Do You Swear to Tell the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth?

[The Question]

Aside from the instances where they were hunting them down. Especially on one of their maiden voyages.


Oh yeah, and the Zero Tolerance part where the government was utilizing unknowing regular people to become Prime Sentinels to kill mutants.


And Zero Tolerance was government sanctioned.

And they've effectively confined the X-Men to their home "for their own good" and when they use their powers outside, they're detained. And usually their house gets a visit from the shock team. (I'm sure they love Cannonball for this.)

I thought Zero Tolerance was started by a single individual, not the government.

If you honestly think that other countries, even in our world, are unwilling to just go up against America because of simple numbers, you're wrong. Badly, irrationally wrong. America started out by a handful of suicidal revolutionaries against the then thought unstoppable British because they were pissed off enough against the British.

We were at war because we wanted to suceed, and Britain didn't want us to suceed. It was also fought almost entirely in the Americas, so there was an advantage of knowing our own territory. It was never going to go as far as any other war would.

There's countries out there considered with far less sense than that. And I'm just suprised North Korea hasn't nuked America yet personally.

Oh, I'm not saying North Korea isn't a threat. Not at all. But, if North Korea sent a nuke to the U.S., we'd nuke them back. And, North Korea being a vastly smaller country, they'd be far worse off percentage wise.

People are not nearly as cowardly as you must think.

I'm not saying anyone's cowardly. I'm saying that numbers make a huge difference in a war, and any smart leader would realize that.

America is not just big man on block, and other countries do not just sit and shiver, hoping America doesn't turn their gaze upon them.

I'm not saying that happens. All I'm saying is that most smaller countries would be at a major disadvantage if they went to war with the U.S.

Most countries have even vocalized against America, and probably WOULD be willing to go up against them if the need arose. I mean, Iraq didn't crumple under American threats, they basically told America to attack them.

And look what happened to Iraq. It's severely ****ed up for several reasons. Alot of American soldiers have died, but just as many Iraqis have died, and that hurts Iraq alot more.

Doom's also very conflicting by nature. Stupid isn't something he does, but Doom isn't just, "Okay America, roll into my country and do as you please since I'm an absolute totalitarian control freak." If someone demands entrance into his country, he's much more likely to deny them access. So yeah, I agree he's smart. But he's not people smart.

He may not have the best social skills at most times, but he's a rather good diplomat. He's not going to go to war over something like that. He'll find some way to screw the U.S. over, but not through war.

Tony's registering in an American Registration, not an international registration. So that doesn't work, since most likely they wouldn't accept him anyway.

It's unheard of for an agent of the U.S. to work with Interpol?

And he's DEFINITELY not a PI. So that doesn't work out either.

Actually, the way the registration act is worded, the heroes seem like they'll be ending up more like P.I.s than agents.

How much do you know about the CIA or NSA activities? Or about ambassador treatment here in the US? Not saying they're corrupt, but if they DID something corrupt, chances are word won't get out.

If we're talking about ambasidor treatment? Hell yeah, it's going to get out. And, if it's isolated incidents of corruption on a (relatively) small scale, I can see it happened. A member of the NSA taking bribes. STuff like that. But the high levels of corruption that Purple Man describes just can't happen. Or at least, they can't happen without us not knowing anything about it. Not the way our system is set up. That's why the 9/11 conbsperacy theories don't make sense. There's no way the government could pull off a stunt like that and keep the necessairy amount of people quiet without drawing suspicion.

You think America is some shining beacon of light and nobility?

Of course not. I've never said anything like that.

In principle, yes, I'll go for that. In execution? It's the same as most other large world governments. Corruption and inhuman practice included. And I really hate pulling this one out, since I know I"ll be flamed over it. But the American military is one of America's greatest representatives, and really, their behavior in that Middle Eastern prison wasn't exactly something far too different from a Nazi concentration camp.

That was one incident. And the soldiers involved got absolute hell for it. Even if there are more cases of it. it doesn't seem to be something that is at all condoned.

Or when America HAD their own Japanese concentration camps during the second world war.

Those were horrible. I've never said they were a good thing. But the thing is, besides a few cases of mistreatment by the gaurds, those camps were nowhere near as bad as what the nazis were doing. They weren't killing anyone there. Of course, they were still a bad thing, but they're hardly comperable to the nazi camps.

Or the police beatings, and vigilante police. So if you're trying to imply that America is somehow "cleaner" than the rest of the world, I'd definitely rethinking that.

I'm not saying that at all. I've argued against that point many times. I'm just saying that it seems highly unlikely that the government is killing innocent women and children in it's own country and getting away with it.

And I'm MOST definitely not going into the Weapon X program in the MU. That is self explanitory.

Weapon X was horrible. And the military in the real world was known to preform medical experiments along similar lines in the past. But that's different from killing innocent citizens on a regular basis and not getting caught. Especially since, when the military preformed medical experiments like that, they got caught.

