|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 15, 2007 13:33:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 15, 2007 14:24:17 GMT -5
Hmm... at last, an EXCUSE to buy Ant-Man. Like I needed one. So this clearly answers the questions: -Black Bolt will be down by the end of WWH 1, possibly dead to "start off with a bang" -Iron Man wioll be out for the count by the end of 2, as well Ben. Iron Man will probably be unconscious or soemthing until thne end of the event. My bet... WWH 1- Huik incapacitates Black Bolt WWH 2- Hulk incapacites Iron Man WWH 3- Hulk incapacitatwes Reed WWH 4- Hulk incapacitates Strange WWH 5- Thor incapacitates Hulk
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 15, 2007 14:49:01 GMT -5
As awesome as, regardless of any other consideration, the Hulk is, it seems unlikely that IM would be so casually disposed of, and at such an early stage of the conflict, what with Extremis & all the resources of SHIELD & the american government at Tony's disposal...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 15, 2007 14:51:06 GMT -5
It almost seems like the only answer which would make sense is if he would be caught unawares, by surprise, by the Hulk. Well I guess we'll have to wait & see,,,
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 15, 2007 15:12:36 GMT -5
A big thrust of IM 19 though is whether or not Tony will send the boys of S.H.I.E.L.D. into a mess he created- whether or not he can, whether or not he should, so that may explain part of his early defeat which now seems inevitable- and would have been quite a shock were it not for the spoiler "Smash list" and IM 20 solicit.
Of course I'm sure Balok would say he'd have no qualms about that since sending raw S.H.I.E.L.D. troops in against Hulk is no different from cloning Thor. Or something.
(Although incidentally, were I stark I'd send them in, Hulk's a colossal threat to the entire planet!)
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 15, 2007 15:51:00 GMT -5
Well, but right there we have a situation taylor-made for the Initiative to intervene: an out-of-control Hulk waging war against the world (hmmm... PRECISELY the type of situation the Illuminati were trying to avoid when they exiled the Hulk... makes you kinda question their collective wisdom...). I doubt that even the Hulk could withstand for long being assaulted by 50 teams of superheroes...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 15, 2007 15:54:49 GMT -5
The Sentry alone, at least as he was depicted on his own mini, should be able to defeat the Hulk, unless Banner gets to play mind games with his rather weak willed psyche...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 16, 2007 14:11:58 GMT -5
The Sentry alone, at least as he was depicted on his own mini, should be able to defeat the Hulk, unless Banner gets to play mind games with his rather weak willed psyche... In the Sentry mini the Hulk was depicted as more or less the Golden Guardian of Good's pet... a role I found so undignified & inappropriate for a character who's been a pillar of the MU for 45 years...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 26, 2007 17:49:55 GMT -5
A big thrust of IM 19 though is whether or not Tony will send the boys of S.H.I.E.L.D. into a mess he created- whether or not he can, whether or not he should, so that may explain part of his early defeat which now seems inevitable- and would have been quite a shock were it not for the spoiler "Smash list" and IM 20 solicit. Of course I'm sure Balok would say he'd have no qualms about that since sending raw S.H.I.E.L.D. troops in against Hulk is no different from cloning Thor. Or something. He actually *should* have no qualms about sending troops to deal with the Hulk if that's what it takes. At that point the answering the question of who caused the problem is less important than the answering the question of what do we do about it, now? And if they die, well, that's part of what you sign up for when you agree to join the military - dying so others can live, if that's what it takes. Obviously, the best plan prevents that from happening. Whether sending SHIELD men after the Hulk is a situation best decided after evaluating the tactical situation. Part of what Tony might have to do as leader of SHIELD is send good men to die in situations like this; if he hasn't got the belly for it, someone else needs to run SHIELD. It's AFTER the battle that the Illuminati would have some 'splainin' to do. Black Bolt should be declared persona non grata. Send Reed Richards and Tony Stark to prison for 25 to life. Send Charles Xavier and Stephen Strange a stern letter telling them never, ever to do that again.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 26, 2007 21:18:20 GMT -5
But another military fact is that Quality leaders don't waste their men in a futile manner. That would be sending in raw units.
Which is pretty musch the same as what I think you meant later in your post when you said the best plan keeps that from happening.
