|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 4, 2007 18:13:32 GMT -5
Lack of timefor a full reply now Balok, but I'll get you one tomorrow. Wanted to single this out though:
No way Balok. NO WAY. You are skewing this and ignoring things to fit YOUR point of view, something you accuse me of, so far that it's not funny anymore. So let's take a hypothetical, this is what you're saying:
Scenario One: The United States secretary of defence brainwashes an assassin to shoot the Iranian ambassador, gambling that there won't be a war.
Scenario Two: A terrorist cell in the United States ask the Ayatollah of Iran to join him in an attack on Manhattan to demonstrate resistance to the Patriot Act. He also asks for assistance from China in breaking into Guantanamo Bay to bust out pirsoners who will then be brought to Manhattan. They want to minimise casualties but beating up policemen and army forces is fine. Oh, and this cell is fully aware that China have recently been in talks with Al Quaeda, who are already "at war" with the United States, and North Korea, also on hostile terms. The cell don't care about war at all, they just want the Patriot Act overthrown.
So what you're saying is, Scenario B is ABSOLUTELY fine, it's reasonable and understandable, because they weren't brainwashed. Scenario A is just plain reasonable. Sorry for the heavy-handed allegory, but it's sadly accurate- substitute terrorist cell for Cap's team, Iran for Atlantis, China for Wakanda, North Korea for LAtveria, Al Queda with the Inhumans, Patriot Act for SHRA and Guantanamo Bay with 42.
You are IGNORING the issue. The issue is that Captain Holier-Than-Thou America asked two FOREIGN LADERS to come, WITH THEIR GUARD, and help an illegal resistance movement VIOLENTLY resist an American law against legitimate American enforcers in a battle in Manhattan which cost civilian lives.
...And you say that's absolutely fine, because they AGREED TO IT VOLUNTARILY?
Balok, THAT is crap plain and simple.
Properly applied...? One team wanted to and prepared to fight in an enclosed, safe area. Once the fight went elsewhere, their first priority was evacuating civilians. The other team had a contingency plan involving a giant super hero battle in a crowded Manhattan street and never demonstrated any care about civilians. "Properly applied" is dividing it between Dagger, Cloak and Captain America.
Of course you will, because you KNOW the anti-reggers are FAR more accountable and you're trying to salvage a lost fight. They were held to a higher level. In fact, take a look at civil war? I mean, even ignoring the amount of damage I'm sure Namor's acts caused, we see the Vision SEARING A HOLE ALONG A BUILDING and no-one calling him out on it. We never see any anti-regger care about civilians- except the Panther with his own Wakandan embassy workers. And we see Iron Man's FIRST priority being the evacuation of the civilians. Equal accountability? That's talking crap again.
You say inviting two major world powers to help invade New York with you against a law (one of whom has been talks with not only a known US enemy but also another major superpower known to be VERY hostile) is absolutely fine but shooting an ambassador is EVIL IN THE EXTREME, and you say the cracks in MY ARGUMENT WIDEN? Open your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 4, 2007 19:23:29 GMT -5
No way Balok. NO WAY. You are skewing this and ignoring things to fit YOUR point of view, something you accuse me of, so far that it's not funny anymore. So let's take a hypothetical, this is what you're saying: Scenario One: The United States secretary of defence brainwashes an assassin to shoot the Iranian ambassador, gambling that there won't be a war. Scenario Two: A terrorist cell in the United States ask the Ayatollah of Iran to join him in an attack on Manhattan to demonstrate resistance to the Patriot Act. He also asks for assistance from China in breaking into Guantanamo Bay to bust out pirsoners who will then be brought to Manhattan. They want to minimise casualties but beating up policemen and army forces is fine. Oh, and this cell is fully aware that China have recently been in talks with Al Quaeda, who are already "at war" with the United States, and North Korea, also on hostile terms. The cell don't care about war at all, they just want the Patriot Act overthrown. So what you're saying is, Scenario B is ABSOLUTELY fine, it's reasonable and understandable, because they weren't brainwashed. Scenario A is just plain reasonable. Sorry for the heavy-handed allegory, but it's sadly accurate- substitute terrorist cell for Cap's team, Iran for Atlantis, China for Wakanda, North Korea for LAtveria, Al Queda with the Inhumans, Patriot Act for SHRA and Guantanamo Bay with 42. You are IGNORING the issue. The issue is that Captain Holier-Than-Thou America asked two FOREIGN LADERS to come, WITH THEIR GUARD, and help an illegal resistance movement VIOLENTLY resist an American law against legitimate American enforcers in a battle in Manhattan which cost civilian lives. ...And you say that's absolutely fine, because they AGREED TO IT VOLUNTARILY? Balok, THAT is crap plain and simple. The situations aren't comparable. You gloss over a key flaw in your analogy when you compare Cap to a terror cell. He was not. He was fighting immoral people and opposing an unjust and possibly unconstitutional law. The goal wasn't harm to the United States, as in your scenario, but to save it. Now, you're going to say he WAS a terrorist because you seem to believe that all laws must be obeyed, whether or not they are right or just. In a repressive, authoritarian, the-state-comes-first world you're right. But - and this is my key argument with the Civil War - that isn't the world of the United States. At least, not yet. The other flaw I see in your analogy is that the groups you cite would be acting chiefly to advance their own interests, whereas the groups Cap invited to his party were working to advance his interests. The distinction is subtle, and since yours appears to be an authoritarian perspective, you may not think it matters, but it does. It is perhaps true that the Civil War serves as an allegory for the modern United States, where many people oppose the Patriot Act (it tramples people's Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights), Gitmo, Rendition, Illegal Wiretaps, and many other morally questionable and outright evil acts committed by the current government. They oppose that government. Where the allegory falls apart is that there should have been more civilians opposed to the SHRA for moral and Constitutional reasons, and this was never shown - we were led to believe that most people fell into the trap of assuming that the SHRA was a good thing. Many would not. I, for example, would oppose it on principle, because the Constitution and freedom are that important to me. Governments that do wrong must be opposed. They are not automatically right simply because they are governments. A law is not automatically right because it is a law. One must be - and most people have forgotten this - exquisitely careful how much power one lets the government accumulate, because governments *always* use the powers they have, and frequently *misuse* them. But perhaps - as Frontline #11 suggests - Cap believes that he made bad choices, even if his goal was the correct one. So you may be right if you assert that Cap quit when he realized exactly how this had escalated. Those who continue to follow the Marvel Universe will see how this unfolds. Properly applied...? One team wanted to and prepared to fight in an enclosed, safe area. Once the fight went elsewhere, their first priority was evacuating civilians. The other team had a contingency plan involving a giant super hero battle in a crowded Manhattan street and never demonstrated any care about civilians. "Properly applied" is dividing it between Dagger, Cloak and Captain America. Captain America's team sought to escape a trap. Tony could have allowed that, in which case the battle would have ended there. In fact, after a number of accidents precipitated by high speed chases, police in some jurisdictions are not permitted to engage in such pursuits. Responsibility is properly allocated among both sides of the conflict. I disagree that their first priority was evacuating civilians, too. In most of the panels, we seem powers from both sides ... attacking powers from the other side.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 5, 2007 12:01:18 GMT -5
Actually I feel that's irrelevant. While Cap could be considered a terorrist, that is not the point here. "Immoral and opposing" is an opinion. Okay, let's say I think gun registration is bad (I don't). Do I then have a right to go around, busting open prisoners, non-lethally shooting policemen, defying the law, fighting policemen etc, because I believe the law is unjust and unconstitutiounal? after all, I'm trying to SAVE the United States.
Twist it however you want, inviting in foreign powers to "save" the USA, by, you know, IGNORING THE WILL OF IT'S PEOPLE because you think they're wrong and FIGHTING LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCERS SUPPORTED BY THE PEOPLE is not excused simply by saying "He did what he thought was right, and I think so too."
Actually, I believe he could be considered a terrorist because he runs around blowing people out of jail, fighting policemen and battling law enforcement agencies against the will of the people. But guess what, I DO believe laws must be obeyed, unless they cross "the line." Under the SHRA, could Cap go to jail and still be heard? Yes. Could he sign up to it and then publicly and democratically protest it? Yes. Could he make speeches and try to convince people to his side? Yes. If they did so, could the law be fairly repealed? Oh yes. And if that's the case, which it is, then you don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey because YOU get to decide what's right.
So it's absolutely fine to invite foreign superpowers to invade New York as long as they do it to advance YOUR interests, not their own?
Your argument is falling apart by the second.
So let me get this straight. Criminals break open a COLOSSAL jail full of other criminals, with which their gang can wreak basolute havoc on government forces. They are in a shoot-out with cops. They then run into a public street with the intention of getting away and the cops pursue. The cops try to get civilians to safety while fighting. The criminals are reckless and don't appear to care. You are seriously claiming these police are EQUALLY responsible for casualties?
Read again. Seriously. Are we reading different comics, or do you just have some sort of selective eye deficiency where you ignore everything that doesn't fit in with your narrow view?
Page #7. Literally the FIRST panel after landing in Manhattan, what are Iron Man's first words?
"Iron Man to all points: Evacuate the Area and contain the fight to midtown! I want no civilian casualties, you hear me? No civilian casualties!" And on that exact same page, the Vision BLASTING A HOLE ALONG A BUILDING. FIRST thing Iron Man says when he lands...