That, and it's been known that American's started "Gerrymandering" where they've used their power to their own advantages. That was definitely bigoted. "You know what would be a good idea? Let's rewrite voting lines so the votes will DEFINITELY go my way, because minorities won't vote for me." And then they use their power to blow useless amounts of money on parades and crap, instead of helping the common man.

Poloticians have been using Gerrymandering for years. It's an underhanded move, yes, but it's a far cry from killing innocent people.

Now let me get this straight. I don't think in the REAL world, that the United States government would go around, holding children hostage. But this is NOT the real world. It's a comic world, where people like the Kingpin or Osborn could easily be president somewhere down the line, and use their power to corrupt absolutely. Real life dynamics just do not work in comic book governments.

Yeah, they do. Or, at least they can. Also, Kingpin becoming president really wouldn't make much sense, since everyone knows he's dirty. Osborn maybe, but not Fisk.

I really don't care what you have to say about that.

That's nice.

America as a principle is noble, America as a government is a government, and governments by nature are a twisted mess of politics and self interest.

Of course. Never said anything to the contrairy. But there's self interest, and then there's killing babies.

 

[Trask]

The main problem I have with the argument is not "if" the US government or a US Agency (in Marvel) would actually threaten/kill a heroes family in order to "convince" them to carry out a task that they refuse. I can go along with that, the problem I have is the effectiveness of this method. An action like this does more to damage the government/agency that any real gain they might achive out of that action. The reason I say this is because once you do something like that to a person, then you effectivly turn that person into an enemy which can be bought or convinced to join the other side. So unless you are willing to loose that person once the mission is over and williing to deal with the "fallout" it is not a smart thing to do.

There are better ways to deal with such things that threatening the hereos. The reason why intimedation works in the mob or other organised crime is because they dont try to hide what they are doing. When they kill someone's family as punishment in the mob, they let everyone know who did it and why as a warning to others. The government cant afford to do something like that since they need to be covert about it, and they can not predict how the other heroes would react to something like that.

Also it would make more sence if the Government were to train/create thier own covert supersoldiers for such mission rather that using "civilians" who are untasted and untrained for war conditions. I mean it would be like taking a NY police officer and sending him to war. This heroes are for the most part not trained killers, and for a war you need trained killers not people who use non-leathal force and try to save lives.

 

[BrianWilly]

Zero Tolerance was certainly not perpetrated by a single person; even if someone was pulling the strings all along, Bastion had the direct cooperation of the US government, and the president himself backed him right up until the very end.

http://host.jwcinc.net/5346100/0tolerance1.jpg
http://host.jwcinc.net/5346100/0tolerance2.jpg

Looking back at those scans now, it's almost uncanny how much the attitude of mistrust and "ends justify the means" resembles the current Civil War mindset.

 

[The Question]

I didn't follow Zero Tolerance very carefully (I was like seven at the time), so I was always under the assumption that Bastion was acting alone.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

I thought Zero Tolerance was started by a single individual, not the government.

Someone already said it. And just to add, it was a facility that was originally designed to stop the Hulk. Not that it matters or adds, just thought I'd say it.

We were at war because we wanted to suceed, and Britain didn't want us to suceed. It was also fought almost entirely in the Americas, so there was an advantage of knowing our own territory. It was never going to go as far as any other war would.

And?

Oh, I'm not saying North Korea isn't a threat. Not at all. But, if North Korea sent a nuke to the U.S., we'd nuke them back. And, North Korea being a vastly smaller country, they'd be far worse off percentage wise.

The leadership probably wouldn't care. They nuke America first, they probably wouldn't get the chance to nuke them back outside of Trident/Virginia class submarines.

I'm not saying anyone's cowardly. I'm saying that numbers make a huge difference in a war, and any smart leader would realize that.

Leaders usually don't care too much about the "pawns". Or else nobody would go to war at all. As for the numbers, those seem to make very little difference. Too many times has a larger country gone to war with a smaller country, and came out far worse than the smaller country.

I'm not saying that happens. All I'm saying is that most smaller countries would be at a major disadvantage if they went to war with the U.S.

This also tends to not matter with a lot of countries. See your current war on terror right now. Iraq sure in the hell doesn't have nearly enough resources and technology to stop America.

And look what happened to Iraq. It's severely ****ed up for several reasons. Alot of American soldiers have died, but just as many Iraqis have died, and that hurts Iraq alot more.

First off, Iraq, from a military standpoint, was never a strong opponent. So all America did was stretch a ton of its military into a region where most countries don't even have an airforce.

Second off, Iraq didn't vocalize against America. America THREATENED Iraq, and Iraq simply decided to NOT roll over. And it's really...odd that you think America would attack a country over vocalizing against it.

He may not have the best social skills at most times, but he's a rather good diplomat. He's not going to go to war over something like that. He'll find some way to screw the U.S. over, but not through war.

He also wouldn't let America operate inside of his borders.

