We must Protect Freedom and Democracy

[bl24ndon]

:rotfl: :rotfl: Hilarious coming from Lex

[Ginx]

I have to say that I burst out laughing when I heard him say that. But I guess Lex has always had his own opinion of what those two words mean.

[firefly01]

Yeah, I knind of snickered when he said that.

[SuperFan85]

I like that they're going in the direction of Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, where he sees himself as the Hero and the Justice League as the bad guys

[NightwingRobin85]

He's starting to sound like president luthor already.

[Superboy2]

Freedom, yet he captures and holds people prisoner, while experimenting on them. Of course he has also tortured AC and now Bart. Does he know how dumb he sounds?

[SuperFan85]

Lex is a hypocrite

[TECHWON]

well that's lex for ya always poinet

[MidgardDragon]

[Edited]

Not a bad line of thinking for Lex, though. If they're going to have him become the Lex-that-becomes President, then he really should act like (or actually have that be) it's his motivation. Misguided villains who think they're saving the world > pure evil villains who don't care what they do *any day*.

[Raith]

Lex = Adolf Hitler.

[Cool_Breeze]

I think Lex is a little jealous of all these "freaks" having powers/abilities while he has nothing except money.

[MidgardDragon]

Originally posted by Raith
Lex = Adolf Hitler.

I dunno about that being a fair comparison. Lex is misguided and doesn't care about people dying, but he has hardly shown that he wants to exterminate a whole race. If anything he'd rather use meteor freaks/Kryptonians/whomever for his own means rather than exterminating them.

[Nospam]

Originally posted by Raith
Lex = Adolf Hitler.

:rotfl:

I don't why I find that funny, but I do.

[cmm]

What lex said just pointed out how crazy he really is. Even lionel had a WTH look on his face. I think he's being lying to himself and others so long that he actually believes his lies, but, whatever he's at least one step closer to the evil lex luthor we all know and love.

[wraith808]

Originally posted by Raith
Lex = Adolf Hitler.

Come on now... anyone knows that comparing someone to Hitler or Nazis automatically kills a thread...

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

[KEakaCK]

That line was pretty halarious coming from Lex...Could of gone without it.

[Ardiem3]

Lex belives what he is doing is truly right and that each action and word he says is for the best. These are the chatacrteristics of a truly evil and manipulative person. They dont see whats really in front of them and what they should do, but what theyw ant to do and think. They only hear their inner demons. Gotta love bad ass lex.

[boywithbluehanger]

[Edited]

[Crispin Glover]

But it works for Lex, since from his perspective he thinks he is serving humanity's side. If Clark had told everything long ago I don't think he would think this way.

Lex does become president in the future, so it makes since for me.

[super-girl_argos]

I started choking on my food and then inquired to my TV if Lex was sure those words meant what he thought they meant. But I could definatly see President Luthor in Lex when he said that. I think even Lionel wanted to laugh at him when he said that.

[BuddyChrist]

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
I dunno about that being a fair comparison. Lex is misguided and doesn't care about people dying, but he has hardly shown that he wants to exterminate a whole race. If anything he'd rather use meteor freaks/Kryptonians/whomever for his own means rather than exterminating them.

Uh hello.. how many times have we seen Lex take or try to take a bullet from Lana or experiemnt on himself rather than his employees. Don't say he doesn't care if people die because he obviously does. He doesn't care if CERTAIN people die though but he's not that way about everyone.

[MidgardDragon]

Originally posted by BuddyChrist
Uh hello.. how many times have we seen Lex take or try to take a bullet from Lana or experiemnt on himself rather than his employees. Don't say he doesn't care if people die because he obviously does. He doesn't care if CERTAIN people die though but he's not that way about everyone.

Okay, doesn't care about people he doesn't know dying. Either way the point of my post was the he's a misguided sort of evil who uses people. He's not a misguided sort of evil who exterminates races.

[D.M.A.]

Originally posted by boywithbluehanger
Edited
:lol: now thats funny smh...Anyways tho the line was funny I thought it fit lex.I always viewed lex as bein sumone who was misguided and always felt he was doin the world a favor.Tho he seek power he also hated when others had more than him,so in his mind he was doin the world a favor by "Bein prepared" as he calls it.Yes in his mind he's doin the right thing he's jus goin about it wrong,yet in reality he's actually the villan.So I thought the line was funny yes but fit cause it sort of plays into the whole lex thinks he's helpin the world while at the sametime becomin its biggest threat.I luved lex tonight he reminded me of the lex I've been waitin 6 seasons for(Besides tha great Onyx epi where he was definitely on point).

[jimmyolsenblues]

Boy I guess Lex is pro-republican.

[darkkrypton81]

HA HA HA!

Could've fooled me, Lex!

[Spirit Detective]

Funny how Lex actually intends to do the EXACT opposite of what he said.

Building and controlling a Super-Freak army to bring the world to its knees is not Freedom or Democracy.

[Nospam]

Originally posted by Spirit Detective
Funny how Lex actually intends to do the EXACT opposite of what he said.

Building and controlling a Super-Freak army to bring the world to its knees is not Freedom or Democracy.

Precisely!

Lex: We must Protect Freedom and Democracy by destroying it.

Now where have I heard that before?

[RMF]

I had to agree with Lionel. That "freedom and democracy" stuff was way out of left field. What they didn't tell us in this episode was why it was that Lex was hell-bent on this particular path. I think we can be sure that it isn't terrorists he has in mind to battle, but he never mentioned the alien threat, either.

[SuperFan85]

I thought it had all ready been set up earlier in the season between Lana and Lex, that the more they know about people with abilities, the better they can protect themselves. Lex is looking to protect humanity, and at the same time control it, from any beings possessing superpowers, from Aliens to Meteor Freaks

[RMF]

Originally posted by SuperFan85
I thought it had all ready been set up earlier in the season between Lana and Lex, that the more they know about people with abilities, the better they can protect themselves. Lex is looking to protect humanity, and at the same time control it, from any beings possessing superpowers, from Aliens to Meteor Freaks
Well, that was Lana's reasoning.

[Son of Kal-El20]

Lex just wants supreme ;power. The only way to do that is build an army of mutants.

Yep, this definitely Lex Luthor.

[SuperFan85]

I don't think Lex's main goal, like older campy villains, is to just rule the world. I do think his intentions are noble which is to protect humanity from the threats of EVIL superpowered people, but in so being the one who controls these people, I guess he sees it as something extra, to also have some sort of control over the world out of justification that it needs to be controlled by him in order for safety and security, kind of like Palpatine/Sidious in Star Wars

[Son of Kal-El20]

I don't know. I think he feels that everyone else is inferior and he should lead with an iron fist over inferior people. And have mutants as his slaves. Like Hitler, he feels he's supreme and superior and everyone else is a tiny rat.

If he wanted to save humanity, he wouldn't be treating his mutants with such cruelty.

Magneto would want to kill him for this.