Or does your copy not include that page?
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 5, 2007 16:18:38 GMT -5
Actually I feel that's irrelevant. While Cap could be considered a terorrist, that is not the point here. "Immoral and opposing" is an opinion. Okay, let's say I think gun registration is bad (I don't). Do I then have a right to go around, busting open prisoners, non-lethally shooting policemen, defying the law, fighting policemen etc, because I believe the law is unjust and unconstitutiounal? after all, I'm trying to SAVE the United States. Well, having read Cap in Frontline #11, and also Brevoort's Q&A that thew40 kindly posted, Cap evidently agrees with you. So I will concede this point: Cap went too far. Remember, too, that there were no trials for heroes who refused to register. They were grabbed up and sent to 42, no questions asked, and no lawyers present. That was doubtless done as an allegory on Gitmo, but think about that: you are I might oppose a law non-violently because we felt that we had that legal protection. Perhaps the heroes of the Marvel Universe felt they would be denied that. That, of course, was Tony's plan to put heroes in 42 to scare them into registering, and to test the effectiveness of the place. I'll ask you this: what would you do if the government passed a law requiring you to perform some task you felt was unconstitutional, and as well created a situation where you felt that you had no legal protection at all? This is basically the situation at the time of the American Revolution, except with George III in the Tony Stark/Maria Hill/U.S. Government role. Twist it however you want, inviting in foreign powers to "save" the USA, by, you know, IGNORING THE WILL OF IT'S PEOPLE because you think they're wrong and FIGHTING LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCERS SUPPORTED BY THE PEOPLE is not excused simply by saying "He did what he thought was right, and I think so too." On the other hand, the Founding Fathers of America might disagree with you on this point. And, you keep citing "the will of the people." I think that brings you back to "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." Or, more generally, the "people" should have what they want when it's unconstitutional and anti-freedom. What you have done here is use argumentum ad populum - many want it, and so it must be right. That is often not the case. Actually, I believe he could be considered a terrorist because he runs around blowing people out of jail, fighting policemen and battling law enforcement agencies against the will of the people. But guess what, I DO believe laws must be obeyed, unless they cross "the line." Under the SHRA, could Cap go to jail and still be heard? Yes. Could he sign up to it and then publicly and democratically protest it? Yes. Could he make speeches and try to convince people to his side? Yes. If they did so, could the law be fairly repealed? Oh yes. And if that's the case, which it is, then you don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey because YOU get to decide what's right. While that's how I would probably go about doing it - it would make for a terribly boring comic book. In other words, this came to a fight because that's what happens in comic books - fights. Also, see the argument above - I might choose a different course if I truly felt stripped of my Constitutional protections. So it's absolutely fine to invite foreign superpowers to invade New York as long as they do it to advance YOUR interests, not their own? It's also not true that Cap invited either Wakanda or Atlantis to invade the United States. He invited Black Panther, and Namor, respectively. And Namor accepted readily not so much because of what Cap did, but because of what Tony did. It happened that allying with Cap was the same as opposing the government that (as far as he knew) murdered several of his citizens. You're oversimplifying this situation. So let me get this straight. Criminals break open a COLOSSAL jail full of other criminals, with which their gang can wreak basolute havoc on government forces. Read Brevoort's commentary. Cap broke into 42 to free his heroic allies. That is, those folks who were of good character but happened to oppose the government. That's not freeing criminals. If you want to know who uses criminals (albeit brainwashed) - look no further than Reed and Tony. Who did Tony send after Cap? Lady Deathstrike and Venom, chiefly - criminals. They are in a shoot-out with cops. They then run into a public street with the intention of getting away and the cops pursue. The cops try to get civilians to safety while fighting. The criminals are reckless and don't appear to care. You are seriously claiming these police are EQUALLY responsible for casualties? Yep. I still see a lot of panels where individuals from both sides are equally unconcerned with collateral damage. Page #7. Literally the FIRST panel after landing in Manhattan, what are Iron Man's first words? "Iron Man to all points: Evacuate the Area and contain the fight to midtown! I want no civilian casualties, you hear me? No civilian casualties!" And on that exact same page, the Vision BLASTING A HOLE ALONG A BUILDING. FIRST thing Iron Man says when he lands... Iron Man may have said it, but his team was just as involved in blasting away indiscriminately. An interesting other point Brevoot makes in his Q&A is that the initial run of cross-overs happened to portray Cap in a good light and Tony in a bad light, for reasons that have to do with who wrote them and what their opinion was - for example, JMS weighed in against the Act and so he made Tony look bad in his stories. So a lot of people picked up Civil War #1 already having chosen a side. It's been so long that I no longer remember whether I had chosen a side first - but I have to concede that possibility. However, nothing that happened in the books convinced me that Iron Man is right and Cap is wrong, ideologically. For whatever it's worth, you have argued convincingly that Cap made mistakes. Point conceded. But Iron Man made, in my view, worse mistakes - the Civil War could not have happened without his active support. Which raises this point: whatever your view of Civil War, these characters: Tony, Reed, and Steve, had their characterization of decades basically discarded so that Marvel could tell this tale. Clearly, Marvel is looking to appeal to younger fans uninterested in the legacy of heroism that these characters represent. Perhaps you are in that group. I am not. And that is why, at the end of the day, I collect almost no Marvel books now. And why I hope others who feel as I do will also cease to purchase Marvel books.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 5, 2007 16:51:49 GMT -5
Well, having read Cap in Frontline #11, and also Brevoort's Q&A that thew40 kindly posted, Cap evidently agrees with you. So I will concede this point: Cap went too far. Remember, too, that there were no trials for heroes who refused to register. They were grabbed up and sent to 42, no questions asked, and no lawyers present. That was doubtless done as an allegory on Gitmo, but think about that: you are I might oppose a law non-violently because we felt that we had that legal protection. Perhaps the heroes of the Marvel Universe felt they would be denied that. That, of course, was Tony's plan to put heroes in 42 to scare them into registering, and to test the effectiveness of the place. Well, there was always an intention to have trials AFTER the war was over- emergency situations and whatnot, certainly not unprecedented, and that is what is now taking place, for example (Slight spoilers people!) Cap #25. At least some heroes are privy to that, but certainly I'm willing to concede it would have been smarter of Tony to broadcast from the roofs that these guys would get trials after civil war, though perhaps that clashes with his "Scare them" tactic. But as for conceding that Cap went too far, that's all I'm saying. Now to get you to admit HOW far (j/k) Well for one thing, and this may explain some of our differences in this matter, I have never held much faith in the absolute infallibility of the US Constitution and feel there are certainly superior governments in the world, though that's just personal bias. But moving beyond that, I would feel it was wrong undoubtedly, however if I knew I would get a trial afterwards, I might feel differently, no? I would INQUIRE t those in the know- in this case Iron Man and solicit their view, which in this case would inform me that trials were in the pipeline for after the main conflict, and with that reassurance I would certainly not take the Cap path. "Two wolves and a sheep" is good for some things but the problem is that there has to be a LIMIT. Where do you STOP? For example, so we say "Well, these guys aren't heroes, so they can't vote or decide what happens to the heroes." What next? Well, these guys are too poor, these people are the wrong colour, these ones the wrong gender, these people are disabled, etc, etc, etc- only certain KINDS of people can vote in elections, etc. Where is the line drawn? The United States is a democracy, and the people who live there agree to abide by it's rules, not to abide by selective rules whenever it suits them, certainly not when they have a constituional alternative. And besides, your analogy is prededicated on the minority, the "sheep" being totally and vehemently opposed to the idea- but over half the HERO populace is in favour of this law. Even a special super hero vote would almost certainly come out in favour of it, especially with the X-Men sitting it out. I think you're opening a door that cannot be easily closed. This is where I feel there is a clash between what you're saying as an anti-regger, IE: "Cap had to fight because it's a comic" and what you're saying as a civil war critic, IE: "It was out of character for Cap to fight." I agree Cap had to fight, because it was a comic. I would certainly NOT want to read about otherwise. But do we excuse his misdeeds because of that? Do I get to say "Tony had to kill Goliath indirectly because the story mandated someone die, it was a comic necessity"? Course I don't. That's not what we do. Two KINGS. Don't tell me that didn't poise an enormous risk. Tell me, what if either of them had died in the battle? Their nation would send flowers? Did he ask Namor to bring a couple of guards with him as well? Actually, I'm not. Namor says no initially, and he is persuaded, in Tom Brevoort's words, "because Cap asked him." Simple as that. It was his friendship that motivated him to do this, he said NO when asked based on Tony alone. It WAS because of Cap. (Though he probably would have invaded the Surface World at some point anyway.) You seriously going to state that those heroes weren't criminals? Criminals are people who break the law. These guys broke the law and were detained for it. He broke out his heroic allies who also happened to be criminals. Oh, and I'm 100% sure Punisher is not only a criminal, but a psychopath with more deaths on his conscience than the entire Thunderbolts team combined, and Cap used Punisher WITHOUT restraints, unlike Iron Man who at least used nanites to ensure the Tbolts didn't wig out and, oh I dunno, brutally gut two super-humans before his very eyes? I don't. Show me. As I already noted, the single most destructive act we see was blasting the side of a building by Vision. I don't recall Iron Man's team doing anything as destructive. I also don't recall anyone on Tony's side with the ability to create flame and I think we can agree there's a STRONG probability at least some of the flames consuming Midtown were conjured by Human Torch, also anti reg. I agree with Tom on this one. Well that raises the question; is it worth pursuing this argument any further? We have both argued at length (You have argued valiantly indeed and many times left me lost for words) but neither will convince the other. I hope that if nothing else I have convinced you of this one thing; that it is POSSIBLE to defend Tony's position, however difficult and out of the box you think it may be. I think in many ways you have the more difficult argument; yours has been much more thoroughlly explored by some tie-ins than mine and thus it is harder for you to find room to manouvere, if that makes any sense- and it was intended as a compliment, certainly no slight to you) Well firstly I feel this clashes with your earlier statement that this is just a comic and needs to tell a story, secondly I really do disagree and feel their characterization is not only upheld, but honoured- the Cap/Iron man Special being a prime example of this, as well as FF #542 for those Reed-haters out there. I don't believe this is true, I believe Marvel are trying to show these characters, their characteristics, their personalities, their views, etc, without getting so bogged down in history that they need to stop every five minutes and explain it for newer readers. But we can agree to disagree, and congratulatiosn on ANOTHER enjoyable argument.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 5, 2007 20:15:17 GMT -5