It's unheard of for an agent of the U.S. to work with Interpol?

On the terms your giving it? Absolutely unheard of. There's channels of legal prospects. Not simply Iron Man saying, "Hey guys, I need to co-op with INTERPOL in the next fifteen seconds."

Actually, the way the registration act is worded, the heroes seem like they'll be ending up more like P.I.s than agents.

Registration act to me seems like government pays you, government owns you. A lot like how the military works. America, like other countries, doesn't like to pay what it can't control.

If we're talking about ambasidor treatment? Hell yeah, it's going to get out. And, if it's isolated incidents of corruption on a (relatively) small scale, I can see it happened. A member of the NSA taking bribes. STuff like that. But the high levels of corruption that Purple Man describes just can't happen. Or at least, they can't happen without us not knowing anything about it. Not the way our system is set up. That's why the 9/11 conbsperacy theories don't make sense. There's no way the government could pull off a stunt like that and keep the necessairy amount of people quiet without drawing suspicion.

No way a president should be able to make a military action without Congress sanction, but that happened too.

The extremely high levels Purple Man present are a bit...extreme. But you don't need high levels of corruption to do what we're talking about.

Of course not. I've never said anything like that.

Implying is saying it without using the words.

That was one incident. And the soldiers involved got absolute hell for it. Even if there are more cases of it. it doesn't seem to be something that is at all condoned.

If you think that's the first time American troops acted that way, you're definitely wrong.

Those were horrible. I've never said they were a good thing. But the thing is, besides a few cases of mistreatment by the gaurds, those camps were nowhere near as bad as what the nazis were doing. They weren't killing anyone there. Of course, they were still a bad thing, but they're hardly comperable to the nazi camps.

The only difference is the Nazi's killed to make more room. American's just stuffed more Japanese people into the same small space. While American's didn't kill...right off, since I'm sure there were many escape attempts, that doesn't mean it somehow is better than a camp where a segregated people are still just being shoved into cages simply for their race. And only one other government ever practiced concentration camps on that scale, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And given the anti-Japanese feeling, you know that there were more guard mishaps than recorded.

I'm not saying that at all. I've argued against that point many times. I'm just saying that it seems highly unlikely that the government is killing innocent women and children in it's own country and getting away with it.

I won't even comment on this one. If you really, truly think that there are governments out there who will not do something like this at one point or another, then there's really nothing to convince you otherwise.

Weapon X was horrible. And the military in the real world was known to preform medical experiments along similar lines in the past. But that's different from killing innocent citizens on a regular basis and not getting caught. Especially since, when the military preformed medical experiments like that, they got caught.

Yeah, taking children from their homes, and torturing them to death in Weapon X was a whole lot better.

And the military would perform these experiments on entire towns full of unknowing people for years before being caught. Years. So it could easily take that much time to figure it out next time.

Poloticians have been using Gerrymandering for years. It's an underhanded move, yes, but it's a far cry from killing innocent people.

No, segregating an entire people and making their voices nonexistant so they can live in the hell hole that will be created after the person takes office on them is so much better. "Don't like having a job, insurance, food for your family, heat, or a safe neighborhood? No worries, you won't have one." It's like saying, "Britan didn't exactly KILL the Irish during the famine, they just didn't leave enough food for them to eat. So they ate each other? What's wrong with that? They still didn't kill them."

Yeah, they do. Or, at least they can. Also, Kingpin becoming president really wouldn't make much sense, since everyone knows he's dirty. Osborn maybe, but not Fisk.

People voted an actor into a governor position. Someone who can obviously take a company that has fallen under scrutiny several dozen times, and still come out as one of the richest, most successful, and impossible to prove guilty at most times, people in the world is hardly a stretch to believe as a presidency candidate. Especially since America's current President is in office the first time around, it's definitely not hard to believe. If someone who runs three business into the ground, after buying them while they were very successful, been caught for contraband several times, and has near nonexistant Airforce Reserve records... I'm thinking they'll vote in someone like Fisk. Especially in the Marvel Universe.

Of course. Never said anything to the contrairy. But there's self interest, and then there's killing babies.

You'd be suprised how often those two go hand in hand.

 

[The Question]

The leadership probably wouldn't care. They nuke America first, they probably wouldn't get the chance to nuke them back outside of Trident/Virginia class submarines.

True. Kim Jong Ill is pretty crazy. But he's not ever leader of a small country.

Leaders usually don't care too much about the "pawns". Or else nobody would go to war at all. As for the numbers, those seem to make very little difference. Too many times has a larger country gone to war with a smaller country, and came out far worse than the smaller country.

Numbers make a huge difference. Think of it like this: A big country could lose the first ten battles in a war, but could still have more troops to fight with. A big country can just wear out a smaller one.

This also tends to not matter with a lot of countries. See your current war on terror right now. Iraq sure in the hell doesn't have nearly enough resources and technology to stop America.