[SuperFan85]

I dunno, I think Lex just has a twisted method of going about saving the world. Of course he's gonna be cruel to the meteor freaks. most of them have done evil, and he doesnt really see them as people; He sees them as his puppets, his way of finally possessing not just regular power, but superhuman power to use against further freaks who are likely to pop up in the future, who also intend to use their powers to harm

[Son of Kal-El20]

Of course, it's twisted. To him saving the world is controlling the world with an iron fist. The power of fear. He just better pray that Zod doesn't get control of his body again. Imagine what Zod would do with that army.

[SuperFan85]

i'm not sure how I'd feel if the last remaining Zoner re-released the Zoners put back in the phantom zone, and Zod once again took control of Lex and used the army against the JLA

[SmallvilleInBama]

you know I love Lex but when he started off with that freedom crap, i thought to myself who is he trying to impress since it was just his dad and Lana was gone.
I thought he just saved those type of stories for her.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Ginx
I have to say that I burst out laughing when I heard him say that. But I guess Lex has always had his own opinion of what those two words mean.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny as well!

[NoMoreRedK]

I thought it was great. The best villains are the ones that believe they are doing what is right. Lex believes that he is protecting the human race, and that if he has enough power he can make everything right. He's insecure from all the poor relationships he's had with friends and family. I think on some level, he feels that if he can be a hero, maybe he is worthy of love. It goes well with his line at the end of Hydro; that even though he doesn't deserve happiness, hopefully he can earn it.

P.S. please keep your personal politics out of this thread. We're discussing a fictional television show that we watch to take a break from the real world.

[superpal1]

I thought that line really sets up Lex for the future. If he is doing 33.1 for this reason right now to protect this country from people like Green Arrow, then it makes sense how much he hates Superman in the future who is the greatest superhero ever and an alien, who is loved by the world.

[LuthorRequiem2]

"when he started off with that freedom crap, i thought to myself who is he trying to impress since it was just his dad and Lana was gone.
I thought he just saved those type of stories for her."

Well, in his mind, it's not a story. It's his own justification for the evil that he does. He thinks in order to fight cruelty, you must use cruel and manipulative tactics. So he's not just lying to his dad. The twisted part is that he thinks it's the truth.

[wallyK]

I thought the statement was out of the blue and a slam at President Bush and his foreign policy because of the use
of the world democracy. It made no sense coming from
Lex. He should have just said that he meteor freaks are a proven threat and that he is studying them so that they can be defeated. On the other hand, Lex's statement could be taken as proof that he is totally deluded.

[Dark Knight23]

Originally posted by SuperFan85
I like that they're going in the direction of Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, where he sees himself as the Hero and the Justice League as the bad guys

That's exactly where it looks like it's heading. Hopefa showdown b/w Lex and level 33.1 and The JLA that would be awesome.

[FotW]

Frankly, I thought it was a bit of inappropriate political commentary by DeKnight. Superpowered people aren't a threat to democracy so it was kind of out of context, I think Lex should have said something to the effect that he wants to defend society or humanity from the dangers of paranormal freaks who no one else can control. It would fit better into the history of the show - we all know meteor freaks are all over Smallville and they basically try to hurt Lex, Lana or somebody else every other week.

[Ginx]

Originally posted by SmallvilleInBama
you know I love Lex but when he started off with that freedom crap, i thought to myself who is he trying to impress since it was just his dad and Lana was gone.
I thought he just saved those type of stories for her.

LOL :lol:

[Raith]

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
I dunno about that being a fair comparison. Lex is misguided and doesn't care about people dying, but he has hardly shown that he wants to exterminate a whole race. If anything he'd rather use meteor freaks/Kryptonians/whomever for his own means rather than exterminating them.

He wants to exterminate the Krytonian, duh. :] You'll see.

[last man of krypton]

I'm surprised so many people had a problem with that line. For me, it's exactly the kind of line I'd expect from the future Lex Luthor, so it's the kind of line I'd expect to show up every now and then from this developing Lex Luthor. It's further affirmation that he belives he's doing the right thing (as someone posted earlier, a misguided evil) to protect the world from these superhumans that could threaten the world if not kept in check, right up there with "maybe the hero of the story is Segeeth".

[MidgardDragon]

Originally posted by Raith
He wants to exterminate the Krytonian, duh. :] You'll see.

Well, for one, this isn't the same incarnation as other Superman versions. We only know what Lex wants to do in this incarnation right now. I think you're making the mistake of assuming Lex will turn out exactly like his other Presidential incarnation, and that's just probably not the exact truth. Right now, we know that Lex wants to use meteor freaks in order to protect from some perceived alien threat, but he hasn't yet touched on wanting to exterminate Kryptonians. It may or may not happen, but this Lex is leaning more towards the "I'm protecting the world" type who will use his freaks to battle whatever threats he perceives. If he ever sees all Kryptonians as a threat (possible in this incarnation, but who knows for sure) then I'm sure he will go there. As of now, nope, he's not there yet.

[chlarkfan333]

Words one expects to hear from a megalomaniac. Perfect!

[Admiral_N8]

Lex is protecting freedom and democracy a lot more than the JL and Clark is.


Lex is giving thousands upon thousands of people good jobs. These jobs and the products that LuthorCorp produce make tax dollars. These millions [if not more] of tax dollars go to things like education, medicare, police salaries, the military, etc. He tried to make technology that would give the USA a huge boost in its navy to protect freedom around the world [only to have Clark destory it to save some fish].

Lex ran for office and participated in democracy...he lost fair in square.

All in all, Lex has and actively continues to do a lot of good for the country and for freedom and democracy....whereas Clark just sits by and jumps in front of a bullet if it happens right in front of him.

[MidgardDragon]

Originally posted by Admiral_N8
Lex is protecting freedom and democracy a lot more than the JL and Clark is.


Lex is giving thousands upon thousands of people good jobs. These jobs and the products that LuthorCorp produce make tax dollars. These millions [if not more] of tax dollars go to things like education, medicare, police salaries, the military, etc. He tried to make technology that would give the USA a huge boost in its navy to protect freedom around the world [only to have Clark destory it to save some fish].

Lex ran for office and participated in democracy...he lost fair in square.

All in all, Lex has and actively continues to do a lot of good for the country and for freedom and democracy....whereas Clark just sits by and jumps in front of a bullet if it happens right in front of him.

Don't take this question the wrong way or as an insult, but are you a Republican?

Totally separate from that question is the rest of my post:

"Some fish" is a far cry from "the world's sealife" which is what Clark and A.C. prevented Lex from harming by not allowing his weapon to pass testing and be put into the world's oceans. Sealife are important to the circle of life.