Well, there was always an intention to have trials AFTER the war was over- emergency situations and whatnot, certainly not unprecedented, and that is what is now taking place, for example (Slight spoilers people!) Cap #25. At least some heroes are privy to that, but certainly I'm willing to concede it would have been smarter of Tony to broadcast from the roofs that these guys would get trials after civil war, though perhaps that clashes with his "Scare them" tactic. But as for conceding that Cap went too far, that's all I'm saying. Now to get you to admit HOW far (j/k) As you say, that intention may have been there - but it was clearly not communicated well. When you see your friends beaten, arrested, and thrown in prison for refusing to trust the government, an organization notorious for its porousness as far as secrets are concerned, with their real names. The example of Peter Parker shows it best: he unmasked and that got his aunt shot, and possibly killed (we don't know, yet). And broadcasting it would have short-circuited Tony's scare tactic, too. In this country, an agent of the CIA, Valerie Plame, was "outed" for political revenge. Some could see the registration act as asking the hero to place his family's safety in the hands of men who might spend it to earn political capital. Keep in mind that at this point, no one knew Tony was going to safeguard those names personally - that didn't come out until Frontline #11. Also, that depends on how much one trusts Tony. If Sally Floyd and Ben Urich ever do their jobs as reporters, and publish what they know - remember that they documented all of it, so it doesn't matter that Tony didn't confirm it - then a lot of heroes will have serious second thoughts about the wisdom of trusting Tony, who has a strong "the ends justify the means, even immoral means" running through him now. Indeed, NO ONE should trust the man who knows what he did. Well for one thing, and this may explain some of our differences in this matter, I have never held much faith in the absolute infallibility of the US Constitution and feel there are certainly superior governments in the world, though that's just personal bias. We shall have to disagree on this point. I feel the Constitution, to the extent that it limits what government can do, protects the rights of citizens. In Europe people can be thrown in prison for expressing certain opinions that the majority find distasteful. I believe that's fundamentally wrong, and immoral. Note, too, that I discuss the Constitution and the theoretical implementation of government in the United States, as opposed to the practical implementation, which in recent years demonstrates the need for greater Constitutional protections for citizens against government. That government governs best (as Thomas Jefferson said) that governs least. I confess to a certain academic curiosity as to which governments you consider superior, and why, but this is not the place for that discussion. But moving beyond that, I would feel it was wrong undoubtedly, however if I knew I would get a trial afterwards, I might feel differently, no? I would INQUIRE t those in the know- in this case Iron Man and solicit their view, which in this case would inform me that trials were in the pipeline for after the main conflict, and with that reassurance I would certainly not take the Cap path. Agreed - assuming one trusts Tony, which given the history of pitching people into 42 incommunicado would be hard to do. "Two wolves and a sheep" is good for some things but the problem is that there has to be a LIMIT. Where do you STOP? For example, so we say "Well, these guys aren't heroes, so they can't vote or decide what happens to the heroes." What next? Well, these guys are too poor, these people are the wrong colour, these ones the wrong gender, these people are disabled, etc, etc, etc- only certain KINDS of people can vote in elections, etc. Where is the line drawn? The United States is a democracy, and the people who live there agree to abide by it's rules, not to abide by selective rules whenever it suits them, certainly not when they have a constituional alternative. And besides, your analogy is prededicated on the minority, the "sheep" being totally and vehemently opposed to the idea- but over half the HERO populace is in favour of this law. Even a special super hero vote would almost certainly come out in favour of it, especially with the X-Men sitting it out. I think you're opening a door that cannot be easily closed. The idea is that the rule of law, backed by the Constitution, makes certain things wrong no matter how many people want them to happen. So if the two wolves vote to eat the sheep, the laws against murder mean they face consequences if they do it. The Constitution provides strong protections for personal freedoms and rights that can, indeed must, *always* trump what the mob wants to do on a particular day - if what the mob wants to do is wrong. This is where I feel there is a clash between what you're saying as an anti-regger, IE: "Cap had to fight because it's a comic" and what you're saying as a civil war critic, IE: "It was out of character for Cap to fight." I agree Cap had to fight, because it was a comic. I would certainly NOT want to read about otherwise. But do we excuse his misdeeds because of that? Do I get to say "Tony had to kill Goliath indirectly because the story mandated someone die, it was a comic necessity"? Course I don't. That's not what we do. The point I'm trying to make here, albeit somewhat maladroitly, is that the writers (Millar in particular) forced people to behave in particular ways necessary to the story. Cap had to fight because Millar established axioms that suggested he would otherwise be the victim of injustice, and he had to fight because it's a comic. Either one forces Cap to be someone he really isn't, just as Tony was forced to be someone he isn't. Let me be clear: I don't *like* what Tony did as revealed in Frontline #11 for two reasons: first because of that ends justify the means thing, and second because the Tony I grew up reading simply wouldn't behave that way. Not ever. That's why I argue bad writing. Or, at least, writing that discards the heroic legacy. Two KINGS. Don't tell me that didn't poise an enormous risk. Tell me, what if either of them had died in the battle? Their nation would send flowers? Did he ask Namor to bring a couple of guards with him as well? Well, that didn't happen, so we'll never know. Just as we'll never know what would have happened if Atlantis had declared war because Tony's plan backfired. Foolish risks were taken all the way around. You seriously going to state that those heroes weren't criminals? Criminals are people who break the law. These guys broke the law and were detained for it. He broke out his heroic allies who also happened to be criminals. They were criminals only in the sense that they refused to obey a law they considered unjust. Balance that against long histories of doing good, which the government basically ignored. These were not immoral men, unlike, say, Venom, Bullseye, Lady Deathstrike, and others who fought for Tony's side. Oh, and I'm 100% sure Punisher is not only a criminal, but a psychopath with more deaths on his conscience than the entire Thunderbolts team combined, and Cap used Punisher WITHOUT restraints And what did Cap do when he realized what a mistake that was? Arguably, it's a mistake Cap should never have made, which is another case where his character was twisted to fit into the role assigned to it by Millar's story. unlike Iron Man who at least used nanites to ensure the Tbolts didn't wig out and, oh I dunno, brutally gut two super-humans before his very eyes? For an example of how well those nanites work, look at what Bullseye does to Jack Flag in T-Bolts #111. Look at what Moonstone orders the Radioactive Man to do, same issue. As I already noted, the single most destructive act we see was blasting the side of a building by Vision. I don't recall Iron Man's team doing anything as destructive. I also don't recall anyone on Tony's side with the ability to create flame and I think we can agree there's a STRONG probability at least some of the flames consuming Midtown were conjured by Human Torch, also anti reg. Fires are common in such situations when gas mains explode. It's why you see a lot of fires following earthquakes. It's a stretch to assign blame for all of those to the Torch. Well that raises the question; is it worth pursuing this argument any further? We have both argued at length (You have argued valiantly indeed and many times left me lost for words) but neither will convince the other. This is probably the wisest course. I don't believe this is true, I believe Marvel are trying to show these characters, their characteristics, their personalities, their views, etc, without getting so bogged down in history that they need to stop every five minutes and explain it for newer readers. But we can agree to disagree, and congratulatiosn on ANOTHER enjoyable argument. The history I'm talking about isn't the details - events and dates and issue numbers - but the basic motivations of the characters. They should want to do good, and in Civil War, they may have started out that way, but they sure didn't end that way. I felt that Reed's "invention" of psychohistory was kind of a slap in the face to Asimov, who is dead and cannot defend himself, because clearly whoever wrote that issue didn't understand the fundamentals of the "science." It was devised as a way to predict what trillions of people would do, and it will not work (at least, accoriding to Asimov) on a population as small as the superhuman community. If you haven't read Asimov's Foundation series, I recommend them - they explain the "science" in greater detail. I felt that this was used as a crude mechanism to, again, shoehorn Reed into supporting the act.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 6, 2007 0:03:09 GMT -5
eyes hurt from such long arguments... here are my simple points. do with them what you will. 1) every super hero has been a terrorist at some point. every one. every hero has gone to a foreign country or planet and blown something up in flagrant defiance of any known laws. period. Latveria alone has probably a thousand wanted posters. Just 'cause it takes place in another country doesn't make it any less hostile or illegal. Doom's a megalomaniac? true. and there's no laws against megalomania. no law against summoning demons or stealing silver surfer's power. especially when you make your own laws... iron man's taken on terrorist status before during armor wars and likely several other times. so it's something that has popped up before in the MU we've just not taken it to this extreme and turned it into a jingoistic rallying cry. 2) is Cap's agenda truly known or just poorly explained? I think Cap didn't want to see super heroes turned into a paramilitary force, to further the government agenda as may be seen in the Initative. There are also some things that only independent thinking heroes will be able to face. Anybody remember the Kang dynasty when the Sentinels are turned back on the government? I would rather have the Wasp who has worked alongside aliens make first contact with her own judgement than have the government telling her to attack. I would rather have Cap controlling the heroes than Dick Cheney. And make no mistake if the heroes report to the government that's the case. The Avengers were already gov't controlled some would say? Well not really. If Cap didn't want to fight, he could quit. The Avengers could all quit, thus no paramilitary force. I don't think the Initative allows you to quit and go on about your business like nothing happened. 3) also gotta admit I don't recall the whole tony and nanites thing as I will have to reread the story (was blind with rage the first time around and may be clouding my memory with blood red fury) but if he put in motion events that directly caused a murder even if he didn't know for sure it would lead to a murder, but the outcome was a foreseeable possibility, then he's at least guilty of manslaughter, but just as likely murder.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 6, 2007 10:12:04 GMT -5