And Iraq didn't stop America. People are getting screwed over in Iraq for reasons unrelated to Iraq's armed forces.

First off, Iraq, from a military standpoint, was never a strong opponent. So all America did was stretch a ton of its military into a region where most countries don't even have an airforce.

Second off, Iraq didn't vocalize against America. America THREATENED Iraq, and Iraq simply decided to NOT roll over. And it's really...odd that you think America would attack a country over vocalizing against it.

When did I ever say that America would atack a country over vocalizing against it.

He also wouldn't let America operate inside of his borders.

True. But he still wouldn't go to war over it.

On the terms your giving it? Absolutely unheard of. There's channels of legal prospects. Not simply Iron Man saying, "Hey guys, I need to co-op with INTERPOL in the next fifteen seconds."

Or, he could make the necessairy connections with Interpol before he went into Latveria.

Registration act to me seems like government pays you, government owns you. A lot like how the military works. America, like other countries, doesn't like to pay what it can't control.

There's been no mention of the government owning anyone. It simply seems that the heroes need to be registered and licensed. I think it's merely assumed that many of them would become official agents post registration.

No way a president should be able to make a military action without Congress sanction, but that happened too.

Yes. And we know about it. Purple Man is saying that the stuff he's talking about is happening and we never hear about it. Which is absolutely impossible.

The extremely high levels Purple Man present are a bit...extreme. But you don't need high levels of corruption to do what we're talking about.

You mean killing innocent children and getting away with it? I'm sorry, I kind of lost you here.

Implying is saying it without using the words.

I never said that nor did I imply that.

If you think that's the first time American troops acted that way, you're definitely wrong.

Of course not. I also don't think it's going on all the time, nor do I think that it is at all condoned.

The only difference is the Nazi's killed to make more room.

No, it's not. The internment camps were bad, but they're really not comperable to the concentraition camps.

American's just stuffed more Japanese people into the same small space. While American's didn't kill...right off, since I'm sure there were many escape attempts, that doesn't mean it somehow is better than a camp where a segregated people are still just being shoved into cages simply for their race.

It's still not comperable. We weren't forcing them into labor. We weren't using them for medical experiments. And we were not killing them. It was a terrible thing, but the concentraition camps were infinately worse.

And only one other government ever practiced concentration camps on that scale, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And given the anti-Japanese feeling, you know that there were more guard mishaps than recorded.

Probably. Although I'm sure, by now, most of them would have been reported.

I won't even comment on this one.

And yet....

If you really, truly think that there are governments out there who will not do something like this at one point or another, then there's really nothing to convince you otherwise.

...that right there looks an aweful lot like a comment. Anyway, yes, I do think that there are governments who don't kill children who are citizens of their own country just to make sure their agents fall into line. I am fully aware that there are more than a few countries that do this, but I would be incredible surprised if I were to learn that the U.S. was one of them. Especially since, with the way our system is set up, it would be almost impossible to keep secret. I know that the U.S. has done some terrible things in the past, but the main point of that in regards to this arguement is that I know about them. There's no way the government could keep the massive levels of corruption we're talking about a secret, especially since other, more isolated instences of corruption are known about and well documented.

Yeah, taking children from their homes, and torturing them to death in Weapon X was a whole lot better.

When did Weapon X ever do that? I thought all of their test subjects were soldiers.

And the military would perform these experiments on entire towns full of unknowing people for years before being caught. Years. So it could easily take that much time to figure it out next time.

Hold on. Are we talking about in the comics or in real life here?

No, segregating an entire people and making their voices nonexistant so they can live in the hell hole that will be created after the person takes office on them is so much better.

They're two completely different types of *******-ness. And not all gerrymandering causes problems like that. Gerrymandering is simply a political manuever to make sure that the people who you know will vote for you are in your districts. It doesn't always entail making crappy living condictions ofr minorities.

"Don't like having a job, insurance, food for your family, heat, or a safe neighborhood? No worries, you won't have one." It's like saying, "Britan didn't exactly KILL the Irish during the famine, they just didn't leave enough food for them to eat. So they ate each other? What's wrong with that? They still didn't kill them."

What the hell does gerrymandering have to do with having insurance or a job? And yes, I agree that neglecting a group of people is not a good thing. But it's not the same thing as going into one of your employees houses and shooting their kids in the head because they wouldn't do exactly what you said.

People voted an actor into a governor position.

How is an actor anything like a crime boss?

Someone who can obviously take a company that has fallen under scrutiny several dozen times, and still come out as one of the richest, most successful, and impossible to prove guilty at most times, people in the world is hardly a stretch to believe as a presidency candidate.

Yes he is. Especially since everyone knows he's a mob boss, the FBI have been investigating him for years, and he has a past criminal record.

Especially since America's current President is in office the first time around, it's definitely not hard to believe. If someone who runs three business into the ground, after buying them while they were very successful, been caught for contraband several times, and has near nonexistant Airforce Reserve records... I'm thinking they'll vote in someone like Fisk. Especially in the Marvel Universe.