And just because Lex is "giving people good jobs" doesn't make him right. Just because Lex *thinks* he's protecting the world, doesn't make him right. Lex is a misguided villain who thinks he's saving the world while dooming it to destruction. Experimenting on freaks against their will, developing weapons that will destroy much of the sealife on the planet if widely deployed by the Navy, having anyone who doesn't think like him offed, these are not the traits of a good man, nor of a man who truly cares about freedom and democracy. Lex cares about people thinking like him, and he views that as freedom and democracy. However, there is a huge difference. It's very reminiscent of certain events, certain people, and certain politics that are going on at this very moment in the real world. Some groups believe they are right and everyone should think like them, heck, I can actually think of two groups, both at the extreme ends of their respective ideologies, who are doing this very thing. It has essentially led to world-wide war. That's exactly what Lex's plan would lead to as well, provided Clark and company don't stop him.

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
Don't take this question the wrong way or as an insult, but are you a Republican?

Totally separate from that question is the rest of my post:

"Some fish" is a far cry from "the world's sealife" which is what Clark and A.C. prevented Lex from harming by not allowing his weapon to pass testing and be put into the world's oceans. Sealife are important to the circle of life.

And just because Lex is "giving people good jobs" doesn't make him right. Just because Lex *thinks* he's protecting the world, doesn't make him right. Lex is a misguided villain who thinks he's saving the world while dooming it to destruction. Experimenting on freaks against their will, developing weapons that will destroy much of the sealife on the planet if widely deployed by the Navy, having anyone who doesn't think like him offed, these are not the traits of a good man, nor of a man who truly cares about freedom and democracy. Lex cares about people thinking like him, and he views that as freedom and democracy. However, there is a huge difference. It's very reminiscent of certain events, certain people, and certain politics that are going on at this very moment in the real world. Some groups believe they are right and everyone should think like them, heck, I can actually think of two groups, both at the extreme ends of their respective ideologies, who are doing this very thing. It has essentially led to world-wide war. That's exactly what Lex's plan would lead to as well, provided Clark and company don't stop him.

Well first off, I am taking that question the wrong way. I know how you meant it and why you asked it, and I think that is a little bit ignorant dont you....

That weapon wasnt going to kill all of the sealife. And whats more important? The Sealife or the world living in freedom??

Just because Clark *thinks* he is protecting the world, doesn't make him right. Clark too is misguided, and as a result of HIS actions the world has been thrown to the brink of anihilation a lot more than Lex so far.

Even though Clark thinks hes doing good, he caused a lot of harm, despite what goes on in his own head.

So you think its good Clark and Co should resort to terrorism like they do in order to stop someone they think isnt good and MIGHT end up hurting the world??






[i]Originally posted by FotW
Frankly, I thought it was a bit of inappropriate political commentary by DeKnight. Superpowered people aren't a threat to democracy so it was kind of out of context, I think Lex should have said something to the effect that he wants to defend society or humanity from the dangers of paranormal freaks who no one else can control. It would fit better into the history of the show - we all know meteor freaks are all over Smallville and they basically try to hurt Lex, Lana or somebody else every other week.

I agree.


Originally posted by wallyK
I thought the statement was out of the blue and a slam at President Bush and his foreign policy because of the use
of the world democracy. It made no sense coming from
Lex. He should have just said that he meteor freaks are a proven threat and that he is studying them so that they can be defeated. On the other hand, Lex's statement could be taken as proof that he is totally deluded.

Definitely


Originally posted by SuperFan85
I dunno, I think Lex just has a twisted method of going about saving the world. Of course he's gonna be cruel to the meteor freaks. most of them have done evil, and he doesnt really see them as people; He sees them as his puppets, his way of finally possessing not just regular power, but superhuman power to use against further freaks who are likely to pop up in the future, who also intend to use their powers to harm

Exactly, he sees these superpowered freaks as threats to mankind itself. How is humankind supposed to control our own future if we have these kinds of people dominating us?? Also, relying on those superpowered people takes away from human potential, making us just expect them to solve our problems.

These meteor freaks are definitely an abomination to humanity, and obviously as shown by the show are a huge danger to society and must be stopped. And how do you stop superpowered freaks? By getting your own superpowered freaks on your side.

[wolverine316]

Freedom and Democracy? @$%& you Lex!!!

[silverfist]

That weapon wasnt going to kill all of the sealife. And whats more important? The Sealife or the world living in freedom??

You're clearly underestimating the importance of sealife. And you're clearly overestimating the weapon if you think it alone would have been enough to give the world freedom.

[TheoristMaximus]

Villians generally don't begin their evil with evil intentions, Lex believes, or atleast struggles to WANT to believe in what he is saying.

What's that old adage?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."



Oh, and As far as leviathan goes, its utterly absurd, it creates more geological disaster then firing nuclear weapons, at least nukes arent dangerous unless they are actually used! and WHY WOULD WE NEED ANOTHER SUBMARINE WEAPON? HAVE WE BEEN FIGHTING SOME COVERT SUB WAR TO PROTECT FREEDOM? WTF?

We simply dont need such a dangerous thing attached to EVERY SUB.

It kills things in STANDBY AKA SHUT OFF MODE.
Why not spray anthrax into the atmosphere to try and get at your enemies? It's about as safe.

Lex's devise would literally kill most things in the ocean, everytime a sub passes somewhere it kills EVERYTHING in a 3 mile radius? JUST BY HAVING LEVIATHAN ON BOARD? Plankton and algeas would die and rot along with all other creatures, the oceans would appear as they do in the movie Soylent Green.

[LuthorRequiem2]

"Just because Clark *thinks* he is protecting the world, doesn't make him right. Clark too is misguided, and as a result of HIS actions the world has been thrown to the brink of anihilation a lot more than Lex so far.

Even though Clark thinks hes doing good, he caused a lot of harm, despite what goes on in his own head."

But there's a big difference between Clark causing harm to the world and Lex causing harm. Clark is not intentionally hurting anybody in the process. He's burdened with the heavy cross of his desitiny upon his shoulders, and you have to remember, he's only a teen. It's understandable for him to not listen to Jor-El, especially when Jor-El has resulted to subterfuge and ruthlessness so many times. Clark has finally learned, though, that not listening to Jor-El puts people in harm's way, so he has decided to listen to him and accept his destiny, however difficult and intricate it will be.

Lex, on the other hand, believes the ends justify the means. He believes that if he has to hurt people PURPOSEFULLY (not accidentally), torture them, force them to do things against their will, or even kill, it's okay as long as it helps to save lives. Lex is Thinking that harming others is always okay as long as it works out in the end. Harming others on purpose is not okay, and will not solve anything. Also, it's important to understand that while Lex SAYS he has the world's best interests at heart, he's really thinking of himself (if he saves the world, he'l have more power, more money, be praised as a hero; therefore, he can fool others into BELIEVING he's a good man).

"So you think its good Clark and Co should resort to terrorism like they do in order to stop someone they think isnt good and MIGHT end up hurting the world??"

How is it terrorism to stop innocent people from being locked up against their will and experimented on? That's what Hitler did to the Jewish people. Wouldn't you blow up his concentration camps if you had the chance and knew it wouldn't hurt anybody but would end up saving lives?

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by TheoristMaximus
Villians generally don't begin their evil with evil intentions, Lex believes, or atleast struggles to WANT to believe in what he is saying.