2) is Cap's agenda truly known or just poorly explained? I think Cap didn't want to see super heroes turned into a paramilitary force, to further the government agenda as may be seen in the Initative. For a good story about what the government would do if it controlled superheroes directly, read the Hyperion and Squadon Supreme stories - especially the early issues where the government finds and raises Hyperion. The ones written by JMS. I would rather have Cap controlling the heroes than Dick Cheney. And make no mistake if the heroes report to the government that's the case. The Avengers were already gov't controlled some would say? Well not really. If Cap didn't want to fight, he could quit. The Avengers could all quit, thus no paramilitary force. I don't think the Initative allows you to quit and go on about your business like nothing happened. This goes to the heart of it: how much control does the government have over SHIELD and the Initiative. Marvel has been quite unwilling to pin this down - Slott's book seems to suggest the pro-reg heroes were drafted, whereas Brevoort's comments suggest that powers are required to register, but not to work for SHIELD. They are required to be licensed if they wish to operate in a law enforcement capacity, which means they have to accept the training and they do have to work for the Initiative. This, of course, strongly encourages individuals to use their powers for their own benefit (if those powers are suitable) but not for law enforcement. So a guy like the Water Wizard, if I understand this successfully, could register and then could sell his services helping people find water and bring it to the surface - as long as he didn't attack anyone, he wouldn't need to join the Initiative. Unless I am misinterpreting a very vague law (Brevoort said as much, explaining that in his conceptualization the law ran to 700 pages, and he set himself up as the arbiter of how it would work in situations described to him by writers). It also strongly encourages individuals who don't trust the government to sit back and do nothing about situations where they might be able to help, rather than become criminals. I would like to see stories written about that, but I doubt I will - Marvel has reached out to a large audience the clearly believes in the beneficence of government, and they won't want to write stories disabusing them of that notion. 3) also gotta admit I don't recall the whole tony and nanites thing as I will have to reread the story (was blind with rage the first time around and may be clouding my memory with blood red fury) but if he put in motion events that directly caused a murder even if he didn't know for sure it would lead to a murder, but the outcome was a foreseeable possibility, then he's at least guilty of manslaughter, but just as likely murder. It's mostly in Frontline. Tony reprogrammed Norman Osborn's nanites so that Osborn would attack the Atlantean ambassador. He took a number of precautions, such as ensuring Osborn had a useless weapon, intended to prevent actual harm - but Osborn somehow managed to kill a number of Atlanteans, anyway. Whether that's because he overpowered Tony's programming or because the nanites contain a few remains unclear at this point. Staunch Civil War defenders also like to point out that Tony never admitted to what he had done, verbally, but the body language seems clear - and the reporters didn't need his admission of guilt; they had much of it documented. A confession would have been the cherry on top, not the sundae, had they done what reporters should do.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 6, 2007 12:29:16 GMT -5
2) is Cap's agenda truly known or just poorly explained? I think Cap didn't want to see super heroes turned into a paramilitary force, to further the government agenda as may be seen in the Initative. For a good story about what the government would do if it controlled superheroes directly, read the Hyperion and Squadon Supreme stories - especially the early issues where the government finds and raises Hyperion. The ones written by JMS. This goes to the heart of it: how much control does the government have over SHIELD and the Initiative. Marvel has been quite unwilling to pin this down - Slott's book seems to suggest the pro-reg heroes were drafted, whereas Brevoort's comments suggest that powers are required to register, but not to work for SHIELD. They are required to be licensed if they wish to operate in a law enforcement capacity, which means they have to accept the training and they do have to work for the Initiative. This, of course, strongly encourages individuals to use their powers for their own benefit (if those powers are suitable) but not for law enforcement. So a guy like the Water Wizard, if I understand this successfully, could register and then could sell his services helping people find water and bring it to the surface - as long as he didn't attack anyone, he wouldn't need to join the Initiative. Unless I am misinterpreting a very vague law (Brevoort said as much, explaining that in his conceptualization the law ran to 700 pages, and he set himself up as the arbiter of how it would work in situations described to him by writers). It also strongly encourages individuals who don't trust the government to sit back and do nothing about situations where they might be able to help, rather than become criminals. I would like to see stories written about that, but I doubt I will - Marvel has reached out to a large audience the clearly believes in the beneficence of government, and they won't want to write stories disabusing them of that notion. 3) also gotta admit I don't recall the whole tony and nanites thing as I will have to reread the story (was blind with rage the first time around and may be clouding my memory with blood red fury) but if he put in motion events that directly caused a murder even if he didn't know for sure it would lead to a murder, but the outcome was a foreseeable possibility, then he's at least guilty of manslaughter, but just as likely murder. It's mostly in Frontline. Tony reprogrammed Norman Osborn's nanites so that Osborn would attack the Atlantean ambassador. He took a number of precautions, such as ensuring Osborn had a useless weapon, intended to prevent actual harm - but Osborn somehow managed to kill a number of Atlanteans, anyway. Whether that's because he overpowered Tony's programming or because the nanites contain a few remains unclear at this point. Staunch Civil War defenders also like to point out that Tony never admitted to what he had done, verbally, but the body language seems clear - and the reporters didn't need his admission of guilt; they had much of it documented. A confession would have been the cherry on top, not the sundae, had they done what reporters should do. actually all these quotes come from me. dunno how you got thew's name on 'em. In any case, if Stark sent Osborn who is a murderer and incredibly crafty villain even in with his bare hands knowing he had a capacity for murder with not wholly tested restraint, and a murder is committed it is still highly forseeable. I could make a case against him, and I'm sure Jack McCoy (Da-dum) could. I would love to see Daredevil become about persecuting the war crimes of Civil War actually just so we could examine these types of questions...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 6, 2007 12:32:13 GMT -5
Sorry. I fixed the attribution. In any case, if Stark sent Osborn who is a murderer and incredibly crafty villain even in with his bare hands knowing he had a capacity for murder with not wholly tested restraint, and a murder is committed it is still highly forseeable. I could make a case against him, and I'm sure Jack McCoy (Da-dum) could. I would love to see Daredevil become about persecuting the war crimes of Civil War actually just so we could examine these types of questions... At the least, Stark is guilty of assault, battery, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, for the same reasons someone would be if they hired a contract killer, but never actually commited the crime of murder. In some jurisdictions, hiring a contract killer (which is essentially what Stark did, albeit Norman didn't have the choice to refuse) makes the hiring party just as guilty of murder, or attempted murder. That's just the ambassador. For the others Norman killed, Stark is guilty of manslaughter (the catchall that covers situations where you didn't intend murder, but you should have known better). That's on top of his various other crimes. One of the things that really irritated me was that Sally Floyd and Ben Urich failed in what I regard as a reporter's duty: to report. They should have put what they knew out there. While a legal analysis of the Civil War fallout might be interesting from a theoretical perspective, I don't think it will happen for two reasons: (1) it wouldn't make a very interesting comic book (it would make an interesting paper or novella), and (2) Marvel obviously likes the changes they've made to their world, and they think most readers like them, too. Don't look for them to call their editorial decisions into question in any serious way.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 6, 2007 13:59:25 GMT -5
Sorry. I fixed the attribution. In any case, if Stark sent Osborn who is a murderer and incredibly crafty villain even in with his bare hands knowing he had a capacity for murder with not wholly tested restraint, and a murder is committed it is still highly forseeable. I could make a case against him, and I'm sure Jack McCoy (Da-dum) could. I would love to see Daredevil become about persecuting the war crimes of Civil War actually just so we could examine these types of questions... At the least, Stark is guilty of assault, battery, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, for the same reasons someone would be if they hired a contract killer, but never actually commited the crime of murder. In some jurisdictions, hiring a contract killer (which is essentially what Stark did, albeit Norman didn't have the choice to refuse) makes the hiring party just as guilty of murder, or attempted murder. That's just the ambassador. For the others Norman killed, Stark is guilty of manslaughter (the catchall that covers situations where you didn't intend murder, but you should have known better). That's on top of his various other crimes. One of the things that really irritated me was that Sally Floyd and Ben Urich failed in what I regard as a reporter's duty: to report. They should have put what they knew out there. While a legal analysis of the Civil War fallout might be interesting from a theoretical perspective, I don't think it will happen for two reasons: (1) it wouldn't make a very interesting comic book (it would make an interesting paper or novella), and (2) Marvel obviously likes the changes they've made to their world, and they think most readers like them, too. Don't look for them to call their editorial decisions into question in any serious way. I think in the same fashion one does a Grisham novel it could be entertaining. And I think it would be interesting to put Tony Stark against Matt Murdock as adversaries in court. Of course one could throw in the superhuman element as well with any number of heroes or villains having some stake in the outcome. And just think what Marvel could do with the next big series- Civil War :Exposed as heroes and villains find out the truth and the world will never be the same!!!! It would leave things in just as bad a shape as they are now and would cause even more conflict as the American public finds out the conspiracies behind their new golden boy, Tony Stark. I think someone good could make it interesting and sell Marvel on it in two years...