How is running a company into the ground anything like selling drugs to children and killing shop owners because they won't pay protection?

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

True. Kim Jong Ill is pretty crazy. But he's not ever leader of a small country.

Doesn't have to be. Just has to be a country that proves the fact that small countries would fight.

Numbers make a huge difference. Think of it like this: A big country could lose the first ten battles in a war, but could still have more troops to fight with. A big country can just wear out a smaller one.

Vietnam vets might disagree there.

And Iraq didn't stop America. People are getting screwed over in Iraq for reasons unrelated to Iraq's armed forces.

Never said Iraq stopped America. In fact, quite the opposite. I said they can't, but they still fight anyway.

When did I ever say that America would atack a country over vocalizing against it.

You did, read back. Not so much in those words, it was more like a response where I said something like America threatened Iraq, Iraq didn't crumple, basically speaking out against America, and America attacked Iraq. To which you said something to the effect of, "And look what happend to Iraq."

True. But he still wouldn't go to war over it.

Why do you actually think America would launch a war over it?

Or, he could make the necessairy connections with Interpol before he went into Latveria.

"Yeah, UN, meet me for fingerprints and a several hour interview, and a several week background check over the Atlantic Ocean."

Being part of INTERPOL isn't exactly something that's easy. And Iron Man, given his untrustworthy nature (seeing how he's revealed he's lied about being Iron Man AGAIN) would never be INTERPOL material. Nor would any other superhero aside from possibly Captain America.

There's been no mention of the government owning anyone. It simply seems that the heroes need to be registered and licensed. I think it's merely assumed that many of them would become official agents post registration.

Government gives you a pay check (which registered hero's ARE getting, it's been mentioned several times), you work for the government.

Yes. And we know about it. Purple Man is saying that the stuff he's talking about is happening and we never hear about it. Which is absolutely impossible.

If the government kills a few families, chances are you wouldn't hear about it. Government went on a killing spree (which, admittingly, Purple Man is implying) THEN you'd hear about it. So yeah, I'll agree with you there. The levels PM is suggesting would be plastered all over the news like crazy.

Of course not. I also don't think it's going on all the time, nor do I think that it is at all condoned.

Not all the time. But often enough.

No, it's not. The internment camps were bad, but they're really not comperable to the concentraition camps.

I compare them simply because they're the same general idea. Push the same type of people into a dirty, well maintained, malnourished area where you can patrol them with guards. While I'll admit the Nazi one was more "evil," they're the same general idea. Take a people you don't want, and patrol them with the military.

It's still not comperable. We weren't forcing them into labor. We weren't using them for medical experiments. And we were not killing them. It was a terrible thing, but the concentraition camps were infinately worse.

America forced them into labor. AND used them for medical experiments. And they were killed when they rebelled or tried to escape. Though I doubt many rebelled. It would most likely just be a localized, two or three people fighting back. And the military doesn't take that crap. You raise a rock, they defend themselves. And depriving people of rights is probably worse than killing them. Especially when you only do it because your enemy happens to share the same decent. Not that Nazi Germany had a better reason through genetic "purity."

Probably. Although I'm sure, by now, most of them would have been reported.

Not by a long shot.

...that right there looks an aweful lot like a comment. Anyway, yes, I do think that there are governments who don't kill children who are citizens of their own country just to make sure their agents fall into line. I am fully aware that there are more than a few countries that do this, but I would be incredible surprised if I were to learn that the U.S. was one of them. Especially since, with the way our system is set up, it would be almost impossible to keep secret. I know that the U.S. has done some terrible things in the past, but the main point of that in regards to this arguement is that I know about them. There's no way the government could keep the massive levels of corruption we're talking about a secret, especially since other, more isolated instences of corruption are known about and well documented.

You probably don't know half of the horrible things your government has done.

When did Weapon X ever do that? I thought all of their test subjects were soldiers.

They weren't.

Hold on. Are we talking about in the comics or in real life here?

Real life.

They're two completely different types of *******-ness. And not all gerrymandering causes problems like that. Gerrymandering is simply a political manuever to make sure that the people who you know will vote for you are in your districts. It doesn't always entail making crappy living condictions ofr minorities.

You really think politicians that change votes to get themselves in for selfish reasons actually care about the minority they originally sought to silence in the votes? That's...anti what they felt. And usually, those people had a very VERY poor condition of life.

What the hell does gerrymandering have to do with having insurance or a job? And yes, I agree that neglecting a group of people is not a good thing. But it's not the same thing as going into one of your employees houses and shooting their kids in the head because they wouldn't do exactly what you said.

Once again, poor condition of life.

Instead, your neighbor killed you so he could eat or get money to get food, or whatever reason.

How is an actor anything like a crime boss?

Never said they were alike.

Yes he is. Especially since everyone knows he's a mob boss, the FBI have been investigating him for years, and he has a past criminal record.