What's that old adage?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."



Oh, and As far as leviathan goes, its utterly absurd, it creates more geological disaster then firing nuclear weapons, at least nukes arent dangerous unless they are actually used! and WHY WOULD WE NEED ANOTHER SUBMARINE WEAPON? HAVE WE BEEN FIGHTING SOME COVERT SUB WAR TO PROTECT FREEDOM? WTF?

We simply dont need such a dangerous thing attached to EVERY SUB.

It kills things in STANDBY AKA SHUT OFF MODE.
Why not spray anthrax into the atmosphere to try and get at your enemies? It's about as safe.

Lex's devise would literally kill most things in the ocean, everytime a sub passes somewhere it kills EVERYTHING in a 3 mile radius? JUST BY HAVING LEVIATHAN ON BOARD? Plankton and algeas would die and rot along with all other creatures, the oceans would appear as they do in the movie Soylent Green.

Did the specifically mention that it would kill the algae?? Because if they didnt it is definitely a stretch to assume just because he said "life" and its killing fish that it would also kill algae because the 2 are VERY different.

So, unless they said it on that ep, I really dont think that is the case.

and as for "WHY WOULD WE NEED ANOTHER SUBMARINE WEAPON? HAVE WE BEEN FIGHTING SOME COVERT SUB WAR TO PROTECT FREEDOM? WTF?" ummmmmmm just because we havent fought against a major power in a while doesnt mean we arent going to soon [China]. So to say we dont need to keep those weapons up to date just because we arent using it now is very irresponsible and a little ignorant of the big picture.


Originally posted by silverfist
You're clearly underestimating the importance of sealife. And you're clearly overestimating the weapon if you think it alone would have been enough to give the world freedom.

And you're clearly understimating the importance of dominating the OCeans completely...and understimating Russia and Chinas naval capabilities.


Originally posted by LuthorRequiem2
But there's a big difference between Clark causing harm to the world and Lex causing harm. Clark is not intentionally hurting anybody in the process. He's burdened with the heavy cross of his desitiny upon his shoulders, and you have to remember, he's only a teen. It's understandable for him to not listen to Jor-El, especially when Jor-El has resulted to subterfuge and ruthlessness so many times. Clark has finally learned, though, that not listening to Jor-El puts people in harm's way, so he has decided to listen to him and accept his destiny, however difficult and intricate it will be.

Lex, on the other hand, believes the ends justify the means. He believes that if he has to hurt people PURPOSEFULLY (not accidentally), torture them, force them to do things against their will, or even kill, it's okay as long as it helps to save lives. Lex is Thinking that harming others is always okay as long as it works out in the end. Harming others on purpose is not okay, and will not solve anything. Also, it's important to understand that while Lex SAYS he has the world's best interests at heart, he's really thinking of himself (if he saves the world, he'l have more power, more money, be praised as a hero; therefore, he can fool others into BELIEVING he's a good man).

"So you think its good Clark and Co should resort to terrorism like they do in order to stop someone they think isnt good and MIGHT end up hurting the world??"

How is it terrorism to stop innocent people from being locked up against their will and experimented on? That's what Hitler did to the Jewish people. Wouldn't you blow up his concentration camps if you had the chance and knew it wouldn't hurt anybody but would end up saving lives?

Terrorism is blowing up a legitimate military contractors project to save some fish. Thats called terrorism, more specifically eco-terrorism. Any person familiar with the law would agree on that.

And Clark believe the "ends justify the means" just as much as Lex does!! How many times has Clark LIED to the police, BROKEN into someones private property, invaded peoples privacy, beaten up security guards, stolen ID cards to get around, etc.

Clark does all these things because he is just like Lex i thinking that "I can do these bad things because in the end it will be for the better".


And stop assuming you know about Lex what hasnt been shown at all. Lex seemed pretty honest when he told his dad [who he has no reason to lie to, its not like its Lana or Chloe or the public] when he said hes trying to protect freedom and democracy.

[HalJordan4184]

Actually, Lex was not a legitimate military contractor, and yes, Leviathon killed all sea life. THat is not just fish. That is any biological organism in the seas. Forgive me if i trust the marine biology major, AC, over Lex Luthor.

For Lex to be a legitimate military contractor, he needs to be at all times working with Naval personnel on the development of Leviathon. Which, if you watched the episode, there doesn't appear to be one military person in that lab working with him. Why, because his project would be illegal, and outlawed per the laws of this country, and various world treaties about ecosystems and life.

The United States already has the greatest military power in the world. We have the second largest army next to China, and we have the most up to date, and best equipment available. Our problem, and various military experts and leaders will tell you this, is bureaucrats spending intold amounts of money on new weapons with very little practical purpose, instead of spending the same money on troop training for what we have, and keeping waht we also have in good repair.

[Meteor-Freakazoid]

Originally posted by SuperFan85
Lex is a hypocrite Amen.
When I first heard him say it, I thought he was joking. On Smallville, you know someone one is a villain, when they call themselves a hero.

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Actually, Lex was not a legitimate military contractor, and yes, Leviathon killed all sea life. THat is not just fish. That is any biological organism in the seas. Forgive me if i trust the marine biology major, AC, over Lex Luthor.

For Lex to be a legitimate military contractor, he needs to be at all times working with Naval personnel on the development of Leviathon. Which, if you watched the episode, there doesn't appear to be one military person in that lab working with him. Why, because his project would be illegal, and outlawed per the laws of this country, and various world treaties about ecosystems and life.

The United States already has the greatest military power in the world. We have the second largest army next to China, and we have the most up to date, and best equipment available. Our problem, and various military experts and leaders will tell you this, is bureaucrats spending intold amounts of money on new weapons with very little practical purpose, instead of spending the same money on troop training for what we have, and keeping waht we also have in good repair.

Yet this weapon DID have a lot of practical purpose, and would have helped in a dangerous area in the future....in a relatively inexpensive way...rather than a bunch of extra ships, we just need this one weapon on existing ships. All these good things taken away because Clark deemed it "wrong" and destroyed it himself.

And Lex was a legit military contractor...you dont have to be working with the military day to day in developing something. Thats against the entire idea of CONTRACTING out the workd. Thats why they hire people like Lex.

[HalJordan4184]

Actually, when the military contracts out, you MUST work day to day with them, so they can ensure the work being done is legal, and within the confines of world laws governing weapons that we can and can not use in wartime. Private firms are given military contracts, but those private firms, also then answer to the military for that project, and must work within military confines. It's not like they say, build me a nuke, and then let someone have at it. Most military contracts aren't even for a full weapon, they are for a piece of something, and someone else does another piece, and weapons are put together with parts from upwards of fifty manufacturers so no one company has control over a top secret technology.

[Heilige]

Originally posted by Admiral_N8
Yet this weapon DID have a lot of practical purpose, and would have helped in a dangerous area in the future....in a relatively inexpensive way...rather than a bunch of extra ships, we just need this one weapon on existing ships. All these good things taken away because Clark deemed it "wrong" and destroyed it himself.