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Mar 7, 2007 6:07:59 GMT -5
You guys have been writing a lot in this topic, eh ? It's taking a lifetime to read just the past 2-3 days of posts. One question though
I can't think of any country over here that does this (except for Russia may be, but not quite in such a neat way).
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 7, 2007 9:30:30 GMT -5
I can't think of any country over here that does this (except for Russia may be, but not quite in such a neat way). I recall reading that Germany, and possibly other countries, throw people in prison for denying the Holocaust. I'm no fan of such people, whom I regard as denying the facts of the situation - but one thing about true freedom of speech is, I don't have to like what you say, for you to have the right to say it. Such freedom fosters debate and stimulates the intellect. It forces people to refute poor reasoning rather than simply throwing the utterer in prison. Edit: Here's a story about a new French law that prohibits the photographing of "violent acts." Such a law would be unconstitutional in the United States, and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on Mar 9, 2007 10:09:49 GMT -5
I recall reading that Germany, and possibly other countries, throw people in prison for denying the Holocaust. That´s true, just a few days ago "holocaust-denier" Ernst Zündel was convicted to 5 years of prison. And right now there are talks to forbid anti-nazi symbols (you know, the "anti-swatiska" ones punks are wearing etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 9, 2007 11:55:41 GMT -5
So that makes it okay? Wow, let's apply that logic to REAL life! So you believe there should be a law against summoning demons? Um... so? Yes, he's taken this status before. The difference is that if he does it again, he'll be held accountable- are you saying he SHOULDN'T have been held accountable after the Armour Wars? It's been explained several dozen times; he wants heroes to act as they always have. That's his agenda in a nutshell. You miss something VERY important there; had Iron Man been controlling the government he would never have sent up the Sentinels. They report to Tony Stark. Their friend, who they trust. (Or did). The Avengers were once government controlled but not SHIELD controlled. Exactly. So there's no NEED to make a paramilitary force. Tom B recently confirmed for the 63rd time that you can be a registered hero and not part of the Initiative. Actually, you can say he can "at least be charged with manslaughter", not that he's guilty of. The outcome was a foreseeable possibilit,y but WILDLY unlikely and I think any sane judge would exonerate him. For the last time, SLOTT IS HYPING A BOOK. "Draft" sounds better when hping a book than "Recruiting heroes who are willing", no? No, they don't. This has been asked many times and denied every time, they do NOT HAVE TO WORK FOR THE INITIATIVE. Well if that's honestly what you think then I pray God YOU never get super powers. Talk about "misinterpretation". Well that's idiotic. No, it encourages individuals to help out in these situations, but to be held accountable if by their actions something goes wrong. How evil and fascistic! I'm a hippy-ass peace loving Bush-hating liberal. You won't see stories written like that because MARVEL HAVE NEVER IMPLIED IT WOULD HAPPEN. That's like me saying "Well, I'd like to see Marvel writing stories where Doctor Doom kills Reed Richards and he stays dead forever, then Doom rules Earth for every comic ever made in the future but because Marvel have this ridiculous 'heroes should win' thing, it'll never happen!" Just as Cap would have looked like a complete imbecile had Sally done what reporters do in issue #9. No, it's really really really not. That would be interesting given the whole "Unregistered and is BREAKING THE LAW HIMSELF AT THIS VERY MOMENT" thing. ...We're honestly going to alk about LEGALITIES? Wow, hypocrisy or what. Okay, so let's see; Tony Stark is arrested for murder. Pity the ENTIRE anti-reg side is also thrown in jail for a long time. Oh, except what if Tony Stark believes you SHOULDN'T go to jail for murder? Well, if he disagrees with the law he's absolutely justified in going off and forming a terrorist band to oppose the government on this, right? After all, if his heart's in the right place, who cares!? What makes this different from Cap? Oh right, YOU disagree with Stark, therefore Stark is a villain. Please.:rolleyes: Wow, once more you twist the situation beyond belief! Tell me, is this before or after Cap has been sentenced to jail for life for High Treason, manslaughter, attempted murde, defiance of the SHRA and assault? If you don't think, say, the UK has an infinitely superior criminal justice system to America, I recommend you read up a little. Well duh; France does not abide by the United States Constituion, it has it's own more intigelnt set of laws which were not written in 1776. Well honestly I think that's justified in a country as hideously scarred by such acts as Germany. I mean, I oppose a law on flag burning but Swastikas are something TOTALLY different.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Mar 9, 2007 12:02:22 GMT -5
I recall reading that Germany, and possibly other countries, throw people in prison for denying the Holocaust. I'm no fan of such people, whom I regard as denying the facts of the situation - but one thing about true freedom of speech is, I don't have to like what you say, for you to have the right to say it. Such freedom fosters debate and stimulates the intellect. It forces people to refute poor reasoning rather than simply throwing the utterer in prison. Exactly - the price of freedom of speech is sometimes having to tolerate the right of others to express opinions you may find despicable. Just as living in a truly free society means you may not be 100% safe. Unfortunately I don't think most Americans realize or understand that there is a "price" for the freedom that they enjoy, or that that freedom is not a universal condition.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 9, 2007 12:17:16 GMT -5
YOU disagree with Stark, therefore Stark is a villain. No, Stark is a villain because he committed crimes. Sorry if that's hard to take, but that's how Millar/Jenkins/Quesada et. al. chose to have him act. Wow, once more you twist the situation beyond belief! Tell me, is this before or after Cap has been sentenced to jail for life for High Treason, manslaughter, attempted murde, defiance of the SHRA and assault? Objection, asked and answered! Your arguments suggesting Cap committed treason have already been demolished. When did he commit manslaughter or attempted murder? You've got him on refusing to abide by the SHRA and assault. Of course, at the time he committed those offenses, Tony had led him to believe he'd be imprisoned in an alien dimension, for life, without recourse to legal counsel. That's going to make a man less inclined to surrender. That it turned out later not to be the plan is sort of beside the point. If you don't think, say, the UK has an infinitely superior criminal justice system to America, I recommend you read up a little. If you wish to make this assertion, you need to supply more than that. At the least, a link that makes your case. Our legal system is very much based on British Common Law, so you're going to need to cite specific examples of ways you feel British law is superior to United States law. Otherwise, you are asking me to evaluate the entire body of both sets of law and then to guess which ones you think are better. That's a monumental task for which I haven't the time. Well duh; France does not abide by the United States Constituion, it has it's own more intigelnt set of laws which were not written in 1776. That's the point I was trying to make. Those men back in 1776 had already forgotten more about freedom and civil liberty than you will ever learn, I fear. If you have specific examples of ways French law is better than American law that you care to share, by all means do so. See previous paragraph. By the way, when you're trying to describe something as "intelligent" it helps to spell the word properly. Well honestly I think that's justified in a country as hideously scarred by such acts as Germany. I mean, I oppose a law on flag burning but Swastikas are something TOTALLY different. No, they're not. Odious as they are, they are a form of personal expression. You can't silence dissent by outlawing it [1], you have to silence it by proving why its wrong. That you would make such a statement further bolsters my opinion that you do not truly understand freedom, and that's very sad. [1] Well, okay, you can for awhile, if you want to establish a police state. But only for awhile.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 9, 2007 16:11:48 GMT -5
Not an issue here, since the pro-reggers are not firbidding people free speech- in fact, the closest we saw were agents illegally arresting a journalist who opposed them, but she was IMMEDIATELY FREED thanks to the PRO-REG Reed Richards and a PRO-REG congressman. Then the exact same logic states that Cap's entire posse are villains. Demolished? DEMOLISHED? Wow, talk about selective memory of what occured last page. In fact, the last point you made was that Cap inviting in two foreign powers to invade didn't REALLY matter because Namor did it not for Cap but because of Tony. I flat out proved that was a lie and you then did not respond but apparantly considered the point gone. If by "demolished" you mean "easily withstoof your petty, biased attempts to discredit it", then you are correct but otherwise do NOT lie so blatantly, sir! He's certainly as culpable in Goliath's death as Cap is; not to mention there's a good chance he could be gotten on multiple counts of manslaughter for the casualties of The Final Battle. Attempted murder- even besides the fact that he was found, in a wartime situation, about to kill Iron Man before he was stopped, EVEN if that was ignored, he HURLED A SHIELD AGENT OUT OF A MOVING VEHICLE INTO THE PATH OF SEVERAL MORE CARS, WHICH IMMEDIATELY CAUSED A DISASTEROUS PILE-UP! Oh, and in addition that, let's add "Dangerous driving" to the list No, he really didn't. At the time he disobeyed the first he knew nothing about the prison, or the second for that matter, and the only person ever lead to believe it would be for life without legal counsel was Spider-Man, in a retconned conversation. Honestly, I can name one thing done by US law which is absolutely BARBARIC and frankly, makes me distrust the entire legal system: In the US, it is legal to execute minors. I oppose any execution at all, but MINORS? That is disgusting, and there's a reason it's a very small list of countries who do it. (Oh and by the way; it's a list you DEFINITELY want to be on.) Is there any sense in going so far off topci in such a deep discussion? And the men of 1776 did an admirable job for their time, but today many of their laws are outdated, though many of the basic foundations of them are not. It's really not. Tell you what- when the United States is taken over by a heinous dictaitorship which then not onloy enforces a viciously brutal police state and kills countless thousands, but executes entire minority races, and then plunges the earth into a bloodbath uinlike any seen before, then maybe you can judge. Until then, I think it's perfectly fair for the Germans to have this law, because you in your typical American arrogance believe you know better than the German people and government what should be permitted in Germany. And my nation was occupied for over seven hundred years, and I have living relatives who can recall a time it was not fully independent, so believe me when I say freedom is a much more important and recent thing to us than I think you could ever believe.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Mar 9, 2007 16:30:48 GMT -5
On March 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for minors. Prior to this ruling, minors were subject to the death penalty in a majority of states where the death penalty is practiced.