And if he was really that investigated and such, his business wouldn't be working like it is. BUt then again, if a corrupt government were in place where he could pay off politicians to see things the other way... Well then... Maybe he could get away with the dozens of murders he gets away with.

How is running a company into the ground anything like selling drugs to children and killing shop owners because they won't pay protection?

Fisk could actually accomplish something successfully.

 

[The Question]

Never said Iraq stopped America. In fact, quite the opposite. I said they can't, but they still fight anyway.

True.

You did, read back. Not so much in those words, it was more like a response where I said something like America threatened Iraq, Iraq didn't crumple, basically speaking out against America, and America attacked Iraq. To which you said something to the effect of, "And look what happend to Iraq."

No, I didn't. When I said that, I meant that Iraq got severely screwed over after we atacked.

Why do you actually think America would launch a war over it?

No, of course not.

"Yeah, UN, meet me for fingerprints and a several hour interview, and a several week background check over the Atlantic Ocean."

Being part of INTERPOL isn't exactly something that's easy. And Iron Man, given his untrustworthy nature (seeing how he's revealed he's lied about being Iron Man AGAIN) would never be INTERPOL material. Nor would any other superhero aside from possibly Captain America.

I never said Tony could become an agent of Interpol. I said that he could, on behalf of the U.S., work with Interpol. Besides, I'm pretty sure S.H.E.I.L.D. covers the exact same territory as Interpol, so if Tony had S.H.E.I.L.D. clearence (which I believe he does have), he'd be able to go international.

If the government kills a few families, chances are you wouldn't hear about it. Government went on a killing spree (which, admittingly, Purple Man is implying) THEN you'd hear about it. So yeah, I'll agree with you there. The levels PM is suggesting would be plastered all over the news like crazy.

If the government killed a few families, I doubt it could be kept quiet. At least, not indefinately. As I've said before, the government has done alot of horrible things. But we know about them. They got leaked eventually. I doubt the feds could keep murders like that a secret.

Not all the time. But often enough.

What, may I ask, are you basing that on?

I compare them simply because they're the same general idea. Push the same type of people into a dirty, well maintained, malnourished area where you can patrol them with guards. While I'll admit the Nazi one was more "evil," they're the same general idea. Take a people you don't want, and patrol them with the military.

It's really not the same general idea. The concentraition camps were created for the sole purpose of exterminating everyone who wasn't a blond haired blue eyed white German. The internment camps were a very badly put together atempt at stopping japanese spies.

America forced them into labor. AND used them for medical experiments. And they were killed when they rebelled or tried to escape. Though I doubt many rebelled. It would most likely just be a localized, two or three people fighting back. And the military doesn't take that crap. You raise a rock, they defend themselves. And depriving people of rights is probably worse than killing them. Especially when you only do it because your enemy happens to share the same decent. Not that Nazi Germany had a better reason through genetic "purity."

Where are you getting your information? Because, I'm fairly certain that the military didn't force the Japanese into labor or use them for medical experiments.

Not by a long shot.

By now, I'd think most of the people who were held in the camps would have come forward with any particularly bad stories.

You probably don't know half of the horrible things your government has done.

To simply assume that they happened based on nothing is faulty logic.

Real life.

Okay. Yeah, I think I know about what you're talking about. I remember hearing something about those stories. But rember. We know about it. It didn't stay covered up forever. The way our system is set up, there's almost no way they could keep such atrocities a secret.

You really think politicians that change votes to get themselves in for selfish reasons actually care about the minority they originally sought to silence in the votes? That's...anti what they felt. And usually, those people had a very VERY poor condition of life.

Gerrymandering isn't changing votes. It's changing the districts so the people in your district are the ones more likely to vote for you.

Once again, poor condition of life.

Instead, your neighbor killed you so he could eat or get money to get food, or whatever reason

I doubt that is a result of every instance of gerrymandering.

Never said they were alike.

And yet you used it as an example. You said that since California elected an actor as governor, then it makes sense that the U.S. would elect a crime boss as president. Which it doesn't.

And if he was really that investigated and such, his business wouldn't be working like it is. BUt then again, if a corrupt government were in place where he could pay off politicians to see things the other way... Well then... Maybe he could get away with the dozens of murders he gets away with.

That's not how it works. The FBI investigates crime bosses for years and come up with nothing most of the time. Good mobsters cover their tracks well. Do you know what most crime lords go to jail for? Tax evasion. It's the only thing that the FBI can generally find that will stick.

Fisk could actually accomplish something successfully.

Probably. But the fact that he's a known mob boss dampens his chances of getting elected.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

No, I didn't. When I said that, I meant that Iraq got severely screwed over after we atacked.

I think there was a break down of reading somewhere along this line.