And Lex was a legit military contractor...you dont have to be working with the military day to day in developing something. Thats against the entire idea of CONTRACTING out the workd. Thats why they hire people like Lex.


I was wondering, when will you stop defending Lex? WIll you defend him forever? Seriously, man.

[SlickBlonde]

Originally posted by Heilige
I was wondering, when will you stop defending Lex? WIll you defend him forever? Seriously, man.

Yeh he's kinda scary

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Actually, when the military contracts out, you MUST work day to day with them, so they can ensure the work being done is legal, and within the confines of world laws governing weapons that we can and can not use in wartime. Private firms are given military contracts, but those private firms, also then answer to the military for that project, and must work within military confines. It's not like they say, build me a nuke, and then let someone have at it. Most military contracts aren't even for a full weapon, they are for a piece of something, and someone else does another piece, and weapons are put together with parts from upwards of fifty manufacturers so no one company has control over a top secret technology.

No not necessarily, we have people with military contracts here, computer chip ones, and they only report to them every month.


Originally posted by Heilige
I was wondering, when will you stop defending Lex? WIll you defend him forever? Seriously, man.


*rolls eyes*

I'm defending the fact he made a weapon for America, which is a GOOD thing, and Clark committed eco-terrorism on his own which is a BAD thing.

Goodness, yall are cute how you get flustered over me not just saying Clark is always right.

You should think for yourselves, they are putting this grey area in Smallville for a reason, because its good television, dont get all silly just because I recognize it.

[SlickBlonde]

It's not the thought of Clark being wrong that's scary. Its this first hand experience of hearing someone say that catastrophically alterning marine life and eventually the entire ecosystem is good as long as its for the protection of mankind. I recall lex saying we hope to have one on every ship in the fleet. That weapon would cause a whole lot more damage than good for life above and below sealevel all over the world. But hey its all good right, long as we humans, not even we humans, we americans can forver tip the balance of naval power in our favor. I'm sorry but knowing there are people out there who think like that is scary. Guess we are a people not past destroying ourselves. Take it to the limit baby

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by SlickBlonde
It's not the thought of Clark being wrong that's scary. Its this first hand experience of hearing someone say that catastrophically alterning marine life and eventually the entire ecosystem is good as long as its for the protection of mankind. I recall lex saying we hope to have one on every ship in the fleet. That weapon would cause a whole lot more damage than good for life above and below sealevel all over the world. But hey its all good right, long as we humans, not even we humans, we americans can forver tip the balance of naval power in our favor. I'm sorry but knowing there are people out there who think like that is scary. Guess we are a people not past destroying ourselves. Take it to the limit baby

Umm I'm afraid you may not be quite getting the scope of it all. Theres absolutely nothing to show that we would catistrophically alter the marine system at all. The ocean is HUGE and our navy covers about .000000000000000000000000001% of the water. To say that the less than thousand ships, much less, that are used in combat would somehow destroy the entire seas ecosystem when the "kill radius' for fish is just a few miles around the ships is just plain ignorant of the scope of the ocean. A few miles is absolutely nothing in the middle of the ocean, its quite a huge thing, the ocean. And our navy only goes along a very narrow defined sea lane almost all of the time, and sits in one spot for a very very long time.

The navy covers almost nothing, so thered be a few miles around almost no area covered that would lose its fish.

And to say that as a result of this it will "catastrophically alter marine life and eventually the entire ecosystem " is just completely untrue based on the reality of the ocean and our navy.



Then to say the USA should give up control of the waters [which has obviously GREATLY, almost unmeasurably, helped the world in the last 50 years] simply because of the very small, almost unnoticable, percentage of fish that will die is pretty silly.

Also, how would the people of Japan or Taiwan feel when we are unable to protect them from Russia or China because Clark felt the need to destroy what would guarantee their freedom and safety to save such a small number of fish?

Good going "Super"man.


Originally posted by SlickBlonde
Yeh he's kinda scary

Thats just so cute, that you think I am "scary". Very mature.

[HalJordan4184]

I'm still trying to get the grasp on how losing one weapon, that would be illegal anyway, based on current laws governing military weaponry, is going to cost us the seas. We still have stuff light years ahead of most countries. China's sea fleet, though large, is largely made up of discarded Russian vessels, especially the submarine fleet. American sea dominance will continue for at least the next generation, all without fish killing weaponry.

The fact we still spend the most int he world on our military, have the most up to date weapons, have the second largest military, the largest nuclear stockpile, the largest non nuclear stockpile, the largest wmd stockpile, the largest intelligence network, the largest just about everything else, really doesn't justify the stance that without lex's weapon, we're all in grave danger of being immediately taken over, and the seas are lost to us forever.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Lex: I am gonna save the world, even if I have to destroy it to do it !

Lionel: Damn that evil gene !!


Originally posted by HalJordan4184
I'm still trying to get the grasp on how losing one weapon, that would be illegal anyway, based on current laws governing military weaponry, is going to cost us the seas. We still have stuff light years ahead of most countries. China's sea fleet, though large, is largely made up of discarded Russian vessels, especially the submarine fleet. American sea dominance will continue for at least the next generation, all without fish killing weaponry.

The fact we still spend the most int he world on our military, have the most up to date weapons, have the second largest military, the largest nuclear stockpile, the largest non nuclear stockpile, the largest wmd stockpile, the largest intelligence network, the largest just about everything else, really doesn't justify the stance that without lex's weapon, we're all in grave danger of being immediately taken over, and the seas are lost to us forever.

[Edited]

Maybe we do need Lex !

:rotfl:

[HalJordan4184]

[Edited]

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Edited

Not the place for this discussion, but I disagree, and this coming from someone that served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia and has "some" military background.

[ox007]

Lex is a bad guy - he says one thing, he means other thing. He didn't create a weapon for America he is just saying that - all bad guys do that. This weappon is for his purposes. Funny he can make people believe him that this weapon is "for America". It appears he would make a great politician :)

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
I'm still trying to get the grasp on how losing one weapon, that would be illegal anyway, based on current laws governing military weaponry, is going to cost us the seas. We still have stuff light years ahead of most countries. China's sea fleet, though large, is largely made up of discarded Russian vessels, especially the submarine fleet. American sea dominance will continue for at least the next generation, all without fish killing weaponry.

The fact we still spend the most int he world on our military, have the most up to date weapons, have the second largest military, the largest nuclear stockpile, the largest non nuclear stockpile, the largest wmd stockpile, the largest intelligence network, the largest just about everything else, really doesn't justify the stance that without lex's weapon, we're all in grave danger of being immediately taken over, and the seas are lost to us forever.

Wait, so since we are ahead right now we are just supposed to stay content with what we have?? Well thats certainly good national security strategy.

I know a bit about the situation in Asia, the picture isnt going to look so good in about 15-20 years in the South Eastern Asian seas, and we need ALL The help we can get.