I have a question. Is there something out there that says he's coming after the entire planet? I would think he's coming after those who he feels wronged him and those who protect them. I'm sure this will involve most of the heroes, but other than collateral damage, do you think civilians are targets?
|
|
|
Post by scribbler357 on Apr 26, 2007 23:05:13 GMT -5
The thing I'm having trouble with is that no matter how altrustic the Pro-Registration (Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic) side's arguments intentions were, some of the things they've done so far are just wrong and for lack of a better term, "un-american."
The Hulk situation, the Thunderbolts, Captain America's death and who knows what happens next -- lately I find myself rooting for the whole thing to fall apart. And I'm sure it will -- but it's going to take a while.
Maybe all the crazy stuff will be explained away as Wanda (who may still be manipulating events in the guise of Miriam Sharpe) tinkering with reality. As a matter of fact, if sales start to tank, wouldn't that be a convienent way out of the whole mess?
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 27, 2007 9:00:47 GMT -5
I have a question. Is there something out there that says he's coming after the entire planet? I would think he's coming after those who he feels wronged him and those who protect them. I'm sure this will involve most of the heroes, but other than collateral damage, do you think civilians are targets? I doubt he's coming after the entire planet, but... the Hulk is a manifestation of Banner's MPD. Current psychological theory says that the mind creates alternate personalities to deal with problems the core personality can't or won't deal with. Such as child abuse. If this is true, the alternate personalities tend to be rather unidimensional - and the Hulk is basically a manifestation of Banner's rage and little else. What kept it under some control was Banner's intellect whispering in the background. Now Banner has been betrayed. He has a legitimate beef with every member of the Illuminati, and especially with those that at one time or another befriended him: Tony Stark and Stephen Strange. I question to what degree the intellect will be able to restrain the rage. And while the rage may not seek collateral damage, it isn't motivated to avoid that, either. Combine that with the fact that every Illuminatus will attempt to defend himself, and that others may enlist themselves in that cause (up to an including the entire Initiative who may fight on Tony's behalf) and you've got all the ingredients for a great deal of damage and a great many deaths. Well, in the new Marvel you do, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 27, 2007 11:54:05 GMT -5
Can we please, please, PLEASE all make a consensus never to say "Un-American" again? Even ignoring the reminder of HUAC, it implies moral values are solely American and were created by America, both of which are obviously untrue.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 27, 2007 13:11:22 GMT -5
Doom, where I agree that usually such nationalism doesn't play well on a board as multi-national as this one, I think the term "un-america" applies to the situation he's describing because he's talking about American political policy.
I don't think he was trying to say we have a corner on morality. I would never make that claim.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 27, 2007 13:25:17 GMT -5
The funny thing is, the way the innitiative is acting isn't un-american, its extremely American, I think American's just can't see this the way people outside of America do, but almost everything in Civil War and the innitiative seems like it is the MU version of how the US has reacted to problems of a terrorist nature in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 27, 2007 13:59:41 GMT -5
I'd actually say the Initative is a much more rational reaction than the one America has been adopting these past few years.
Unamerican means nothing, because what is AMERICAN is subjective. Most people will agree, but they cannot agree on what the "American values" constitute. For example, Neocons are pretty much repeating non stop that Democrats are all unamerican, that admitting when you screw up is Unamerican, whereas Anti-Neocons are repeating non-stop that breaking the Constitution and bending your own laws to declare and profit from illegal wars is Unamerican.
And despite the fact IU may have expressed the tiniest bit of bias in my analaysis, you take the point- speculation on what is Unamerican is meaningless if we cannot even agree on a clear definition of what Unamerican is.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 27, 2007 14:16:18 GMT -5
The funny thing is, the way the innitiative is acting isn't un-american, its extremely American, I think American's just can't see this the way people outside of America do, but almost everything in Civil War and the innitiative seems like it is the MU version of how the US has reacted to problems of a terrorist nature in recent years. While this is true, you need to keep in mind that many Americans don't regard our current "leadership" as particularly representative of core American values. And it is that leadership which chiefly drives the "war on terrorism."