I never said Tony could become an agent of Interpol. I said that he could, on behalf of the U.S., work with Interpol. Besides, I'm pretty sure S.H.E.I.L.D. covers the exact same territory as Interpol, so if Tony had S.H.E.I.L.D. clearence (which I believe he does have), he'd be able to go international.

And SHIELD doesn't just rampage into other countries. And for INTERPOL to be able to enter another country besides, would be for Latveria to be part of the alliance, which would give INTERPOL free roam of the land. And Doom would definitely not do that. And I believe only C.A. has high ranking SHIELD rating.

If the government killed a few families, I doubt it could be kept quiet. At least, not indefinately. As I've said before, the government has done alot of horrible things. But we know about them. They got leaked eventually. I doubt the feds could keep murders like that a secret.

It could easily be covered up. Not every murder has to be exectuted with helicopters, marines, tanks, and military vehicles. Many murders go unsolved, caused by much more mindless, less professional types.

What, may I ask, are you basing that on?

The history every country has over treating it's prisoners. From eating food left over from days, to making them sleep in their own fecal matter.

It's really not the same general idea. The concentraition camps were created for the sole purpose of exterminating everyone who wasn't a blond haired blue eyed white German. The internment camps were a very badly put together atempt at stopping japanese spies.

Camps were originally meant to just consolidate. THen turned into exterminations camps. As for the Japanese spies one? It's basically the same idea. Consolidate an entire race you don't want running around.

Where are you getting your information? Because, I'm fairly certain that the military didn't force the Japanese into labor or use them for medical experiments.

America used to do it to their own troops. And this is where logic runs wild. You have hundreds, thousands of prisoners without rights. Yet you need your thousands of soldiers to fight in a war, and you STILL have to conduct these experiments. Putting the pieces together is easy. That, and controlling large populations is easier when you work them.

By now, I'd think most of the people who were held in the camps would have come forward with any particularly bad stories.

Most probably do, to their children. Not to every single person they meet.

To simply assume that they happened based on nothing is faulty logic.

And to assume that it hasn't happened simply because it isn't absolute public knowledge is foolhardy and is it's own faulty logic. Plus, the American government, like ANY government, has many secret things. It's why people in the military have several degrees of clearance of SECRET things. If the government didn't keep secrets, then their documents would be public domain. Alas, they're not.

Okay. Yeah, I think I know about what you're talking about. I remember hearing something about those stories. But rember. We know about it. It didn't stay covered up forever. The way our system is set up, there's almost no way they could keep such atrocities a secret.

Years. Decades before anybody knew. The question (no pun intended) is how do you know you're not in the middle of one now? You probably wouldn't know for years?

20 years before the American public even knew about a secret supersonic jet. When the government actually decided to reveal it to them. Not the public outing it.

Gerrymandering isn't changing votes. It's changing the districts so the people in your district are the ones more likely to vote for you.

Didn't say it was changing votes. I said what YOU said right there.

I doubt that is a result of every instance of gerrymandering.

Only some ninety something percent.

And yet you used it as an example. You said that since California elected an actor as governor, then it makes sense that the U.S. would elect a crime boss as president. Which it doesn't.

Yeah. Saying that they'd vote in an actor would lead to them voting in a business tycoon was totally saying they're the same thing.

I'm just saying, they'll vote in an actor with little to no political experience, in a state that's basically on the brink in several ways. Why wouldn't they vote in someone who actually knew what they were doing?

That's not how it works. The FBI investigates crime bosses for years and come up with nothing most of the time. Good mobsters cover their tracks well. Do you know what most crime lords go to jail for? Tax evasion. It's the only thing that the FBI can generally find that will stick.

But you're implying that Fisk has so much evidence against him, that they could bust him hard. So since everything is just heresay, he's really not in THAT bad of a situation.

Probably. But the fact that he's a known mob boss dampens his chances of getting elected.

I'll agree to that.

 

[The Question]

I think there was a break down of reading somewhere along this line.

Yeah. These long post debates can get really frustraiting and confusing.

And SHIELD doesn't just rampage into other countries. And for INTERPOL to be able to enter another country besides, would be for Latveria to be part of the alliance, which would give INTERPOL free roam of the land. And Doom would definitely not do that. And I believe only C.A. has high ranking SHIELD rating.

True.

It could easily be covered up. Not every murder has to be exectuted with helicopters, marines, tanks, and military vehicles. Many murders go unsolved, caused by much more mindless, less professional types.

The thing is, if a murder like that is being organized by high ranking officials of our government, someone's going to hear about it. That's just the nature of our system. It's hard to keep secrets about the bad things you're doing.

The history every country has over treating it's prisoners. From eating food left over from days, to making them sleep in their own fecal matter.

The U.S. has a pretty good record of prisoner treatment.

Camps were originally meant to just consolidate. THen turned into exterminations camps. As for the Japanese spies one? It's basically the same idea. Consolidate an entire race you don't want running around.

They're still only barely comperable. They were for different purposes and had different results.