Still, this weapon wouldnt have been illegal...since as I showed it would only affect about .000000001% of the ocean. No US official or UN member is going to say thats illegal? Why? Because we kill more fish with fishing for sport.


Originally posted by HalJordan4184
[Edited]

I wonder what that was about

[HalJordan4184]

Actually, it already is illegal. It's harmful to natural wildlife, even in a standby mode. Current laws say we couldn't use it. Hence Lex's whole stance of not telling the military that little feature. It can't even be hooked up to power, without being deadly to sea life. It wouldn't actually make much of a weapon, all you'd have to do it follow the path of dead fish, and find our whole fleet.

I too know something of the Asian area, and our problems there. I still don't grasp your entire idea however, that the loss of that one weapon, spelled utter doom for us.

Of course we should seek to keep our military the best. Here's one thing though. The fact we spend more in one year, than most countries have in their entire history spent on national defense, pretty much ensures our continued staying on top. New technologies are constantly being developed. Ones that don't harm native life when not even turned on. the loss of that one weapon, won't cripple us. The loss of that one weapon, didn't doom us all to having China conquer the world. All it did, was lose Lex a couple million bucks.

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Actually, it already is illegal. It's harmful to natural wildlife, even in a standby mode. Current laws say we couldn't use it. Hence Lex's whole stance of not telling the military that little feature. It can't even be hooked up to power, without being deadly to sea life. It wouldn't actually make much of a weapon, all you'd have to do it follow the path of dead fish, and find our whole fleet.

I too know something of the Asian area, and our problems there. I still don't grasp your entire idea however, that the loss of that one weapon, spelled utter doom for us.

Of course we should seek to keep our military the best. Here's one thing though. The fact we spend more in one year, than most countries have in their entire history spent on national defense, pretty much ensures our continued staying on top. New technologies are constantly being developed. Ones that don't harm native life when not even turned on. the loss of that one weapon, won't cripple us. The loss of that one weapon, didn't doom us all to having China conquer the world. All it did, was lose Lex a couple million bucks.


Actually the balance of naval power in the SE Asian seas is about 70-30 in favor of America, it USED to be about 90-10 only about 20 years ago. It keeps getting closer and closer to 50-50. With that new weapons it would have guaranteed Taiwans independence, Japans safety from China and N Korean land forces, and a safe a secure and free trade route in those seas.

Just because we spend so much doesnt mean we are so far ahead in every aspect of every region.


I really dont know what laws that specifically state that such a small percentage of collateral damage would cause such a superweapon to not be even deployed at all, especially when its not even human collateral damage, ratherjust a very small number of fish and sea life. And this only around a VERY small radius among very narrow deployment areas and a very strict sealane to get there.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Getting back on topic before we get more edited because of the political content, I find it very hard to believe that Lex has such "lofty" goals, even Lionel called him on it.

Fact is, ignoring the comic book and movie Lex, this Lex has always been about HIMSELF, about wanting more power and the joy of manipulation and control.
Remember how he enjoyed the power the Braniac gave him?

Lex is the master manipulator-in-training, there is only on goal for Lex and that is Lex.

[heromyth]

N8 Quote: "The ocean is HUGE and our navy covers about .000000000000000000000000001% of the water."

Has anyone read the book, The Tipping Point? It explains how large scale changes (for better or worse) can and often do occur as the (often unintended) result of very small, improbably catalytic disturbances. Our oceanic naval presence might not pose any meaningful or detrimental threat to the ecosystem but that disputable fact doesn't stem, ipso facto, from the infinitesimal area patrolled by the navy.

[Liriel]

For me this was just another "justification" line from Lex. Not something he sincerely believes, but something he says to justify actions he knows are immoral. Even if he does believe them, it's only because he's willfully blinded himself to the truth.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Most people that believe that the ends justify the means are blind to the truth, that being that they are just serving their own selfish needs and wants.
Their preception of right and wrong is based on what they believe to be in THEIR best interest.

[All about Clark]

I think Lex works so hard at convincing others of his lies that he seems to fall prey to his own doing, much like Lionel tried to convince everyone he didn't kill his parents, he almost believed it to be true.

And since Lex's lies have several layers, I'm sure he becomes confused to reality.

He also wants to believe he is the good guy when he knows deep down he is not.

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by Kryptonian-Ronin
Most people that believe that the ends justify the means are blind to the truth, that being that they are just serving their own selfish needs and wants.
Their preception of right and wrong is based on what they believe to be in THEIR best interest.

Like the leader of the JL. And now Clark too, even though at first he criticized and looked down on the Green Arrow for believing the ends justify the means.


Originally posted by All about Clark
I think Lex works so hard at convincing others of his lies that he seems to fall prey to his own doing, much like Lionel tried to convince everyone he didn't kill his parents, he almost believed it to be true.

And since Lex's lies have several layers, I'm sure he becomes confused to reality.

He also wants to believe he is the good guy when he knows deep down he is not.

And whos fault is it that he doesnt trust people?? Lionels and Clarks.


Originally posted by heromyth
N8 Quote: "The ocean is HUGE and our navy covers about .000000000000000000000000001% of the water."

Has anyone read the book, The Tipping Point? It explains how large scale changes (for better or worse) can and often do occur as the (often unintended) result of very small, improbably catalytic disturbances. Our oceanic naval presence might not pose any meaningful or detrimental threat to the ecosystem but that disputable fact doesn't stem, ipso facto, from the infinitesimal area patrolled by the navy.

So we'd have no idea, and since there is no proof or reason to believe it'd harm the entire ecosystem [ or much of it all ] then there is no reason to not use such a great weapon that would protect America and its allies.

But of course Clark and Aquaman thought they should be the ones to decide Americas military policy and weapon systems and took it upon themselves to destroy it, without first trying to go to the government to tell them about the problem.

[vuec]

Originally posted by Admiral_N8

So we'd have no idea, and since there is no proof or reason to believe it'd harm the entire ecosystem [ or much of it all ] then there is no reason to not use such a great weapon that would protect America and its allies.

But of course Clark and Aquaman thought they should be the ones to decide Americas military policy and weapon systems and took it upon themselves to destroy it, without first trying to go to the government to tell them about the problem.

AC said it destroys the ocean life, even when its on standby. It emits a radio wave strong enough to split a submarine.

And uh, didn't you notice Clark tried diplomacy with Lex? He stopped the bomb the first time around too.

What would you do if someone like Lex was doing things like in this world and you had the power to stop him? That's where the real question comes.

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by vuec
AC said it destroys the ocean life, even when its on standby. It emits a radio wave strong enough to split a submarine.

And uh, didn't you notice Clark tried diplomacy with Lex? He stopped the bomb the first time around too.

What would you do if someone like Lex was doing things like in this world and you had the power to stop him? That's where the real question comes.

Well lets see, first I'd go to the authorities, I'd make known to the military what is going on since they apparently didnt know, and let THEM make the decision since after all its their decision.