As of July 1, 2006, the Death Penalty was authorized by 38 states, the Federal Government, and the U.S. Military.
FYI
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 9, 2007 16:55:34 GMT -5
Then the exact same logic states that Cap's entire posse are villains. Some of them, undoubtedly. We don't know, and may never know, who exactly killed the 53 people who died in the final battle. But those individuals would be guilty of murder, or at least manslaughter, no matter whose side they were on. Demolished? DEMOLISHED? Wow, talk about selective memory of what occured last page. In fact, the last point you made was that Cap inviting in two foreign powers to invade didn't REALLY matter because Namor did it not for Cap but because of Tony. I flat out proved that was a lie and you then did not respond but apparantly considered the point gone. If by "demolished" you mean "easily withstoof your petty, biased attempts to discredit it", then you are correct but otherwise do NOT lie so blatantly, sir! If you want to make Cap a traitor, you have to also make Tony a traitor. He's the one whose mind-controlled slave attacked the Atlanteans and got them all stirred up in the first place. One might reasonably question whether Namor would have entered the fray at all, regardless of whether Cap asked him, had Tony not pissed him off to that degree. I told you then that I believe Cap asked for personal assistance, and not for an invasion of the United States. If Alphaland picks a fight with Betaland, and someone in Betaland asks me to join his team, and I do, that's not a request for my country, Gammaland, to join the fight. Cap made personal requests, he did not enter into negotiations on behalf of the entire country, nor request an invasion of the country. He asked for specific help defeating specific individuals. He's certainly as culpable in Goliath's death as Cap is; Cap, culpable in Goliath's death?!? Oh, the twisted logic that must have spawned that sentiment. Clor is responsible for Goliath's death, and to the extent that they built and programmed him, Reed Richards and Tony Stark may be responsible for manslaughter in that context. Considering the circumstances, I doubt very much that the government would prosecute them, but Stark Enterprises might have to pay off a huge wrongful death lawsuit should Foster's family care to bring one. not to mention there's a good chance he could be gotten on multiple counts of manslaughter for the casualties of The Final Battle. Please see above. Attempted murder- even besides the fact that he was found, in a wartime situation, about to kill Iron Man before he was stopped, EVEN if that was ignored, he HURLED A SHIELD AGENT OUT OF A MOVING VEHICLE INTO THE PATH OF SEVERAL MORE CARS, WHICH IMMEDIATELY CAUSED A DISASTEROUS PILE-UP! Oh, and in addition that, let's add "Dangerous driving" to the list I've already admitted, here and previously, that Cap committed crimes. When will you admit that Tony also committed crimes? And that's the crux of why I disliked Civil War so much: neither man, written properly, would behave this way. Literally decades of heroism from previous comics backs that claim. No, he really didn't. At the time he disobeyed the first he knew nothing about the prison, or the second for that matter, and the only person ever lead to believe it would be for life without legal counsel was Spider-Man, in a retconned conversation. In Frontline #11, the story made it clear that anti-reg forces generally believe (as part of the scare tactic) that 42 was meant for them. And, do you think Spider-Man didn't speak with his allies? Honestly, I can name one thing done by US law which is absolutely BARBARIC and frankly, makes me distrust the entire legal system: In the US, it is legal to execute minors. I oppose any execution at all, but MINORS? That is disgusting, and there's a reason it's a very small list of countries who do it. You're right. I oppose all capital punishment for a number of reasons, although I have no problem with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for certain crimes. You may elect to distrust the entire legal system because of that, it's a fair opinion, but I don't. Keep in mind that what you're discussing is a punishment that shouldn't exist. It isn't a comment on the fairness of the legal system as far as gathering evidence, ensuring due process, presumption of innocence, and so forth. (Oh and by the way; it's a list you DEFINITELY want to be on.) Do you mean to suggest here that you think I advocate the execution of children? That's a pretty baseless slur (because NOTHING I have said suggests I advocate that) if that's what you're saying. Is there any sense in going so far off topci in such a deep discussion? And the men of 1776 did an admirable job for their time, but today many of their laws are outdated, though many of the basic foundations of them are not. It's the foundations of individual freedom that I value the most in the Constitution. I'm still waiting for that list of far superior French laws. Unless they have to do with proper surrender etiquette, I think it will be difficult to find them! It's really not. Tell you what- when the United States is taken over by a heinous dictaitorship which then not onloy enforces a viciously brutal police state and kills countless thousands, but executes entire minority races, and then plunges the earth into a bloodbath uinlike any seen before, then maybe you can judge. The Germans weren't "taken over" by anyone - they were victimized by ruinous reparation demands that created a climate where a charismatic murderer and his thugs could readily appeal to their national pride, and get them to do horrific things. No external power involved, just basic human nature - when freedoms aren't properly respected. Restricting free speech, even odious free speech, and other freedoms fosters fascism and other forms of totalitarianism. When governments can throw people into prison without charging them, and deny them basic rights, they're on the way to that state. It's one of the reasons 72% of this country doesn't support George W. Bush. And erosion of freedom is what Cap fought against in the Civil War. Don't take my word for it - even mainstream news articles discussing Cap's death have picked up on this point. Until then, I think it's perfectly fair for the Germans to have this law, because you in your typical American arrogance believe you know better than the German people and government what should be permitted in Germany. The Germans can do whatever they wish, but if they do things that I don't think respect freedom, I'm going to say it. If that makes me arrogant, then I can live with that. And my nation was occupied for over seven hundred years, and I have living relatives who can recall a time it was not fully independent, so believe me when I say freedom is a much more important and recent thing to us than I think you could ever believe. For someone coming from such a history, you seem unusually willing to trust governments. That surprises me.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 9, 2007 17:42:43 GMT -5
On March 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for minors. Prior to this ruling, minors were subject to the death penalty in a majority of states where the death penalty is practiced. As of July 1, 2006, the Death Penalty was authorized by 38 states, the Federal Government, and the U.S. Military. OH NO WAY, no way do you confuse the issue here! No, sir, I am smarter than that. Here's your exact quote: "No, Stark is a villain because he committed crimes" Therefore, by THAT SAME LOGIC YOU USED, Cap and his posse ARE villains, FACT. Well ignoring the whole fact that thd mind controlled slave was doing so willingly as far as we can ascertain, and thus cannot be defined as a slave- and by "mind controlled", it's the most selective mind control ever, I think we can agree inciting a war with one country you don't THINK will happen is MUCH better than inciting a war with at least three superpowers, without even CARING whether it starts or not, for your own personal aims. Not according to the quote. So you honestly think the US Government will say "Don't worry everyone, when the King of a Foreign Nation and his elite guard beat up our policemen and law enforcers in New York, they did so to help an illegal terorrist cell, NOT to invade us!" Yeah, that logic absolutely sucks my friend. Your case weakens with each post. You leave out the fact that said "specific individuals" were, y'know, the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. ....Speaking of twisted logic, Hank Pym makes the circuitry that fills 90% of Clor but doesn't get charged with anything while Tony Stark provides one hair and is immediately guilty? Uh... yeah, moving on from that colossal leap in logic, there is certainly a case that Cap started the fight, as well as the war, and hence set in motion the chain of events which led to GOliath's death. I'm not saying he IS responsioble, I'm saying he's just as responsible as Tony; that is, associated and loosely involved but not responsible. Here's a secret Balok; if it didn't work above, it doesn't work here. And it didn't. AHA! So first you ask me when Cap commited them and then when I cite specific examples, you try and twist the subject? Nope, I want to know why exactly Cap would NOT be in any way guilty for these cases, and I look forward to your explanation. I refuse to budge until you actually address a point directly. Well I'd say literally decades back that they would but that's the old "opinion" thing kicking in again. No, Frontline #11 does not make that clear at all. Frontline #11 implies Tony Stark was TRYING to make them believe that. Plus, as I already said- the conversation was retconned, and certainly this is all conflicted since Cap was in FULL KNOWLEDGE in civil war '6 that it was a super villain prison primarily. [pquote]You're right. I oppose all capital punishment for a number of reasons, although I have no problem with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for certain crimes. You may elect to distrust the entire legal system because of that, it's a fair opinion, but I don't. Keep in mind that what you're discussing is a punishment that shouldn't exist. It isn't a comment on the fairness of the legal system as far as gathering evidence, ensuring due process, presumption of innocence, and so forth.