America used to do it to their own troops. And this is where logic runs wild. You have hundreds, thousands of prisoners without rights. Yet you need your thousands of soldiers to fight in a war, and you STILL have to conduct these experiments. Putting the pieces together is easy. That, and controlling large populations is easier when you work them.

The thing is, we don't have to conduct these experiments. We never did. And if there was massive medical experimentation on the Japanese/Americans being held in the internment camps, we would have heard about it by now. Prisoners in those camps would have come forward with said information. All you're doing is assuming something happened based on very little.

Most probably do, to their children. Not to every single person they meet.

And then the children talk, and tell reporters. If they tell anyone, it's gfoing to get out.

And to assume that it hasn't happened simply because it isn't absolute public knowledge is foolhardy and is it's own faulty logic.

No, it isn't. If it were happening, we would know about it. You can't keep things like that a secret. Some employee with a high moral standard would report it. Every major atrocity that the U.S. government has participated in has been brought to the public eye sooner or later.

Plus, the American government, like ANY government, has many secret things. It's why people in the military have several degrees of clearance of SECRET things. If the government didn't keep secrets, then their documents would be public domain. Alas, they're not.

They do keep covert operations secret. But to assume that this is any kind of evidence that suggests that they kill innocent children to prove a point to their agents makes absolutely no sense. There's no way they could keep that level of corruption a secret indefinately.

Years. Decades before anybody knew. The question (no pun intended) is how do you know you're not in the middle of one now? You probably wouldn't know for years?

But it would still be leaked eventually. If there were murders of innocent children, I would think they would be isolated incidents. A few agents being corrupt and forcing their underlings to follow suit. Which would be plausible. But for it to be standard operate procedure for the government wouldn't. There's no way they could keep that level of corruption a secret.

20 years before the American public even knew about a secret supersonic jet. When the government actually decided to reveal it to them. Not the public outing it.

I must say, I think the government would care about keeping murdered children a secret more than a supersoinic jet. And they'd be much more likely to be found out. Someone at the office hears about the supersonic jet. Big deal. No need to talk about it with the friends. Murdered kids? Running straight to the press.

Didn't say it was changing votes. I said what YOU said right there.

Umm....

You really think politicians that change votes to get themselves in for selfish reasons actually care about the minority they originally sought to silence in the votes? That's...anti what they felt. And usually, those people had a very VERY poor condition of life.

Only some ninety something percent.

Is that an official percentage?

Yeah. Saying that they'd vote in an actor would lead to them voting in a business tycoon was totally saying they're the same thing.

Not a buisness tycoon. A mob boss. A known mob boss.

I'm just saying, they'll vote in an actor with little to no political experience, in a state that's basically on the brink in several ways. Why wouldn't they vote in someone who actually knew what they were doing?

Maybe because he's a mobb boss?

But you're implying that Fisk has so much evidence against him, that they could bust him hard. So since everything is just heresay, he's really not in THAT bad of a situation.

I never once said that. I said that he was well known to be a mob boss. That doesn't mean the feds can prove anything. Everyone knew that Capone was a gangster, but the feds were unable to nail him for decades. You need to stop talking about what you think I'm implying and what I'm actually saying.

 

[Tropico]

The U.S. has a pretty good record of prisoner treatment.



They're still only barely comperable. They were for different purposes and had different results.

OMG! Drop this point already! You're debating this just because you don't want to say you're wrong. You're dealing with semantics. They were both camps that imprisoned people. What would the Japanese have said? "Well, we're keeping us here in tents against our will and without any clear evidence and a flimsy reason....at least they're not killing us!" Look at it from the pov of the victims and tell me that they see the gigantic gulf of difference you insist on debating. Do you know how bad it was, huh? It was bad enough that that most people from the Middle East were afraid that they would be encamped after 9/11. One camp dealt with killing people absolutely, the other camp unwittingly killed their trust in their adopted country.

 

[The Question]

Okay. Jeez. I never said the internment camps were a good thing. I just don't think it's fair to compare them to the concentraition camps.

 

[Fantasyartist]

Spidey might hesitate to testify in open court( due to the need to protect his secret identity)but heroes such as Daredevil, the Avengers-esp Captain America-if you can't trust HIM then who can you trust?- the FF who of course have no secret identity issues- apparently regularly testify in open court( see the recent case involving The White Tiger- or the LATE White Tiger as he is).
As for the Dynamo(I presume the poster alludes to The Crimson Dynamo ) turning up in Latveria, why would he do such a thing there is no extradition treaty between Russia and the US); all he needs to do is go home!

 

[daveswb]

Wait a second, this thread hit the nail on the head. With the wild success of law and order the execs at marvel got the idea to turn the marvel universe into that! Law and Order: Super Human Unit!

You have Iron Man and Spidey to be the cops and She-Hulk to be the DA.

It's perfect Eventually everything will be realiy TV or Law and Order! Yeah! I can't wai! ba, bomp (tha law and order sound played between scenes)