Thats obvious, and of course in all of his stupidity, Clark doesnt even do that.

I would NEVER dare to presume it is up to me to make a decision on what weapons this country can and cannot use.

Its arrogant, irresponsible, and plain stupid of Clark to think its his decision especially after he never even went to the military or the govt to tell them what was going on.


That is not what Superman does.

AC on the other hand I understand, he considers fish to be on the same level as humans pretty much.

[HalJordan4184]

Yeah, ic an see the plausible explanation now.

Clark:, that weapon is illegal... (goes on to explain teh whole thing)

Military official: Son, how did you learn all this?

Clark: Well, I just used my superhearing to overhear, a guy that talks to fish told me, and then i used my super speed and strength to break into lex's lab, and see for myself.

Military Official: ... ... ... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[vuec]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Yeah, ic an see the plausible explanation now.

Clark:, that weapon is illegal... (goes on to explain teh whole thing)

Military official: Son, how did you learn all this?

Clark: Well, I just used my superhearing to overhear, a guy that talks to fish told me, and then i used my super speed and strength to break into lex's lab, and see for myself.

Military Official: ... ... ... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

hahaha! 2nd, you really really think the government wouldn't take the weapon even after witnessing it's destructive powers? I mean, they sanctioned the nuclear bomb. I would love to say I trust our government 100% but let's be honest, they're researching new more powerful weapons everyday. How would we all feel if back in the 80's the government was really able to make that Star Wars program work? A weapon in the sky that could erradicate anything. Scary.

[HalJordan4184]

even if they did take it, froma tactical point, it's useless, you can find all of our vessels, by simply following the miles and miles of dead fish everywhere, as even when it's in standby mode, and not turned on, it's killing every fish, whale, or other sea creature within three miles.

[Sharkie]

I'm defending the fact he made a weapon for America, which is a GOOD thing, and Clark committed eco-terrorism on his own which is a BAD thing. Not all weapons are good.


Umm I'm afraid you may not be quite getting the scope of it all. Theres absolutely nothing to show that we would catistrophically alter the marine system at all. The ocean is HUGE and our navy covers about .000000000000000000000000001% of the water. To say that the less than thousand ships, much less, that are used in combat would somehow destroy the entire seas ecosystem when the "kill radius' for fish is just a few miles around the ships is just plain ignorant of the scope of the ocean. A few miles is absolutely nothing in the middle of the ocean, its quite a huge thing, the ocean. And our navy only goes along a very narrow defined sea lane almost all of the time, and sits in one spot for a very very long time. You do realize that fish swim around right? The 3 mile radius is not all that would be effected, many species (especially all those in the open ocean) can cover miles of the ocean. Woo to those that swim into Lex's "gift" to mankind. What if we had a ship go to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia? The loss of life there would be DEVASTATING to not just Australia, but the whole ocean.

[vuec]

All this weapon of mass destruction talk just brings back the nuke and ideas of biological weapons. Does using them to protect our country make using them a good thing? I think not.

I'd rather save a life and break a minor law in the process than let someone die just to preserve a minor law.

Example, if i was walking by a building at night and saw someone getting strangled, I'd break in and help. Yes, I might be breaking an entry and trespasing but I'd rather go help that person.

There's good that transcend laws at times I believe. It doesn't mean I'll go around acting like Robin Hood or doing things in the name of Justice, that of course is a vigilante. I just mean those events that happen, that's what makes Superman, Superman.

Remember in "Justice" Clark was going there to recue Bart, that was his purpose for being there. The JL had a different goal there. Remember, Clark doesn't condemn Lex and persecute him, so why would he do that to the JL in that instance? This all goes back to Jor-El and saying that Humans have the capacity for good but Kal-El was different. That he could guide the human race and lead them. But as we all know, everyone will make their own decisions. Much of Superman could be compared to Jesus but that's another topic in itself. How Clark carries himself I feel is the Superman way, it's just he's a young man who has yet to discover life and his place in it, like most people around that age.

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by vuec
hahaha! 2nd, you really really think the government wouldn't take the weapon even after witnessing it's destructive powers? I mean, they sanctioned the nuclear bomb. I would love to say I trust our government 100% but let's be honest, they're researching new more powerful weapons everyday. How would we all feel if back in the 80's the government was really able to make that Star Wars program work? A weapon in the sky that could erradicate anything. Scary.

Ummm apparently you dont know what the Star Wars program was actually about. There was never anything close, or even planned, to a weapon in the sky that could erradicate anything. It was just a system designed to shoot down incoming nukes...


And what was wrong with sanctioning the nuclear bomb? Would you rather have invaded mainland Japan? Good luck with that.


SAme thing with Lexs weapon. Are we just supposed to fight it out with a Russian/Chinese naval alliance in the South Asian seas? Well thats a good idea, IF we had this superweapon.


Originally posted by HalJordan4184
even if they did take it, froma tactical point, it's useless, you can find all of our vessels, by simply following the miles and miles of dead fish everywhere, as even when it's in standby mode, and not turned on, it's killing every fish, whale, or other sea creature within three miles.

Ummm well they can find all of our ships, minus some of our subs, right away anyway. Its not like our carrier, destroyers, etc are stealthy. Right now they know where they are at....the thing is they cant touch them very easily.


Originally posted by Sharkie
Not all weapons are good.



I think a weapon guaranteeing the USA being dominant in the seas, protecting the freedom and safety of free-trade at sea, and the very existence of a free Taiwan and Japan is a GOOD thing.

Blowing up a weapon, and thinking its your place to do such without trying to go to the authorities, to save some fish is a BAD thing.


Originally posted by Sharkie
You do realize that fish swim around right? The 3 mile radius is not all that would be effected, many species (especially all those in the open ocean) can cover miles of the ocean. Woo to those that swim into Lex's "gift" to mankind. What if we had a ship go to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia? The loss of life there would be DEVASTATING to not just Australia, but the whole ocean.

We simply wouldnt go to the GBR in Aus....why would we ever go there anyway??

I still dont think you are understanding the scope of it all. About how FEW ships we really have, how big the ocean really is [and how deep], how narrow the sea lanes are, how infrequently our ships actually move around, and how we just sit in one spot for many many months at a time.

We'd kill very few fish. Its all about the scope. The good by FAR outweighs the bad.










Even if it doesnt, who is Clark to do it on his own? Terrible writing.


Originally posted by vuec
All this weapon of mass destruction talk just brings back the nuke and ideas of biological weapons. Does using them to protect our country make using them a good thing? I think not.


Using the nukes to protect Americans in WW2 was bad???

Wow :(



Originally posted by vuec
I'd rather save a life and break a minor law in the process than let someone die just to preserve a minor law.


So youd rather save Taiwan citizens lives by breaking minor environmental lives??

Oh wait, do you mean youd rather save some fishes lives to break minor laws and hurt Taiwanese defense capabilities.

I dont know what you mean.