[/quote] Well we agree on this matter so let's let it slide. I'm pleased to see there is something we can concur on at any rate. I did not mean you personally, I meant the United States. Said list includes other.... less than reputable countries, and that was, I confess, a direct hit at what I consider one of the most barbaric aspects of the USA, though the court ruling mentioned above certainly reassured me to a degree. I apologize for bringing in my personal strong feelings on that matter. But i didn't mean to suggest that. Oh the old "surrender" slur. Of course, America has absolutely NO IDEA what the French people went through in World War II, and the old "selective" memory kicks in when it comes to France's surrender record. I mean really, of all the countries the Germans directly invaded with overwhelming force onyl RUSSIA survived (And probably could have won the war single-handedly I guess) and that was, no offence to the valiant Russian defenders, more due to weather and size than anything. I'm sure you don't appreciate it taking those hits at the Americans; please don't take hits at the French who endured more than the USA could dream of. Ironically, do you know what I consider one of Cap's best moments in recent years? When he launches into a speech early in Brubaker's run DEFENDING France, echoing my own sentiments and describing how it "galls him" to hear his own people dismiss the French as cowards. Sorry, flippant comment it may have been but that strikes a little close to home for my comfort. Oh, and for one thing France certainly has better laws on capital punishment! And by the way, you can't seriously mean to tell me the US Constitution is where the whole "Individual freedoms" Shtick comes from, can you? That would be the very hieght of American arrogance. The people of Germany voted Hitler in of their own free will. He manipulated the election to be sure, but you yourself said that they voted him in themselves. Hitler did not get into power because people's freedoms were not respected; he got into power because of a wide range of circumstances but the "freedom" thing just doesn't gel. And honestly, I think in Hitler's long list of atrocities, stripping freedoms is, for once, pretty far down. And I'm with them all the way and opposed him since day one. Except that is not the case in the Marvel Universe. Tell me- was Abe Lincoln evil when he thew COUNTLESS people into prison with no trials, with no consul? They've interpreted it to their will, as have you. I won't take anyone's word for it because I do not believe it is true at all- and I think Cap himself realised that it wasn't true in the end. Then you're arrogant, live with that. Maybe one day, you and the large number of other sheltered Americans will understand. There's a difference between 700 years under foreign hostile invaders who deny you basic rights and religious freedoms, to a government trying to PROTECT the majority of it's people.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 9, 2007 19:03:49 GMT -5
OH NO WAY, no way do you confuse the issue here! No, sir, I am smarter than that. Here's your exact quote: "No, Stark is a villain because he committed crimes" Therefore, by THAT SAME LOGIC YOU USED, Cap and his posse ARE villains, FACT. Well, they're all guilty of at least violating the SHRA, so I guess that does make them criminals. I assumed we were discussing more serious crimes, like murder, attempted murder, and sundry others. Well ignoring the whole fact that thd mind controlled slave was doing so willingly as far as we can ascertain, and thus cannot be defined as a slave- and by "mind controlled", it's the most selective mind control ever, Well, there's that pesky Frontline #11, which pretty much lays the blame for Norman's attack against the Atlantean ambassador on Tony and his nanomachines. So, yeah, mind-controlled slave. That's treason because it could trigger a war. I never contended that Norman's rampage was at Tony's direction - that was a result of a malfunction in the nanomachines (since they were supposed to prevent that sort of thing) - and if Tony hadn't had complete (and misplaced) confidence in the machines, Norman would have been in prison where he belonged. I think we can agree inciting a war with one country you don't THINK will happen is MUCH better than inciting a war with at least three superpowers, without even CARING whether it starts or not, for your own personal aims. Except that Tony doesn't get to make decisions like that. He wasn't elected or appointed to a role like that. And, you have no facts that suggest Cap came anywhere close to inciting a war, or even tried to. Namor and T'Challa came, themselves, as Cap's friends. You can't bring their countries into this without more proof. So you honestly think the US Government will say "Don't worry everyone, when the King of a Foreign Nation and his elite guard beat up our policemen and law enforcers in New York, they did so to help an illegal terorrist cell, NOT to invade us!" When did Namor beat up policemen? He attacked Tony's pro-registration forces. The Initiative doesn't exist yet, so they're not law enforcement. Just vigilantes at this point. Yeah, that logic absolutely sucks my friend. Your case weakens with each post. Sure, Doom. Whatever you say. ....Speaking of twisted logic, Hank Pym makes the circuitry that fills 90% of Clor but doesn't get charged with anything while Tony Stark provides one hair and is immediately guilty? Fine. Add Hank Pym's name to the roster of accused. But leave Cap off. He had nothing to do with the creation of Clor. Uh... yeah, moving on from that colossal leap in logic, there is certainly a case that Cap started the fight, as well as the war, and hence set in motion the chain of events which led to GOliath's death. I'm not saying he IS responsioble, I'm saying he's just as responsible as Tony; that is, associated and loosely involved but not responsible. You can say that, but it's gotta be your opinion. Suppose someone digs a pit. They don't bother to fence it in or otherwise control access to it. I stumble across it and fall in. By your logic, I'm responsible for my injuries. Huh?!? AHA! So first you ask me when Cap commited them and then when I cite specific examples, you try and twist the subject? Nope, I want to know why exactly Cap would NOT be in any way guilty for these cases, and I look forward to your explanation. I refuse to budge until you actually address a point directly. 'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking me for here. Please rephrase. Well I'd say literally decades back that they would but that's the old "opinion" thing kicking in again. Then you're looking in different comics than I grew up with. I think your comics must have come from the Ultimate Universe, which is an interesting place, but not Marvel 616. Perhaps you know of specific issues where Cap committed crimes? Where Tony did? I guess Armor Wars counts - I wouldn't know as I wasn't reading Iron Man then. No, Frontline #11 does not make that clear at all. Frontline #11 implies Tony Stark was TRYING to make them believe that. Well, I guess it depends on whether the heroes believed Tony, or not - but with heroes getting thrown into 42, I guess they had reason to believe him. Oh the old "surrender" slur. Of course, America has absolutely NO IDEA what the French people went through in World War II, and the old "selective" memory kicks in when it comes to France's surrender record. I mean really, of all the countries the Germans directly invaded with overwhelming force onyl RUSSIA survived (And probably could have won the war single-handedly I guess) and that was, no offence to the valiant Russian defenders, more due to weather and size than anything. Take it easy! It was a joke. That's why there was a smiley face there. I am interested, though, in the French laws you regard as superior to American laws. But that's probably too far off topic. In fact, I regard the Maquis as among the bravest people in history. And by the way, you can't seriously mean to tell me the US Constitution is where the whole "Individual freedoms" Shtick comes from, can you? That would be the very hieght of American arrogance. Not at all. We took British law of that era and improved on it. That doesn't say others didn't do as good a job. But I have a lot of respect for our Constitution and the principles it embodies. Tell me- was Abe Lincoln evil when he thew COUNTLESS people into prison with no trials, with no consul? Some people here think so, actually! As an American, I'm not proud of some of the things he did, for the reasons I'm not proud of the things George W. Bush does now. Yes, I have extraordinarily high standards of conduct, and I don't think governments should do a lot of what they do, regardless of the goal they're trying to achieve. But, then, I'm no fan of governments. I prefer them as small as is practical, and of very, very limited power. Because governments are made of people, and therefore have people's weaknesses, amplified by the authority given to the government. Abuses are best prevented when that power is sharply constrained. They've interpreted it to their will, as have you. I won't take anyone's word for it because I do not believe it is true at all- and I think Cap himself realised that it wasn't true in the end. Well, since Cap is dead, we won't know whether he planned to continue the fight. Which is a lot of why I didn't like Marvel's decision to kill him. But much of what Brevoort says suggests Cap quit the fight to stop the collateral damage, and not because he changed his mind about his position on the SHRA. There's a difference between 700 years under foreign hostile invaders who deny you basic rights and religious freedoms, to a government trying to PROTECT the majority of it's people. Governments amplify human weakness, as I said above. I don't care how benevolent they appear, I don't trust them.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 9, 2007 22:17:59 GMT -5
Well duh; France does not abide by the United States Constituion, it has it's own more intigelnt set of laws which were not written in 1776. Those men back in 1776 had already forgotten more about freedom and civil liberty than you will ever learn, I fear. And the men of 1776 did an admirable job for their time, but today many of their laws are outdated, though many of the basic foundations of them are not. What are you people talking about?!? There was no US Constitution in 1776. That date is usually associated with the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was drafted in 1787 and formally adopted as the law of the land in 1789. I'm still waiting for that list of far superior French laws. Unless they have to do with proper surrender etiquette, I think it will be difficult to find them! Take it easy! It was a joke. It’s a poor and smiteworthy joke. “I’m spewing bigotry, ha ha!!” The people of Germany voted Hitler in of their own free will. He manipulated the election to be sure, but you yourself said that they voted him in themselves. I don’t believe Balok made that claim, and I don’t believe that claim to be true. So far as I know, Hitler was appointed to every political office he held. Honestly, I think disregard for freedoms was at the heart of his atrocities, hence their atrociousness.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Mar 9, 2007 22:38:47 GMT -5
