council space won't be under attack either. The Reapers would be trapped in Dark Space for some time, and winning the battle would beat most of the Heretic strength.

[Habelo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Habelo wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...

The problem with picking civilians over a council, is the matter of how everything is going to work again.

As much as people hate or feel betrayed by governments, the truth is that they are very much needed. Whilst letting the council die to save the many is an honorable choice, it is actually a bad idea. But picking the council over civilians, would get things up and running again much quicker.

Whilst the masses would ****** and moan about being left to die, they would eventually need parental figures to guide them into the future. This is where the council is the better choice, but not the most agreed on.

Politicians are disposable.  The death of the Council doesn't have to mean that the whole system of government suddenly collapses.  It just means that three more blind, self-serving humps get chosen from among the council races.  When Taft was assassinated, we managed to survive the ordeal without anything real apocalyptic happening.

ahem... ceasar? he was a politician. Was a ****ing apocalypse after his assasination.

Ceasar's time was already a period of civil war. His successor after his death brought in a period of stability and peace that lasted for generations. That rather goes against your point.

sate of civil war? do you even *try* to read history?

[Dean_the_Young]

Much better than you, apparently, if you have no recollection of Sulla , the slave rebellions such as Spartacus, and the First Triumvirate.

[Habelo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Much better than you, apparently, if you have no recollection of Sulla , the slave rebellions such as Spartacus, and the First Triumvirate.

oh ofcourse how could i forget!!

oh wait... this... didnt happen under ceasas rule...

But now i see what you are! a troller who spams random **** to get attention. I'll just /ignore you noaw

[Dean_the_Young]

I didn't say Ceasar's rule. I said Ceasar's time. Ceasar's rule was a brief moment in a time of troubles, the result of one civil war and leading into another. Ceasar only came to power through a civil war: a few years can not be called a period of peace, but rather is more akin to the lull between storms.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Habelo wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...

The problem with picking civilians over a council, is the matter of how everything is going to work again.

As much as people hate or feel betrayed by governments, the truth is that they are very much needed. Whilst letting the council die to save the many is an honorable choice, it is actually a bad idea. But picking the council over civilians, would get things up and running again much quicker.

Whilst the masses would ****** and moan about being left to die, they would eventually need parental figures to guide them into the future. This is where the council is the better choice, but not the most agreed on.

Politicians are disposable.  The death of the Council doesn't have to mean that the whole system of government suddenly collapses.  It just means that three more blind, self-serving humps get chosen from among the council races.  When Taft was assassinated, we managed to survive the ordeal without anything real apocalyptic happening.

ahem... ceasar? he was a politician. Was a ****ing apocalypse after his assasination.

The Roman form of government did not collapse with Ceaser's death, and his assassination put the exclamation point on the problems that already existed.

If council space is enjoying a period of relative peace, and a particular council goes down, three new councilors can be appointed, and council space continues in relative peace.  Considering how distant the Council seems to be from the affairs of the average galactic citizen, the death of the council might hardly be felt at all outside the Citadel.

As long as the form of government is stable, it can survive turnover of personnel, especially when the personnel is wilfully blind.