Originally posted by vuec
Example, if i was walking by a building at night and saw someone getting strangled, I'd break in and help. Yes, I might be breaking an entry and trespasing but I'd rather go help that person.


No technically it wouldnt be breaking and entering.

Since that law is void in that situation....there is no law to break.


Originally posted by vuec

There's good that transcend laws at times I believe. It doesn't mean I'll go around acting like Robin Hood or doing things in the name of Justice, that of course is a vigilante. I just mean those events that happen, that's what makes Superman, Superman.


Shouldnt Superman as least TRY to talk to the authorities first? And not just decided things for the rest of society and just shrug aside any laws he doesnt like??



Originally posted by vuec


Remember in "Justice" Clark was going there to recue Bart, that was his purpose for being there. The JL had a different goal there. Remember, Clark doesn't condemn Lex and persecute him, so why would he do that to the JL in that instance? This all goes back to Jor-El and saying that Humans have the capacity for good but Kal-El was different. That he could guide the human race and lead them. But as we all know, everyone will make their own decisions. Much of Superman could be compared to Jesus but that's another topic in itself. How Clark carries himself I feel is the Superman way, it's just he's a young man who has yet to discover life and his place in it, like most people around that age.

The moment Clark gave his blessing to the GA in blowing up this building is the moment he was in the same boat as the JL.

[Sharkie]

I think a weapon guaranteeing the USA being dominant in the seas, protecting the freedom and safety of free-trade at sea, and the very existence of a free Taiwan and Japan is a GOOD thing.

Blowing up a weapon, and thinking its your place to do such without trying to go to the authorities, to save some fish is a BAD thing. If we can't come up with a way to protect the seas without destroying the most valuable ecosystem on our planet, then we have no place being all high and mighty. There are other ways without destroying our world.


We simply wouldnt go to the GBR in Aus....why would we ever go there anyway??

I still dont think you are understanding the scope of it all. About how FEW ships we really have, how big the ocean really is [and how deep], how narrow the sea lanes are, how infrequently our ships actually move around, and how we just sit in one spot for many many months at a time.

We'd kill very few fish. Its all about the scope. The good by FAR outweighs the bad.










Even if it doesnt, who is Clark to do it on his own? Terrible writing. As an ocean lover and admirier, I have studied the ocean many times. You are not taking in the complexity of the oceans. A devistating trauma at one area is going to effect another area. They're all connected. As for Australia, they are one of our strongest allies. If they got into trouble, of course we'd go to Australia, and with that evil weapon, we'd do more harm than good, because we'd destroy their natural resources in the process.

[HalJordan4184]

actually, the navy regularly goes to australia right now, it's a regular stop for most battle groups.

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
actually, the navy regularly goes to australia right now, it's a regular stop for most battle groups.

And we obviously wouldnt if we had this weapon.


Originally posted by Sharkie
If we can't come up with a way to protect the seas without destroying the most valuable ecosystem on our planet, then we have no place being all high and mighty. There are other ways without destroying our world.




I already went over how this wouldnt "destroy our most valuable ecosystem on earth". Come on, lets be realistic and grounded.

I've already gone over how this wouldnt destroy it, and how it would have such a non-impact, that the amount of life compared to the amount of life in the ocean that would be effected is so small it doesnt matter.



Originally posted by Sharkie


As an ocean lover and admirier, I have studied the ocean many times. You are not taking in the complexity of the oceans. A devistating trauma at one area is going to effect another area. They're all connected. As for Australia, they are one of our strongest allies. If they got into trouble, of course we'd go to Australia, and with that evil weapon, we'd do more harm than good, because we'd destroy their natural resources in the process.



Weird, I coulda sworn I was an ocean lover and admirer too. *looks at my name* Admiral N8, hmmmm.

Lol @ "evil weapon".

Terrible weapon, protecting humans.

3 mile radius on less than 500 ships that go almost nowhere is not going to destory all sea life. Come on, seriously. I am glad you like the sea and such, but 3 miles on less than 500, probably even less than 300 ships, is not going to the end of it all.

And when you look at the benefits to HUMAN life and FREEDOM compared to the small cost of fish, its pretty interesting to pick the fish's side

[meteor]

i just watched the episode this week, and it said destruction of ocean life even if the weapon is on standby. it's fictional so we don't know the full scope of it, but destroying a 3 mile radius of ocean life on 300 stationary or moving naval vessels every time the weapon is used or is on standby, would potentially destroy thousands and thousands of square miles of ocean life...that is a total ecological disaster.

the only thing that can be said for it is that it would function as a deterrant like nuclear weapons, where nobody is insane enough to actually use them due to the consequences (so far at least).

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by meteor
i just watched the episode this week, and it said destruction of ocean life even if the weapon is on standby. it's fictional so we don't know the full scope of it, but destroying a 3 mile radius of ocean life on 300 stationary or moving naval vessels every time the weapon is used or is on standby, would potentially destroy thousands and thousands of square miles of ocean life...that is a total ecological disaster.

the only thing that can be said for it is that it would function as a deterrant like nuclear weapons, where nobody is insane enough to actually use them due to the consequences (so far at least).

Exactly, I agree with the last paragraph, honestly I didnt even think of that. And I bet Clark didnt either, which is why he shouldnt decide for America

[Sharkie]

Originally posted by Admiral_N8

And we obviously wouldnt if we had this weapon. ] Oh yes, we should never help out Australia if we had this weapon. Let the fighting Kangaroos take care of themselves. Damn the fact they're our allies and one of the few countries that has fully supported the war in Iraq. Brilliant!



I already went over how this wouldnt "destroy our most valuable ecosystem on earth". Come on, lets be realistic and grounded.

I've already gone over how this wouldnt destroy it, and how it would have such a non-impact, that the amount of life compared to the amount of life in the ocean that would be effected is so small it doesnt matter.
Yes, but you're wrong. I imagine peace time procedures are very different than war time procedures. See below for why you're wrong.






Weird, I coulda sworn I was an ocean lover and admirer too. *looks at my name* Admiral N8, hmmmm.

Lol @ "evil weapon".

Terrible weapon, protecting humans.

3 mile radius on less than 500 ships that go almost nowhere is not going to destory all sea life. Come on, seriously. I am glad you like the sea and such, but 3 miles on less than 500, probably even less than 300 ships, is not going to the end of it all.

And when you look at the benefits to HUMAN life and FREEDOM compared to the small cost of fish, its pretty interesting to pick the fish's side Here is a list of some places these ships could not/should not go:

Queensland, Australia
Large portions of the mediterrian and surrounding seas
The Channel Islands of the Pacificic
Gray's Reef of Georiga
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sancturary (most of the waters off the coast of Hawaii)
Monterray Bay
The Florida Keys
Heck, keep the ships out of Florida or bye bye manatees.
The Galapagoes off of the South American coast. literally hundreds of other places world wide.

But OH OH OH! Lex lied and covered up what it could do. So if we went within three miles of these places it would be too late to save them! Damn, we just broke international laws. Whoops.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Has Admiral N8 served in the military ?