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 27, 2007 17:05:10 GMT -5
I know the American pres has a low approval rate and barely won his way in, so I don't hold all American's accountable for their countries actions, but I think that some (Nobody in this board, you guys are all pretty enlightened) seem to ignore the actions of their government and write them of as legit regardless of what they are. (So yeah I guess we have similar political ideas in that regard Balok, the main thing is my comic characters don't have to always represent my personal politics for me to cheer them on. Hell sometimes I cheer on the exact opposite of what I believe just because the costume is cool)
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 29, 2007 2:10:24 GMT -5
Is it me, though, or is Bush the president who's been portrayed more times in Marvel's books...?
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 29, 2007 16:20:48 GMT -5
Can we please, please, PLEASE all make a consensus never to say "Un-American" again? Even ignoring the reminder of HUAC, it implies moral values are solely American and were created by America, both of which are obviously untrue. To those drowning in the black and white pool of false dilemma, such an implication may seem valid; but the reality is that an evaluation of something as “un-American” merely depends on whether that something appears to be inconsistent with traditional American values. Whether those some or all of those values—or some other entirely different set of values—are simultaneously typical of, say, Bangladesh is wholly immaterial. It’s sad that the House Un-American Activities Committee was so strongly dedicated, in spite of their rhetoric, to the propagation of un-American activities, but that’s no reason to discard the term. Likewise, I’m not about to drop übermensch and superman just because a pack of Nazis got them wrong. The funny thing is, the way the innitiative is acting isn't un-american, its extremely American, I think American's just can't see this the way people outside of America do, but almost everything in Civil War and the innitiative seems like it is the MU version of how the US has reacted to problems of a terrorist nature in recent years. Un-American generally (though not exclusively) refers to a lack of conformance with ideals, not a lack of conformance with reality (the latter would better be covered by non-American). Accordingly, actions of American government may or may not be un-American. Unamerican means nothing, because what is AMERICAN is subjective. Most people will agree, but they cannot agree on what the "American values" constitute. This is a more cogent analysis of the problem of the term un-American.
|
|
|
Post by scribbler357 on May 1, 2007 21:34:59 GMT -5
Doom, where I agree that usually such nationalism doesn't play well on a board as multi-national as this one, I think the term "un-america" applies to the situation he's describing because he's talking about American political policy. I don't think he was trying to say we have a corner on morality. I would never make that claim. Thanks -- that's exactly what I was saying. I wasn't speaking globally; I was talking about the SHRA and it's impact on America.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 2, 2007 11:32:26 GMT -5
I know the American pres has a low approval rate and barely won his way in, so I don't hold all American's accountable for their countries actions, ) The president actually won re-election by a tidy enough sum, it was the 2000 election where he scammed his way in had a contraversial election. The mind boggles as to why exactly they vote him in by more AFTER he caused the Iraqi international war crime/disaster/illegal invasion/current state of civil war but I digress.... Is my leftism showing a little here?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on May 2, 2007 12:20:06 GMT -5
I imagine being a "leftist" is not (as a matter of general consideration) the same thing in Europe as in the United States just like, for a fact, it's not in Latin America... Because of the bipartisan system & very pro (extreme) free market stand most of the population here, I think, has been conditioned to view any person who favors more diverse electoral choices or who favors unions as "leftist" which, of course, on by itself would be laughable in Latin America & (I imagine) Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 3, 2007 11:56:04 GMT -5
I know the American pres has a low approval rate and barely won his way in, so I don't hold all American's accountable for their countries actions, ) The president actually won re-election by a tidy enough sum, it was the 2000 election where he scammed his way in had a contraversial election. The mind boggles as to why exactly they vote him in by more AFTER he caused the Iraqi international war crime/disaster/illegal invasion/current state of civil war but I digress.... Is my leftism showing a little here? What you are stating here is not solely a leftist opinion either. MANY conservatives share some or most of this view as well.
|
|
fiero84
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 88
|
Post by fiero84 on May 22, 2007 14:04:45 GMT -5
I agree, it will take a team effort to tackle HULK. ...or a pretty lady in distress. (yea, sexist remark, sue me)
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 22, 2007 14:56:04 GMT -5
I agree, it will take a team effort to tackle HULK. ...or a pretty lady in distress. ( yea, sexist remark, sue me)The Hulk will have some helpers too, like Hercules and the Angel. It´s more like CW II really.
|
|