Oh, except what if Tony Stark believes you SHOULDN'T go to jail for murder? Well, if he disagrees with the law he's absolutely justified in going off and forming a terrorist band to oppose the government on this, right? After all, if his heart's in the right place, who cares!? What makes this different from Cap? Oh right, YOU disagree with Stark, therefore Stark is a villain. Please.:rolleyes: Okay, this argument seals it for me. This whole debate is useless because you aren't even making an attempt to respect the other viewpoint. For you to even suggests that Cap's rebellion against a registration law that locks people up for failure to register could in any way be compared to someone deciding that murder should be legal and therefore forming a terrorist group proves that you are too far out there for any chance of compromise and is insulting to all of us who agreed with Cap. I realize it must be frustrating being in such a minority on these boards, but come on. Don't treat the other side like idiots. I have read numerous comments from the anti-reg side admitting that Cap was partially at fault and that both sides acted irresponsibly and therefore shared in the collateral damage fault. You on the other hand have reached a point where you just argue. If an anit-reg person says the sky was blue during a fight scene, you say it was grey and it was all Cap's fault. For a debate to continue to be interesting, both sides have to at least acknowledge some validity from the other side even if not agreement. Right now we just have one long Monty Python sketch (The one where the guy goes to buy an argument and it turns into "This is an argument," "No it's not," "Yes it is," "No it's not," "Yes it is.") I've lost interest. I think I'll bow out for a while, lurk around and wait for new debates to begin. This one has reached a stalemate.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 10, 2007 16:37:16 GMT -5
Well, they're all guilty of a What on earth are you- You said Iron Man was a villain JUST BECAUSE he was a criminal. Now suddenly you change tack? Why not just admit your original post was a mistake and move on. Osborn was most certainly willing, it was spelt out in Frontline #6. And "mind controlled" implies they cannot act at all of their own free will- again, not true. CSA, not Tony. Tony could have objected to the Tbolts and they still would have been deployed. Whereas Cap was...? And he WAS appointed special counsel to the president. They are KINGS. Of COURSE I can bring their countries into this. Are you INSANE? Do you think if the Ayatollah of Iran went and beat up policemen in New York with his honour guard, the US/Iranian relation would remain the EXACT SAME? Let me put it another way; if Tony's people had detained Namor, as they had every right to be, do you HONESTLY believe for one second that Atlantis would say "Gosh darnit, let's go get a new regent!"? You are being unbelievably naive about this. Hate to break it to you but at this point they were registered superheroes and most definitely law enforcement. Tony and Hank had nothing to do with Cap going to Geffen Meyers and recruiting Goliath. And if you say he did by making a diversion there, then the same logic means Cap contributed to CLor by starting the civil war which absolutely necessitated Thor or a being of similar power and appearance be there. (Reed's equations of FF 542/) Well, ignoring your twist of my logic for now, your view is equally YOUR opinion so arguing is just semantics. Sure. Why exactly should Cap not be charged with anything for being on the verge of killing Iron Man when he was stopped? Bearing in mind there were MANY civilian witnesses. And why should be get off free for hurling a driver out of a moving behicle into the path of cars, causing an enormous pileup which, through sheer MIRACLE alone did not kill anyone? No, it's a marvellous thing called "Different interpretations". I suggest you think about it some time. Well that might be interesting if it wasn't for the fact that neither Cap or Tony behaved remotely like their Ultimate coutnerparts, right down to the very sides they chose. I'm 150% sure Armor Wars counts. Again you ignore the fact that Cap was in full knowledge the prison was for villains and said so- tell me, do you enjoy quoting selective parts of my responses to reply to? "Improved on" being a fact rather than an opinion of course. Let's move on since this is irrelevant. Does your naivety know no bounds? So people should not go to any lengths in war, EVER. They are evil if they detain folk. I believe i nwar, if it's a war of survival, you have to do morally questionable things, but you should be held 100% accountable fgor them afterwards and you must weigh every possibility. You believe that stepping even slightly over your own moral code is not just morally unsound, but EVIL. Which is ridiculous. Theoretically, so does the party that voted in George Bush. The fact remains that less than ten characters in the marvel universe appear to believe that Cap was right to oppose it with violence notwithstanding, you are honestly telling me Cap did the right thing throughout the war? Tell me, if your holier than thou attitude extends so far, then even ignoring the fact that you disregard anything wrong Cap did, how did you not jump ship from him the second Punisher was brought onboard? (Who has killed more than every single person on Tony's team, including the Thunderbolts, put together) I didn't say he did make the claim, AFAIK. I never compare anyone to the Nazis, it's just obscene. And Hitler was "appointed" to Chancellor as a formality. He was elected to such a position where he HAD to be, as every other chancellor was forced out- and it was the electorate who passed the Enabling Law giving him basically supreme power. Well we'll have to disagree but I think it was more a byproduct of his other crimes. No, I'm pointing out a massive ridiculousness of your cause; YOU personally get to draw the line, and HALF of a group who already comprise less than 1% of the population get to choose the validity of this US law against the will of at least 90%. YOUR moral standards are there; we can disobey SOME laws and not others, but YOU get to pick what laws or worse than others. That's beyond arrogant, beyond "Holier than thou", it's insane. It's a god complex. Cap should take a greater share of the collateral damage vote. He acted more irresponsibly. He was more at fault. These are what I believe. I will not stay quiet just because I'm a minority. Put it like this; for a very long time people have whined that it's impossible to be pro-reg. I'm putting the lie to those words ...Yeah, I could probably make that argument. But I just argue over stuff where I think I have a point, which is unfortunately for you a lot. (Plus Night Phantom said AGES ago that I was mellowing out after I gave up some argument as a draw, this time I fight to the bitter end. You unleashed a monster, Phantom ) I acknowledge that the other side may have some degree of a point in their ambition, but the way they acted in the name of it was horrifically wrong. Honestly, the brutal truth is that given the sheer number of accusations- unfair and otherwise- levelled at Tony's people, I need to take every concession I can get and each little bit I give away weakens my case. Yeah but I think I'm the guy saying "This is an argument". I don't back down because I'm right and I'm stubborn
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 10, 2007 18:41:15 GMT -5
Right now we just have one long Monty Python sketch (The one where the guy goes to buy an argument and it turns into "This is an argument," "No it's not," "Yes it is," "No it's not," "Yes it is.") I've lost interest. I think I'll bow out for a while, lurk around and wait for new debates to begin. This one has reached a stalemate. I think you're right. I can't convince Doc, and he can't convince me.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 14, 2007 8:22:08 GMT -5
Doom, you said in an earlier post
"Not an issue here, since the pro-reggers are not firbidding people free speech"
What about spidey. When he went to the TV station and said he opposed the act he was exercising his free speech.Even to the extent of saying he would do whatever he could to oppose it. it was still just free speech. Until he acted it was all a matter of free speech.
What was Stark's reaction. "Bring him in" just based on what he haid said. That seems to be against free speech to me. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 14, 2007 16:24:13 GMT -5
Technically, the First Amendment applies only to the government's attempts to censor speech. I'm not certain Tony was working for the government at that point. He wasn't head of SHIELD nor did the Initiative exist. So really that was a conflict between two supers. It does suggest that Tony as a man didn't have much respect for Spider-Man's freedom of speech. In this country, it is legal to speak out against laws even if they have been passed. Under some circumstances, it is illegal to encourage others to disobey the law (inciting a riot, for example). Whether this counted as such a circumstance would be something for the courts to decide.
Under some circumstances, courts have ruled that private citizens are effectively agents of the court. Usually, someone who is an agent of the court, like a police officer or a prosecutor, has to be directing their actions before that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 14, 2007 18:17:28 GMT -5
I can see what you are saying Blalok, but even though Tony wasn't head of SHIELD at that point, he was directing super powered response teams. So when he says "Bring him in" He isn't talking to himself. I believe he is giving an order. I may be wrong but I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 15, 2007 12:15:32 GMT -5
Nutcase, that's not actually true though. At the point Spidey goes on Television, he is ALREADY a criminal. He is already being hunted. His TV stunt just makes him a higher priority. Tony would have wanted him brought in regardless- it's simply that this raises him to a new threat level. So no, Idon't think his first amendment rights are violated at all. Ah but you see it was based more on the whole "attacked government liscenced hero leader then fought government operatives in sewer before joining illegal resistance band"
|
|